6 ms·

> It says that the government “will prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American,

by RajT88 20d ago

> It says that the government “will prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender and anarchist” and “will use all the tools constitutionally available to us to map them at home, identify their membership, map their ties to international organizations like Antifa.” So, Democratic candidates who are looking like they will win a seat this midterm cycle are going to get arrested for "domestic terrorism".

chinathrow 20d ago
That's inline whit some of the goals of the people behind Project 2025 are calling for.
- criddell 20d ago
  Can you be more specific?
asaddhamani 20d ago
As a trans woman, enough is enough! I’m tired of us being made into the scapegoat while literal pedophiles and sexual criminals not only walk free but gain ever greater power and idiots keep blaming us for their problems as they close their ears and stomp their feet’s on the ground
- ToucanLoucan 20d ago
  As a fellow trans woman, we've been the scapegoat for reactionaries, at least documented, since the rise of the Third Reich. And if we're honest, probably before that. Fixing society-scale problems is really hard. Being angry at people who make you feel a bit weird inside is easy. People reliably choose easy.
  - cik 20d ago
    I'm not going to pretend to understand your stuggle, but I will echo it through my lens. I am not trying to hijack your point, inasmuch support it with my view. I uses to think that it was about fear of the unknown, or as you've said "Being angry at people who make you feel a bit weird inside". I now firmly believe that it's a modern form of tribalism. Having an "other", whether as a scapegoat, a fear inducing device, or a target is simply too convenient to ignore. Whether or not one is a globalist is orthogonal to the fact that people ultimately decide, or evolve to see through a different lens.
    - RajT88 20d ago
      I would say it slightly differently: humans themselves are tribalistic, and politicians are looking for ways to tap into that to gain and hold onto power.
    - voakbasda 20d ago
      One look no further than Vietnam for how the government learned to use intranational xenophobia to manipulate different slices of the public into identifying as separate groups that could then be played off of each other. Since then, there has never been as successful a political movement, because we have been turned against each other by state-driven manipulation. AFAIK, this is well-documented policy intended to “maintain civil order” (i.e. prevent the revolution that is so richly deserved).
    - deleted 20d ago
      [deleted]
    - hackable_sand 20d ago
      "tribalism" is a dog whistle
- mschuster91 20d ago
  but... but the bathrooms! and the children's sports! /s it's still baffling to me how incredibly irrelevant niche cases dominate the entire discourse.
  - ToucanLoucan 20d ago
    Because Republicans get fucking dog-walked on any issue of any importance. The only things they can ever even come close to claiming "victory" on are irrelevant nonsense that no serious person gives a fuck about. There are now more bills attempting to "solve" the problem of trans girl's in sports (and it is girls, to be clear, trans boys are never an issue) than there are trans girls in sports. It's fucking pathetic.
    - RajT88 20d ago
      The funny thing about that is - it's a solved problem. The reason you heard about it for a while is that they hadn't tightened up the rules yet. As with anything, problems are highlighted, they are studied, and new rules are put into place to account for what was learned. Right wing media of course discovered a boogeyman that was so useful they will be using it for years still, even if it doesn't exist.
      - asaddhamani 20d ago
        It wasn’t a problem to begin with. Meta studies recently showed trans women have no biological advantage over cis women after HRT, certainly nothing than cis women don’t have biological variation within anyway. All the rule updates did was exclude and further marginalise an already marginalised extreme minority. There are very few trans women to begin with, fewer of us still are competing in sports. Nothing was studied here, the people who made the rules aren’t scholars, they’re bigots. They’re using us as a distraction from their poor governance.
        ToucanLoucan 20d ago
        And as a fellow enjoyer of HRT, I assure you it didn't enhance shit for me, beyond what I was hoping to get: longer, more full hair, boobies, and smoother skin. My muscles are gone y'all. Like I've had to buy more breaker bars and larger tools so I can keep working on my cars, otherwise I simply could not break bolts anymore.
- j4kp07 20d ago
  [dead]
- underlipton 20d ago
