On a dead-end street in north Denver, migrants are surviving winter with the help of an army of volunteers

Colorado Sun – News, Immigration

On a dead-end street in north Denver, migrants are surviving winter with the help of an army of volunteers

As the city reinstates time limits on hotel stays, volunteers are making plans to help hundreds more migrants in camps

Jennifer Brown – January 22, 2024

Dusk falls over a migrant encampment of about 10 as Juan Carlos Pioltelli, of Peru, walks into the community warming tent in subzero temperatures in Denver on Jan. 15, 2024. An American flag hangs upside down after migrants, in a hurry and out of excitement for being in the U.S., accidentally put it up upside down. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)

Footprints in the snow lead from the sidewalk to a path through the weeds, opening to a field that is almost invisible from the road. 

North of Interstate 70, in a part of Denver filled mostly with warehouses and gas stations, the tents are flapping relentlessly in the wind. About 10 migrants from South America hunkered down here during four days of subzero temperatures, and the volunteers who brought them heaters and propane, hot meals and fresh water, are prepared to help hundreds more as Denver pushes migrants out of their city-provided hotel rooms in the coming weeks. 

The dozen or so brightly colored tents were mostly concealed from view by the field’s dirt mounds, despite that they were just across the South Platte River from the National Western Stock Show, one of Denver’s biggest events of the year. As the city stayed home during last week’s deep freeze, the Venezuelans and other South Americans in the encampment zipped into sleeping bags and gathered in a “warming tent” to play dominoes and eat a pot of homemade noodle soup. 

The camp lasted about two weeks, until Friday, when crews from Denver Parks & Recreation arrived and helped the migrants bag up their belongings and dismantle the tents.

They moved a couple of blocks away, out of the field and at the dead end of a street to nowhere.

The men in the encampment, near Washington Street and East 50th Avenue, are among the few migrants who are still living outside after the city’s massive effort to get migrants indoors before the January freeze and snowfall. Because of the cold, Denver paused time limits on stays in the seven hotels it has rented out for migrants, but that pause is ending Feb. 5 after the number of people staying in hotels has surpassed 4,300. 

Hundreds of people — including families with children — will have to leave their hotel rooms in the coming weeks. 

Jose Giovanis, left, leaves his tent as he and other South American migrants get ready to take showers in Denver on Jan. 15. Giovanis and about nine other migrants lived in the encampment with heated tents and other provisions through January’s deep freeze. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)

They were offered mats in city shelters, hotel rooms and even to go home with some of the volunteers who stop by to make sure they survived another frigid night. But they chose to stay outside for various reasons — because sleeping mat to mat makes them anxious, because they didn’t want to leave their belongings or lose their campsite, because they would rather try to make it on their own, no matter how cold. 

“The snow makes you shiver so much you can’t talk or anything,” said Kevin Bolaño, who is from Colombia. “Sometimes we go out to shake the tents around and remove the snow.” 

Bolaño, 33, arrived in Denver just over a month ago, one of 37,600 migrants, mostly Venezuelans, who have come through the city in the past year. He spent his allotted 14 days in a hotel room, then camped outside the Quality Inn in northwestern Denver until earlier this month, when city crews bused more than 200 people in that sprawling camp to shelters and scooped left-behind tents, mattresses and furniture into garbage bins.  

Bolaño, a chef who specializes in Chinese dishes, wants to work in a restaurant or for a construction company, but he has struggled so far because he does not have a work permit. “If we were working for a company, we would not be here in the cold,” he said.

He left his home in Colombia, where he lived with his parents and children, because of terrorism and poverty, he said. “The government wanted all of a person’s salary. The food went up, the services and the houses went up and nothing was enough,” Bolaño said in Spanish. “It makes a person want to leave their own country in order to be able to help the family they left behind.” 

Jose Giovanis, nicknamed Valencia after the Venezuelan city he’s from, sits on his phone as he shows his heated tent in a migrant encampment where he and about nine other migrants are living, despite the frigid weather, in Denver Jan. 15. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)

On a blustery day last week, Bolaño smoked a cigarette in his tent with Elis Aponte, 47, who left Venezuela to escape discrimination he felt as part of the LGBTQ community. “Here, people don’t bully me,” said Aponte, who arrived in Denver four months ago and is now living in a house with a friend after weeks in a hotel and then an encampment along the sidewalk. 

In Venezuela, Aponte studied radiology and forensic anthropology, and worked in a morgue. But like many migrants, he has struggled to find work here without the required legal documents. Still, Aponte said he is glad he made the journey to the United States. 

“There is a lot of good stuff here,” he said in Spanish. “The only bad thing was that we arrived in a season when the snow was coming. I wear one, two, three sweaters and a jacket here, and even with all that, it’s cold. But I like Denver.”

They likely would not attempt surviving a Colorado winter outside, though, if it weren’t for the local army of volunteers who drive them to get showers and bring the propane needed to keep the heaters running in every sleeping tent and community warming tent. 

Food and other cooking and eating supplies are stored in their designated tent at a Denver migrant encampment of 10 people. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)
Denver locals mobilize to help via social media

The calls to help Hugo, the lone man left in an encampment under a north Denver bridge near West 48th Avenue and Fox Street, went out daily. 

“We need someone to bring Hugo a hot meal for dinner tonight after he gets home from work,” volunteer Chelsey Baker-Hauck posted on a migrant support Facebook page. “He may also need drinking water and some additional propane for tonight. He has a thermos you can also fill with hot water so he can make coffee/cocoa.”

Not long after her post, another Denver resident who is part of the “mutual aid” network responded that he would bring Hugo dinner and fresh water as soon as he finished work.

The Facebook page has 1,200 members and counting, hundreds of whom are actively helping, Baker-Hauck said. She and others started the page as an encampment began to spread under a bridge in their north Denver neighborhood. For weeks, they were delivering hot food and blankets, helping migrants find apartments and taking them into their homes. 

“If they choose to stay outside,” she said, “we try to help them stay alive.”

Mutual aid volunteer Chelsey Baker-Hauck, right, and David Amdahl, a volunteer with the Denver Friends Church, organize, salvage and save items left behind at a migrant encampment on Jan. 16 near 48th Avenue and Fox Street in Denver, ahead of a city cleanup. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)

It was devastating, Baker-Hauck said, when the city posted notice that crews would clean up the camp last Thursday. Ahead of the cold snap, the city offered bus rides to shelters and hotels. But Hugo, who has no vehicle and found steady work in construction within walking distance of the bridge, refused to go. 

For a week, volunteers packed up tents, gathered and washed coats and clothing, and saved paperwork left behind as the migrants — all but Hugo — rushed to take buses to shelters. The volunteers want to return it to the people who left the camp or save it for other migrants who end up on the street when their hotel stays expire, Baker-Hauck said. Either way, they didn’t want the city to stuff it all in the trash. 

“When the city does it, everything goes in the garbage,” she said. “It’s a lot of waste.” 

The tents and winter gear will likely go to other encampments, including the one near the Denver Coliseum, Baker-Hauck said. 

The group operates under the “mutual aid” concept, meaning no one is in charge and everyone pitches in when they can. Baker-Hauck posts the needs of the day, and people respond. When the deep freeze began, a volunteer called the mayor’s office and said she had 15 people who were freezing at a camp near Tower Road and East 56th Avenue. The mayor’s staff made room inside a city building near Civic Center park that was opened as a migrant shelter a couple of weeks ago. 

Then Baker-Hauck asked the volunteer group if anyone could pick up the migrants and drive them to shelter. Nine drivers went out in the subzero temperatures. 

“They responded within minutes,” she said. “It was amazing.” 

As for Hugo, he finally agreed to stay with Baker-Hauck as the city crews were coming to clean up what was left of the camp. His first night in her home, Hugo took a hot shower, called his family in Ecuador and asked if she had any books in Spanish that would teach him about Colorado history.

He insisted on walking to work, an hour each way. 

Families will get 42 days in hotel rooms

The camp near the Stock Show has its own set of volunteers, including Amy Beck, a Denver resident who for years has been helping the city’s homeless population through her group, Together Denver. She focused her efforts on migrants in the past few months because they were so unprepared for the cold weather and it was so upsetting to her to see children in tents.

Beck chose the vacant field in the weeds, then helped coordinate efforts to gather tents and propane deliveries. She spent the past weekend helping set up the new camp in a culdesac that backs up to the field after city officials cleared the first one. Each sleeping tent has a Little Buddy propane heater, and the community tent — with a table in the center for meals and games — has a 20-pound propane tank that keeps it surprisingly warm. 

“It’s so warm, you have to take your coat off,” she said.

Still, Beck and fellow volunteers say they have done everything they can to persuade people to move indoors. At the encampment, she pulled out her phone to show the men photos of unhoused friends she brought to the hospital for amputations last spring because of frostbite. One man lost both of his feet; another lost all of his toes. 

The volunteers offer bus tickets to warmer cities, rooms in their homes, calls to Denver Human Services to find housing. 

“As a last resort, we set them up in a tent,” Beck said. 

Amy Beck, part of Together Denver and a volunteer working to help newly arrived migrants, stands for a portrait at a migrant encampment of 10 people in Denver on Jan. 15. Upset after seeing children in tents, Beck coordinated donations and volunteers to help migrants survive January’s deep freeze. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)

She helped set up the encampment as the city dismantled the one outside the Quality Inn, which had stretched multiple blocks in the Highland neighborhood, across Interstate 25 from downtown. That camp, Beck said, was “complete mayhem,” with tents lining the sidewalk and blocking traffic, and dozens of nonprofits and volunteers coming by daily with breakfast burritos, medicines and boxes of snow boots. 

“Having children in tents, that crosses the line for me,” she said. “I can’t bring myself to go through a city sweep with children present. Children are not criminals, but that’s the law of Denver.” 

Beck liked the new encampment because it was so out of the way. Volunteers have collected 200 tents, which they expect to fill in the coming weeks as people time out of hotels. They said they will squeeze more into the encampment near the Stock Show and look for other spots as needed. Individuals get 14 days, while families get 42 days. 

They are going to exit everyone who queued up during the severe weather. That is going to be disastrous.

— Amy Beck, volunteer

“They are going to exit everyone who queued up during the severe weather,” Beck said. “That is going to be disastrous. That said, we are prepared. It’s not going to be super comfortable but we will be able to make a very good attempt to keep everyone safe.” 

