Make Russia Medieval Again! How Putin is seeking to remold society, with a little help from Ivan the Terrible

The Conversation

Make Russia Medieval Again! How Putin is seeking to remold society, with a little help from Ivan the Terrible

Dina Khapaeva, Georgia Institute of Technology – April 22, 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin has draped himself in old-fashioned, medieval conceptions of Russian history to add symbolic weight to his authoritarian government. <a href=
Russian President Vladimir Putin has draped himself in old-fashioned, medieval conceptions of Russian history to add symbolic weight to his authoritarian government. AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko

Beginning in September 2025, Russian middle and high school students will be handed a new textbook titled “My Family.”

Published in March 2025, the textbook’s co-author Nina Ostanina, chair of the State Duma Committee for the Protection of the Family, claims that it will teach students “traditional moral values” that will improve “the demographic situation in the country” as part of a “Family Studies” course that was rolled out in the 2024-2025 school year.

But some of those lessons for modern living come from a less-than-modern source. Among the materials borrowed from in “My Family” is the 16th century “Domostroi” – a collection of rules for maintaining patriarchal domestic order. It was written, supposedly, by Sylvester, a monk-tutor of czar Ivan the Terrible.

Unsurprisingly, some teachings from “Domostroi” seem out-of-keeping with today’s sensibilities. For example, it states that it is the right of a father to coerce, if needed by force, his household – at the time, this would refer to both relatives and slaves – in accordance with Orthodox dogmas.

“Husbands should teach their wives with love and exemplary instruction,” reads one of the Domostroi quotations repeated in the textbook.

“Wives ask their husbands about strict order, how to save their souls, please God and their husbands, arrange their home well, and submit to their husbands in all matters; and what the husband orders, they should agree with love and carry out according to his commands,” reads another extract

A painting shows an old man with a beard and a seated man.
Czar Ivan the Terrible and the priest Sylvester. Wikimedia Commons

The use of “Domostroi” in the textbook both references the past while evoking the current government’s politics of decriminalizing family violence. A 2017 law, for example, removed nonaggravated “battery of close persons” from the list of criminal offenses.

It also fits a wider pattern. As a scholar of historical memory, I have observed that references to the Russian Middle Ages are part of the Kremlin’s broader politics of using the medieval past to justify current agendas, something I have termed “political neomedievalism.”

Indeed, President Vladimir Putin’s government is actively prioritizing initiatives that use medieval Russia as a model for the country’s future. In doing so, the Kremlin unites a long-nurtured dream of the Russian far right with a broader quest for the fulfillment of Russian imperial ambitions.

Whitewashing Ivan the Terrible

In February 2025, just a month before “My Family” was published, the government of Russia’s Vologda region – home to over 1 million people – established nongovernmental organization called “The Oprichnina.”

The organization is tasked with “fostering Russian identity” and “developing the moral education of youth.”

But the group’s name evokes the first reign of brutal state terror in Russian history. The Oprichnina was a state policy unleashed by Ivan the Terrible from 1565 to 1572 to establish his unrestrained power over the country. The oprichniks were Ivan’s personal guard, who attached a dog’s head and a broom to their saddles to show that they were the czar’s “dogs” who swept treason away.

Chroniclers and foreign travelers left accounts of the sadistic tortures and mass executions that were conducted with Ivan’s participation. The oprichniks raped and dismembered women, flayed or boiled men alive and burned children. In this frenzy of violence, they slaughtered many thousands of innocent people.

Ivan’s reign led to a period known as the “Time of Troubles,” marked by famine and military defeat. Some scholars estimate that by its end, Russia lost nearly two-thirds of its population.

The depiction of a man in medieval attire.
Ivan IV, czar of Russia from 1547 to 1584, known as Ivan the Terrible. Rischgitz/Getty Images

Throughout Russian history, Ivan the Terrible – who among his other crimes murdered his eldest son and had the head of Russian Orthodox Church strangled for dissent – was remembered as a repulsive tyrant.

However, since the mid-2000s, when the Russian government under Putin took an increasingly authoritarian turn, Ivan and his terror have undergone a state-driven process of reevalution.

The Kremlin and its far-right proxies now paint Ivan as a great statesman and devout Russian Orthodox Christian who laid the foundations of the Russian Empire.

Prior to that alteration of Russian historical memory, only one other Russian head of state had held Ivan in such high esteem: Josef Stalin.

Even so, no public monuments to Ivan existed until 2016, when Putin’s officials unveiled the first of three bronze statues dedicated to the terrible czar. Yet, the cinematic propaganda outmatched the commemorations of Ivan in stone. By my count, from 2009 to 2022, 12 state-sponsored films and TV series paying tribute to Ivan the Terrible and his rule aired in prime time on Russian TV channels.

Russian revisionism

The post-Soviet rehabilitation of Ivan the Terrible goes back to the writings of Ivan Snychov, the metropolitan, or high ranking bishop, of Saint Petersburg and Ladoga. His book, “The Autocracy of the Spirit,” published in 1994, gave rise to a fundamentalist sect known as “Tsarebozhie,” or neo-Oprichnina. Tsarebozhie calls for a return to an autocratic monarchy, a society of orders and the canonization of all Russian czars. The belief that Russian state power is “sacred” – a central dogma of the sect – was reaffirmed on April 18, 2025, by Alexander Kharichev, an official in Putin’s Presidential Administration, in an article that has been likened to an instruction manual for the “builder of Putinism.”

The canonization of Ivan the Terrible specifically is a top priority for members of this sect. And while the Russian Orthodox Church has yet to canonize Ivan, Tsarebozhie have garnered significant support from Russian priests, politicians and laypersons alike. Their efforts sit alongside Putin’s yearslong push to give public support for Ivan. Not by chance, Putin’s minister of foreign affairs, Sergei Lavrov, reportedly named Ivan the Terrible among one of Putin’s three “most trusted advisers.”