  It's not while, it's because. They have to create a "threat" that's of the same "magnitude" as their actual crimes, vectoring out from the subjective origin of "traditional" man/woman identity and relations. They do that by casting transgenderism not as the benign and modest personal identity that it is, but as the same kind of sexually aggressive comportment as their own; something that you do or perform willfully instead of what you are compelled by natural and intrinsic impulse to be. The first step in defeating it is untangling the action/identity conflation. You are: someone who is biologically non-female, but whose gender identity is that of a woman. He is: a businessman and politician. You do: upstanding, normal folk things. He does: reprehensible shit like assaulting teenagers and bragging about "grabbing [women] by the pussy." Hopefully people are able to see who in this comparison is in the wrong.
  - kelseyfrog 20d ago
    Taking hormones activates the genes responsible for making someone biologically a woman. That's kinda the point of taking them.
    - asaddhamani 20d ago
      Right. Hormones cause an insane amount of changes. The texture of my skin, my scent, how much oil my skin produces, the haemoglobin in my blood, the size and strength of my muscles, how much fat my body stores, and where it goes, how attraction feels, how emotions feel, what I find rewarding. Certain physical attributes do require different interventions but the vast majority of sexually differentiated traits are decided by the dominant sex hormone in the body, not by the XX/XY genes. See: XY females for instance who have non functioning androgen receptors. When we talk about biological women, it’s also ignoring intersex variations. Biology is way more complex than we make it out to be.
      - kelseyfrog 20d ago
        If that's not biological, what is?
- xtajv 20d ago
  https://tr.ee/ttp-read https://tr.ee/ttp-read If it helps, ^^have a brochure explaining all of the ways folks are dramatically misunderstanding us right now. :(
- user3939382 20d ago
  You're not a scapegoat you're fodder for a social warfare diversion to enable the treasury to be looted by both parties while the economy collapses. DC's puppeteers don't give a shit about anything unless it starts with $
  - overfeed 19d ago
    What in the enlightened centrism?! All 3 branches of government are controlled by conservatives, as is the fourth estate.
    - user3939382 17d ago
      Sorry you’re right the old men with a D on their nameplate in DC really love and care unlike the “other” side.
rickdeckard 20d ago
Of course, because by the new definition, the leader is "peak American", so everything in collision with his view is naturally "anti-American". The usage of the term "anti-American" by anyone in a public role should be rejected as insufficient definition and unfit for a representative to use. On the spot, immediately. Is it anti-American to brush your teeth after breakfast? or rather before? Is both American? Neither of it?
- smallmancontrov 20d ago
  When Trump calls Democrats "enemies from within," that's anti-American. When Trump refuses to peacefully transfer power to his victorious opponent and instead plays "heads I win tails you cheated," that's anti-American. When Trump sends the FCC chair to suppress speech "we can do this the easy way or the hard way," or yucks it up with the president of El Salvador over suspending Habeas Corpus, that's anti-American. The "American Experiment" isn't an empty concept, but it is about democracy and law and rights as opposed to conservative cultural values, and when people in power start to argue that the former must be sacrificed for the latter they certainly deserve to be clowned on. Not because they are wrong to imagine an American Ideal, but because they have its contents exactly backwards.
  - rickdeckard 20d ago
    While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term should be rejected as a whole.
    - pc86 20d ago
      I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition. It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.
      - rickdeckard 20d ago
vrganj 20d ago
Heh, now as an Austrian, why does that all sound so familiar? > The police, "suspecting the conflagration to be the first of a series of Communist acts of terrorism", have arrested a number of Communist leaders. https://www.theguardian.com/news/1933/mar/28/leadersandreply.mainsection https://www.theguardian.com/news/1933/mar/28/leadersandreply... Huh.
paimapi 20d ago
another important part isn't just the ideology targeting - it's the directive for local and national law enforcement for form Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) targeting individuals and organizations in this vein. JTTFs are already mobilized and targeting people - see https://atlpresscollective.com/2026/06/12/federal-prosecutors-charge-two-cop-city-protestors-as-part-of-nspm-7-initiative/ https://atlpresscollective.com/2026/06/12/federal-prosecutor... I think of that poem, First They Came: First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me replace 'Jews' with the current minoritized target demographic (ie immigrants of any stripe) and we're already fairly far down that list. see the case of David Huerta for the targeting of unions: https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-labor-leader-arrested-at-ice-raid-released-on-bail/ https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-labor-leader-arre...
- blacklimetea 20d ago
  [dead]
