New Requirement to Keep Social Security Benefits Starting in April: Social Security beneficiaries must verify their identity in person to continue receiving payments

From the Washington Post

The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts because the servers were overloaded. In the field, office managers have resorted to answering phones at the front desk as receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out. But the agency no longer has a system to monitor customers’ experience with these services, because that office was eliminated as part of the cost-cutting efforts led by Elon Musk.

And the phones keep ringing. And ringing.

The federal agency that delivers $1.5 trillion a year in earned benefits to 73 million retired workers, their survivors and poor and disabled Americans is engulfed in crisis — further undermining its ability to provide reliable and quick service to vulnerable customers, according to internal documents and more than two dozen current and former agency employees and officials, customers and others who interact with Social Security.

Financial services executive Frank Bisignano is scheduled to face lawmakers Tuesday during a Senate confirmation hearing as President Donald Trump’s pick to become the permanent commissioner. For now, the agency is run by a caretaker leader in his sixth week on the job who has raced to push out more than 12 percent of the staff of 57,000. He has conceded that the agency’s phone service “sucks” and acknowledged that Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service is really in charge, pushing a single-minded mission to find benefits fraud despite vast evidence that the problem is overstated.

The turmoil is leaving many retirees, disabled claimants and legal immigrants who need Social Security cards with less access or shut out of the system altogether, according to those familiar with the problems. “What’s going on is the destruction of the agency from the inside out, and it’s accelerating,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said in an interview. “I have people approaching me all the time in their 70s and 80s, and they’re beside themselves. They don’t know what’s coming.” […]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/25/social-security-phones-doge-cuts/ 

[Led by Trump and overseen by Musk], the Social Security Administration (SSA) is taking steps to enhance the security of its services by implementing identity verification procedures. The updated measures will further safeguard Social Security records and benefits against fraudulent activity. Over the next two weeks, SSA will carefully transition to stronger identity proofing procedures for both benefit claims and direct deposit changes.

Individuals seeking these services who cannot use their personal my Social Security account, which requires online identity proofing, will then need to visit a local Social Security office to prove their identity in person. 

At the same time, the agency will expedite processing all direct deposit change requests – both in person and online – to one business day. Prior to this change, online direct deposit changes were held for 30 days. “Americans deserve to have their Social Security records protected with the utmost integrity and vigilance,” said Lee Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. “For far too long, the agency has used antiquated methods for proving identity. Social Security can better protect Americans while expediting service.”

The agency’s two-week transition plan includes training frontline employees and management about the new policy and careful monitoring of policy compliance. At the conclusion of the transition period, on March 31, 2025, SSA will enforce online digital identity proofing and in-person identity proofing. SSA will permit individuals who do not or cannot use the agency’s online my Social Security services to start their claim for benefits on the telephone.

However, the claim cannot be completed until the individual’s identity is verified in person. The agency therefore recommends calling to request an in-person appointment to begin and complete the claim in one interaction. Individuals with and without an appointment will need to prove identity before starting a transaction. Individuals who do not or cannot use the agency’s online my Social Security services to change their direct deposit information, can visit a local office to process the change or can call 1-800-772-1213 to schedule an in-person appointment.

SSA recently required nearly all agency employees, including frontline employees in all offices throughout the country, to work in the office five days a week. This change ensures maximum staffing is available to support the stronger in-person identity proofing requirement.

SSA plans to implement the Department of Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s payment integrity service called Account Verification Service (AVS). AVS provides instant bank verification services to proactively and timely prevent fraud associated with direct deposit change requests.

The agency will continue to monitor and, if necessary, make adjustments, to ensure it pays the right person the right amount at the right time while at the same time safeguarding the benefits and programs it administers.

https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-strengthens-identity-proofing-requirements-and-expedites-direct-deposit-changes-to-one-day/

Scientists sound the alarm as new study predicts dire consequences of human activity: "The power to wipe out entire landscapes"

 

Our overheating planet may cross a dangerous threshold in the coming years, with one new study warning that the Arctic may be "transformed beyond contemporary recognition" if warming continues as expected.

