Allowing a few MAGA billionaires to control our news

 

Donald Trump launched another illegal war over the weekend, throwing out patently false justifications for a war of choice. Fortunately, CNN was among those with swift, accurate, and aggressive coverage.

But what if CNN were reduced to a captive of Trump’s billionaire buddy, David Ellison? That’s what lies ahead, unless Ellison’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. is stopped. And it can be.

Media industry coverage at the end of last week by and large treated the announced Paramount/CBS takeover of Warner Bros. as a done deal. Reports too often seemed to skip past the significant legal barriers to the merger, preferring to go straight to the panic. 

Certainly, if the merger goes through, the new mega-conglomerate will further consolidate an industry already overly consolidated. Even more ominous for democracy, the merger would put another news outlet known for exacting coverage of breaking foreign events, CNN, in the hands of a Trump-friendly billionaire.

However, the deal is not done. Defenders of democracy and advocates of competitive markets are already digging in, and they deserve public support from Americans rightly concerned about the growing power of unaccountable oligarchs who control an increasing slice of our economy and dominate our politics.

No doubt, the fix is likely already in with Trump’s corrupt Justice Department to rubber stamp the merger, but DOJ is not the only hurdle. Most importantly, our federal system provides another avenue to contest the deal. (UK and EU regulators will also get to weigh in.)

Fortunately, within hours of Ellison’s announcement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement released on a platform ingested by another Trump billionaire pal (Elon Musk), wrote: “Paramount/Warner Bros. is not a done deal.” He added, “These two Hollywood titans have not cleared regulatory scrutiny — the California Department of Justice has an open investigation, and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”

State antitrust litigation has become a robust, viable alternative to the feds. George Mason Law Review in 2022 explained: “State antitrust regulators have brought dozens of large cases over the last twenty years in areas from telecom mergers to complex pharmaceutical cases.” The article continued that while individual cases used to be the norm, “many cases are now brought as multistate actions incorporating large groups of attorneys general joined into one litigation that is filed in federal court under the Sherman or Clayton Act.”

Bonta, as he has in a host of other cases brought against the Trump regime, may well find partners among other active Democratic attorneys general. Bonta was hardly alone in expressing concern. 

Former FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya added, “One family is about to control CBS, CNN, HBO, and TikTok. They’ll buy WBD with $24 billion in money from the Saudis, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi. To win over Trump, they canceled Colbert, blocked a CECOT investigation, and blocked [James] Talarico. Much more will follow. Block this rotten deal.” Consider how an outlet with heavy investment from Middle East countries might be less than independent in its coverage of nuanced wars involving those very countries.

Democrats on Capitol Hill also have a role to play. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was exactly right to lay down a marker and elevate the merger to a critical election issue. “Paramount should enjoy its growing news monopoly while they have it because when Democrats win back power we are going to break up these anti-democratic information conglomerates,” Murphy said. “All of them.”

Antitrust is not usually a sexy subject, but given public animosity against big business and big tech specifically, this issue’s time may have come. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) all blasted the proposed deal.

Warren, a longtime antitrust warrior, questioned whether the bidding for Warner Bros. was rigged: A Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. merger is an antitrust disaster threatening higher prices and fewer choices for American families. What did Trump officials tell the Netflix CEO today at the White House? A handful of Trump-aligned billionaires are trying to seize control of what you watch and charge you whatever price they want. With the cloud of corruption looming over Trump’s Department of Justice, it’ll be up to the American people to speak up and state attorneys general to enforce the law.

If Democrats win control of one or both houses, they will be able to subpoena records, conduct hearings, and propose legislation to slow down or block merger mania.

The head-snapping consolidation of entertainment and news, coupled with billionaire Trump-suck ups’ acquisition of news properties, has transformed the media landscape. This did not begin with Trump, but the added ingredient of oligarch capture now poses an existential threat to entertainment diversity and news independence — while introducing the potential for foreign interference and manipulation of our news and entertainment.