j4kp07 20d ago
[dead]
antihipocrat 20d ago
This is the outcome that every privacy advocate has been warning about for decades and being increasingly challenged by people who were fine with it as 'they have nothing to hide and do no wrong'.
32oqa9 20d ago
No, Dem candidates are safe. The culture wars benefit both parties and their billionaire owners.
- pstuart 20d ago
  The culture wars are explicitly a tool of the right to provoke fear, anger, and hate against others. The left gets trapped in it because every single culture war issue (LGBQT+, racism, feminism, reproductive rights, freedom from religion, etc) are responses to the rights reactionary drive to claw back rights from everybody who is not a white male christian.
  - overfeed 19d ago
    > The left gets trapped... Nevermind the wedge driven when moderates who think of themselves as being on the left agree with the idea that past weak attempts to nudge things leftward "went too far", or that there actually is an issue with "government waste". Sir/Ma'am - you are complicit in moving the Overton window to the right.
    - pstuart 19d ago
      I've been called a "shrill far leftist" and a "fascist appeaser" so does that make me a centrist? Any labeling I may apply to myself is for convenience of packaged assumptions about my values. > moderates who think of themselves as being on the left agree with the idea that past weak attempts to nudge things leftward "went too far" Examples please? Not a challenge, I just am not pickup up what you're laying down. As for "government waste" of course it exists but to various degrees and in various areas. For example, Medicare fraud is estimated $60 billion to over $100 billion annually. That doesn't mean we should get rid of it -- it means we'd be well served to invest a fraction of that amount in preventing such numbers. And as far as shifting the Overton Window to the right, that has been the Right itself, via culture war bullshit. Look, sir/madam, I have no tribe, no political party, no religion, no beliefs that I'm unwilling to change when presented with compelling evidence. I've tracked US politics likely longer than you've been alive. I understand how the game is played and this Red vs Blue is a master class in political manipulation. And the culture war is the key tool used to render it. So you telling me that I'm the reason why the Overton Window is shifting right is a tell that you're the confused one.
BehindBlueEyes 20d ago
And in the 30s germany started branding things as being anti-german, we all know where that led us. This isn't a new play book by any means. Seeing so many comments debating terminology worries me, we should be discussing the implications.
order-matters 20d ago
yes probably, and ive been calling this as their playbook for about a year Make no mistake, this is not some sophisticated conspiracy. This is pure laziness and abuse of power. They have been using "domestic terrorist" as a button to slap anytime they dont want to be questioned. the phrase no longer means anything besides "this person questioned authority" ICE has used it to label people they shot for videoing them. Note that they knew the video evidence existed and labelled them anyway, assuming they would be able to avoid court altogether and prevent the video evidence being seen. In at least one case, this didnt work and the victim was correctly identified as such. So this isnt hypothetical. It is a playbook being used right now, and people are testing the waters for how much they can get away with.
cortesoft 20d ago
The red scare of the 1950s was ridiculous enough, but at least the Soviet Union was an actual threat. We are now at a point where “pro-transgender” is the new threat?
- pnt12 20d ago
  The administration doesn't like it, therefore it's a threat. Similar to negative news, which are fake, and contrary opinions, which are woke propaganda. Many symptoms of undercover fascism.
  - buellerbueller 20d ago
    [flagged]
- Matl 20d ago
  > but at least the Soviet Union was an actual threat The 'threat' was also the reason many working class Americans had generally higher standard of living than they do today
- stronglikedan 20d ago
  Sure, if you conveniently drop the qualifying word "radically". But that's not what was said. What was said specifically included the word "radically" for a good reason. Radical anything is a threat.
  - vict7 20d ago
    Are you familiar with the concepts of propaganda and lying?
  - whatisthiseven 20d ago
    This is the kind of sarcasm on HN that will draw a ton of comments. Good job on really nailing the psyche of the HN community.
    - 19d ago
pessimizer 20d ago
[flagged]
- darksaints 20d ago
  relevant username lol. I tend to agree though...establishment democrats are a major problem for americans who want to be free of the problems that trump brought to us. Their only complaint about him seems to be that he's on the wrong team and has poor decorum. That's why so much emphasis has been placed on electing non-establishment democrats this time around. But the establishment is pro-corporate and pro-israel and they have all the money.
  - RajT88 20d ago