In Snychov’s worldview, Russians are a messianic people, part of an imperial nation that is uniquely responsible for preventing Satan’s domination of the world. In his explicitly antisemitic pseudo-history of Russia, the Oprichnina is described as a “saintly monastic order” led by a “pious tsar.”

Since the 1930s, when Stalin used Ivan to justify his own repressions, Ivan and Stalin – the Oprichnina and Stalinism – became historical doubles. The whitewashing of Ivan by the Kremlin goes hand in hand with Putin’s rehabilitation of Stalin as commander in chief of the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II.

Promoting the cult of the “Great Patriotic War” – as the Second World War has officially been called since the Soviet period – has been central to Putin’s militarization of Russian society and part of the propaganda effort to foster support for the invasion of Ukraine. The remorse for the loss of empire and desire to restore it underlies Moscow’s discourse over the past two decades.

Medieval threat to democracy

The rhetoric of absolving Stalinism goes hand in hand with popularizing the state’s version of the Russian Middle Ages through public media channels.

Putin’s neomedieval politics have adopted the Russian far-right belief that the country should return to the traditions of medieval Rus, as it existed before the Westernization reforms undertaken by Peter the Great in the early 18th century.

Over the past 15 years, Russian TV viewers have received an average of two state-funded movies per month, advertising the benefits of Russian medieval society and praising Russian medieval warlords.

This use of Russian historical memory has allowed Putin to normalize his use of state violence abroad and at home and mobilize support for his suppression of the opposition. The major goal of political neomedievalism is to legitimize huge social and economic inequalities in post-Soviet society as a part of Russia’s national heritage.

To serve the purpose of undermining the rule of law and democratic freedoms, as my research demonstrates, the Kremlin and its proxies have promoted the Russian Middle Ages – with its theocratic monarchy, society of estates, slavery, serfdom and repression – as a state-sponsored alternative to democracy.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Dina KhapaevaGeorgia Institute of Technology

Read more:

Dina Khapaeva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

More in World
The Hill: Trump knocks China for refusing to accept Boeing jets amid trade war
Business Insider: New satellite image shows tremendous damage after one of Russia’s largest ammo depots exploded
Fortune: Europe must show it’s serious about Ukraine by tightening sanctions on Russia

Maddow Blog | Rachel Maddow: Republicans silent after Trump reportedly slashes funds for Alzheimer’s center

MSNBC

Maddow Blog | Rachel Maddow: Republicans silent after Trump reportedly slashes funds for Alzheimer’s center

Rachel Maddow – February 21, 2025

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK); Rachel Maddow

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways

This is an adapted excerpt from the Feb. 20 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

For 26 years, the state of Missouri was represented in Congress by Republican Roy Blunt. He began as Rep. Blunt, serving in House Republican leadership for years, before becoming a senator.

Blunt, among everything else he did during his time in office, was a persistent advocate for funding Alzheimer’s research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). When Blunt announced in 2021 that he was retiring from office, the NIH decided to dedicate their very important Alzheimer’s research center to him. They called it the Roy Blunt Center for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Research.

At the dedication ceremony, in 2022, Blunt talked about the importance of NIH funding and Alzheimer’s research funding specifically. A bunch of other Republicans from Congress showed up as well and stressed how important it was to fund that specific program. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma told the crowd, “To be able to do what we’ve done, a fivefold increase in Alzheimer’s and dementia research is a very special thing.”

“This is our most expensive disease,” he continued. “And you can look at the trendline of what it costs to pay for Alzheimer’s and you’ll pretty quickly make the point that it’s cheaper to try and cure it, or at least manage it and delay it, than it is to deal with it. And that has really guided the investments here more than anything else.”

Cole made the point that funding this specific Alzheimer’s center is not just a good thing to do, it also saves the government money in the long run. But, you can probably guess where this is headed.

This week, The New Republic reported that the Trump administration has now slashed funding to that Republican-beloved Alzheimer’s center. Approximately one-tenth of the center’s workers have now been let go, including its incoming director, “a highly regarded scientist credited with important innovations in the field,” people familiar with the situation told The New Republic.

On Wednesday, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said senior scientists and the center’s acting director were fired by the Trump administration.

Cole’s office did not respond to a request for comment about these reported cuts, but Michael Greicius, a neurologist at Stanford University, explained to The New Republic the devastating impact closing the center would have on Alzheimer’s research. “[The center] has developed infrastructure and a brain trust that’s really unmatched in the world, in terms of its advances in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s,” he said. “Weakening [it] will set Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research back substantially.”

If you’re looking for a poster child for something this administration is doing that has no apparent support from anyone — and that can be expected to have not just public opposition and expert opposition but specifically Republican opposition — I think you’ve got your winner.

This is not the time for presidential deference, the Huns are at the gates of our Constitutional Democracy: Ex-Presidents Under Fire for Silence on Trump: ‘The Time Is Now’

Daily Beast

Ex-Presidents Under Fire for Silence on Trump: ‘The Time Is Now’

Liam Archacki – February 20, 2025

Former U.S. Vice Presidents Al Gore and Mike Pence, Karen Pence, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former U.S. President George W. Bush, Laura Bush, former U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and Melania Trump.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Some Democratic are dismayed that the living former U.S. presidents have largely fallen silent amid the whirlwind first month of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Despite each offering some degree of criticism against Trump in the past, the four other presidents—Bill ClintonGeorge W. BushBarack Obama, and Joe Biden—have kept quiet during the Trump White House’s assault on political norms.

“No one knows more about the importance of our presidents respecting separation of powers and showing restraint than former presidents,” Democratic strategist Joel Payne told The Hill. “Given Trump’s ongoing power grab, those voices and perspectives of our ex-presidents would be critical to the public discourse at this moment.”