She wants the city, since the Stock Show ended Sunday, to turn the Denver Coliseum into a shelter as it did during the height of the COVID pandemic. “We’re hoping the city is going to make some humane decisions,” Beck said. 

The city has no plans for that, as of now.

“All options are on the table, but there’s nothing happening with that space at the moment,” said Jon Ewing, spokesman for the Denver Department of Human Services.

Denver Parks & Recreation said they provided 48 hours notice that they would clear the camp in the field Friday. “Park rules do not allow individuals to set up tents or structures of any kind so as to ensure that public parks remain open for all,” spokesperson Yolanda Quesada said via email.

In November and December, Denver was receiving multiple busloads and 100-200 migrants per day, mostly from Texas. The buses keep coming, though the pace is now from 20-100 people per day. 

“I’m getting the sense that this is not going to be resolved any time soon,” Beck said. 

The outhouse sits under a tree as the sun sets and temperatures remain below zero at a migrant encampment of 10 people in Denver. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)
Migrants in apartments facing steep rent after initial aid runs out

Volunteers are also helping hundreds of migrants who have moved into apartments in the Denver area, many of them with help from the city and nonprofits to pay their deposit and first month’s rent.

Shari Spooner, who runs a marketing agency in Denver and has family in Venezuela, started volunteering with an organization called Para Ti Mujer when migrants began arriving in Colorado. “It pulls at my heartstrings, obviously,” she said. 

Spooner delivers donated clothes and gift cards to Venezuelans around the metro area, and helps navigate bureaucracy to help people get information about unpaid wages and health care. She recently directed a pregnant woman to Denver Health, after explaining to her that she could receive care without insurance or citizenship. 

The woman lives with her husband and children in an apartment that costs $2,400 per month, though the first two months have been covered by the city and a foundation. Spooner worries about how they will make rent when the third month is due, especially after the woman’s husband was cheated out of his wages for construction work. 

“The vast majority of the people I’ve met and helped are looking for jobs,” Spooner said. “They are looking to be part of Colorado and build their life here in a positive way. They just need that first step. I think it’s important for people to know that.”

Snow rests atop a tent at a migrant encampment of about 10 people as temperatures dip to minus 6 degrees in Denver on Jan. 15. (Eli Imadali, Special to The Colorado Sun)

Some of the men in the encampment near the Stock Show are hoping to share apartments once they earn enough money. For now, they say they are content staying put. 

Daniel Escalona, 21, said he does not want to sleep in a shelter where there are wall-to-wall mats on the floor and regular outbursts among people crowded into the room. And the heaters at the encampment are keeping him warm enough. 

“We don’t want to sleep here,” said Escalona, who traveled from Venezuela on his own. “With a job, I can rent an apartment. But if I don’t get a job, I cannot.”

Jennifer Brown writes about mental health, the child welfare system, the disability community and homelessness for The Colorado Sun. As a former Montana 4-H kid, she also loves writing about agriculture and ranching. Brown previously worked at the Hungry Horse News in Montana, the Tyler Morning Telegraph in Texas, The Associated Press in Oklahoma City, and The Denver Post before helping found The Sun in 2018.

Read More:
Decades of inaction left a water system in southwestern Colorado in shambles. Will the state step in to help?

January 24, 2024

Colorado has the nation’s third-longest waitlist for people charged with crimes and ordered into psychiatric treatment

January 24, 2024

Back in the USSR: New high school textbooks in Russia whitewash Stalin’s terror as Putin wages war on historical memory

The Conversation

Back in the USSR: New high school textbooks in Russia whitewash Stalin’s terror as Putin wages war on historical memory

Anya Free, Arizona State University – January 23, 2024

Hey, kids, meet Josef Stalin.

New Russian high school textbooks – introduced in August 2023 on the instruction of President Vladimir Putin – attempt to whitewash Stalinist crimes and rehabilitate the Soviet Union’s legacy. While schools and teachers previously could pick educational materials from a variety of choices, these newly created textbooks are mandatory reading for 10th and 11th graders in Russia and occupied territories.

As a scholar of Russian and Soviet history, I see the new books as just another example of state-sponsored efforts to use history and scholarship to serve Putin’s agenda and goals.

Other recent attempts along these lines include the establishment in November 2023 of the National Center of Historical Memory, tasked with preserving “traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, culture and historical memory”; the creation of a sprawling network of historical parks called “Russia: My History,” with new branches in occupied Ukrainian cities Luhansk and Melitopol; and the 2023 publication of a collection of archival documents called “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”

These projects not only demonstrate Putin’s desire to control the historical narrative but to serve the goal of promoting Russian cultural and educational imperialism.

Putin’s efforts to redeem the Soviet past may help explain why Stalin is up in the polls, with 63% of Russians asked in June 2023 expressing a positive attitude toward the Soviet dictator behind widespread purges, mass executions, forced labor camps and policies leading to the deaths of millions of his own compatriots.

But Stalin’s place in history remains divisive within the nations he once ruled over, especially where Russia retains significant political and cultural influence.

Russian President Vladimir Putin walks by the grave of Soviet leader Josef Stalin on June 25, 2015, in Moscow. <a href=
Russian President Vladimir Putin walks by the grave of Soviet leader Josef Stalin on June 25, 2015, in Moscow. Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images

In January 2024, a newly installed icon honoring Stalin in his homeland of Georgia was defaced – an act exposing deep divisions.

The number of privately funded monuments to the dictator is increasing, while the memorials to victims of political repression in Russia are disappearing. Yet, activists are still fighting to commemorate those who perished.

Whitewashing history

Putin, famously obsessed with history, has been talking about the creation of national history textbooks since 2013. In August 2023, Putin’s wish was finally granted when one of his closest associates, former Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, presented new textbooks for 10th and 11th grade students: two in Russian history and two in World history. Medinsky co-authored all four.

The 10th grade textbooks cover the period from 1914 to 1945. The 11th grade textbooks cover history from 1945 to the present day and include sections on the current Russian-Ukrainian war, called in Russia a “Special Military Operation” as an official euphemism.

Warping historical narratives

The new school textbooks maintain some nuance in their coverage of Stalinism, yet that nuance can be described as “yes, but,” which makes it even more effective in warping the historical narrative.

The 10th grade Russian history textbook, for example, briefly mentions the dramatic consequences of collectivization of Soviet agriculture, including the 1932-33 man-made famines in UkraineKazakhstanNorth Caucasus and other regions. Yet it puts the blame exclusively on the poor harvests and mistakes of the local leadership rather than the Stalinist policies that caused and exacerbated the famines. Ukraine’s great famine, or Holodomor, in particular is considered by many historians and international organizations to be a genocide.

Mugs decorated with images of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Soviet leader Josef Stalin are seen on sale among other items at a gift shop in Moscow on March 11, 2020. <a href=
Mugs decorated with images of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Soviet leader Josef Stalin are seen on sale among other items at a gift shop in Moscow on March 11, 2020. Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP via Getty Images

Additionally, in the section on World War II, the students learn that the “collective feat of the peasantry” during the war would have been “impossible in the case of the domination of the private landholdings” – in other words, it was only possible under the Soviet system.

The Russian history textbook briefly mentions the “Great Terror” of 1937-38, in which millions were arrested and an estimated 700,000 to 1.2 million were executed. Mention is also made of the personal role of Stalin, while also emphasizing the role of private denunciations and authorities of various Soviet republics and regions. But the creator of the Soviet secret police and an architect of the post-revolutionary “Red Terror,” Felix Dzerzhinsky, is praised for his role in “combating counter-revolution,” “creation of the professional educational system” and “restoration of the railroads.”

All national histories are inherently biased, even in democratic societies. Medinsky’s textbooks are, however, a distortion of history. The authors lose any attempt at objectivity while discussing Soviet foreign policy as always defensive and serving to protect everyone whom the USSR occupies and annexes.

The whitewashing of Stalin and his crimes is, I believe, crucial for understanding Putin’s creep toward ever more imperialist ideology and goals. In 2017, Putin participated in the opening ceremony for the memorial to the victims of political repressions in Moscow, during which he acknowledged the violence of Stalin’s terror and argued that it cannot be “justified by anything.” Yet his obsession with World War II led him to just that.

Putin and ideologists in the Russian leader circle have increasingly asserted that Stalin’s foreign policy and his leadership in World War II supersede his crimes against his own people. In his 2020 article in the U.S. journal National Interest, Putin praised Stalin for his great “understanding of the nature of external threats” and actions that he undertook to “strengthen the country’s defenses.”

The war on historical memory

The more aggressive Russia’s politics are, the more protective the state is over the Soviet historical legacy. Since 2020, Moscow authorities have not allowed demonstrations traditionally held in Moscow on Oct. 29 to commemorate victims of the Great Terror of the 1930s.

In December 2021, Russian authorities ordered the “liquidation” of the human rights group Memorial , fully unleashing the war on historical memory. The organization, which was among the three recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, was blamed by the Russian Supreme Court for “distorting memory about the War,” “rehabilitating Nazis” and “creating a false image of the USSR and Russia as terrorist states.” It is not a coincidence that an attack on the organization that for decades documented the Soviet terror came in the midst of the anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian hysteria and right before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Memorial, however, still stands, despite immense pressure from the authorities, attesting to the great power of resistance.

In the newly written Putinist narrative of history, the state and its expansion is always at the center, just as it was during Stalinism. The people are treated according to a proverb favored by Stalin, which sums up his attitude toward the ruthless and brutal measures he imposed: “When the wood is cut down, the chips are flying.”

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.

What’s Going On With Brett Kavanaugh?

Slate

What’s Going On With Brett Kavanaugh?

Mark Joseph Stern – January 23, 2024

On Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s supremacy over the states, a principle established explicitly in the Constitution, enshrined by centuries of precedent, and etched into history by the Civil War. The vote was 5–4. Four dissenting justices would have allowed the state of Texas to nullify laws enacted by Congress, pursuant to its express constitutional authority over immigration, that direct federal law enforcement to intercept migrants crossing the border. These justices would have allowed Texas to edge ever closer to a violent clash between state and federal forces, deploying armed guardsmen and razor wire to block the president from faithfully executing the law.