    Totally agree. Establishment Democrats are against these expansion of powers, but then when they have the opportunity to roll them back, they treat them like they got free stuff instead of inheriting toxic waste.
    - darksaints 20d ago
      I'd love to see a democratic presidential candidate who vows to openly exploit all of the illegal powers that Trump did, but in a way that hurts republicans and red states, and vow to continue doing it until constitutional amendments are passed to prevent it. Republicans would jump on board because they have no real ideology that they aren't willing to abandon for more power, and democrats would reluctantly be forced to do it because they care so much about being seen as hypocrites. Maybe a silly and potentially dangerous way to solve the problem, but at this point I'd try anything.
      - iamnothere 20d ago
        Be careful what you wish for, this seems to be the Newsom approach, and he may have a real chance at the presidency. California Uber Alles. I saw a poll recently showing that close to half the country expects a civil war, and a disturbingly large portion of that group wants a civil war. Cross-spectrum as well.
blueoranges 20d ago
[dead]
jjgreen 20d ago
Phew, as an anti-American, radically pro-transgender Marxist-Leninist I should be safe; bloody anarchists.
NoImmatureAdHom 20d ago
The politicized take on this is not correct. More importantly, it's not helpful. When the "left" (Democrats) had power recently in the U.S., they were very happy to try to criminalize the protected speech of their enemies. Their tack was to define speech they didn't like as "hate speech", which luckily isn't actually a thing in the U.S., legally. But they were trying to make it happen. I don't mean to defend one or the other side, merely to point out that this is a non-partisan issue.
- vict7 20d ago
  Please cite specifically what the Biden administration did to curtail people’s right to freedom of speech. I’ll wait.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 19d ago
    Lololol ok: Biden: The Biden Administration's promulgation of a Title IX interpretation that, among other things, would have compelled certain kinds of speech: https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ One example of many: it would have been a punishable offense to refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns. This is what's called "compelled speech", and it's when someone says to you, "Say $THING or else". It's very reasonable for governments to prohibit saying certain things (like national security secrets, for instance, or other people's bank account login info), but thus far forcing people to say things they don't believe has been a bridge too far. And, happily, compelled speech is a bright line the Americans have, so far, managed not to cross. Everyone should be trying as hard as we can to not cross that line. You may not see the harm in this particular instance, but establishing "we'll just force them to say it and punish them if they don't" as a tool in any government's toolbox is a very, very bad idea. Ah, and I should mention Biden's new Title IX rules became law on August 1, 2024 so they weren't "would". Thankfully, we only had a few months under this particular imposition on our basic rights and push never came to shove. Harris: https://nclalegal.org/opinion/kamala-harris-free-speech-task-force/ https://nclalegal.org/opinion/kamala-harris-free-speech-task... Clearly wanted to criminalize speech she didn't like Walz: https://www.cato.org/commentary/actually-tim-walz-first-amendment-does-protect-misinformation-hate-speech https://www.cato.org/commentary/actually-tim-walz-first-amen... Same
hax0ron3 20d ago
That is extremely unlikely. There are definitely some people in Trump's camp who would love to do that, including probably Trump himself. However, Trump does not have enough public or institutional support for him to risk doing something that blatant.
RobRivera 20d ago
ACLU will have a field day.
- b40d-48b2-979e 20d ago
  That's already too late.
frumplestlatz 20d ago
> So, Democratic candidates who are looking like they will win a seat this midterm cycle are going to get arrested for "domestic terrorism". It would be fascinating to revisit this comment with you after the midterms and see whether your beliefs have changed in any way.
zahlman 19d ago
You read a passage talking about groups of people who provably commit real violence and advocate for more of it, establish "autonomous zones" in cities as part of protest actions, attempt en masse to impede physically the lawful actions of legitimate federal LEO, and explicitly promote agendas that include the destruction of fundamental state institutions; and you imagine that this will be applied to establishment candidates with good chances of winning in a democratic process. This appears to be based on nothing more than your personal impression of the POTUS. I find that to be completely and utterly unreasonable. Benjamin Song should be all the evidence you need to illustrate that the phrase "domestic terrorism" is completely appropriate to describe things that are actually happening. But there is so, so much more of it.