His stance was echoed by unnamed former senior Obama aide.

“I don’t know what they’re waiting for,” the insider told The Hill. “The time isn’t when Trump ignores court rulings. The time is now.”

Donald Trump arrives to welcome Marc Fogel back to the United States after being released from Russian custody, at the White House on February 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. / Al Drago / Getty Images
Donald Trump arrives to welcome Marc Fogel back to the United States after being released from Russian custody, at the White House on February 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. / Al Drago / Getty Images

Since entering office on Jan. 20, Trump has given his critics plenty of fodder. He has installed loyalists in key administration positions, flouted the Constitution by issuing brazen executive orders, and fired thousands of federal employees (with Elon Musk’s help).

On Wednesday, Trump went as far as to refer to himself as a “king.”

All three of the Democratic presidents had been unsparing in their previous criticism of Trump.

In his farewell address, Biden warned that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms.”

He emphasized the importance of staying “engaged” in the Democratic process.

Meanwhile, Obama and his wife Michelle Obama were two of Kamala Harris’ highest-profile surrogates during the 2024 campaign.

A month after Trump’s election, Obama gave a speech about the “increasing willingness on the part of politicians and their followers to violate democratic norms, to do anything they can to get their way.”

Obama did dip his toes into Trump criticism earlier this month, posting on X a New York Times op-ed slamming Trump and Musk’s push to end the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“USAID has been fighting disease, feeding children, and promoting goodwill around the world for six decades,” he wrote. “As this article makes clear, dismantling this agency would be a profound foreign policy mistake – one that Congress should resist.”

Otherwise, it’s been crickets.

Although Bush has seemed to cast indirect criticism at Trump and MAGA Republicanism, he has long refrained from explicit rebukes of his party member.

“It’s out of respect to the office,” a former Bush aide told The Hill. “It’s just not his style.”

In the past, presidents in general have steered clear of openly criticizing their successors—seemingly as sign of deference.

To that point, Democratic strategist Lynda Tran told The Hill that “in the age of Trump, it’s more important than ever that we respect and adhere to long-standing traditions,” like past presidents avoiding public debates with the sitting commander in chief.

She urged “faith in the other branches of government.”

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President George W. Bush, former First Lady Laura Bush and former President Barack Obama attend the inauguration of Donald Trump in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term. / Pool / Getty Images
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President George W. Bush, former First Lady Laura Bush and former President Barack Obama attend the inauguration of Donald Trump in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term. / Pool / Getty ImagesMore

Meanwhile, Susan Del Percio, a Republican strategist who doesn’t support Trump, said that there would be no upside to criticism from the presidents.

“They can’t, and they know it,” she said. “If they lend their voices to the conversation, they’ll just be taken down by Trump. If they speak out, it’ll be for the history books, not to affect the Trump presidency now.”

More in Politics
Daily Beast: Trump Sends Resolute Desk for Touch-Up After Musk’s Son Seemingly Wiped a Booger on It

Warnock at National Cathedral: ‘Don’t tell me you reject DEI when you live in a White House built by Black hands’

The Hill

Warnock at National Cathedral: ‘Don’t tell me you reject DEI when you live in a White House built by Black hands’

Cheyanne M. Daniels – February 17, 2025

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) is issuing a sharp rebuke of President Trump’s flurry of executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) since his inauguration.

Speaking at the National Cathedral’s Holy Eucharist and Annual HBCU Welcome Sunday, Warnock said many of the president’s orders are a “wholesale unabashed assault” on DEI.

“Don’t tell me you reject DEI when you live in a White House built by Black hands,” said Warnock, a Baptist preacher. “The White House is a DEI house built by slaves who worked without the benefit of compensation.”

Just days after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government and help find ways to “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”

Multiple federal agencies are purging their staffs of DEI-related positions, and major companies including McDonald’s, Target, Walmart, Amazon and Tractor Supply have all ended or rolled back their DEI programs, many made in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.

Trump and his supporters have falsely claimed DEI policies and programs discriminate against white candidates.

“Diversity is sometimes offensive. It makes you uncomfortable because when you are accustomed to privilege diversity might feel like oppression,” Warnock said.

The Georgia senator also addressed the president’s allegations that DEI was to blame for the deadly airplane crashes that happened just weeks into his second term.

“While dozens of bodies were still beneath the chilly waters of the Potomac, he was busy playing a sad and awful game,” Warnock said Sunday.

He pointed out that aviation is considered one of the least diverse industries in America.

“I know a God who creates talent and genius and brilliance all over the town on all sides of the track in every area code in every Zip code,” Warnock concluded. “It takes all of us to fly, and if we won’t rely on all of us we’ll find that we’re stuck on the ground. I don’t know about you but I want to fly higher. I want all that God has imagined for America.”

He also took time to praise Bishop Mariann Budde, whose inauguration sermon at the National Cathedral last month drew the president’s ire and pushback from multiple Republicans.

Budde had implored Trump to have “mercy” for those who were scared for his second term, including members of the LGBTQ community, immigrants and people of color.

“The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” Trump said on social media after the service.

“She and her church owe the public an apology!” he added.

Warnock commended Budde for her “powerful and prophetic voice” that “speaks truth to power and addresses the fear and the anxiety that so many are feeling right now.”

“In the midst of the dark clouds, she had the courage to stand in the best of our tradition and speak the truth, and I submit to you that she need not apologize to anybody,” Warnock said to applause.

“When the prophet speaks the prophet doesn’t apologize. Those who hear are called to repent.”

I Just Got Trump’s “Buyout” Offer at My Job. Let Me Tell You How That’s Going.

Slate

I Just Got Trump’s “Buyout” Offer at My Job. Let Me Tell You How That’s Going.