As disturbing as entertainment monopolies may be (fewer outlets will pay lower wages, charge higher prices, and neglect markets deemed “too niche”), the gravest danger to democracy is allowing corporations and oligarchs beholden to the president (i.e., friendly or compromised by fear of regulation or retaliation) to have a stranglehold on news coverage. (Strongmen in Italy and Hungary took precisely this path.)

CNN soon may be cheerleading every regime-change war, putting MAGA toady Scott Jennings in the anchor chair, and canning legitimate news people (e.g., Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash). You don’t even have to use your imagination. CBS head Bari Weiss’s blocking 60 Minutes’ CECOT report and her cringeworthy tweet sneering at New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his critique of the illegal war tells you how far CBS has fallen — and likely where CNN is headed.

How long before tenacious Kaitlan Collins gets yanked from the White House beat or every guest and panelist is an inveterate MAGA liar? If CNN recently has been too accommodating to Trump (e.g., the ridiculed town hall, a presidential debate without factchecking), that coverage many soon seem like aggressive journalism by comparison to oligarch news.

Of course, Ellison could decide to shutter either CNN or CBS entirely. But even if CNN survives in some form, Ellison/Weiss control would quickly destroy its credibility, leaving viewers outside the MAGA cult with few choices. Creating a national news desert may be autocrats’ goal.

Major news events — including complex wars — highlight the danger in allowing a few MAGA billionaires to control our news. Voters should support political leaders with adequate legal and legislative tools who are determined to halt media consolidation. 

Unless they reverse this ominous trend, the oligarchs’ grip on America will tighten, disinformation will dominate our mainstream media environment, foreign leaders will shape our news, and democracy will wither.

---

Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian is reader-supported. To enable our work, help with litigation efforts, and be a part of a community unafraid to oppose unjust wars, join the fight by becoming a paid subscriber.

 

MAGA Christian Nationalism

 

MAGA Christian Nationalism is an ideology merging conservative Christian beliefs with American national identity, acting as a pillar of the Donald Trump movement. It posits that the U.S. is a Christian nation whose, laws should reflect those values, often advocating for a "reawakening" that erodes the separation of church and state. 

Key details:

Core Beliefs: Adherents often believe that being American is inseparable from being Christian, and that the country is facing a crisis requiring a return to a "Christian foundation".

Relationship to MAGA: The movement, rooted in a white evangelical subculture, grew from the Tea Party and found a powerful vehicle in Donald Trump’s political rise.

Political Goal: Critics and scholars describe it as a movement aiming to remake America in a specific, often white, religious, and conservative, image, sometimes linking it to a "cosmic war" narrative.

Debate: While some view it as a threat to pluralistic democracy, others argue it is a legitimate expression of Christian politics.

Composition: Although often linked with white evangelicalism, research shows that a portion of those holding Christian nationalist sentiments are from other races or, paradoxically, are non-Christian or secular. 

This ideology has been characterized by some as a form of "imposter Christianity" that blends the faith with political, and sometimes racial, goals. 

 

Trump's Violation of a "Just War"

 

“The principles of a just war are commonly held to be: 1. Having a just cause; 2. Being the last resort; 3. Being declared by proper authority; 4. Possessing the right intentions; 5. Having a reasonable chance of success, and 6. The end is proportional to the means used…

“Possessing just cause is the first and arguably the most important condition of jus ad bellum… War should always be a last resort… The notion of proper authority seems to be resolved for most of the theorists, who claim it obviously resides in the [congressional] power of the state… The possession of right intention is ostensibly less problematic… The next principle is that of reasonable success… The final guide of jus ad bellum is that the desired end should be proportional to the means used…” 

-Glen Brown

The Week Ahead by Joyce Vance

 

The Week Ahead: With the State of the Union looming, we started the week with a look at that along with other important legal developments including the death of Ruben Ray Martinez, a U.S. citizen, at the hands of federal agents in Texas during a traffic stop last March, only coming to light now due to a FOIA request; ongoing reports of deaths at ICE-run facilities in Texas; the likely ongoing legal battle over tariffs; Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling barring the release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s special counsel report involving classified documents; and more.