by RajT88 20d ago

chinathrow 20d ago

That's inline whit some of the goals of the people behind Project 2025 are calling for.

criddell 20d ago
Can you be more specific?

asaddhamani 20d ago

As a trans woman, enough is enough! I’m tired of us being made into the scapegoat while literal pedophiles and sexual criminals not only walk free but gain ever greater power and idiots keep blaming us for their problems as they close their ears and stomp their feet’s on the ground

ToucanLoucan 20d ago
As a fellow trans woman, we've been the scapegoat for reactionaries, at least documented, since the rise of the Third Reich. And if we're honest, probably before that. Fixing society-scale problems is really hard. Being angry at people who make you feel a bit weird inside is easy. People reliably choose easy.
- cik 20d ago
  I'm not going to pretend to understand your stuggle, but I will echo it through my lens. I am not trying to hijack your point, inasmuch support it with my view. I uses to think that it was about fear of the unknown, or as you've said "Being angry at people who make you feel a bit weird inside". I now firmly believe that it's a modern form of tribalism. Having an "other", whether as a scapegoat, a fear inducing device, or a target is simply too convenient to ignore. Whether or not one is a globalist is orthogonal to the fact that people ultimately decide, or evolve to see through a different lens.
  - RajT88 20d ago
    I would say it slightly differently: humans themselves are tribalistic, and politicians are looking for ways to tap into that to gain and hold onto power.
  - voakbasda 20d ago
    One look no further than Vietnam for how the government learned to use intranational xenophobia to manipulate different slices of the public into identifying as separate groups that could then be played off of each other. Since then, there has never been as successful a political movement, because we have been turned against each other by state-driven manipulation. AFAIK, this is well-documented policy intended to “maintain civil order” (i.e. prevent the revolution that is so richly deserved).
  - deleted 20d ago
    [deleted]
  - hackable_sand 20d ago
    "tribalism" is a dog whistle
mschuster91 20d ago
but... but the bathrooms! and the children's sports! /s it's still baffling to me how incredibly irrelevant niche cases dominate the entire discourse.
- ToucanLoucan 20d ago
  Because Republicans get fucking dog-walked on any issue of any importance. The only things they can ever even come close to claiming "victory" on are irrelevant nonsense that no serious person gives a fuck about. There are now more bills attempting to "solve" the problem of trans girl's in sports (and it is girls, to be clear, trans boys are never an issue) than there are trans girls in sports. It's fucking pathetic.
  - RajT88 20d ago
    The funny thing about that is - it's a solved problem. The reason you heard about it for a while is that they hadn't tightened up the rules yet. As with anything, problems are highlighted, they are studied, and new rules are put into place to account for what was learned. Right wing media of course discovered a boogeyman that was so useful they will be using it for years still, even if it doesn't exist.
    - asaddhamani 20d ago
      It wasn’t a problem to begin with. Meta studies recently showed trans women have no biological advantage over cis women after HRT, certainly nothing than cis women don’t have biological variation within anyway. All the rule updates did was exclude and further marginalise an already marginalised extreme minority. There are very few trans women to begin with, fewer of us still are competing in sports. Nothing was studied here, the people who made the rules aren’t scholars, they’re bigots. They’re using us as a distraction from their poor governance.
      - ToucanLoucan 20d ago
        And as a fellow enjoyer of HRT, I assure you it didn't enhance shit for me, beyond what I was hoping to get: longer, more full hair, boobies, and smoother skin. My muscles are gone y'all. Like I've had to buy more breaker bars and larger tools so I can keep working on my cars, otherwise I simply could not break bolts anymore.
j4kp07 20d ago
[dead]
underlipton 20d ago
It's not while, it's because. They have to create a "threat" that's of the same "magnitude" as their actual crimes, vectoring out from the subjective origin of "traditional" man/woman identity and relations. They do that by casting transgenderism not as the benign and modest personal identity that it is, but as the same kind of sexually aggressive comportment as their own; something that you do or perform willfully instead of what you are compelled by natural and intrinsic impulse to be. The first step in defeating it is untangling the action/identity conflation. You are: someone who is biologically non-female, but whose gender identity is that of a woman. He is: a businessman and politician. You do: upstanding, normal folk things. He does: reprehensible shit like assaulting teenagers and bragging about "grabbing [women] by the pussy." Hopefully people are able to see who in this comparison is in the wrong.
- kelseyfrog 20d ago
  Taking hormones activates the genes responsible for making someone biologically a woman. That's kinda the point of taking them.
  - asaddhamani 20d ago
    Right. Hormones cause an insane amount of changes. The texture of my skin, my scent, how much oil my skin produces, the haemoglobin in my blood, the size and strength of my muscles, how much fat my body stores, and where it goes, how attraction feels, how emotions feel, what I find rewarding. Certain physical attributes do require different interventions but the vast majority of sexually differentiated traits are decided by the dominant sex hormone in the body, not by the XX/XY genes. See: XY females for instance who have non functioning androgen receptors. When we talk about biological women, it’s also ignoring intersex variations. Biology is way more complex than we make it out to be.
    - kelseyfrog 20d ago
      If that's not biological, what is?
xtajv 20d ago
https://tr.ee/ttp-read https://tr.ee/ttp-read If it helps, ^^have a brochure explaining all of the ways folks are dramatically misunderstanding us right now. :(
user3939382 20d ago
You're not a scapegoat you're fodder for a social warfare diversion to enable the treasury to be looted by both parties while the economy collapses. DC's puppeteers don't give a shit about anything unless it starts with $
- overfeed 19d ago
  What in the enlightened centrism?! All 3 branches of government are controlled by conservatives, as is the fourth estate.
  - user3939382 17d ago
    Sorry you’re right the old men with a D on their nameplate in DC really love and care unlike the “other” side.