What's happening?

Researchers behind a new study have outlined the impacts if Earth's temperature rises by 4.9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century (compared to pre-industrial temperatures). This threshold is expected to be reached even with countries' pledges to curb pollution.

"Our paper shows that, already today, mankind has the power to wipe out entire landscapes from the surface of our planet," said the study's co-author, Dirk Notz, a professor for polar research at the University of Hamburg, per SciTechDaily.

Notz continued, "It'd be amazing if we could become more aware of this power and the responsibility that goes with it, as the future of the Arctic truly lies in our hands."

Why is warming in the Arctic important?

The Arctic is bearing the brunt of warming around the world, with temperatures in the region rising four times faster than the rest of Earth. The study suggests that the warming projected to occur will have dire impacts across the Arctic, endangering wildlife and entire ecosystems.

"Virtually every day of the year would have air temperatures higher than pre-industrial extremes, the Arctic Ocean would be essentially ice-free for several months in summer, the area of Greenland that reaches melting temperatures for at least a month would roughly quadruple, and the area of permafrost would be roughly half of what it was in pre-industrial times," noted the study, which was published by Science.

The authors continued, "These geophysical changes go along with widespread ecosystem disruptions and infrastructure damage, which, as we show here, could be substantially reduced by increased efforts to limit global warming ."

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported another key threshold has been reached in the Arctic. The agency's 2024 Arctic Report Card cautioned that the region releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than it stores.

What's being done about the rapid rise in temperatures in the Arctic?

Scientists are using a powerful new AI tool to help forecast future changes in Arctic sea ice up to at least a year in advance. The projections from this groundbreaking model will help policy-makers make critical decisions about how to best protect this important region.

Preventing the century-end warming projected in the study will require a concerted effort to cool our planet, including a concerted move away from dirty energy sources and toward cleaner, cheaper options.

But as individuals, there are plenty of things we can all do to keep our planet cooler. Installing solar panels , opting for induction stoves instead of conventional ranges, and choosing an EV for the next vehicle purchase are all examples of things we can do. Many of these upgrades, like installing solar panels , can also help you reduce your energy bills.

-Timothy McGill, Newsbreak

"Then there is the case of a Canadian, Jasmine Mooney, who was detained by ICE for two weeks"

 

This week, the impact of what it means to be America under Trump 2.0 will continue to hit hard. One important indicator: Tourism to the U.S. is on the decline.

Foreign countries including Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the U.K. have issued traveling warnings to their citizens who are considering trips to the United States. The United Kingdom warned of arrest or detention for those who violate the rules for entering the U.S., noting authorities “set and enforce” entry rules strictly. Finland and Denmark warned that trans people may encounter special difficulties, since the U.S. no longer recognizes their existence.

I can remember checking carefully before we traveled to destinations in Central America or ahead of a trip to Jordan. When I was doing that, it never occurred to me that the United States of America might be on a list of countries people are warned about. It’s a shock. It’s an embarrassment. And strangest of all, despite the reporting, Trump seems to be getting off scot-free, despite the economic ripples a downswing in tourism is certain to cause, let alone the additional hit our global reputation takes.

The thing is, these countries know. They understand what everything Trump is doing adds up to, even if the frogs here at home are letting themselves get boiled before they realize how hot the water is. Will Republicans in Congress ever wake up?

A French scientist was blocked from entering the country because he had criticized Trump in private messages. It’s important to note that at the border, before entry into the United States, there are far fewer restrictions on searches the government can conduct, including of your electronic devices.