It was no surprise that three of these dissenters—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—sided with Texas, given their overt hostility to the Biden administration’s immigration policies, which verges on rejecting the president’s legitimate right to govern. It was, however, deeply alarming to see who joined them: Brett Kavanaugh, the justice who expends tremendous energy assuring the nation that he is reasonable, moderate, and inclined toward compromise. Kavanaugh’s vote on Monday was none of those things; it was, rather, an endorsement of a state’s rebellion against federal supremacy.

Really, though, should we be shocked that Kavanaugh sided with the Texas rebels over the U.S. president? Maybe not. After spending his first few years on the bench role-playing as a sometimes-centrist, Kavanaugh appears to be veering to the right: His votes over the past several months have been increasingly aligned with Alito and Thomas rather than his previous ally, Chief Justice John Roberts. This shift is still nascent, but it grows more visible with each passing month. And it bodes poorly for the country as we careen toward an election that Donald Trump openly seems to hope the Supreme Court may rig for him.

Start with that jaw-dropping vote on Monday. It’s difficult to overstate how dire the situation had become in Eagle Pass, Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott mounted his insurgency against the federal government. Migrants frequently cross over at Eagle Pass, so Border Patrol has a major presence in the area. Federal law grants border agents the right to access all land within 25 miles of the border and requires these agents to inspect and detain unauthorized migrants. Yet Abbott defied these statutes: He ordered the Texas National Guard to erect razor wire at the border, a barrier that ensnared migrants (to the point of near death) and excluded Border Patrol. Federal law enforcement was thus physically unable to perform the duties assigned to it by Congress, or to rescue migrants drowning in the Rio Grande. In response, border agents began cutting through the wire, prompting Texas to sue. The far-right U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dutifully issued an injunction prohibiting any federal destruction of the wire fencing.

The 5th Circuit’s injunction effectively allowed Texas to nullify federal law, in direct contradiction of the Constitution’s supremacy clause. Some of the oldestmost entrenched Supreme Court precedents forbid states from interfering with the lawful exercise of federal authority. It should have been easy for SCOTUS to grant the Biden administration’s emergency request by shooting down the 5th Circuit. Instead, the justices spent a baffling 20 days mulling the case—and, presumably, debating it behind the scenes. In the end, all the court could muster was a 5–4 order halting the 5th Circuit’s injunction, with Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberals. There were zero written opinions. The dissenters, including Kavanaugh, felt no obligation to explain their votes.

In a sense, Kavanaugh’s silence makes his vote even worse: Having lodged a protest against the single most important principle governing the relationship between the federal government and the states, the justice kept mum, forcing us to guess why he voted in support of nullification. Kavanaugh evidently felt that he owed us no explanation, no reasoning behind his desire to subvert executive authority in favor of a Confederate-flavored conception of state supremacy. His extremism was therefore compounded by an arrogant refusal to justify power with reason, an attitude fit more for a king than a judge.

And not for the first time: Just last month, Kavanaugh cast another silent, startling vote that aligned him with Alito and Thomas. On Dec. 11, the court refused to take up a challenge to Washington state’s ban on LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy” for minors, dodging a case that imperiled similar bans in nearly half the states. Even Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts wouldn’t take the bait—perhaps because the case was entirely bogus, cooked up by anti-LGBTQ+ activists despite the absence of a live controversy. But there was Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court’s rejection of the case, telegraphing his hunger to shoot down conversion therapy bans without even the fig leaf of a genuine dispute. Thomas and Alito each wrote angry dissents arguing that the court should’ve taken the case, while Kavanaugh stood alone in his reticence to explain himself. It seems the justice wants to establish a constitutional right to “convert” LGBTQ+ kids, an act that can amount to torture, but lacks the courage to even describe why.

Kavanaugh’s hard-right turn arguably began earlier, in an Aug. 8 order that flew under the radar. It emerged out of a conflict between the Biden administration and gun advocates over a new federal rule that restricts the sale of “ghost guns.” A ghost gun comes in a “kit” that’s almost fully assembled, and a buyer can easily finish putting it together with the help of a YouTube tutorial. Once completed, the gun fires like a semi-automatic firearm. To buy a regular handgun, you have to prove your identity, undergo a background check, and satisfy other federal requirements. To buy a ghost gun, you need only place an anonymous order online. These guns lack a serial number—which are mandatory for regular guns—rendering them untraceable by law enforcement. For this reason, ghost guns are overwhelmingly favored by criminals.

Federal law regulates the sale of “firearms,” the definition of which includes any weapon that “may readily be converted” to shoot a bullet. In 2022 the Biden administration issued a regulation clarifying that ghost guns fit this definition and may therefore be sold only by licensed dealers. This limitation neatly fit the federal statute, which, after all, encompassed partially assembled firearms. Yet, a federal judge halted the rule nationwide, and the 5th Circuit backed him up. The Biden administration sought relief at the Supreme Court, which granted it—by a 5-to-4 vote: Roberts and Barrett joined the liberals, while Kavanaugh joined Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in dissent.

Once again, Kavanaugh gave no explanation for his vote. Had he prevailed, the justice would have freed criminals to anonymously purchase untraceable, almost-finished guns online and use them to maim and kill Americans without consequence. Doesn’t such a radical outcome cry out for an explanation? Apparently not to Kavanaugh, who likes to depict himself as a commonsense conciliator on firearms, except when it actually counts.

What’s going on here? One possibility is that Kavanaugh moderated himself during his early years on the bench in the hopes of salvaging his public image after furiously assailing Democrats during his confirmation hearing. After latching himself to the chief justice for half a decade, Kavanaugh may now be showing his true colors, breaking away from the chief’s tactical restraint to chart his own rightward course. Or maybe the justice is being pushed toward the MAGA fringe by contempt for Biden, whose policies he has routinely struck down. Kavanaugh was, after all, a Republican political operative in his past life; it has always been doubtful that he truly slipped his partisan moorings when donning the robe. (Trump’s lawyers put this less subtly, saying that Kavanaugh will soon “step up” for the man who appointed him.)

If partisan discontentment is driving Kavanaugh’s growing alliance with the hard-right bloc, the development has ominous implications for the 2024 election. Already, one major Trump case has hit the court, forcing the justices to decide whether the candidate’s incitement of an insurrection disqualifies him from running for president. Another one is hurtling toward the court, asking whether the Constitution somehow grants Trump absolute immunity from prosecution for his involvement in that insurrection. More election cases will arise as the election draws nearer (presuming Trump is the nominee), many involving access to the ballot. And during the 2020 election, at Trump’s behest, Kavanaugh cast several dubious votes attempting to void valid mail ballots in swing states.

It is encouraging that Barrett has stepped up as an unexpected voice of reason when Kavanaugh defects to the MAGA wing of the court. But Barrett herself is also very conservative, and certainly not a reliable vote for democracy. If a principle as fundamental as federal supremacy can only squeak by on a 5–4 vote, no law is settled and everything is up for grabs. And that, of course, is exactly how Trump wants it.

Russian parliament examines plan to seize dissidents’ assets

Reuters

Russian parliament examines plan to seize dissidents’ assets

Reuters – January 22, 2024

Victory Day Parade in Moscow

(Reuters) – Russia’s parliament began considering a draft bill on Monday which would give the state the power to seize the property of people convicted for defamation of the armed forces or for calling publicly for actions that undermine state security.

The move has drawn comparisons with the witch hunts of the 1930s under Soviet dictator Josef Stalin with their “enemy of the state” rhetoric, and could affect thousands of Russians who have spoken out against Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Criticising what Moscow calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine has effectively been a crime in Russia from the day it began almost two years ago, but the new bill aims to make penalties for that even tougher.

It would allow the state for example, to seize the property of Russians who have left the country and have criticised the war but who continue to rely on revenue from renting out their houses or apartments in Russia.

The speaker of the State Duma lower house of parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, has dubbed the new bill “the scoundrel law”.

“Everyone who tries to destroy Russia, betrays it, must be pubished accordingly and repay the damage to the country in the form of their property,” he said at the weekend while announcing the submission of the bill.

(Reporting by Reuters; Editing by Gareth Jones)

McCarthy: Freedom Caucus has ‘stopped Republicans from being able to govern’

The Hill

McCarthy: Freedom Caucus has ‘stopped Republicans from being able to govern’

Emily Brooks – January 22, 2024

McCarthy: Freedom Caucus has ‘stopped Republicans from being able to govern’

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) accused the House Freedom Caucus of preventing the Republican majority from governing.

Speaking to Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo Monday morning, McCarthy the ousted former Speaker who resigned from Congress at the end of December, said questions about why Republicans opted to “kick the can down the road” and avert a government shutdown should be directed at the hard-line conservative group.

The stopgap funding measure passed last week extends government funding levels originally set under Democratic control until March 1 and March 8.

“You really should be asking the Freedom Caucus. They are the ones who have stopped the Republicans from being able to govern,” McCarthy said.

The Freedom Caucus opposed the continuing resolution (CR) to extend government funding last week, which Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said was necessary to complete work on regular full-year spending bills.

But McCarthy’s comment was an apparent reference to members of the group and their allies opposing full-year funding deals that House GOP leadership struck with Democrats — such as a debt ceiling deal McCarthy struck last year — and blocking several funding measures from coming to the House floor over the past year, preventing the slim House GOP majority from approving some funding measures sooner.

“What they are doing is they’re locking in the Democratic policies,” McCarthy said. “They’re actually spending more money now than if we go to the debt ceiling numbers. That would mean government would spend less, we could put Republican policies in. But they continue to stymie this majority to be able to do anything.”

The Freedom Caucus opposes the top-line spending number that Johnson struck with Democrats and the White House, which is largely in line with the debt ceiling deal that McCarthy struck with Democrats that they did not think was low enough.

The top-line agreement includes a $1.59 trillion base top line, a number Johnson and McCarthy have highlighted. But it also includes around $69 billion in budget tweaks to plus-up nondefense dollars for most of fiscal 2024, which enraged the Freedom Caucus. Johnson, meanwhile, has touted additional funding clawbacks he secured beyond the original McCarthy agreement.

Freedom Caucus leadership had also made a last-minute pitch to Johnson last week to try to attach border and migration policies to the stopgap measure, which he rejected.

Just more than half of House Republicans voted with Democrats last week to extend part of government funding to March 1 and the rest until March 8. McCarthy, notably, was forced out of the Speakership after pushing through a continuing resolution at the end of September.