Live with Miles Taylor: Counterprogramming SOTU: Miles Taylor of Defiance.org joined me to talk about the organization’s “State of the Swamp,” a rebuttal to SOTU with real-time factchecking, Portland frogs, and more. Our conversation touched on working across party and ideology differences protect democratic principles and on embracing joyful defiance and lighthearted humor to combat the absurdity of this moment.

If DOJ is Trump’s Law Firm, Aileen Cannon is His Judge: Judge Aileen Cannon’s order barring the release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s special counsel report is only the latest development in the long history of the case. We deep dive into that history of (very) questionable rulings and their pattern of favoring Trump.

How to Watch the State of the Union Address: We touched on Miles Taylor’s SOTU counterprogramming and then we all connected on Substack Notes as we watched (or didn’t watch) the address, which made it more tolerable for me.

SOTU: I watched in case you just couldn’t. Read here for my in-the-moment analysis and a few hot takes.

The Other Red Hat: We turned our focus to two of my favorite things—knitting and craftivism, to learn how knitters in Minneapolis have begun a new red hat movement called Melt the ICE, inspired by citizens of Norway who wore red knitted caps as an act of resistance during the Nazi occupation of their country. With links to a pattern (or to finished products for non-knitters), you can get involved too. MAGA does not own the color red.

The SAVE Act Is Dead, Fulton County Is Fighting Back; So, Of Course, Trump Wants To Seize Control Of The Election: The good news of the day was the legislative failure of the SAVE Act, along with a significant order from Judge J.P. Boulee in the Georgia case in which Fulton County election officials want their election records back from DOJ. Meanwhile, reports of a draft executive order declaring an “emergency” (read: opportunity for Trump power grab) based on the false claim that China interfered in the 2020 elections is very concerning.

Substack Live with Former Senator John Tester and Journalist Maritsa Georgiou: I joined John Tester and his podcast co-host Maritsa Georgiou to discuss my book and the news of the day. And we had fun. It’s hard to believe because it’s been such a serious, somber week. But we agreed Trump can’t be permitted to take the fun out of our lives, even as we’re forced to fight for democracy.

Five Questions with Alabama Journalist Kyle Whitmire: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Kyle Whitmire joined us to discuss the evolution of journalism, the war on dumb, the war on truth, and how Alabama can be a Rosetta Stone for developments nationwide. And if you collect stories of Republican hypocrisy around voter fraud, this one is for you, with Kyle’s brilliant reporting on an Alabama Republican candidate to be lieutenant governor.

Live with Ruth Ben-Ghiat: No one speaks more eloquently about the art of resistance and why we shouldn’t give up than historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat. If you need a shot of encouragement, watch our conversation, and make sure you stay to the end, where she provides precisely the encouragement I needed.

The Law of War: In light of the strikes on Iran, we revisit some bedrock principles—why the rule of law exists, why it restrains all of us (especially the powerful), and why “doing whatever feels good in the moment” has never been a substitute for constitutional order, especially when it comes to, especially when it comes to war.

-Joyce Vance

What about Trump’s promise of no more forever wars?

 

US and Iranian negotiators met in Geneva earlier this week in what mediators described as the most serious and constructive talks in years. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, spoke publicly of “unprecedented openness,” signaling that both sides were exploring creative formulations rather than repeating entrenched positions. 

Discussions showed flexibility on nuclear limits and sanctions relief, and mediators indicated that a principles agreement could have been reached within days, with detailed verification mechanisms to follow within months.

These were not hollow gestures. Real diplomatic capital was being spent. Iranian officials floated proposals designed to meet US political realities – including potential access to energy sectors and economic cooperation. 

These were gestures calibrated to allow Donald Trump to present any deal as tougher and more advantageous than the 2015 agreement he withdrew the US from in May 2018. Tehran appeared to understand the optics Washington required, even if contentious issues such as ballistic missiles and regional proxy networks remained outside the immediate framework. Then, in the middle of these talks, the bridge was shattered.