Then there is the case of a Canadian, Jasmine Mooney, who was detained by ICE for two weeks. She wrote in an opinion piece for the Guardian, “There was no explanation, no warning. One minute, I was in an immigration office talking to an officer about my work visa, which had been approved months before and allowed me, a Canadian, to work in the US. The next, I was told to put my hands against the wall and patted down like a criminal before being sent to an Ice detention center without the chance to talk to a lawyer.”

Her situation seems unprecedented, and her courage in speaking out, which likely means she’ll be unable to reenter the U.S. to work as she had hoped, really matters. Democracy does die in darkness; it’s important that we understand just how far the excesses in this administration go.

Moody said no one would answer her questions about what was going on while she was held in a cell for two weeks—someone with a visa, who instead of being returned to Canada because customs had questions about the validity of her documentation, was held in custody in what she characterized as a freezing cell where she was given an aluminum blanket to cover herself. 

This sort of treatment of people who enter the country without documentation is appalling. Now, even people who believe they have a legal right to enter are at risk. Moody told me over the weekend, “I choose to use my voice — because remaining silent will never bring progress to this world. Change begins when we dare to speak the truths others are too afraid to say, especially when they challenge the system.” […]

-Joyce Vance

Why Trump is Waging War on Academia

 

    

There are a multitude of reasons why Donald Trump and his supporters are waging war against colleges and universities.  But among the reasons is a simple one–historically conservative reactionary regimes hate intellectuals.

Trump and his supporters hate higher education for obvious reasons. Those with college degrees are not his supporters and voted against him in 2024.    Colleges are full of students and professors who vote for Democrats, and they have visibly protested against his policies or embraced issues such as opposition to Israel’s war against the Palestinians, support for transgender rights, or DEI in general. 

One could argue that Trump’s populism is rooted in what historian Richard Hofstadter labeled “anti-intellectualism” in American life.  Americans generally hate smart people, labeling them as Alabama Governor did as “pointy-headed intellectuals,” or in the words of Vice-President Spiro Agnew who lumped them together with the media to call them “An effete core of impudent snobs.”

But there is something here and it is the traditional hatred of intellectuals by reactionary regimes. There is a story regarding the trial of Italian Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci who was part of the opposition party in the parliament to Benito Mussolini and the fascists.  Gramsci was arrested and at his trial the prosecution declared: “For twenty years we must stop this brain from functioning.”  Gramsci’s crime was providing the intellectual ideas to challenge the ruling power.  Despite his punishment. His Prison Notebooks were secretly written and disseminated.

Gramsci’s thesis was that the battle against fascism was in part an ideological fight for the hearts and minds of the people.  Battles for power may take place in parliament or in the streets but they are also fought in mass pop culture as well as in universities and colleges to influence and counter the propaganda of the ruling class and government.  

Controlling intellectuals and what they think and say is part of how the fascists, the nazis, and other authoritarian and reactionary regimes maintain power. Education and learning are about critical thinking.  It is about subjecting power and dogma to truth.  It is about questioning, challenging, and imagining alternative realities or unmasking facades.  

It is as philosopher Immanuel Kant declared: “Dare to Know.”  College is where one learns to reject authority for the sake of authority, to ask “Why not?” in response to “Why?”  It is to reject what is accepted as a matter of fact and suggest that what is traditionally accepted as truth may not be so. 

If done right, a liberal arts education is inherently subversive and in the spirit of John Dewey, that task is not to produce the next generation of docile uneducated workers, but instead to foster the next generation of democratic citizens.  

By its very nature, higher education should produce the antithesis of political passivity and blind obedience. This is why every authoritarian regime seeks to control what people think.  It does that in its school curriculum and via book bans.  

But it also does that in terms of who is hired to teach and what they teach.  It is a battle over indoctrination.  Universities and intellectuals, for Gramsci, lead the charge to counter this battle for hearts and minds.  

It should come as no surprise why Trump and many Republicans before him have hated higher education.  Arguing that there are more than two sexes, that gender roles are socially constructed, that perhaps capitalism exploits workers or that the rich do not deserve their fortunes, is not what they want to hear.  