“It really comes down to, what’s a true conservative? And I look for Ronald Reagan. A conservative is one that can actually govern in a conservative way,” McCarthy said. “But what you’re finding now is, what they’re doing is doing nothing but locks in Democratic Pelosi policies.”

“I don’t think they should continue to move to CRs. They should actually follow the numbers that was in the debt ceiling, which is lower than what they’re spending today. You get to reform it with Republican policies, because you’re in the majority now in the House. You get to move forward and layout and show the American public why they should give you more seats in the House and actually capture the Senate,” McCarthy said.

What the West gets wrong on Stalin and Putin

CNN – Opinion

Opinion: What the West gets wrong on Stalin and Putin

Opinion by Jade McGlynn – January 20, 2024

Editor’s Note: Jade McGlynn is a non-resident senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of two books, “Russia’s War” and ”Memory Makers: The Politics of the Past in Putin’s Russia.” The views expressed in this commentary are her own. Read more CNN opinion here.

Last month, a new ‘Stalin Center’ was opened in Barnaul, Siberia. Its aim, like its predecessors’ in the Russian cities of Penza and Bor, is to glorify the Communist dictator.

Jade McGlynn - Jade McGlynn
Jade McGlynn – Jade McGlynn

Alongside a marked increase in Stalin statues across Russia — more than 100 since 2012 — the Stalin centers appear to affirm a simplistic story: The Kremlin is rehabilitating the ‘Vozhd,’ or great leader.

But deeper inspection complicates the story. The first Stalin cultural center opened in 2016, in the western Russian city of Penza, with the support of local Communists — but not Russian President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party.

The second such center, which opened in 2021 in Bor, also in the west of the country, was originally a private initiative by a local Communist businessman. It began with a statue of Stalin looming over the Volga River. The mayor of Bor even petitioned for its removal, albeit unsuccessfully.

And now the most recent center, in Barnaul. It was established by the Communists of Russia, a radical and marginal Stalinist party that is separate to the much larger pro-Kremlin Russian Communist Party.

In other words, these centers, like many of the new Stalin monuments, are not Kremlin-imposed but rather grassroots or at least non-state initiatives. Perhaps this should not be surprising. According to the independent Levada Center, Stalin has taken first place in their ‘who is the greatest figure of all times and all people’ survey since 2012.

Students of a military-sponsored school attend the opening of a series of busts of Russian leaders, including Josef Stalin (center), in Moscow, on September 22, 2017. - Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
Students of a military-sponsored school attend the opening of a series of busts of Russian leaders, including Josef Stalin (center), in Moscow, on September 22, 2017. – Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
Putin’s pro- and anti-Stalin balancing act

Of course, this favorable view is not uncontested. The Russian human rights organization Memorial worked tirelessly for over 30 years to document Soviet crimes, which were widely discussed during the Gorbachev and post-Soviet era.

More recently, Russian journalist and YouTube star Yury Dud powerfully depicted the horrors and legacy of Stalinist Gulag forced labor camps in his 2019 documentary “Kolyma: Birthplace of Our Fear.” The YouTube video has over 29 million views.

Putin’s treatment of Stalin takes both of these stances into consideration. Rather than a glorification of the Communist dictator, he offers a somewhat equivocating view that strives to placate both pro- and anti-Stalin constituencies within Russian society.

To do so, he glosses over but does not deny the large scale of the Communist dictator’s terror and repressions. In 2017, Putin unveiled Russia’s first monument to the victims of Stalin’s repressions in Moscow: the “Wall of Grief.” During the opening, he asserted: “We must never again push society to the dangerous precipice of division.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) at a ceremony unveiling the country's first national memorial to victims of Soviet-era political repressions called: "The Wall of Grief" in Moscow, October 30, 2017. - Alexander Nemenov/Reuters
Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) at a ceremony unveiling the country’s first national memorial to victims of Soviet-era political repressions called: “The Wall of Grief” in Moscow, October 30, 2017. – Alexander Nemenov/Reuters

Over his 24 years in power, Putin’s rhetoric on Stalin has remained reasonably consistent. He does not deny Stalin’s crimes but rather tries to divert attention away from them, admitting the horror of the Gulag and mass repressions but insisting that the memory of these crimes should not overshadow Stalinism’s achievements. In his view, efforts to overly ‘demonize’ Stalin are part of an attack on Russia.

Silencing Stalin’s victims

While Putin has shown little enthusiasm for glorifying Stalin, his government has worked methodically to silence, or at least render abstract, the memory of the Gulag’s victims.

For example, the “Perm-36” memorial complex, Russia’s only remaining intact Gulag, was taken over by local authorities in 2015. When it reopened, individual stories of the prisoners’ lives were replaced by content celebrating the prison guards and the camp’s contribution to timber production during World War II.

Elsewhere, the 2021 shutdown of Memorial — which documented Soviet human rights abuses especially during the Great Terror — and the recent removal of ‘last address’ plaques marking victims sent to the Gulag, were almost certainly state-directed initiatives that seek to erase reminders of the human cost of Stalinist repressions.

Gulag forced laborers of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, are pictured in their living quarters in the 1930s. Thousands of laborers died during the construction of the canal. - Laski Diffusion/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Gulag forced laborers of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, are pictured in their living quarters in the 1930s. Thousands of laborers died during the construction of the canal. – Laski Diffusion/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

However, their removal cannot be reduced to the question of Stalin’s legacy alone — it can also be seen as an attempt to eliminate evidence of the crimes of the security services, in which Putin’s career and power base are rooted.

After all, thinking about the individual victims leads to thinking about the individual perpetrators.

The Putinist regime

The erasure of personalized reminders of the Gulag and Terror must be contextualized within the Kremlin’s use of history and myth to legitimate the Putinist regime, Russia’s war on Ukraine, and the country’s great power status. As the prosecutor at Memorial’s liquidation trial in 2021 argued: “Memorial besmirches our history. It forces us — a generation of victors and the heirs of victors — to justify our history.”

The prosecutor’s comments reveal not an ignorance of the dark spots of history but a desire to ignore them. There are obvious parallels with the present day, when many Russians are trying hard to ignore the devastating war their country is waging on neighboring Ukraine.

Certainly, this is a more pertinent point of comparison than the notion that Putin’s regime in any way approximates Stalin’s. The estimated imprisonment of between 628 and 1,011 political prisoners in today’s Russia is a horrific reminder of the brutal authoritarianism with which the Kremlin rules. But to compare it to the millions worked to death in Siberian labor camps or executed in KGB basements is hyperbolic.

What the West gets wrong about Stalin and Putin

Moreover, these comparisons divert attention from important differences between the Stalin and Putin regimes. Beyond the drastically different scales of repression, the most obvious one is that Stalinism was a deeply mobilizing ideology that sought to remake man and undertook industrialisation with unprecedented scale and speed. That is abundantly not the case in Putin’s Russia, where the government instead encourages a ritualistic patriotism and political apathy.

Such conclusions point to intractable policy and security issues for the West. If Putin was in power solely thanks to the machinery of repressions, then it is not Russia that is a security threat, but his regime. In such a case, the problems posed by his regime would cease to exist when he does.

Likewise, if one argues that Putin is the only driving force behind Stalin’s rehabilitation, then one can also continue the fantasy that, if it weren’t for Putin, Russians would embrace Westernized liberal democracy and stop justifying the sacrifice of thousands of lives for the whims of the state.

These assumptions are flawed and lacking in nuance, no matter how comforting such a shallow understanding of Russian society might be.

The Western tendency to reduce mass-scale crime to an omnipotent leader has always been a misleading one. Even Stalinism was not the work of one man, but of the security services and individuals willing to denounce their fellow neighbors for housing rights or petty grievances, as the Kyiv-born Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov so mercilessly satires in his short stories of the time.

Likewise, efforts to pretend that Putinism is just the work of one man will lead to myopic thinking and poor analytical predictions regarding Russia’s future. The question of Putin’s position on Stalinism suggests he is far from the all-powerful instigator of a Stalin cult and rather a manipulative manager of divergent, pro- and anti-Stalin societal attitudes, which he tries to balance and fuse into a workable and unifying national narrative.

That a notable section of Russian society exudes nostalgia for a leader who repressed millions illuminates pervasive and troubling issues that should inform predictions and planning for a post-Putin Russia.

The problem is not just one strongman — it is that so many people wanted a strongman in the first place.

The Farmers Had What the Billionaires Wanted

The New York Times

The Farmers Had What the Billionaires Wanted

Conor Dougherty – January 21, 2024

Jan Sramek, the CEO of California Forever and Flannery Associates who has bought up over 60,000 acres of nearby farmland with plans to build a new city, in Solano County, Calif. on Dec. 21, 2023. (Aaron Wojack/The New York Times)
Jan Sramek, the CEO of California Forever and Flannery Associates who has bought up over 60,000 acres of nearby farmland with plans to build a new city, in Solano County, Calif. on Dec. 21, 2023. (Aaron Wojack/The New York Times)

RIO VISTA, Calif. — When Jan Sramek walked into the American Legion post in Rio Vista, California, for a town hall meeting last month, everyone in the room knew that he was really just there to get yelled at.

For six years a mysterious company called Flannery Associates, which Sramek controlled, had upended the town of 10,000 by spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy every farm in the area. Flannery made multimillionaires out of some owners and sparked feuds among others. It sued a group of holdouts who had refused its above-market offers, on the grounds that they were colluding for more.

The company was Rio Vista’s main source of gossip, yet until a few weeks before the meeting no one in the room had heard of Sramek or knew what Flannery was up to. Residents worried it could be a front for foreign spies looking to surveil a nearby Air Force base. One theory held the company was acquiring land for a new Disneyland.

Now the truth was standing in front of them. And somehow it was weirder than the rumors.

The truth was that Sramek wanted to build a city from the ground up, in an agricultural region whose defining feature was how little it had changed. The idea would have been treated as a joke if it weren’t backed by a group of Silicon Valley billionaires who included Michael Moritz, a venture capitalist; Reid Hoffman, an investor and co-founder of LinkedIn; and Laurene Powell Jobs, the founder of the Emerson Collective and the widow of the Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. They and others from the technology world had spent some $900 million on farmland in a demonstration of their dead seriousness about Sramek’s vision.

Rio Vista, part of Solano County, is technically within the San Francisco Bay Area, but its bait shops and tractor suppliers and Main Street lined with American flags can feel a state away. Sramek’s plan was billed as a salve for San Francisco’s urban housing problems. But paving over ranches to build a city of 400,000 wasn’t the sort of idea you’d expect a group of farmers to be enthused about.