rickdeckard 20d ago

Of course, because by the new definition, the leader is "peak American", so everything in collision with his view is naturally "anti-American". The usage of the term "anti-American" by anyone in a public role should be rejected as insufficient definition and unfit for a representative to use. On the spot, immediately. Is it anti-American to brush your teeth after breakfast? or rather before? Is both American? Neither of it?

smallmancontrov 20d ago
When Trump calls Democrats "enemies from within," that's anti-American. When Trump refuses to peacefully transfer power to his victorious opponent and instead plays "heads I win tails you cheated," that's anti-American. When Trump sends the FCC chair to suppress speech "we can do this the easy way or the hard way," or yucks it up with the president of El Salvador over suspending Habeas Corpus, that's anti-American. The "American Experiment" isn't an empty concept, but it is about democracy and law and rights as opposed to conservative cultural values, and when people in power start to argue that the former must be sacrificed for the latter they certainly deserve to be clowned on. Not because they are wrong to imagine an American Ideal, but because they have its contents exactly backwards.
- rickdeckard 20d ago
  While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term should be rejected as a whole.
  - pc86 20d ago
    I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition. It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.
    - rickdeckard 20d ago

vrganj 20d ago

Heh, now as an Austrian, why does that all sound so familiar? > The police, "suspecting the conflagration to be the first of a series of Communist acts of terrorism", have arrested a number of Communist leaders. https://www.theguardian.com/news/1933/mar/28/leadersandreply.mainsection https://www.theguardian.com/news/1933/mar/28/leadersandreply... Huh.

paimapi 20d ago

another important part isn't just the ideology targeting - it's the directive for local and national law enforcement for form Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) targeting individuals and organizations in this vein. JTTFs are already mobilized and targeting people - see https://atlpresscollective.com/2026/06/12/federal-prosecutors-charge-two-cop-city-protestors-as-part-of-nspm-7-initiative/ https://atlpresscollective.com/2026/06/12/federal-prosecutor... I think of that poem, First They Came: First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me replace 'Jews' with the current minoritized target demographic (ie immigrants of any stripe) and we're already fairly far down that list. see the case of David Huerta for the targeting of unions: https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-labor-leader-arrested-at-ice-raid-released-on-bail/ https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-labor-leader-arre...

blacklimetea 20d ago
[dead]

j4kp07 20d ago

[dead]

antihipocrat 20d ago

This is the outcome that every privacy advocate has been warning about for decades and being increasingly challenged by people who were fine with it as 'they have nothing to hide and do no wrong'.