Education is not to serve the interests of democracy, self-discovery, or personal enrichment, it is to teach subservience to the status quo. Trump’s efforts to eliminate the Department of Education and crackdown on higher education may be intensely personal and vindictive.  But it is also part of a predictable agenda to control and eliminate the intellectual seeds of opposition.

CounterPunch, David Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University. He is the author of Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter.

 

Trump's Raging War Against Quality Education for Everyone

 

“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” Those are the opening words in the Education Chapter of Project 2025. In other words, there is no reason for anyone to be surprised that Donald Trump signed a proclamation shutting down the Department of Education and returning control to the states today.

Trump deceitfully distanced himself from Project 2025 after public discussion about it led to an uproar, but for anyone who was paying attention, and we were here, it was clear that the project was an effort to prepare for the coming Trump administration if it materialized.

Dismantling the Department of Education has been a longtime priority for Republicans. Trump simply adopted it, melding it with two of the key prongs of his current onslaught against government: it is wasteful, and it perpetuates liberal ideology.

The problem is, Congress established the Department of Education in 1979, and they, not the president, hold sway over its continued existence. It remains to be seen just how much force Trump’s direction to Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure (of) the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely” will carry.

Trump called his executive order the “first step” to dismantling the department. McMahon has already cut the department’s workforce in half. And there has been $900 million in cuts after DOGE found there was “no need for much of its work.” It’s hard to view this as anything other than antagonism toward the notion of equality, education that is for all kids no matter who they are or where they come from.

In Trump’s America, quality education will be the prerogative of people who are wealthy, people who are white, people who are neurotypical. If your kid needs service for English as a second language or special education, you’re going to be out of luck if the administration gets its way. The Department of Education is responsible for the distribution of federal funding for schools, including two major programs: Title I, which provides funding for low-income students, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, designed to help students with disabilities.

In February 2023, Alabama Rep. Barry Moore introduced H.R. 938, a bill “To abolish the Department of Education and to provide funding directly to States for elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes.” Sixty Republicans joined Democrats in putting a stop to it. It wasn’t a one-off. Congressional Republicans have continued to offer similar bills, but without success. Hence Trump’s decision to attempt to kill off the department with a questionable executive order.

This is actually the second incarnation of the Department of Education, signed into law when Jimmy Carter was president. Adam Laats, a history professor at Binghamton University, explained to history.com, “You can’t overestimate how inflammatory it was for former Confederate leaders to have a federal Department of Education because they equated ‘federal’ with Reconstruction.” God forbid we should educate people. Especially BIPOC and other marginalized groups. They might learn to think for themselves instead of believing what people in power tell them.

That’s where we find ourselves tonight. “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ― George Orwell

The department’s website, which as of tonight is still online, clarifies the mission:

"The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates most federal assistance to education. It assists the president in executing his education policies for the nation and in implementing laws enacted by Congress. The Department's mission is to serve America's students-to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."

That’s what we are losing. The states will take over education. Some will do a good job. Others not so much. And in some places, education will be privatized, with all the issues that implies. One thing that’s for certain, equal access to education will be a thing of the past, much of the progress of the last six decades wiped out.

In July of 2024, before it was clear that Kamala Harris would become the Democratic nominee, it was already clear that despite his denials, Trump was up to his eyeballs in Project 2025. I wrote about what that means. Today, it has all come true. It’s devastating. And it was predictable. Here’s an excerpt from that piece:

"Public education is important. Well-educated citizens are more employable and prepared to compete in the 21st Century economy. Education reduces crime. It improves public health and health equity. Education produces a more informed population, people able to think for themselves and their communities. As the saying goes, if you’re burning books because they contain some ideas you don’t like, you’re not afraid of books or courses—you’re afraid of ideas. That perfectly encapsulates the Project 2025 approach to education. The most important takeaway from the education chapter of Project 2025 is that the plan is to shut down the U.S. Department of Education. Donald Trump has been saying at recent rallies that it should be disbanded to 'move everything back to the states where it belongs.'"