Denise Cana – January 29, 2025

The author is a federal civil servant who has been granted the use of a pen name to protect them and their family from reprisals.

The new Trump administration’s effort to both get a grip on and dismantle the federal workforce has also been a dystopian farce, climaxing Tuesday evening, after the Office of Personnel Management sent an email offering what the media has described as a “buyout” to all federal employees. This saga began shortly after Donald Trump took office, when someone asserting the authority of OPM began spamming federal workers with emails demanding a reply. In one breath, the message asked all employees to respond “Yes” to confirm that the system was working, but it also warned employees to be cautious about the contents of emails coming to them. Meanwhile, the note itself was flagged, for recipients with a government email account, as having come from an “[EXTERNAL]” source—and thus not necessarily one to be trusted.

Then, Tuesday night, federal workers were sent an email announcing a “fork in the road.” Again, the message was flagged by government servers as “[EXTERNAL].” This email, much of which was copied and pasted from a similar message sent to Twitter employees after Elon Musk—Trump’s pick to lead his effort to overhaul the civil service, otherwise known as the Department of Government Efficiency—took over that company, proclaims that the federal workforce will be undergoing significant changes. Anyone who didn’t want to participate in this new vision was invited to reply “Resign” to the flagged-as-external email address and collect six months’ salary, without having to perform any additional work, while they looked for a new job. The details of this offer are confusing, conflict with later OPM “FAQs” about the program, and seem to run afoul of long-standing legal caps on severance packages.

Welcome to government by chatbot.

This latest buyout directive is evocative of A.I. gobbledygook, beyond evidently being a copy-and-paste job from Musk’s Twitter exploits. When technologists assess a new A.I. language tool, the go-to metric is generally not the accuracy of its product, or even the consistency of its answers. It is engagement. Substance is pushed aside in pursuit of simply keeping human eyeballs trained on its messages for as long as possible. Once considered a proxy for content’s ability to be “valuable” or “worthwhile,” attention itself has become the commodity we’re after: looks, likes, clicks, play next episode. Unfortunately, one of the easiest ways to engage people is to enrage them.

Like a chatbot in training, the Musk-Miller-Trump administration is not a principled political entity concerned with substance, consistency, or competence. In the administration’s executive order regarding TikTok, for instance, the president endeavored to grant rights to private companies in one paragraph (the DOJ “shall take no action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act”), while specifically disclaiming the gift to TikTok in another (“this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States”). This was a presidential pinky-swear with his fingers crossed.

Even before Tuesday’s email, the original, outside-the-government Department of Government Efficiency project spearheaded by Musk immediately ran afoul of regulations protecting against corruption that keep our democracy from slipping into an oligarchy. When the administration pivoted to bring the project inside the government, meanwhile, it immediately ran afoul of safeguards against citizen surveillance and privacy protections that keep our democracy from slipping into an autocracy.

Which brings us back to the buyout. Putting aside Musk’s failed promises to Twitter employees who had hoped for a similar buyout, the vision of the federal workforce announced in the email is no more sensible than the TikTok executive order, no more effective at considering governmental protections than the early DOGE efforts. One “pillar” of this supposed new federal workforce presumes the flexible assignment and reassignment of anyone who works for the federal government to whatever task, agency, or group the president wants, whenever he wants. In other words, it assumes that the president can usurp the priority-setting prerogatives exclusive to Congress when it sets its budgets and directs funds toward or away from various mandates.

In another pillar, the vision asserts the president’s right to reclassify federal works to at-will employees. But to do that, he should have to pass new regulations, legislation that would require planning, process, public comment, and (likely) judicial review. And to skip that process, he’d have to revoke the Administrative Procedure Act, a move that should require an act of Congress and (likely) judicial review.

If that sounds like a lot of red tape worth cutting through, think of it this way: If the president can do what this memo suggests he can do to federal workers, then he can do pretty much anything to pretty much anyone at pretty much any time. He can change substantive law on a whim—banking codes, safety regs, union protections, taxes.

These are not the actions of a thoughtful, careful, or competent government. It is not the one envisioned by our founders or present throughout the first nearly two and a half centuries of the American experiment. This is the empty chatter of a bot trained on revenge fantasy scripts that lacks a fourth grader’s understanding of the branches of government and separation of powers.

But, hey, it’s good for grabbing headlines.

White House blames Biden for killing ‘100 million chickens,’ refuses to admit Trump broken vow on costly eggs

Trump DOJ appointee in DC lashes out after flurry of ‘personally insulting’ leaks in his first week

CNN

Stephen Miller Stuns Jake Tapper in Trainwreck CNN Interview

The Daily Beast

Trump’s First Big Fiasco Triggers Stephen Miller’s Rage—Take Note Dems

The New Republic

Trump’s First Big Fiasco Triggers Stephen Miller’s Rage—Take Note Dems

Greg Sargent – January 29, 2025

Admitting failure is anathema to the authoritarian leader, who is perpetually in danger of being diminished only by those who are resentful of his glory—which is why White House adviser Stephen Miller is frantically searching for scapegoats to blame for the unfolding disaster around President Donald Trump’s massive freeze on federal spending. “Welcome to the first dumb media hoax of 2025,” Miller angrily tweeted on Tuesday night. “Leftwing media outright lied, and some people fell for the hoax.”

What Miller is actually angry about is that the media covered this fiasco aggressively and fairly. Miller insists that the press glossed over the funding pause’s supposed exemption for “aid and benefit programs.” But this is rank misdirection: The funding freeze, which is likely illegal, was indeed confusingly drafted and recklessly rolled out. This is in part what prompted the national outcry over the huge swath of programs that it threatened, Medicaid benefits included—and the media coverage that angered Miller.