As the TV cameras anticipated, a group of protesters had gathered in the parking lot to shake signs near pickup trucks. Inside, a crowd in jeans and boots sat in chairs, looking skeptical.

Sramek, 36, who is from the Czech Republic and had come to California to try to make it in startups, was now the center of their economy. Flannery had become the largest landowner in the region, amassing an area twice the size of San Francisco.

Christine Mahoney, 63, whose great-grandfather established her family’s farm when Rutherford B. Hayes was president, said that, like it or not, Sramek was now her neighbor. Mahoney had refused several offers for her land, and Flannery’s lawsuit — an antitrust case in federal court — described her as a conspirator who was out to bilk his company.

But she had never met the man in person, so she came to say hello.

“You might be asking yourself, ‘Why is this guy with a funny accent here?’” Sramek began the meeting.

He spent about 20 minutes pitching his plans before submitting to questions and resentments. People accused him of pushing small farms out of business. They said Flannery’s money was turning families against each other.

“Good neighbors don’t sue their neighbors!” one man yelled to applause.

Sramek, who is tall, intense and practiced in the art of holding eye contact, stayed up front after the meeting to glad-hand.

When Mahoney and her husband, Dan, 65, approached him, Sramek said, “Hi, Christine!” as if they had met several times before and he wasn’t currently suing her.

“I’d like to welcome you as our neighbor, but it’s kind of difficult,” Christine Mahoney said.

She talked about how much stress the lawsuit had put on her family.

Sramek nodded, as if she were talking about someone else, not him. Then he asked the couple to dinner. The Mahoneys agreed.

Going to the Ballot

One key difference between building an app and building a city is that a city requires permission. On Wednesday, Sramek’s company officially filed a proposed ballot initiative that would ask voters to buy in. Specifically, the measure aims to amend a long-standing “orderly growth” ordinance that protects Solano County’s farms and open space by steering development to urban areas.

Solano’s residents have consistently backed the city-centered-growth laws, so Sramek’s project is bound to be controversial. To overcome resistance, the initiative includes a long list of promises like new roads, money to invest in downtowns across the county and a $400 million fund to help Solano residents buy homes.

Sramek also revealed that he hoped to build directly next to Rio Vista, with a half-mile-wide park separating the old farming town from the new tech city. Renderings that his company released this month portray a medium-density community that is roughly the opposite of a subdivision, with a grid of row houses that lie a short walk from shops and have easy access to bike lanes and bus stops. He said the first phase of building could accommodate about 50,000 people.

Even if the measure gets on the ballot and passes, it will be one step on a path requiring approval from county, state and federal agencies — a long list of ifs that explains why large projects are usually measured in decades, not the few years that Sramek seems to imagine.

It’s a crucial step, however. Beyond amending the ordinance, a win would pressure county officials to work with Sramek, so opponents are already lining up. A group called Solano Together, a mix of agricultural and environmental organizations like Greenbelt Alliance, recently created a website that characterizes the project as harmful sprawl that would destroy farms.

The fight is something of a throwback. Whether it was paving over San Fernando Valley orange groves to build out Los Angeles or ripping out apricot farms in what is now Silicon Valley, California became the nation’s biggest state and economy largely by trading open and agricultural land for population and development.

That shifted in the 1960s and 1970s, when a backlash against the growth-first regime and its penchant for destroying landscapes helped create modern environmentalism. In the half-century since, this turn has been codified in laws that aim to restrict development to existing cities and their edges. It has protected farms and open space, but also helped drive up the cost of living by making housing scarcer and more expensive to build.

Sramek framed his proposal as a backlash to the backlash, part of an ideological project to revive Californians’ appetite for growth. If the state is serious about tackling its dire affordable housing problem, he argued, it doesn’t just have to build more housing in places like San Francisco and its suburbs — it also has to expand the urban footprint with new cities.

As a matter of policy, this is hard to dismiss. This is politics, however, so the bigger question is whether voters share his desire to return California to an era of expansion. And whether — after six years during which Sramek obfuscated his role in Flannery’s secret land acquisition, along with the company’s billionaire backers and true purpose, all while pursuing farmers with aggressive tactics and lawsuits — they find him trustworthy.

The Golden Boy vs. 1877

Christine and Dan Mahoney’s house looks onto a barn that says 1877, the year Christine Mahoney’s great-grandfather built it.

When I met the couple for an interview at their house last year, Christine Mahoney had decorated the dining table with black-and-white pictures of relatives in button dresses and bonnets. Later we drove along roads named for her ancestors.

Winding through the hills, Christine Mahoney ticked off parcels that belonged to the family, others that were owned by neighbors and more owned by Flannery. When I asked how she discerned the lines of ownership in an expanse of yellow grassland, she said: “You live here a hundred years.”

Sramek, meanwhile, talks about growth in moral terms, as if progress and wealth are simpatico and the most consequential people are those who build big things and a fortune along the way.

Driving near the Mahoneys’ ranch recently, through the same yellow hills, he posited that the mix of wealth and innovation that has exploded in the Bay Area has happened only a handful of times in history. (Florence, Paris, London, New York, Chicago and “maybe LA” were some others.) We were 60 miles from San Francisco in a place where the tallest structures are wind turbines, but his message was that the region could be an economic sun, and that bringing more people in the orbit was worthy of the trade-offs.

An immigrant and striver who at 22 was a co-author of a book called “Racing Towards Excellence,” Sramek got his first spurt of publicity at Goldman Sachs, where the financial press hailed him as a “Golden Boy” trader and considered it newsworthy when he left, after two years of employment, to chase a bigger dream in startups.

His tech career was less sparkling. After Goldman, he moved from London to Zurich and started a corporate education company called Better. It operated for two years and prompted a move to San Francisco, where he founded a social media company, Memo, in 2015.

Memo was billed as a higher-minded version of Twitter and won praise from venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. That praise was delivered on Twitter instead of Memo, which was pretty much the story: Memo failed to rack up users and shut down after a year.

His failures aside, Sramek was smitten with the Bay Area’s culture of creative capitalism. He was less enamored with the actual place.

The mythical Silicon Valley was in reality a bunch of office parks and cul-de-sacs where subdivision-grade homes went for $2 million. The more picturesque and urban San Francisco was being consumed by rising rents and their attendant homeless problems.

Complaining about the cost of living, and the region’s inability to fix it, had become something of a side hustle for many Bay Area CEOs. And after Memo, Sramek started looking for a big disruptive idea for them to fund.

“If we go back six or seven years, the popular hit in the press was ‘Silicon Valley is not doing enough in the real world,’” he said. “And I was sitting there working on this.”

Flannery Associates

Sramek likes to fish. The way he tells it, around 2016 he and his girlfriend (now wife) started making the one-hour drive from San Francisco to Rio Vista to catch bass on the Sacramento River. One of those trips, driving past pastures and grazing sheep, sparked an idea.

“What if you could start from scratch?” he said.

In a state whose agricultural bounty has historically been a function of moving water great distances, the area is something of an anachronism. For generations, families like the Mahoneys have practiced “dryland farming,” which means they rely on rain, not irrigation.

The Mahoneys talk about this the same way they talk about their land and family: with an emphasis on tradition and the romance of continuity. Sramek described the land as “not prime.”

The phrase angered several farmers at the Rio Vista town meeting, but in dollar terms it’s accurate. At the time of Sramek’s first fishing trip, land in the area was trading around $4,000 an acre — a pittance compared with a Central Valley almond orchard (about $10,000 to $55,000 per acre) or a Napa Valley vineyard (anywhere from $50,000 to more than $500,000 per acre), according to the California chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.

Sramek starting doing research and soon found himself immersed in zoning policy and poring over old development maps dreaming of a startup city. Investors were initially reluctant, he said, so he borrowed $1 million from friends and banks to put a deposit on a handful of properties, then hired consultants and land-use lawyers to assess what it would take to build there.

By now Sramek was well networked. He had done a fellowship at Y Combinator, a startup incubator. He was in a book club with partners at Sequoia Capital. He was friends with billionaires like Patrick and John Collison, the sibling founders of the payments company Stripe.

The Collisons became two of Flannery’s first investors. Andreessen and Chris Dixon, also of the Andreessen Horowitz venture capital firm, joined soon after, along with Moritz, who was Sequoia’s chair. All of them helped Sramek solicit others.

In a 2017 note to potential investors I obtained, Moritz wrote that if “done right” the project could help relieve congestion and housing prices in the Bay Area, and mused about the potential to experiment with new kinds of governance. It could also be spectacularly profitable, he said: Moritz estimated that investors could make 10 times their money even if they just got the land rezoned, and far more if and when it was developed.

Flannery Associates was named for Flannery Road, which borders the first property Sramek bought. Aside from that detail and its Delaware incorporation, residents and public officials could find almost nothing about its shareholders or intentions. Just that it wanted a lot of land, didn’t care about the price and was willing to strong-arm owners when money didn’t work.

In addition to working their own land, many farmers in the area lease parcels where they grow crops and graze animals. As Flannery consumed more and more property, people like Ian Anderson found themselves in the uncomfortable position of trying to rebuff its offers for parcels they owned — while at the same time farming land they rented from Flannery.

Anderson learned how vulnerable he was after a local newspaper quoted him saying that the company had begun insisting on short-term leases and that this made it increasingly difficult to farm. Later, Flannery’s lawyer sent him a letter informing him that it was terminating multiple leases covering thousands of acres.

“The Andersons have made it clear that they do not like Flannery,” according to the letter. “The Andersons are of course free to have their opinions, but they cannot expect that Flannery will continue to just be a punching bag and lease property to them.”

Rep. John Garamendi, a Democrat from the area, characterized moves like this as “mobster techniques.” The bigger concern was that Flannery’s holdings had grown into a giant mass that butted against Travis Air Force Base on three sides.

The proximity to the base alarmed both the county and the Department of Defense, which prompted local officials and members of Congress to call for investigations. The investigations elevated the mystery of Flannery Associates into a mainstay on local TV news.

“The FBI was investigating this, the State Department was investigating this, the Treasury Department was investigating this — all the local electeds were trying to get information and calling their legislators,” said Rep. Mike Thompson, another Democrat from the area.

The company remained silent.