While Trump lacks the ability to formally close the Department of Education, he can shrink it to the point of irrelevance and ask Congress to deliver the coup de grace. The 44 pages in the Education Chapter of Project 2025 contain precisely that suggestion. Dismantle the department into a hollow shell that does nothing more than gather statistics.

My conclusion tonight is the same as it was when I first wrote about Project 2025 and Trump’s plan for public education:

"Trump and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 authors are afraid of an open marketplace of ideas where kids learn to think for themselves. Kids can learn about—and learn from—the history of slavery in this country. The idea that it must be suppressed because it might make white kids feel bad is ridiculous. The more we know of our history, events like the internment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II, or the treatment of Irish, Italian, Jewish, and other immigrants as they came to country, the better we can become. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. That seems to be the plan here."

In the past, Congress has hesitated to choke off the Department of Education precisely because the public understands the good work it does on behalf of America’s children. My mom taught preschoolers from low income, predominately single-parent homes, in a school created by President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program.

Great Society Programs were created to eradicate poverty and racial injustice with social welfare initiatives, including pre-k education. Her kids used to come back and visit her after they graduated from high school and college, and for my mom, their success was her greatest reward. Programs like hers and so many others mean more kids have access to education and the opportunity to succeed. That’s what Donald Trump is trying to kill off. Better lives, for real people.

This is a good moment to make sure your elected representatives understand your views. And thanks for being here at Civil Discourse. Your support and paid subscriptions make the newsletter possible.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

 

The Slippery Slope of Lawlessness

 

This past Saturday afternoon I should have been outside enjoying a nice spring day here in the D.C area. I could even have been getting some exercise—though on that front I increasingly have Churchill’s view: “Whenever I feel the need to take some exercise, I lie down until the feeling goes away.”

In any case, I was inside, at my desk, listening on my computer to an emergency hearing presided over by the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Jeb Boasberg. Plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, were seeking a temporary restraining order halting the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members already in custody in the United States who were being sent to a prison in El Salvador with no opportunity for a hearing or any requirement that evidence be presented.

The lawyer for the government defended its actions. He cited the Alien Enemies Act, which President Trump had just invoked for only the fourth time in U.S. history, and for the first time when we were not at war. He claimed the president has something like an uncheckable and unreviewable “war power” under Article II of the Constitution. He also argued that being sent to an El Salvadoran prison wouldn’t constitute “irreparable harm,” the standard a temporary restraining order has to meet.

Judge Boasberg found for the plaintiffs and imposed a temporary restraining order on the government. This, I thought as I listened, was the rule of law in practice. The hearing was sober and orderly and deliberate, with little in the way of emotion or soaring rhetoric. I found it not merely impressive but oddly moving. I felt a sense of pride and gratitude that we live in a country with a well-established rule of law—something rare in human history.

It was a reminder of why the rule of law—why our rule of law, the edifice we’ve built up over two and a half centuries—is something to be respected, something to be honored. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s something to be cherished.

In Federalist No. 51, defending the separation of powers and its pitting of ambition against ambition and its connecting the interest of officeholders with the constitutional rights of the place, James Madison explained:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

We’re not angels. And rule by angels isn’t available to us. To avoid anarchy, we need a government that can control our potentially violent passions. And we need the rule of law and its institutional buttresses like the separation of powers to enable us to live in freedom, not despotism.

This fundamental feature of a free government is what the Trump administration is challenging. One sees this when Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking at the Department of Justice, pledges fealty to the president, saying Justice Department lawyers should be proud “to work at the personal direction of Donald Trump,” and that “we will never stop fighting for him.”

And of course one sees the challenge in a host of actions by the Trump administration, in areas ranging from immigration to abrogating legal protections for civil servants to trampling on Congress’s power to appropriate funds and to direct their spending.