All of which carries a lesson for Democrats: This is what it looks like when the opposition stirs and uses its power in a unified way to make a lot of what you might call sheer political noise. That can help set the media agenda, throw Trump and his allies on the defensive, and deliver defeats to Trump that deflate his cultish aura of invincibility.

“This has been a red-alert moment for weeks—but now no one can deny it,” Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who has argued for an emergency footing against Trump, told me. “For my colleagues that didn’t want to cry wolf, the wolf is literally chomping at our leg right now.”

Until this crisis, the Democratic opposition has mostly been relatively tentative and divided. Democrats were not sufficiently quick, forceful, or unified in denouncing Trump’s illegal purge of inspectors general and his deranged threat to prosecute state officials who don’t comply with mass deportations. Internal party debates suggest that many Democrats believe that Trump’s 2024 victory shows voters don’t care about the dire threat he poses to democracy and constitutional governance, or that defending them against Trump must be reducible to “kitchen table” appeals.

But the funding-freeze fiasco should illustrate that this reading is highly insufficient. An understanding of the moment shaped around the idea that voters are mostly reachable only via economic concerns—however important—fails to provide guidance on how to convey to voters why things like this extraordinary Trumpian power grab actually matter.

Democrats need to think through ways to act collectively, to utilize something akin to a party-wide strategy, precisely because this sort of collective, concerted action has the capacity to alert voters in a different kind of way. It can put them on edge, signaling to them that something is deeply amiss in the threat Trump is posing to the rule of law and constitutional order.

Generally speaking, some Democrats have several objections to this kind of approach. One is that voters don’t care about anything that doesn’t directly impact them and that warnings about the Trump threat make them look unfocused on people’s material concerns. Another is that if Democrats do this too often, voters will stop believing there’s real cause for alarm.

The funding-freeze fiasco got around the first objection for Democrats because it did have vast material implications, potentially harming millions of people. But Democrats shouldn’t take the wrong lesson from this. A big reason this became a huge story was also that it represented a wildly audacious grab for quasi-dictatorial power. Democratic alarms about this dimension of the story surely helped prompt wall-to-wall coverage. Democrats can learn from that.

Faiz Shakir, a progressive dark-horse candidate for Democratic National Committee chair, suggests another way around the first objection—that Democrats can seize on Trump’s abuses of power in a way that does appeal to the working class. The party, he argues, can enlist elected officials and influencers with working-class credibility to explain that those abuses should matter, not just to working-class voters’ bottom lines but, critically, because his degenerate public conduct should disgust them as well. He says Democrats can argue: “The way he is acting is a betrayal of working-class values and your working-class interests.”

Shakir also suggests an intriguing way for the party to act in concert. As chair, he’d aggressively encourage as many elected officials as possible to use the video-recording studio at the DNC in moments like these, getting them to record short takes on why voters should care about them, then push the content out on social media.*

Shakir said he sees a model in Murphy, who regularly serves up short, hyper-timely videos that use phrases like “Let me tell you why this matters.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1884297054136021224

The goal, Shakir said, would be to provide Democrats with research and recording infrastructure enabling elected officials to find their own voices and flood information spaces with civic knowledge. This also would give Democrats who want to stick to a “kitchen table” approach a way to shape their own warnings around that.

Minnesota Democratic Party Chair Ken Martin, a leading DNC chair candidate, agrees that speed and unity are paramount. “We can’t be waiting several days to organize a response to each of these things from Trump—we have to move quick,” Martin said, adding that the “larger party apparatus” should all be “singing from the same sheet of music.”

The second objection to a concerted approach—that it risks a “cry wolf” effect—is also seriously flawed. It’s already clear some Democrats are using this to avoid hard fights, for instance in hints about “working with” Elon Musk or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who each pose serious threats to bedrock ideals of public service. Also, if Democrats bestow bipartisan legitimacy on Trumpian moves like appointing those two walking civic basket cases, it complicates sounding the alarm in even more grave situations.

“It is hard for us to argue that our democracy is falling if we’re helping to confirm all of his nominees,” Murphy told me.

Taking too much of an à la carte approach to Trump’s abuses of power also risks squandering leverage. Democratic strategist Jesse Lee notes that the party’s lawmakers could consider a unified, future-oriented approach to abuses like the funding freeze. “The fight is real and here,” Lee said, arguing that Democrats can “make it clear” to GOP leaders that “they will get no Dem votes bailing them out while this power grab is in place.” (On Wednesday, the Trump administration rescinded the funding pause, strengthening the case for an aggressive opposition.)

Nobody denies that the Democratic Party is a big, sprawling, highly varied organism with elected officials facing a huge spectrum of different political imperatives. Of course there will be variation in how they approach each Trumpian abuse. But as Brian Beutler puts it, the answer to this cannot be to “lodge passing complaints about Trump’s abuses of power, but turn every conversation back to the cost of groceries.” This incoherently implies that the abuses themselves are not serious on their own terms.

How to corral Democrats who don’t want to sound warnings in particular situations is not easy to solve. But some of the ideas above are a start. And regardless, at a minimum, we need clearer signs that party leaders, at the highest levels, are seriously thinking through how to act concertedly in ways that clearly signal to voters that we’re in a civic emergency, and will argue to wayward Democrats that this is in their interests as well.

“People will not take us seriously if we don’t do our jobs every day like we’re in the middle of a constitutional crisis,” Murphy told me. “Today, everybody understands that he’s trying to seize power for corrupt purposes. But tomorrow, we have to start acting with purpose to stop what he’s doing.” If you doubt the efficacy of this, Stephen Miller’s anger confirms it as clearly as anyone could want.

This article is about a breaking news story and has been updated. It has also been edited to include mention of the DNC’s existing recording studio.

Trump administration orders sweeping freeze of federal aid

Politico

Trump administration orders sweeping freeze of federal aid

Jennifer Scholtes and Nicholas Wu – January 27, 2025

One week in, the Trump administration is broadening its assault on the functions of government and shifting control of the federal purse strings further away from members of Congress.