Sensing how close the negotiations were — and how imminent military escalation had become — Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, made an emergency dash to Washington in a last-ditch effort to preserve the diplomatic track.

In an unusually public move for a mediator, he appeared on CBS to outline just how far the talks had progressed. He described a deal that would eliminate Iranian stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, down-blend existing material inside Iran, and allow full verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — with the possibility of US inspectors participating alongside them. 

Iran, he suggested, would enrich only for civilian purposes. A principles agreement, he indicated, could be signed within days. It was a remarkable disclosure — effectively revealing the contours of a near-breakthrough in an attempt to prevent imminent war.

But rather than allowing diplomacy to conclude, the US and Israel have launched coordinated strikes across Iran. Explosions were reported in Tehran and other cities. Trump announced “major combat operations,”, framing them as necessary to eliminate nuclear and missile threats while urging Iranians to seize the moment and overthrow their leadership. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting US bases and allied states across the region.

What is most striking is not merely that diplomacy failed, but that it failed amid visible progress. Mediators were openly discussing a viable framework; both sides had demonstrated flexibility – a pathway to constrain nuclear escalation appeared tangible. Choosing military escalation at that moment undermines the premise that negotiation is a genuine alternative to war. It signals that even active diplomacy offers no guarantee of restraint. Peace was not naïve. It was plausible.

Iran’s approach in Geneva was strategic, not submissive. Proposals involving economic incentives – including energy cooperation – were not unilateral concessions but calculated compromises designed to structure a politically survivable agreement in Washington. The core objective was clear: constrain Iran’s nuclear program through enforceable limits and intrusive verification, thereby addressing the very proliferation risks that sanctions and threats of force were meant to prevent.

Talks had moved beyond rhetorical posturing toward concrete proposals. For the first time in years, there was credible movement toward stabilizing the nuclear issue. By attacking during that negotiation window, Washington and its allies have not only derailed a diplomatic opening but have cast doubt on the durability of American commitments to negotiated solutions. The message to Tehran – and to other adversaries weighing diplomacy – is stark: even when talks appear to work, they can be overtaken by force.

Iran is not Iraq or Libya

Advocates of escalation often invoke Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011 as precedents for rapid regime collapse under pressure. Those analogies are misleading. Iraq and Libya were highly personalized systems, overly dependent on narrow patronage networks and individual rulers. Remove the center, and the structure imploded.

Iran is structurally different. It is not a dynastic dictatorship but an ideologically entrenched state with layered institutions, doctrinal legitimacy and a deeply embedded security apparatus, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its authority is intertwined with religious, political and strategic narratives cultivated over decades. It has endured sanctions, regional isolation and sustained external pressure without fracturing.

Even a previous US-Israeli campaign in 2025 that lasted 12 days failed to eliminate Tehran’s retaliatory capacity. Far from collapsing, the state absorbed pressure and responded. Hitting such a system with maximum force does not guarantee implosion; it may instead consolidate internal cohesion and reinforce narratives of external aggression that the leadership has long leveraged.

The mirage of regime change

Rhetoric surrounding the strikes has already shifted from tactical objectives to the language of regime change. US and Israeli leaders framed military action not solely as neutralizing missile or nuclear capabilities, but as an opportunity for Iranians to overthrow their government. That calculus – regime change by force – is historically fraught with risk.

The Iraq invasion should be a cautionary tale. The US spent more than a decade cultivating multiple Iraqi opposition groups – yet dismantling the centralized state apparatus still produced chaos, insurgency and fragmentation. The vacuum gave rise to extremist organizations such as IS, drawing the US into years of renewed conflict.

Approaching Iran with similar assumptions ignores both its institutional resilience and the complexity of regional geopolitics. Sectarian divisions, entrenched alliances and proxy networks mean that destabilization in Tehran would not remain contained. It could rapidly spill across borders and harden into prolonged confrontation.

A region wired for escalation

Iran has invested heavily in asymmetric capabilities precisely to deter and complicate external intervention. Its missile, drone and naval systems are embedded along the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for global energy — and linked into a network of regional allies and militias.