32oqa9 20d ago

No, Dem candidates are safe. The culture wars benefit both parties and their billionaire owners.

pstuart 20d ago
The culture wars are explicitly a tool of the right to provoke fear, anger, and hate against others. The left gets trapped in it because every single culture war issue (LGBQT+, racism, feminism, reproductive rights, freedom from religion, etc) are responses to the rights reactionary drive to claw back rights from everybody who is not a white male christian.
- overfeed 19d ago
  > The left gets trapped... Nevermind the wedge driven when moderates who think of themselves as being on the left agree with the idea that past weak attempts to nudge things leftward "went too far", or that there actually is an issue with "government waste". Sir/Ma'am - you are complicit in moving the Overton window to the right.
  - pstuart 19d ago
    I've been called a "shrill far leftist" and a "fascist appeaser" so does that make me a centrist? Any labeling I may apply to myself is for convenience of packaged assumptions about my values. > moderates who think of themselves as being on the left agree with the idea that past weak attempts to nudge things leftward "went too far" Examples please? Not a challenge, I just am not pickup up what you're laying down. As for "government waste" of course it exists but to various degrees and in various areas. For example, Medicare fraud is estimated $60 billion to over $100 billion annually. That doesn't mean we should get rid of it -- it means we'd be well served to invest a fraction of that amount in preventing such numbers. And as far as shifting the Overton Window to the right, that has been the Right itself, via culture war bullshit. Look, sir/madam, I have no tribe, no political party, no religion, no beliefs that I'm unwilling to change when presented with compelling evidence. I've tracked US politics likely longer than you've been alive. I understand how the game is played and this Red vs Blue is a master class in political manipulation. And the culture war is the key tool used to render it. So you telling me that I'm the reason why the Overton Window is shifting right is a tell that you're the confused one.

BehindBlueEyes 20d ago

And in the 30s germany started branding things as being anti-german, we all know where that led us. This isn't a new play book by any means. Seeing so many comments debating terminology worries me, we should be discussing the implications.

order-matters 20d ago

yes probably, and ive been calling this as their playbook for about a year Make no mistake, this is not some sophisticated conspiracy. This is pure laziness and abuse of power. They have been using "domestic terrorist" as a button to slap anytime they dont want to be questioned. the phrase no longer means anything besides "this person questioned authority" ICE has used it to label people they shot for videoing them. Note that they knew the video evidence existed and labelled them anyway, assuming they would be able to avoid court altogether and prevent the video evidence being seen. In at least one case, this didnt work and the victim was correctly identified as such. So this isnt hypothetical. It is a playbook being used right now, and people are testing the waters for how much they can get away with.

cortesoft 20d ago

The red scare of the 1950s was ridiculous enough, but at least the Soviet Union was an actual threat. We are now at a point where “pro-transgender” is the new threat?

pnt12 20d ago
The administration doesn't like it, therefore it's a threat. Similar to negative news, which are fake, and contrary opinions, which are woke propaganda. Many symptoms of undercover fascism.
- buellerbueller 20d ago
  [flagged]
Matl 20d ago
> but at least the Soviet Union was an actual threat The 'threat' was also the reason many working class Americans had generally higher standard of living than they do today
stronglikedan 20d ago
Sure, if you conveniently drop the qualifying word "radically". But that's not what was said. What was said specifically included the word "radically" for a good reason. Radical anything is a threat.
- vict7 20d ago
  Are you familiar with the concepts of propaganda and lying?
- whatisthiseven 20d ago
  This is the kind of sarcasm on HN that will draw a ton of comments. Good job on really nailing the psyche of the HN community.
  - 19d ago

pessimizer 20d ago

[flagged]