President Donald Trump’s budget office Monday ordered a total freeze on “all federal financial assistance” that could be targeted under his previous executive orders pausing funding for a wide range of priorities — from domestic infrastructure and energy projects to diversity-related programs and foreign aid.

In a two-page memo obtained by POLITICO, the Office of Management and Budget announced all federal agencies would be forced to suspend payments — with the exception of Social Security and Medicare.

“The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve,” according to the memo, which three people authenticated.

The new order could affect billions of dollars in grants to state and local governments while causing disruptions to programs that benefit many households. There was also widespread confusion over how the memo would be implemented and whether it would face legal challenges.

While the memo says the funding pause does not include assistance “provided directly to individuals,” for instance, it does not clarify whether that includes money sent first to states or organizations and then provided to households.

The brief memo also does not detail all payments that will be halted. However, it broadly orders federal agencies to “temporarily” stop sending federal financial assistance that could be affected by Trump’s executive actions.

That includes the president’s orders to freeze all funding from the Democrats’ signature climate and spending law — the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure package enacted in 2021. It also imposes a 90-day freeze on foreign aid.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in a statement decried the announcement as an example of “more lawlessness and chaos in America as Donald Trump’s Administration blatantly disobeys the law by holding up virtually all vital funds that support programs in every community across the country.”

The New York Democrat urged the administration to lift the freeze.

“They say this is only temporary, but no one should believe that,” he said. “Donald Trump must direct his Administration to reverse course immediately and the taxpayers’ money should be distributed to the people. Congress approved these investments and they are not optional; they are the law.”

Bobby Kogan, who worked at the White House budget office during the Biden administration, called the memo a “big, broad, illegal” order that violates impoundment law, which blocks presidents from unilaterally withholding money without the consent of Congress.

“This is as bad as we feared it would be,” said Kogan, who also served as a Democratic aide to the Senate Budget Committee and is now a director at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

The president of the National Council of Nonprofits, Diane Yentel, said in a statement that the order “could decimate thousands of organizations and leave neighbors without the services they need.”

The funding pause, first reported by journalist Marisa Kabas, is scheduled to start at 5 p.m. Tuesday, a day after the memo was sent to agencies.

Carmen Paun and Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.

Trump demands apology, criticizes bishop’s prayer service remarks

The Hill

Trump demands apology, criticizes bishop’s prayer service remarks

Alex Gangitano – January 22, 2025

Trump demands apology, criticizes bishop’s prayer service remarks

President Trump early Wednesday morning slammed the reverend at a National Cathedral prayer service for the inauguration who called on him to have mercy on transgender children and immigrant families.

Trump, in a lengthy post on Truth Social, called Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s remarks “nasty” and not smart.

“The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” he said.

“She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into our Country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions,” the president added. “It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one.”

Trump also called on her and the church to apologize to him.

“She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology!”

Hours earlier, Budde made a plea to Trump during her sermon as he was sitting in the first pew at the service.

“I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared. There are gay, lesbian, transgender children, Democratic, Republican, independent families — some who fear for their lives,” she said.

“The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals — they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals,” she added.

During her comments about migrants, Budde noted migrant workers “pay taxes” and are “faithful members” of U.S. churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, arguing their children “fear their parents are going to be taken away.” And, she called on Trump to aid people fleeing war zones and persecution.

Budde also told Trump that people in our country are scared of his presidency.

When Trump returned to the White House after the prayer service, he told reporters it “wasn’t too exciting.”

“They can do much better,” he added.

Others have joined Trump in criticizing the Bishop’s remarks, including Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.), who said on the social platform X that “the person giving this sermon should be added to the deportation list.”

Trump signed a flurry of executive orders Monday, including one recognizing only two sexes — male and female — and others restricting immigration, carrying out his campaign promise to target migrants, especially those who have committed crimes in the U.S.

He signed an order effectively pausing refugee admissions for a minimum of three months, signed an order that seeks to boost detention capacity in the U.S. to house migrants and said he would end birthright citizenship for children born to people living without legal status in the U.S.

He also reinstituted the “Remain in Mexico” program, which requires asylum-seekers to stay in Mexico until their U.S. immigration court date, and he shut down the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) One app that facilitated appointments for immigration proceedings.

White Christian nationalists erecting the gates of Hell: White Christian nationalists are poised to remake America in their image during Trump’s second term, author says

CNN

White Christian nationalists are poised to remake America in their image during Trump’s second term, author says

John Blake, CNN – January 12, 2025

There’s an image that captures the threat posed by the White Christian nationalist movement — and how it could become even more dangerous over the next four years.

Taken during the Jan. 6 insurrectionthe photo shows a solitary White man, his head pressed in prayer against a massive wooden cross, facing the domed US Capitol building. An American flag stands like a sentinel on a flagpole beside the Capitol under an ominously gray sky.

The photograph depicts a foot soldier in an insurgent religious movement trying to storm the halls of American power. What’s unsettling about the photo four years later is that much of the religious zeal that fed the insurrection is no longer outside the gates of power. Many of that movement’s followers are now on the inside, because their Chosen OneDonald Trump, returns this month to the Oval Office.

A supporter of Donald Trump holds a large cross while praying outside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington. - Win McNamee/Getty Images
A supporter of Donald Trump holds a large cross while praying outside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington. – Win McNamee/Getty Images

This is the scenario Americans could face in Trump’s second term. Under Trump, Christian nationalists will have unprecedented access to the power of the federal government. Trump’s GOP has unified control of Congress. And a conservative supermajority, which has already blurred the line between separation of church and state in a series of decisions favoring Christian interests, controls the US Supreme Court.