In the current escalation, Tehran has already launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military bases and allied territories in the Gulf, hitting locations in Iraq, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (including Abu Dhabi), Kuwait and Qatar in direct response to US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s cities, including Tehran, Qom and Isfahan. 

Explosions have been reported in Bahrain and the UAE, with at least one confirmed fatality in Abu Dhabi, and several bases housing US personnel have been struck or targeted, underscoring how the conflict has already spread beyond Iran’s borders

A full-scale regional war is now more likely than it was a week ago. Miscalculation could draw multiple states into conflict, inflame sectarian fault lines and disrupt global energy markets. What might have remained a contained nuclear dispute now risks expanding into a wider geopolitical confrontation.

What about Trump’s promise of no more forever wars?

Trump built his political brand opposing “endless wars” and criticizing the Iraq invasion. “America First” promised strategic restraint, hard bargaining and an aversion to open-ended intervention. Escalating militarily at the very moment diplomacy was advancing sits uneasily with that doctrine and revives questions about the true objectives of US strategy in the Middle East.

If a workable nuclear framework was genuinely emerging, abandoning it in favor of escalation invites a deeper question: does sustained tension serve certain strategic preferences more comfortably than durable peace?

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago address announcing the strikes carried unmistakable echoes of George W. Bush before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Military action was framed as reluctant yet necessary – a pre-emptive move to eliminate gathering threats and secure peace through strength. The rhetoric of patience exhausted and danger confronted before it fully materializes closely mirrors the language Bush used to justify the march into Baghdad.

The parallel extends beyond tone. Bush cast the Iraq war as liberation as well as disarmament, promising Iraqis freedom from dictatorship. Trump similarly urged Iranians to reclaim their country, implicitly linking force to regime change. In Iraq, that fusion of shock and salvation produced not swift democratic renewal but prolonged instability. The assumption that military force can reorder political systems from the outside has already been tested – and its costs remain visible.

The central challenge now facing the US is not simply Iran’s military capability. It is credibility. Abandoning negotiations mid-course signals that diplomacy can be overridden by force even when progress is visible. That perception will resonate far beyond Tehran.

Peace was never guaranteed. It was limited and imperfect, focused primarily on nuclear constraints rather than human rights or regional proxy networks. But it was plausible – and closer than many assumed. Breaking the bridge while building it does more than halt a single agreement – it risks convincing both sides that negotiation itself is futile.

In that world, trust erodes, deterrence hardens and aggression – not agreement – becomes the default language of international power. What we are witnessing is yet another clear indication that the rules-based order has been consigned to the history books. 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Bamo Nouri is an Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, at City, St George’s, University of London. CounterPunch

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Without Congress' Approval, Trump Launches an Illegal War Against Iran

 

Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Saturday morning that the US has launched a massive military operation aimed at toppling the Iranian government as blasts were reported in Tehran, including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is taking part in the assault. Unnamed Israeli security sources told Channel 12 that Israel and the Trump administration are “going all in” against Iran as Trump instructed Iranians to “stay sheltered,” warning that “bombs will be dropping everywhere.” People were seen seeking cover in Tehran as the US and Israeli bombs began to fall.

The assault, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury” by the Pentagon, comes days after the US and Iran took part in talks in Geneva, which Trump’s envoys characterized as “positive.” In announcing military action on Saturday, Trump said falsely that the Iranian government has “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions.”

The US and Israeli attacks—which both nations characterized as “preemptive”—are plainly illegal under international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in response to an armed attack. The Trump administration is also violating US law, which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

“The term ‘preemptive’ is pure propaganda,” wrote Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill. “The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran. Tehran had just offered terms that went far beyond the 2015 nuclear deal. What was preempted was diplomacy. The same propaganda tactics used in the 2003 Iraq war.”

Trump, who ditched the 2015 nuclear deal during his first White House term, repeatedly made clear in his remarks Saturday that he does not intend the new assault on Iran to be limited in scope like his bombings of Iranian nuclear sites last year. 

In the weeks leading up to Saturday’s attack, the Trump administration carried out a massive military buildup in the Middle East even as the president publicly claimed he was open to a diplomatic resolution.