Sramek said Flannery had operated in secret to prevent landowners from jacking up prices, and defended the lawsuits as just. He argued that while some farmers didn’t want to sell, most had done so willingly — at prices no other buyer could offer.

“We paid way over market value, and created hundreds of millionaires in the process,” he said. “We are glad that we have been able to settle most of our disputes, and we are open to settling the remaining ones.”

A Simple Case of Wealthy Landowners?

By 2023, Sramek and his investors were in deep. Flannery had spent some $900 million buying 60,000 acres. The first two rounds of funding, at about $10 million each, had ballooned to several more rounds at $100 million each. (Sramek said the company had now raised “more than $900 million” but would not be more specific.)

Big investors begot bigger investors, and the list expanded to a roster of Silicon Valley heavyweights including Hoffman and Powell Jobs.

The company’s offers became so generous that many farmers decided they couldn’t refuse.

The Mahoneys sold Flannery a few hundred acres early on. (Their land is owned by several different entities and hard to tally overall, but in the 1960s Christine Mahoney’s father told a newspaper that he had 16,000 acres in the area.) But as Flannery gobbled more of the land around them, Christine Mahoney said, she realized that something big was happening and that their entire farming business could be at risk. So the family stopped selling to Flannery. The company persisted with more offers, however, improving terms and increasing prices to levels that would have netted tens of millions of dollars. The family continued to say no.

Flannery arrived while the Mahoneys were in the midst of transition. Over 150 years, the family’s company, R. Emigh Livestock, had expanded from two dozen lambs to one of largest sheep farmers in California. Christine Mahoney’s father was in his 90s (he died last year) and she was passing leadership to her son Ryan, who said his wish was to stay there until he was in his 90s, too.

You wouldn’t know it from her jeans or penchant for nostalgia, but Christine Mahoney had spent her career running a corporation, one whose business was raising lambs and cattle. She was, like Sramek, a CEO.

And after years of back and forth, one thing Flannery’s entreaties had made clear was that there was one property the Mahoneys owned that it coveted above the others: Goose Haven Ranch. But Goose Haven was the one the family was most protective of. It had been the center of the lambing operation long enough that the road leading up to it was designed for wagon traffic.

Elsewhere in the county, Flannery had started buying into farms by acquiring shares from family members who wanted out, then becoming what amounted to unwelcome partners with the ones who remained. Two of these arrangements led to lawsuits between Flannery and the other owners. Both settled, but one of them netted a trove of emails and text messages among several neighbors including the Mahoneys.

In May, Flannery used those messages to file an antitrust suit against the Mahoneys and several holdouts. The suit contended that the farmers were colluding to raise prices, describing them as “wealthy landowners who saw an opportunity to conspire, collude, price fix and illegally overcharge Flannery.” It asked for $510 million in damages.

The complaint describes the messages (like Christine Mahoney writing to a neighbor, “That’s great that we can support each other!”) as “a smoking gun” proving that the defendants did want to sell but at even higher prices than Flannery was offering.

In a joint motion to dismiss, lawyers for the Mahoneys and other defendants described Flannery’s lawsuit as “a ham-fisted intimidation technique” designed to smother them with legal fees.

Even after being sued, the Mahoneys still had no idea who Flannery actually was.

The Campaign Apology Tour

In August, The New York Times broke the news of who was behind the purchases. Sramek confirmed his role, and soon topped his LinkedIn profile with a new title: CEO of California Forever, the company’s new name.

He has been in campaign mode ever since, meeting with elected officials, union leaders and environmental groups. California Forever has opened four offices across the county, and Solano’s freeways are now plastered with California Forever billboards.

In a state where it can take years to get a duplex approved, Sramek seems to have calculated that his project is too big to fail. Developers, planners and lawyers I spoke to all expected the project to either never happen or take at least 20 years. Whether out of bluster, delusion or confidence, Sramek, who recently bought a house in nearby Fairfield, said he had promised his wife that their infant daughter would start school in the development he wanted to build.

He didn’t find some secret hack that can make California an easier place to build. Rather, he believes the state’s attitude toward growth is changing. Californians, he thinks, have grown frustrated — with punishing housing costs, with homelessness, with the state’s inability to complete projects like the high-speed rail line that was supposed to connect the Bay Area and Los Angeles but has stalled. So just maybe his will, and gobs of money, can create a new posture toward growth.

“There’s a cultural moment where we realize the pendulum has gone too far,” Sramek said. “We can’t say we are about economic opportunity and working-class Californians are leaving the state every year.”

Last year’s event in Rio Vista was held at the end of lambing season in December. Before the meeting, I dropped by a barn with the Mahoneys where a group of “bummers” — lambs born weak or to overburdened ewes — were in sawdust pens drinking milk. They would be chops in less than a year, and Christine Mahoney cooed to them between my questions.

I asked her a crass but obvious one: why the money from Sramek, those tens of millions, wasn’t enticing.

“Everybody has their price, right?” she said. “I’ve heard that so many times. ‘Everybody has their number — what’s your number?’ I guess I haven’t found it yet.”

“When God calls us home, that’s our number,” Dan Mahoney joked. “Totally different philosophy.”

On Wednesday, Sramek returned to the American Legion post in Rio Vista. This time he had arrived as part of a kickoff event for the ballot initiative. Neighbors and protesters had returned but were prohibited from going inside, where slides of maps and renderings were presented to the press, and details about design were discussed.

The maps had a curious detail: On the edge of the proposed community’s downtown, was Goose Haven Ranch.

The night before the meeting, the Mahoneys sold it. They got about $23 million.

Rats and mice swarm trenches in Ukraine in grisly echo of World War I

CNN

Rats and mice swarm trenches in Ukraine in grisly echo of World War I

Christian Edwards and Olga Voitovych – January 21, 2024

The frontlines of Russia’s war in Ukraine have become infested with rats and mice, reportedly spreading disease that causes soldiers to vomit and bleed from their eyes, crippling combat capability and recreating the gruesome conditions that plagued troops in the trench warfare of World War I.

A Ukrainian servicewoman, who goes by the call-sign “Kira,” recalled how her battalion was beset last fall by a “mouse epidemic” while fighting in as the southern Zaporizhzhia region.

“Imagine going to bed, and the night begins with a mouse crawling into your pants or sweater, or chewing your fingertips, or biting your hand. You get two or three hours’ sleep, depending on how lucky you are,” Kira told CNN. She estimated there were around 1,000 mice in her dugout of four soldiers. “It was not the mice who were visiting us; we were their guests.”

The infestations are due partly to the change in seasons and mice’s mating cycle, but are also a measure of how the war has become static, after Ukraine’s counteroffensive was largely rebuffed by heavily fortified Russian defenses. Amid another harsh winter, mice are foraging along the nearly 1,000-kilometer (621-mile) frontline, spreading disease and dissatisfaction as they search for food and warmth.

Kira said she tried everything to rid their bunkers of mice: sprinkling poison, spraying ammonia, even praying. Nearby shops stocked up on anti-mouse products and made a killing, she said. But, as the mice kept coming, they tried other methods.

“We had a cat named Busia, and at first she also helped and ate mice. But later there were so many of them that she refused. A cat can catch one or two mice, but if there are 70 of them, it’s unrealistic.”

Videos shared on social media by Ukrainian and Russian soldiers showed the extent of the infestations on the frontlines. Mice and rats are seen scurrying around under beds, in backpackspower generators, coat pockets and pillowcases. One shows mice pouring forth from a Russian mortar turret like bullets from a Browning.

In another, a cat tries to swipe a mouse on an armchair, before a soldier taps the top of the seat and dozens more cascade down. The cat, hopelessly outnumbered, admits defeat and falls back.

A mousetrap in a garbage can tries to stem the swarm of rodents in a trenches near Bakhmut, Ukraine, in October 2023. - Libkos/Getty Images
A mousetrap in a garbage can tries to stem the swarm of rodents in a trenches near Bakhmut, Ukraine, in October 2023. – Libkos/Getty Images

Ukraine’s military intelligence in December reported an outbreak of “mouse fever” in many Russian units around Kupiansk in Kharkiv region, which Moscow has been trying to claim for months. The report said the disease is transmitted from mice to humans “by inhaling mouse feces dust or by ingestion of mouse feces in food.”

CNN has not been able to independently verify the report, but according to the Ukrainian military the ghastly symptoms of the disease include fevers, rashes, low blood pressure, hemorrhages in the eyes, vomiting and, because it affects the kidneys, severe back pain and problems urinating.

The result, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence said, is that “‘mouse fever’ has significantly reduced the combat capability of the Russian soldiers.” It did not say whether Ukrainian troops had been similarly affected.

The Ukrainian authorities did not name a specific condition as striking Russian troops, but there are a range of diseases associated with living near rodents that have similar symptoms, including tularemia, leptospirosis and hantavirus.

The report was reminiscent of those from World War I, where the putrid pileup of waste and corpses allowed “trench rats” to breed rapidly. Rats are nocturnal and are often busiest while soldiers are trying to rest, causing huge stress.

Robert Graves, an English poet who fought in the trenches, recalled in his memoirs how rats “came up from the canal, fed on the plentiful corpses, and multiplied exceedingly.” When a new officer arrived, on his first night he “heard a scuffling, shone his torch on the bed, and found two rats on his blanket tussling for the possession of a severed hand.”

In World War I, the rat population swelled when the conflict stagnated. And there are fears that Russia’s war in Ukraine has done the same. The head of Ukraine’s armed forces, General Valery Zaluzhny, told The Economist late last year: “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate.”

Three German soldiers display their winnings after a night of rat-catching in a Western Front trench during World War I. - Hulton Deutsch/Corbis Historical/Getty Images
Three German soldiers display their winnings after a night of rat-catching in a Western Front trench during World War I. – Hulton Deutsch/Corbis Historical/Getty Images

Ihor Zahorodniuk, a researcher at Ukraine’s National Museum of National History, told CNN the mice infestations were partly because rodent reproduction peaks in the fall, but also because of the effects of the war itself.

“The winter crops sown in the fall of 2021 were not harvested in many places in 2022 and gave generous self-seeding. The mice that bred on it survived the very warm winter and went on to harvest a new crop,” he said. The war has also dispersed natural predators, allowing mice to propagate more freely.