darksaints 20d ago
relevant username lol. I tend to agree though...establishment democrats are a major problem for americans who want to be free of the problems that trump brought to us. Their only complaint about him seems to be that he's on the wrong team and has poor decorum. That's why so much emphasis has been placed on electing non-establishment democrats this time around. But the establishment is pro-corporate and pro-israel and they have all the money.
- RajT88 20d ago
  Totally agree. Establishment Democrats are against these expansion of powers, but then when they have the opportunity to roll them back, they treat them like they got free stuff instead of inheriting toxic waste.
  - darksaints 20d ago
    I'd love to see a democratic presidential candidate who vows to openly exploit all of the illegal powers that Trump did, but in a way that hurts republicans and red states, and vow to continue doing it until constitutional amendments are passed to prevent it. Republicans would jump on board because they have no real ideology that they aren't willing to abandon for more power, and democrats would reluctantly be forced to do it because they care so much about being seen as hypocrites. Maybe a silly and potentially dangerous way to solve the problem, but at this point I'd try anything.
    - iamnothere 20d ago
      Be careful what you wish for, this seems to be the Newsom approach, and he may have a real chance at the presidency. California Uber Alles. I saw a poll recently showing that close to half the country expects a civil war, and a disturbingly large portion of that group wants a civil war. Cross-spectrum as well.

blueoranges 20d ago

[dead]

jjgreen 20d ago

Phew, as an anti-American, radically pro-transgender Marxist-Leninist I should be safe; bloody anarchists.

NoImmatureAdHom 20d ago

The politicized take on this is not correct. More importantly, it's not helpful. When the "left" (Democrats) had power recently in the U.S., they were very happy to try to criminalize the protected speech of their enemies. Their tack was to define speech they didn't like as "hate speech", which luckily isn't actually a thing in the U.S., legally. But they were trying to make it happen. I don't mean to defend one or the other side, merely to point out that this is a non-partisan issue.

vict7 20d ago
Please cite specifically what the Biden administration did to curtail people’s right to freedom of speech. I’ll wait.
- NoImmatureAdHom 19d ago
  Lololol ok: Biden: The Biden Administration's promulgation of a Title IX interpretation that, among other things, would have compelled certain kinds of speech: https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ One example of many: it would have been a punishable offense to refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns. This is what's called "compelled speech", and it's when someone says to you, "Say $THING or else". It's very reasonable for governments to prohibit saying certain things (like national security secrets, for instance, or other people's bank account login info), but thus far forcing people to say things they don't believe has been a bridge too far. And, happily, compelled speech is a bright line the Americans have, so far, managed not to cross. Everyone should be trying as hard as we can to not cross that line. You may not see the harm in this particular instance, but establishing "we'll just force them to say it and punish them if they don't" as a tool in any government's toolbox is a very, very bad idea. Ah, and I should mention Biden's new Title IX rules became law on August 1, 2024 so they weren't "would". Thankfully, we only had a few months under this particular imposition on our basic rights and push never came to shove. Harris: https://nclalegal.org/opinion/kamala-harris-free-speech-task-force/ https://nclalegal.org/opinion/kamala-harris-free-speech-task... Clearly wanted to criminalize speech she didn't like Walz: https://www.cato.org/commentary/actually-tim-walz-first-amendment-does-protect-misinformation-hate-speech https://www.cato.org/commentary/actually-tim-walz-first-amen... Same

hax0ron3 20d ago

That is extremely unlikely. There are definitely some people in Trump's camp who would love to do that, including probably Trump himself. However, Trump does not have enough public or institutional support for him to risk doing something that blatant.

RobRivera 20d ago

ACLU will have a field day.

b40d-48b2-979e 20d ago
That's already too late.

frumplestlatz 20d ago

> So, Democratic candidates who are looking like they will win a seat this midterm cycle are going to get arrested for "domestic terrorism". It would be fascinating to revisit this comment with you after the midterms and see whether your beliefs have changed in any way.

zahlman 19d ago

You read a passage talking about groups of people who provably commit real violence and advocate for more of it, establish "autonomous zones" in cities as part of protest actions, attempt en masse to impede physically the lawful actions of legitimate federal LEO, and explicitly promote agendas that include the destruction of fundamental state institutions; and you imagine that this will be applied to establishment candidates with good chances of winning in a democratic process. This appears to be based on nothing more than your personal impression of the POTUS. I find that to be completely and utterly unreasonable. Benjamin Song should be all the evidence you need to illustrate that the phrase "domestic terrorism" is completely appropriate to describe things that are actually happening. But there is so, so much more of it.