“We may have casualties,” the US president said of American troops. “That often happens in war. But we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future.” Trump also urged the Iranian armed forces to surrender or “face certain death” as the US fired Tomahawk cruise missiles and other munitions at Iran.

The Iranian government’s immediate response to Saturday’s onslaught was a pledge of “crushing retaliation” and a wave of drone and missile attacks on Israel. The Associated Press reported that “hours after the strikes on Iran, explosions rocked northern Israel as the country worked to intercept incoming Iranian missiles.”

Iran’s foreign minister later informed his Iraqi counterpart that Iran would be targeting US military installations in the region in retaliation for Saturday’s attacks.

A spokesperson for the Iranian military declared that “we will teach Israel and America a lesson they have never experienced in their history. Any base that helps America and Israel will be the target of the Iranian armed forces,” the official added.

-Jake Johnson, Common Dreams

"If you’ve studied history — and you know I have — that’s the moment when the hair on the back of your neck should stand up"

Steve Bannon told an audience: “And I will tell you right now, as God is my witness, if we lose the midterms … some in this room are going to prison – myself included.”

Now, it looks like Trump and the people around him are seriously considering declaring an emergency to let them seize control of this November’s elections, according to reporting yesterday in The Washington Post: “Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.”

Donald Trump and the lickspittles and criminals he’s surrounded himself with are in a panic. If Democrats take the House and/or Senate in this November’s elections, they’ll have the power of subpoena so the regime’s crimes and corruption will be laid out for everybody to see. Some could even go to prison, including Trump himself.

He’s been basically screaming, “Do something!!!” at Republicans for the past year. It started publicly with his demanding that Texas and then other Red states further gerrymander their elections to reduce the number of Democrats in the House.

In Red states they’re purging voters in Blue cities from the rolls like there’s no tomorrow, and the GOP is trying to recruit “election observers” to challenge signatures on mail-in ballots on an industrial level. As reporter Greg Palast pointed out, this is how Trump took the White House in 2024; if it hadn’t been for over 4 million (mostly Black) fully qualified US citizens being purged or having their ballots rejected after technical challenges, Kamala Harris would be our president today.

But given how badly Trump’s doing in the polls today, even all these efforts don’t look like they’ll be enough to keep the House and Senate in Republican hands. So now Trump toadies like Jerome Corsi (the creator of the Birther movement and the Swift Boat slurs, who’s been a guest on my program multiple times) have an idea: just imitate what Putin, Orbán, Hitler, and other dictators have done to hang onto power when they get unpopular: declare an emergency and use it to rig the election.

Yesterday, The Washington Post detailed how MAGA-aligned activists are now openly discussing manufacturing or exaggerating a national emergency to justify Trump’s agents in the federal government to interfere in this November’s elections.

These aren’t fringe anonymous trolls on some obscure message board; they’re people operating in proximity to the president of the United States. Corsi arguably destroyed John Kerry’s chances in 2004 and lit the Birther fuse that catapulted Trump into political fame. And they’re floating the idea that if normal democratic processes don’t produce the “right” outcome, they could help create a fake crisis to seize control of the election nationally.

If you’ve studied history — and you know I have — that’s the moment when the hair on the back of your neck should stand up. Because this isn’t new, creative, or even uniquely American: it’s straight out of the authoritarian playbook.

In 1933, Germany’s parliament building, the Reichstag, went up in flames at the hands of a mentally ill Dutch communist who was probably maneuvered into the act by the Nazis. Adolf Hitler declared it “proof” of an existential communist threat. Civil liberties were suspended overnight. Gone in the blink of an eye were freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble as Hitler’s goons began to round up his political opponents and throw them into his new concentration camp at Dachau.

Elections were technically still held, but under conditions so distorted they no longer qualified as free or fair in any meaningful sense, and the so-called “temporary” emergency became Hitler’s legal bridge to a permanent dictatorship.