Trump has not been shy about what comes next. He ran a presidential campaign that was infused with White Christian Nationalist imagery and rhetoric. He vowed in an October campaign speech to set up a task force to root out “anti-Christian bias” and restore preachers’ power in America while giving access to a group he calls “my beautiful Christians.”

“If I get in, you’re going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before,” Trump told an annual gathering of National Religious Broadcasters in Tennessee during a campaign stop earlier this year.

Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey.

Scholars have called White Christian nationalism an “Imposter Christianity” whose adherents use religious language to cloak sexism and hostility to Black people and non-White immigrants in a quest to create a White Christian America.

So what might life look like over the next four years for Americans who don’t subscribe to this movement?

CNN asked that question of Kristin Kobes Du Mez, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on Christian nationalism. Du Mez is a historian and the author of the New York Times bestseller, “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.” Her book has become a go-to source for understanding Christian nationalism. It explains how the movement’s tentacles reach deep into American history and pop culture.

To many people, declaring America a Christian nation may seem harmless. And it’s important to distinguish Christian nationalists from patriotic Christians who have a more inclusive view of what America should be. But Du Mez says Christian nationalism is ultimately incompatible with American democracy.

Kristin Du Mez: "They have seen their movement go mainstream, and now they have incredible access to power." - Deborah Hoag
Kristin Du Mez: “They have seen their movement go mainstream, and now they have incredible access to power.” – Deborah Hoag

“This is not a pluralist vision for all of American coming together or a vision for compromise,” says Du Mez, a history professor at Calvin University in Michigan and a fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion. “It is a vision for seizing power and using that power to usher in a ‘Christian America.’”

CNN recently spoke to Du Mez about this movement and what Americans might expect during Trump’s second term. Her comments were edited for brevity and clarity.

What will Trump’s victory do for the White Christian nationalist movement?

It will embolden and empower the White Christian nationalist movement. In all likelihood, it will institutionalize White Christian nationalism. It will transform our government, with the goal of transforming our society. It will likely place White Christian nationalists in positions of enormous political power. It could be transformative.

How would that institutionalization of White Christian nationalism look in ordinary people’s lives?

We can expect this Christian nationalist agenda to transform the public school system. One of the proposals with Christian nationalists is to eliminate the Department of Education, to look to the privatization of schooling, but also to transform the curriculum throughout public schools. The anti-CRT (critical race theory) and anti-woke agenda that we have seen played out on a smaller scale in certain states — that is what we should expect to see on a national scale.

Project 2025 (a conservative blueprint for the next Republican president, although Trump tried to distance himself from it during the 2024 campaign) is explicit about cracking down on woke ideology, eliminating certain terms from laws and federal regulations, terms like “gender equality” and “reproductive rights.” This anti-woke agenda is a key point of unity between White Christian nationalists and the broader MAGA movement.

Is there any potential for book bans?

Any book that could be perceived as pro-LGBTQ, for example, or to contain a harmful political agenda — those are the books likely to be targeted, and certainly removed from school curriculums and school libraries. But in terms of everyday lives, part of the agenda of Christian nationalists is a redefinition of human rights and of civil rights according to their understanding of God’s laws or natural law.

The Bible is seen shelved alongside other books in August 2024 at the Bixby High School library in Bixby, Oklahoma. - Joey Johnson/AP
The Bible is seen shelved alongside other books in August 2024 at the Bixby High School library in Bixby, Oklahoma. – Joey Johnson/AP

And in this respect, there is no right to same-sex marriage, there is no right to abortion, or broader LGBTQ rights. Those don’t exist within their understanding of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. They read the Constitution through this Christian nationalist framework: God founded the nation, our founding documents reflect that and therefore they must be interpreted in light of God’s law, which in a sense, erases how we would normally understand constitutional rights and replaces them with essentially a Christian nationalist agenda.

Why are some Christian nationalists hostile to the Department of Education?

There’s a long history of opposition to the Department of Education within the Christian right, going back several decades. Schools are seen as a primary site of formation of children, and within this conservative Christian ideology there’s a very strong emphasis on the rights of the parent to shape the values and ideals of one’s children. When government steps in and takes on that role, they believe that it infringes on a parent’s God-given rights. They are extremely upset when these, quote unquote, government schools educate their children and teach them things that they do not believe in or that they would find harmful.

You could also trace this hostility back historically, and not coincidentally, to the kind of resistance to government schools that really welled up in the context of the civil rights movement and desegregation efforts. This was seen as the government intrusion into families and into communities.

With his victory, is Trump even more revered in White Christian nationalist movement circles?

Absolutely. In every way, there is celebration in Christian nationalist spaces. The idea is widespread that Trump’s victory demonstrates a divine mandate that resonates with the framework that they have been using to explain and promote Trump dating back to 2016. He is somehow God’s anointed one. He is God’s chosen leader for this particularly fraught, historical political moment.

You saw that early on in 2016 with these prophecies that were coming from charismatic circles that no, he was not necessarily a Christian, but he was still God’s chosen one to save Christian America. The sense of his divine role certainly wasn’t dampened by the assassination attempt and his survival, which seemed miraculous to some. Trump leaned into that and said God had saved him because God had a divine purpose for him.

People stretch their hands towards former President Donald Trump as they pray at the National Faith Advisory Summit in Powder Springs, Georgia, on October 28, 2024. - Brendan McDermid/Reuters
People stretch their hands towards former President Donald Trump as they pray at the National Faith Advisory Summit in Powder Springs, Georgia, on October 28, 2024. – Brendan McDermid/Reuters

You once said that Christian nationalism and militant patriarchy go hand in hand. What does that mean?