The day before Judge Boasberg’s hearing, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Laura Ingraham on Fox News. Vance was discoursing on Germany, a country about which he has strong opinions, as evidenced by his endorsement of the extremist Alternative für Deutschland before last month’s German elections.

In the interview, Vance claimed that “Europe is on the brink of civilizational suicide,” in large part because of its failure to control its borders. “If Germany takes in millions more incompatible migrants, it’ll destroy itself. America can’t save it.”

Of course, Germany did destroy itself almost a century ago. It almost destroyed civilization itself until America stepped in to help save it. That didn’t happen because Germany took in too many migrants. It happened because the German people fell for arguments uncomfortably close to Vance’s. Those were arguments that derided the very concept of the rule of law, a derision that was defended in part by warnings about immigrants and foreign blood.

The Trump White House did not abide by Boasberg’s order to turn the planes around. It claims the planes were over international waters and, incorrectly, thus no longer subject to his jurisdiction. But even if there was no direct violation of the rule of law, the next day featured several vocal demonstrations of contempt of it. The Trump administration seems aggrieved by the idea they’d be restricted in any way by any judge. It feels like a matter of time before they simply, brazenly, refuse to be.

One trusts that the United States isn’t going to go the way of Germany in the last century. But the slope toward lawlessness is a slippery one, and we have an administration that is eagerly leading us down it. There are still footholds we can grab onto in order to arrest the precipitous decline that lies ahead. But we are already part way down the hill, and the pace of decline is accelerating.

by William Kristol with Andrew Egger, and Jim Swift

The Moment Democracy Ceased to Function

Saturday, March 15, 2025, may have seemed unremarkable to most Americans. But in time, history will remember it as Black Saturday—the moment the United States ceased to function as a constitutional democracy.

For the first time in modern American history, a sitting president openly defied a direct federal court order—and nothing happened. No intervention. No enforcement. No consequences. A legal ruling was issued, and the White House simply ignored it.

The White House’s Decision: Power Over Law

Inside the White House, the decision was not about law—it was about power. A federal judge ruled against the administration. The debate inside Trump’s team was not whether the ruling was legal, but whether they could get away with ignoring it. They decided they could. And they were right.

This was not a clash between equal branches of government. It was the moment the judiciary was exposed as powerless. The courts do not have an army. They rely on compliance. But a court that cannot enforce its rulings is not a court—it is a suggestion box. And a presidency that can ignore the courts without consequence is no longer constrained by law—it is an untouchable executive.

Trump did not declare the end of judicial authority in a speech. He demonstrated it in practice. This is how democratic systems collapse—not with a single act, but with the normalization of defiance, the expectation that a ruling can simply be brushed aside.

How the System Failed to Stop Him

This moment did not happen in isolation. It happened because every prior attempt to hold Trump accountable has failed. The system tried—and at every turn, it proved incapable of stopping him.

Impeachment failed—twice. Criminal cases stalled. The Supreme Court refused to rule on his disqualification. Congress never moved to check his power. At each step, Trump tested the system—and the system flinched. He learned that laws are only as strong as the institutions willing to enforce them. And so, when faced with a court ruling, he did what he had been conditioned to do—he ignored it. And nothing happened.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Making the Presidency Untouchable

The judiciary was already weakened by years of erosion, but in 2024, the Supreme Court itself ensured that when this moment arrived, there would be no legal recourse left. In a landmark ruling, the Court expanded presidential immunity to such an extent that the office of the presidency is now functionally above the law. A president can commit crimes while in office and face no immediate accountability. And now, with Black Saturday, Trump has proven that he can ignore court rulings entirely without consequence.

This is not the separation of powers. It is the absorption of power into a single branch. The courts were supposed to be the last line of defense. Instead, they have been reduced to issuing rulings the executive can freely ignore.