Similarly, in Turkey in 2016, elements of the military tried to pull off a coup against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan while he was out of town. Erdoğan declared a national state of emergency and then kept it in place permanently. Tens of thousands of protestors were arrested. Judges and teachers were purged from their jobs, and media outlets were closed down for being “fake news.”

While emergency rule was in effect, Turkey held an election that transformed its parliamentary democracy into a hyper-presidential system tailored to give virtually all federal power to Erdoğan himself. It was the end of democracy in Turkey.

Vladimir Putin’s rise offers another variation. In 1999, a series of apartment bombings killed hundreds of Russians and the Kremlin blamed Chechen terrorists. The attacks propelled Putin, then a relatively unknown prime minister, into the presidency on a wave of fear and fury.

Putin then declared a state of emergency that expanded his police powers, gave him tighter media control, and let him seize control of the elections process. In the years since then, elections in Russia have become ritual rather than reality. The ballots are printed every few years, and the votes are counted, but the outcome is never in doubt.

Viktor Orbán in Hungary shows yet another model. He declared a “state of crisis” over migration by Syrian refugees in 2015 and kept renewing it long after migration levels collapsed. During the COVID pandemic, he got the parliament to give him the authority to rule by decree on an indefinite basis; it’s still in effect.

As a result, elections still happen (there’s one coming up), but the media landscape was completely taken over by Orbán-friendly billionaires (see CBS, WaPo, LA Times, Fox “News,” Sinclair, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, and 1,500 rightwing radio stations). Orbán didn’t need to cancel Hungary’s elections; he simply reshaped the legal and political environment in which they happened.

There’s a common thread in all of this. The crisis wannabe dictators inevitably declare — real, exaggerated, or cynically manipulated — become the justification for seizing extraordinary powers. Those powers narrow dissent, intimidate opponents, and functionally rig the elections.

That’s why this shocking new reporting in The Washington Post is so alarming. When political actors like Corsi begin talking openly about declaring an emergency to override or interfere with elections, they’re not blowing smoke: they’re testing a classic dictator’s narrative.

They’re trying to figure out — and will learn from the national reaction to this Post reporting — whether they can persuade the public that normal election processes are too dangerous to trust. After all, in each of the cases I listed above, the machinery of democracy was used to hollow out democracy itself.

And they may not even have to manufacture an emergency: if Trump can sufficiently provoke Iran, they may activate their proxy network around the world and in the United States, and we could be facing a genuine crisis on the order of 9/11. This is one of the few ways to make sense of today’s massive military buildup in the Middle East.

The danger here isn’t just a fabricated catastrophe or a retaliatory strike by Iran, although those are pretty damn severe. It’s the normalization of the idea that if the electorate appears likely to choose “wrongly,” an emergency can justify changing the rules of democracy.

History shows us, over and over again, that when a nation loses its democracy to an aspiring autocrat, the language and strategy used is always the same. “The nation is under threat.” “The moment is an emergency.” “Normal rules must be suspended — just temporarily — to save the country.” And in every case, “temporary” turned out to be the most dangerous word of all.

We’re now at that moment where influential figures are publicly contemplating that path, and the lesson from history isn’t subtle. The real emergency, in a constitutional republic, begins when leaders like Putin, Orbán, Erdoğan and Trump — and their toadies like Corsi, Bondi, Noem, and Gabbard — decide that elections themselves are the problem.

Multiple observers have noted that this plan is grossly unconstitutional. But so were Trump’s tariffs (which also used IEEPA emergency authority as their rationale), and the Supreme Court let him run with them for almost a year before stopping him.

Similarly, ICE goons kicking in people’s front doors and smashing their car windows to drag them off without a judicial warrant is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but Trump’s agents continued to do it every day. Something being against the law or the Constitution has never stopped our convicted felon/rapist/insurrectionist president in the past.

This plot will only be stopped if it’s widely reported and an outraged public rises up in opposition. Call (202-224-3121) your elected representatives — Democratic and Republican — and let them know you’re onto this plot and won’t tolerate it. And that if they have any fidelity left to the Constitution and American values, they won’t either.

-Thom Hartmann