Christian nationalism is the idea that America is a distinctly Christian nation. But there’s a whole set of descriptors that go along with this that we see over and over again. There’s this idea that we need to restore Christian America. What does that look like? It looks like privileging the quote unquote, traditional family, the patriarchal family structure. They believe that the way that God has designed human flourishing is to have a male patriarch, and then to have a submissive wife, one who submits to her husband’s authority, and one whose primary role is a mother and a homemaker. Any family structure that does not look like that is seen as undermining society.

You’ll hear the rhetoric that we need strong Godly men to step up to defend faith, family and nation. And so when you get inside Christian nationalist spaces, there is all kinds of militant rhetoric about manly strength, about Christian men who need to step up and take power, and assert their leadership because that is their God-ordained role.

Given that description, was there even a remote chance that White Christian nationalists would support Kamala Harris?

No. No White Christian nationalist would vote for Kamala Harris.

No matter what she did?

No. Just an absolute nonstarter. I mean, how many strikes does she have against her? She’s a woman, and a woman of color. Her gender would probably be disqualifying for most. But no — because she’s a woman of color, and frankly a Democrat.

Christian nationalism thrives on this us-versus-them mentality. This militancy is linked to always needing an enemy. And in Christian nationalism today, the enemies are internal. Historically the enemies of Christian America were secular humanists, feminists and then more recently Democrats and the woke. This language of an enemy within that caught some attention in the last week of the campaign, when Trump said those words that resonate deeply with Christian nationalists. That fuels the sense that we need warriors to fight to save your family and Christianity. And to save America, you’re going have to fight fellow Americans who are threatening those values.

In some ways, is Trump just as much of a transformational figure for White evangelicals as Billy Graham?

I think we can say yes. The reason I pause is because I don’t think people fully understand the significance and legacy of Billy Graham. But yes, Trump is transformational but only because of the kind of deep roots of Christian nationalism. If you go back to the 1960s and 1970s and listen to the rhetoric of evangelical and fundamentalist pastors, and listened to how they talked about race, and their mission to save Christian America — that goes back a half of a century.

Evangelist Billy Graham addressing a large gathering in 1955. - Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Evangelist Billy Graham addressing a large gathering in 1955. – Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Given that resonance, yes, he has been transformational with that promise to give Christians power. And there he means, of course, power to conservative, White evangelical types of Christians. That (promise) has excited his base and emboldened that faction. A few years ago, it might have been frowned upon in many Christian spaces to support somebody like Trump. Now, the tables have really turned. Now there’s no shame in embracing Trump. There has been a transformative effect. I see much unapologetically crude and belligerent language inside these spaces. This kind of militancy is no longer beneath the surface, and it is aimed at fellow Americans and at fellow Christians who do not toe the line.

What happens though to those White Christian evangelicals who don’t subscribe to Christian nationalism. Where do they go?

There are a lot of pressures to get on board with this Christian nationalist agenda. It doesn’t need to be overtly supported, but there’s enormous pressure not to object. A person who works in an evangelical media organization explained it to me this way. The memo is: You don’t have to support Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda — you just can’t speak against it, so you can keep your job. When I heard those words, I thought that exactly describes what I’m hearing from people and what I’m observing. So you can quietly hold onto your beliefs, but if you try to object to something that is part of this agenda, if you try to say, fellow Christians, should we be supporting a man like Trump? — that will get you into trouble.

If this movement gets everything it wants, what will this country look like?

There will be no meaningful religious liberty. There will be essentially a two-tier society between the quote unquote, real Americans—those who buy into this, or pretend to — and then the rest of Americans. If you’re a person of no faith or a Muslim or anybody deemed not a true Christian, you will have a place, but you will not have a voice. The laws will be rewritten across the board. Rights as we understand them will cease to exist and instead, we’ll have the framework of biblical law.

The idea will be that true freedom comes from following God’s laws. So freedom will be redefined. You are free to follow the laws that we set out for you as a woman, or someone who is same-sex attracted. True freedom comes from submitting to God’s law, and we will help you do that, and it will ultimately be good for you. In our education system, our American history will be made up. It will be ideological.

A woman holds a crucifix during a prayer at a campaign rally for former President Donald Trump on September 21, 2024, in Wilmington, North Carolina. - Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
A woman holds a crucifix during a prayer at a campaign rally for former President Donald Trump on September 21, 2024, in Wilmington, North Carolina. – Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

They want to erase the teaching of actual history to prop up a mythical understanding of what this country was founded to be to justify their radical transformation of the country. There will be no abortion rights, and there will be limited, if any, access to contraception. There will be harsh anti-immigration laws with exceptions for people who subscribe to this Christian nationalist vision or who are seen to fit within it, religiously, politically and perhaps ethnically.

There are potential mitigating factors: infighting or incompetence within Christian nationalist and MAGA circles, the role of the courts, resistance within government agencies and at the local and state levels. And of course, the extent to which various aspects of the Christian nationalist agenda align with Trump’s own priorities and with those of members of his inner circle, like Elon Musk.

What do you say to people who say you’re being alarmist and playing into doomsday scenarios? I mean, this isn’t “The Handmaid’s Tale.

I would love to be wrong about this. The reason I’m saying these things is because I have been listening to what they (in this movement) have been saying and I have been reading what they have been writing for years. They have been writing these things and saying these things for decades. For a long time, they were a powerful strand in the broader evangelical world and within the Republican Party. But they were offset by a more secular and pro-business conservatism.

What we’ve seen now is that they’ve moved into a dominant position within the Republican Party. The MAGA brand is the Republican Party. These ideas are not new. What is new is that for the first time, they are really in a position to carry out these plans.

Do you think White Christian nationalists will someday regret this alliance with Trump?

No. It’s hard for me to envision why they would regret it, because what they most want is power — the power to achieve their ends. And he appears to be granting them that power. I suppose then there could be some regret, but that just seems so far-fetched at this point. They have seen their movement go mainstream, and now they have incredible access to power.

John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, “More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.”