As well as causing anxiety and disease among soldiers, mice also ravage military and electrical equipment. When working as a signalman and living separately from other fighting troops in Zaporizhzhia, Kira said mice “managed to climb into metal boxes and chew through wires,” disrupting communications.

“The mice chewed everything: Radios, repeaters, wires. Mice got into cars and chewed on the electrical wiring, so the cars wouldn’t run, and they also chewed on tanks and wheels,” Kira said. “The losses from the mice in our dugout alone amount to one million hryvnia [$26,500].”

Zahorodniuk stressed the damage can be critical, “as lost communication may cost lives.”

Soldiers sleep in the dugout as they hold their positions in the snow-covered Serebryan Forest in Donetsk region, in January 2024. - Libkos/Getty Images
Soldiers sleep in the dugout as they hold their positions in the snow-covered Serebryan Forest in Donetsk region, in January 2024. – Libkos/Getty Images

As Ukraine weathers another winter, the problem will likely get worse before it gets better. “It will get colder and colder, and they will go into the trenches more and more. The situation will not change until they all go through this,” said Zahorodniuk.

In World War I, soldiers could not solve the trench rat problem. Instead, they killed rats for their sport. Trying to spike one on a bayonet became a form of entertainment. The population did not decrease until the war ended. But Zahorodniuk warned Ukraine should not let the same happen again.

“The fight against them should be organized and not rely on soldiers and volunteers who are not imagining ways to fight. This is wrong. After all, this is a matter of the combat capability of the army. We have to take care of our soldiers.”

The Trials Won’t Stop Donald Trump From Becoming President Again. Here’s What Might.

Slate

The Trials Won’t Stop Donald Trump From Becoming President Again. Here’s What Might.

Dahlia Lithwick – January 19, 2024

Any conversation currently happening around legal accountability for Donald Trump is quickly caught up in the riptide of a very different sort of conversation about electoral strategy: Should states be allowed to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, as the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment suggests that it was designed to do? Or will that drive his supporters to commit further acts of vigilante justice in response to being disenfranchised? Should we run our democracy based on such potential threats, and more abstractly: Should judges presiding over the myriad Trump trials that the former president uses to incite stochastic terror and demean the judicial system allow him to speak freely? Or should they make every effort to limit his use of their courtrooms as campaign stops and hate rallies? Should prosecutors in these cases make every effort to have them done and dusted before the presidential election? Or is there something unseemly in the haste to bring about accountability timed to some external political event? Should the judicial system proceed at its own pace, or should it find a way to move faster, with the recognition that it might (only might) be able to do what the other branches of government have chosen not to do, in glacial legal units of time?

The biggest brains in both the legal and political spheres are currently engaged in a near-daily exploration of questions that posit law and the rule of law not so much as ends in themselves, but as tactics—often Hail Mary, last-ditch, desperate-times-call-for-desperate-measures tactics in a presidential contest. We are in an existential battle to save democracy from the single most profound threat it has faced since at least the Civil War. And Americans who have become all too familiar with opening arguments and jury selection and civil fraud and conspiracy law have somehow convinced themselves that the justice system alone can somehow be deployed—or, in the parlance of the insurrectionists, “weaponized”—into becoming the shiny entity that could preserve democracy as we know it. Principally, because nothing else seems positioned to do the trick.

The asymmetry here is that of course the American legal system is not a tactic, or a strategy, or a party trick, although, sure, any one trial is built on tactical decisions. The American legal system, indeed any legal system, is a search for truth, facticity, conclusion, and resolution. When legal systems are working, they are largely backward-looking excavations of what happened and why. One of the reasons Donald J. Trump has managed to evade legal accountability throughout his lifetime is that this is not his objective: He doesn’t allow the legal system to look backward at facts—indeed, he disputes facts literally as they are happening, and even adjudicated facts, including his sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, are perpetually reopened for public appeal. His objective is to use the mechanisms of the legal process as tactics toward a larger end—to make himself richer or more famous, or to vanquish his opponents. And we all know that should he get himself elected as president in 10 months, he will use the law to prosecute Joe Biden, stay in office indefinitely, strip non-Americans of their rights, and do almost anything he wishes to remain in power. For Trump, law isn’t the endgame—it’s just the ladder that gets him somewhere better.

Here is the problem: When we engage in tactical intramural debates about about how best to deploy the American legal system to stop Trump, we are in a sense engaging in a mirror image of that same Trumpist project. We say we want accountability and findings of fact and conclusions of law and injunctions and gag orders and, ultimately, convictions. But above all, what we want is for him to go away, to stop, to unravel all the harm he has done to the myriad institutions and principles upon which the rule of law once relied. The purists among us argue that in so doing, we will at least have given it a shot. The worriers fret that in so doing, we further rip the country asunder because, uh, what if it doesn’t work out the way the purists had hoped?

For my part, I worry that we have imported far too much force into the idea that the law itself and law alone will curb Trump’s lawlessness, because no amount of gag orders and conclusions of law and even criminal convictions can stop someone hellbent on using those things as tactics on a tear toward fascism. As Jeff Sharlet put it on last week’s Amicus podcast, “The one thing Trump has made clear is we don’t know yet how to stop Trumpism.” The rule of law may be a component in the war against Trumpism, but if it isn’t plain by now, I will say it here: The rule of law exists not to stop Trumpism. It exists to promote the rule of law.

For those who note that Trump has the ability to delay, drag out, undermine, and even capitalize on his legal troubles but can’t escape the voting booth, the very existence of the Colorado 14th Amendment appeal at the Supreme Court shows the extent to which the law and the voting both are bound up together, and the degree to which both may be profoundly incapacitated when we expect either to create Cold, Hard Facts in a world that has fundamentally put truth out with the recyclables. Trump’s supporters in the conservative legal movement have been using the law to suppress and subvert elections for years, and they have already amassed literally billions of dollars to do so again. Subverting the vote is a tactic. It is also the single most effective way to subvert the rule of law.

This is by no means a call to abandon the pursuit of legal accountability for Trump and his supporters in every single forum possible. Of course the law should attempt to impose every last consequence this man deserves, and of course the fact that this makes his cultists angry is never a reason to stop. It is simply a caution to those who have convinced themselves that the law exists to keep Trump from winning the 2024 election. Because the law alone may not suffice.

Paradoxically, to the extent the law can be usefully deployed as a tactic, the 14th Amendment itself is a tactical enterprise that exists to protect us from tyranny. But we tie ourselves in knots deploring how slow and technical and mincing legal accountability can be. (Consider emoluments! It took eight years to get those numbers reported out! But there is still no accountability!) The challenge isn’t exclusively that law takes too long. The challenge is that, unfortunately for all current citizens of America and quite frankly the world, the law can’t be boiled down to a distillate, reconstituted as a vitamin, then chugged down with a Gatorade to save us from an authoritarian strongman.

Donald Trump is nothing but an amalgam of tactics with hair. Purposive lying is a tactic, distraction is a tactic, bullying is a tactic, threats of violence is a tactic, running out the clock is a tactic, all with the incredibly simple objective of amassing power. And Trump’s promise to use the law to terrorize and jail political adversaries, to further immiserate those he dislikes, to suppress speech and protest? All of this is about using the law to further an authoritarian agenda.

Ensuring that Trump is driven from public life requires tactical thinking and execution that involves so much more than the tactical use of legal remedies. It involves structural election reform, expanded voting rights, democracy building, rethinking the way the media covers elections, and a thousand other tactics that protect constitutional democracy and free and fair elections. Law can be weaponized to do all of these things, by the way. But this would require the work of millions of people for thousands of days, pushing every lever. It cannot be readily swapped out for a single victory in a civil fraud trial, as important as such victories may be toward the greater end.

If the rise of authoritarian strongmen around the planet in recent years proves anything, it’s that the law alone was not designed to restrain authoritarian strongmen. What we grouse about as the slowness of the law is in fact the absence of the fast fix to fascism.

The relevant legal question in the coming months cannot be limited to How do we best use the law to hold Donald Trump to account? Even holding Donald Trump to account will not necessarily save us from electing Donald Trump the dictator—it could be too slow, or too unpersuasive, or totally steamrolled by his own destruction tactics. The relevant question is: Whether we realize in time that the law alone cannot save us, are we directing all our efforts, right now, to doing everything and anything else that will?

The Supreme Court looks set to make Steve Bannon’s dream come true

Salon – Opinion

The Supreme Court looks set to make Steve Bannon’s dream come true

Conor Lynch – January 20, 2024

Steve Bannon; Donald Trump; Clarence Thomas Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Steve Bannon; Donald Trump; Clarence Thomas Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

Not long after Donald Trump was sworn in as president back in 2017, his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, made an incendiary statement vowing that the new administration would fight an unending battle for the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” raising fears that the new president would carry out a blitzkrieg assault on the federal bureaucracy. While the former TV host likely had no inkling of what his more ideological strategist meant by the “administrative state,” it would not be long before Trump himself would embrace similar rhetoric aimed at what he derisively coined the “deep state.” Unlike his advisor (and many libertarian-leaning Republicans), Trump’s hostility towards the federal government stems less from any ideological opposition to “big government” than from his own personal resentment and paranoia. With his agenda stalled early on his term, the president came to blame all of his woes on this supposedly omnipotent deep state, which denoted a quasi-invisible and demonic cabal of entrenched bureaucrats allegedly sabotaging his presidency. 

Fortunately for those who believe in a strong and independent federal bureaucracy, the Trump administration largely failed to follow through on these early threats. Within six months of his inflammatory remark, Bannon was out of a job in the White House, while the embattled president had more pressing concerns than attempting to dismantle the federal bureaucracy. By the time he left office, Trump had done irreparable damage to American democracy and its institutions, but the so-called “administrative state” — an ideological shorthand for the numerous departments and independent agencies inside the federal government, from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — remained standing, if not mostly unscathed.

Still, more than three years after Trump left the White House, the so-called administrative state is under assault like never before — in large part due to the enduring legacy of the Trump administration. This was evident this week, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that challenged a forty-year-old case that had established judicial deference to federal agencies like the EPA in their implementation of “ambiguous statutes.” In other words, the philosophy that it is best for judges who know little about environmental standards or the derivatives market or drug development to defer to the “reasonable interpretation” of statutes by experts in their respective agencies. If this challenge to what is known as the Chevron Doctrine is successful, it would open up a floodgate of potential legal challenges to regulations across the federal government, crippling the ability of agencies like the SEC or the EPA to carry out their missions. Not surprisingly, it currently looks like at least two of the three Supreme Court justices nominated by Trump will help to repeal this doctrine and open up the anti-regulatory floodgates. It’s Steve Bannon’s dream come true.