The Role of Fox News in Conditioning the Public 

Fox News did not issue the order, but it made this moment possible. In the aftermath of Trump’s defiance, Fox put the judge’s face on screen, not as part of neutral reporting, but as a deliberate act of intimidation. They did not need to explicitly declare that judicial rulings no longer mattered—they had already spent years training millions to believe it. Through relentless framing, they had conditioned their audience to see the courts as corrupt, as partisan, as obstacles to be overcome rather than institutions to be respected. Trump did not invent this strategy; he simply acted on it, carrying their rhetoric to its logical conclusion.

Why Americans Do Not See the Collapse Happening

This is why the phrase “you cannot see the forest for the trees” is so powerful in this moment. The trees are the individual events. Trump ignoring a court ruling. The Supreme Court making the presidency immune from criminal accountability. Congress failing to act repeatedly. The media normalizing the breakdown of democracy. The forest is the overarching reality. The U.S. government is no longer constrained by constitutional limits. The judiciary has been rendered powerless through precedent and selective enforcement. The executive branch now decides which laws apply to itself.

Most people living through history don’t realize they are inside a moment of collapse because each event, taken alone, does not seem like the end of democracy. The shock of one ruling being ignored does not feel catastrophic. The Supreme Court deciding a president is immune from prosecution feels like just another legal controversy. Congressional inaction feels like business as usual. The media’s treatment of this moment as just another chapter in the ongoing Trump saga makes it easy to assume the system will self-correct. But when viewed together, it becomes undeniable that the system has already failed.

The Moment Future Historians Will Point To

This is why people will look back on Black Saturday and wonder why it wasn’t immediately recognized as the breaking point. Because when you are inside the collapse, it feels like just another day. The weight of history is often invisible in the moment, its consequences spread out over years. But the truth is unavoidable: this is not just another legal dispute. It is not another chapter in partisan warfare. It is not an escalation of existing dysfunction. It is the end of constitutional government.

No democracy that has reached this stage has ever recovered without major structural change. This is not just an escalation of political crisis—it is the moment when constitutional rule is replaced with raw executive power.

Why This Is Worse Than Any Previous Crisis

This is not like Andrew Jackson defying the Supreme Court in 1832. When Jackson ignored Worcester v. Georgia, America was an evolving democracy. The role of the Supreme Court was still in flux, and the country’s institutions were not yet fully formed. Today, America is a collapsing democracy. The Supreme Court’s authority is settled law. The difference is that this time, the institutions were expected to work.

Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court in an era when executive power was not yet defined. Trump is erasing the limits on executive power in a system where they were already supposed to be settled. Jackson faced political opposition. Trump controls his party completely. In Jackson’s time, Congress still operated as a counterweight. Today, Congress is a rubber-stamp body that enables presidential overreach rather than restraining it.

The courts were supposed to be the final check. That check no longer exists.

What Comes After Democracy?

We have passed the event horizon. This is not about democracy in crisis anymore—it is about what comes after democracy. The system that once absorbed and corrected these shocks is no longer functioning.

The shock of January 6th did not lead to democratic renewal—it was a preview of what was coming. The rollback of reproductive rights in 2022 was not just about abortion—it was proof that legal protections could be stripped away at will. The Supreme Court’s expansion of presidential power in 2024 did not just change legal precedent—it ensured that the next time a president defied a court order, there would be no enforcement mechanism to stop it. That is where we are now. The end of the courts as a meaningful check on power.

There is no going back to the America of the 1990s. No return to a time when presidential power was constrained, when the judiciary had the final say, when law enforcement agencies functioned as independent institutions rather than tools of political power. That system is already gone.

Some will say this is alarmist. That democracy cannot end so quietly. But collapse does not feel like collapse when you are inside it. It feels like just another legal story. Just another Saturday in America. Until one day, you look up and realize there is nothing left to save.

The Final Verdict on Black Saturday

Black Saturday will be remembered as the day the constitutional system failed.

-The Intellectualist