Trump’s toxic legacy is not only felt in the judiciary. Indeed, it is clear from the Republican primaries that the entire GOP is now fully devoted to the once-fringe cause of dismantling the administrative state. Recall Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ vow to “start slitting throats on day one.” 

While Trump largely failed to carry out his own threats against the “deep state” as president, his final year in office offered a dress rehearsal for what to expect if he — or any Republican — returns to the White House next year. Over the course of his term, Trump’s obsession with the “deep state” intensified, as did his Nixonian quest to root out his enemies. Shortly after his first impeachment trial, the president tapped loyalists to carry out a purge of any officials who displayed even the slightest hint of dissent. Spearheading the effort was Trump’s former body man, 29-year old Johnny McEntee, who the president appointed to run the Presidential Personnel Office (PPO). Overseeing the hiring and vetting of the roughly 4,000 political appointments in the executive branch, McEntee quickly pushed out officials deemed disloyal and earned the moniker of Trump’s “loyalty cop.” 

This purge was only a preview of what the administration had planned for his second term. Weeks before the 2020 election, the president signed an executive order known as “Schedule F,” which would have stripped civil service protections from tens or even hundreds of thousands of employees had it been implemented. Though promoted as a measure to enforce accountability, Schedule F was an overt attempt to politicize the bureaucracy. It would have empowered the president to easily purge the civil service of any senior or mid-level officials deemed politically suspect or insufficiently loyal. 

Today Schedule F has more or less become doctrine on the right. Donald Trump’s rise thus ushered in a more radical and dangerous phase in the conservative movement’s decades-long struggle against the federal government. All the major Republican presidential candidates have promised to reinstate some version of the executive order, which President Biden rescinded upon entering office. Indeed, most candidates have even tried to outdo Trump in both their policies and rhetoric. \ The supposed “moderate” in the race, former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador under Trump, Nikki Haley, has put forward an even more radical plan than Schedule F that would not just strip civil service protections but introduce five-year term limits for all positions in the federal workforce — from air traffic controllers and public health inspectors to park rangers and Social Security administrators. As Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell notes, this would effectively “destroy the basic machinery of government” — which might just be the point.

Across the board, then, Republicans have embraced the Trumpian vow to “destroy the deep state.” They have also adopted the former president’s conspiratorial rhetoric about the federal bureaucracy and civil service, which is now depicted as a national fifth column. The traditional Reaganite critiques of big government waste, inefficiency and onerous regulations have been increasingly supplanted by radical fulminations against the “deep state” that sound more like The Turner Diaries than The Road to Serfdom

This is evident throughout Mandate for Leadership, the 920-page manifesto published earlier this year by the Heritage Foundation-led 2025 Presidential Transition Project (or Project 2025), which aims to recruit and vet up to 20,000 potential staffers for a future Republican administration after the anticipated purge. Writing in the book’s introduction, project director Paul Dans, who served in Trump’s Office of Personnel Management during his final year, breathlessly proclaims that the “long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass,” giving credence to a notorious conspiracy theory that has long floated around white supremacist circles. With the federal government ostensibly captured by “cultural Marxists” and “globalists,” Dans frantically proclaims that it has been “weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before.”

This kind of siege mentality has become the official posture of the right since the rise of Trump. “Either the deep state destroys America or we destroy the deep state,” proclaimed the Republican frontrunner last March at his first campaign rally, which he symbolically held in the city of Waco, Texas, just seventeen miles from where the FBI got into a deadly standoff with the apocalyptic Branch Davidians cult almost three decades before. Besides inspiring the far-right terrorist Timothy McVeigh in his bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the “Waco siege” also galvanized various anti-government militia movements that would ultimately contribute to the storming of the capital more than a quarter century later. The symbolism of holding his opening rally in Waco was not lost on Trump’s allies. “We’re the Trump Davidians,” Bannon quipped to ABC News journalist Jonathan Karl when asked why the Trump campaign would choose Waco for its opening act. The rhetoric of both Trump and his “Davidians” leaves little room for doubt about their intentions if he wins in November. 

For the millions of MAGA zealots, Trump’s election is less about achieving specific ideological aims than about satisfying their thirst for revenge. On the other hand, the authors of Project 2025’s manifesto have more concrete ideological goals that happen to align with Trump’s revenge fantasy. In his forward to Mandate for Leadership, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts alludes to the unifying goal when he states that the “top priority” for the next Republican president must be to “dismantle” the “administrative state.” Or as Dans puts it, the goal is to “assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” 

Republicans have been harboring fantasies about gutting the federal government since the Reagan era. But what distinguishes today’s right from the past is its greater willingness to employ explicitly authoritarian means to achieve their ends. Indeed, a growing number of conservatives now appear convinced that the next Republican president must be granted something close to dictatorial power if their movement is to stand a chance against the “cultural Marxists” who allegedly control the state. 

To legitimize an autocratic power grab by Trump or any other Republican president, many conservatives will no doubt employ the dubious legal theory of the “unitary executive,” which was first popularized during the George W. Bush administration to justify the president’s illegal policies in the war on terror. The unitary executive theory asserts that the president is effectively above the law and has absolute control over all departments and agencies in the federal government (including independent and quasi-legislative agencies like the EPA or the NLRB). This controversial interpretation of Article II grants the president something close to dictatorial power, giving him or her total control over the hiring and firing of two million federal employees and “complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding,” as one of the theories leading proponents, Bill Barr, wrote in a memo shortly before Trump appointed him attorney general.

While most conservatives continue to cloak their vision of a strongman executive in contentious legal theories, a growing contingent on the right has more or less abandoned such pretenses. Since Trump’s defeat, the idea of a so-called “Red Caesar” coming to rescue the beleaguered republic has caught on in more reactionary milieus. “Red Caesar” was first coined by conservative author and former national security official in the Trump administration, Michael Anton, who in a 2020 book predicted that a “red America that feels sufficiently imperiled by the leftist coalition might well look to unify behind one man with authority.” For Anton, the coming of Caesarism — defined as “authoritarian one-man rule partially legitimized by necessity” — appears almost historically determined. “Just as tyrannies give way to aristocracies and republics on the upswing, so do democracies collapse into decadence, anarchy, and back to tyranny on the downswing,” he writes. In Anton’s telling, the cyclical historical forces at work in America today are no different than those in ancient Rome, where Caesar and his successors restored order and — for a time — greatness to a decadent republic. “When and where Caesarism comes, it arises only because liberty is already gone,” writes Anton, offering a preemptive justification of a Trumpian assault on the country’s exhausted democratic institutions. 

With the now widespread acceptance among conservatives that the federal government and other major institutions have been captured by “cultural Marxists,” “globalists,” and “wokeists,” Republicans are now pre-programmed to accept more authoritarian leadership. This is especially the case among a younger coterie of Republicans who have come to prominence in the post-Trump era. Unlike some of their older Republican colleagues, these young Trumpians are more open to employing post-Constitutional or “extra-Constitutional” means to achieve their reactionary goals. 

Consider Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, a Trump supporter who echoed Anton’s analysis of contemporary America on a far-right podcast in late 2021, noting that “we don’t have a real constitutional republic anymore” but rather an unaccountable “administrative state.” With America currently in its “late republican period,” Vance suggested that resisting woke tyranny will require Republicans to get “pretty wild” and go in “directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.” While sympathetic to the cause of “deconstructing” the administrative state, Vance offered a more Caesarist alternative: “I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left…and turn them against the left. We need like a de-Baathification program, a de-woke-ification program.” If Trump is wins this fall Vance suggested that he immediately fire “every single mid-level bureaucrat” and “civil servant in the administrative state” and replace them with “our people.” 

Ultimately, the point of the planned purge is not to replace every civil servant who is forced out but to derail the federal government before stripping it down and selling it for parts, like private equity vultures fresh after a hostile takeover. In the words of the authors at Project 2025, the “only real solution is for the national government to do less: to decentralize and privatize as much as possible…” The Trumpian innovation comes in the effort to weaponize the agencies and departments that remain after the right-wing assault on regulatory agencies like the EPA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Republican frontrunner has already promised to weaponize the justice department and is reportedly mulling over deploying troops against domestic protests on day one. Trump would return to Washington with more experience and an entire team of “loyalty cops” working to enforce fealty across the executive branch. And as recent hearings at the Supreme Court have shown, he would also return with increasingly politicized courts that are sympathetic to both his assault on the “administrative state” as well as his quest for more “unitary power” over the executive branch. 

The growing belief in the necessity of “authoritarian one-man rule” on the right stems from the fact that their ideological project is broadly unpopular with the American people. The majority of Americans do not support dismantling environmental protections or criminalizing abortion or eliminating child labor laws or registering teachers and librarians as sex offenders for espousing so-called “transgender ideology.” Neither do they support the modern right’s crusade to “dismantle” or “deconstruct” the “administrative state.” 

While it is true that public trust in the government is currently close to an all-time low, conservative critics tend to greatly exaggerate how much of this stems from disapproval for career civil servants and government agencies. In reality, low ratings for the “federal government” tend to reflect the population’s disdain for Congress and national politicians from both parties. Conversely, most individual departments and federal agencies receive favorable ratings from Americans, whether it’s the National Park Service (+74%), the U.S. Postal Service (+57%), NASA (+65%), the Social Security Administration (+33%), the EPA (+24%), or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, +25%). The same is generally true for federal employees. A 2022 survey by the Partnership for Public Service found that while only 30 percent of people view members of Congress favorably, more than 6-in-10 have a favorable view of civil servants. 

Dismantling the “administrative state,” then, is not a goal that most Americans or even most Republican voters would knowingly support. For Trump, destroying the nebulous “deep state” is part of a personal crusade. In all likelihood, he would be satisfied if he could simply weaponize the justice and defense departments to go after his enemies. But for the ideologues who have hitched themselves to his star, the mission is far more ambitious. In the event of a Trump victory in 2024, one can expect the worst of both worlds: an assault on essential agencies that would recall the worst neoliberal policies of the Reagan years, and the weaponization of those “deep state” agencies that would recall the worst abuses of the Nixon and Bush years.