This week marks Naked Capitalism’s fundraising effort. So far, 1,201 supporters have stepped forward to aid our mission to confront corruption and harmful practices, particularly within the financial sector. We invite you to contribute through our donation page, which outlines various methods to donate—be it via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. You can also read about our motivations for this fundraiser, our achievements over the past year, and our current goal of preventing Karōshi.
Yves here. I want to share my perspective without sounding overly optimistic. The Trump Administration houses ideologues who appear disconnected from the realities faced by many Americans, including those who supported Trump—like farmers and small business owners now feeling the impact of tariffs and supply chain disruptions. Veterans are particularly concerned about how tariffs might affect the availability of crucial medications; I know someone personally who is anxious about this issue. Recently, Sy Hersh reported that Trump’s cognitive decline has reached a point where he seems unable to grasp the situation at hand, and this disconnect may extend to his team as a whole. The economic repercussions of tariffs, which may lead to increased inflation, are just beginning to manifest. Economic growth appears concentrated in AI, with stagnation affecting other sectors. Most critically, Trump’s core supporters are showing signs of fracturing, largely over his unwavering support for Israel and dissatisfaction linked to the cover-up surrounding Jeffrey Epstein.
Another overarching concern is the Trump team’s talent for destruction, as seen with projects like DOGE, but a noticeable lack of competence in actual governance—consider their assertions about obliterating Iran’s nuclear program or their expectations regarding supplying Ukraine. Furthermore, the recent performance by Hegseth and Trump in front of military leaders at Quantico was seen by Russian media as reminiscent of Hitler’s demand for loyalty oaths from his generals. The numerous negative responses from military-centric YouTube channels—many of whom are not from the usual sources I follow—suggests that Trump might struggle to find service members willing to act violently against civilians if ordered to do so.
Moreover, there is a growing skepticism towards traditional media, which can often fuel conspiracy theories in times of uncertainty. This distrust complicates efforts to unite citizens against perceived “enemies within,” as Hegseth attempted. Anti-immigration sentiments were polling around 60% before the election; however, the reality of ICE raids and deportations has led to a majority disapproval today.
Yet, the team surrounding Trump is notably arrogant. This hubris could lead them to execute a more aggressive power grab, and even if the attempt fails, the damage could be substantial, both in human terms and for institutions.
By Tom Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies
I’d like to reflect on this quote from The Onion’s Ben Collins:
It’s clear that Stephen Miller, [Kristi] Noem, [Pete] Hegseth, and Trump aim to instigate a Civil War at this point. What’s intriguing is that they wish to do it now, believing this is the most popular they will ever be again.
Is this accurate? It’s evident that Miller has a desire for conflict. Unless Carl Biejer is correct, his rhetoric suggests as much. Consider this statement from him (emphasis added):
This is legal insurrection. The President is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, not an Oregon judge. Local law enforcement in Oregon, at the direction of local leaders, have refused to assist ICE officers faced with relentless terrorist threats. This amounts to an organized terrorist attack on the federal government, necessitating troop deployment to protect our personnel and uphold our laws and the Republic.
“Legal insurrection … an organized terrorist attack on the federal government.” Such statements stand on shaky legal ground. In another instance, Miller claimed on Hannity’s show:
The Democrat party is solely dedicated to the protection of hardened criminals, gang members, and terrorists. The Democrat party is not a political party—it is a domestic extremist organization.
Noem and Hegseth share this view (see here and here), and they appear willing to act as military commanders alongside Miller. Trump also supports this sentiment:
They’re throwing bricks with full force into windows and cars; it looks like a war zone. I said, never let that happen again. If that occurs in the future, you get out of that vehicle and do whatever you want …
Just last month, I issued an executive order to create a rapid response team capable of managing civil disturbances. This will be crucial for those in this room [the Pentagon’s generals] because the enemy is from within, and we need to address this before it spirals out of control.
Trump envisions using U.S. cities as “training facilities for our military National Guard.” The stated rationale behind this is the supposed “immigration invasion,” but at a deeper level, the ultimate aim appears to be dismantling the so-called “far left,” which they view as a perennial enemy.
Thus, it seems the war is beginning. Rhetoric is escalating, boots are on the ground, and, similar to the pre-Civil War South, there seems to be little provocation they are unwilling to escalate from. Lincoln once stated that the South’s intent was “rule or ruin.” Is that sentiment applicable today to Miller and his ilk? Will Trump align with this strategy? So far, he has.
Why Act Now?
Returning to Ben Collins, he asserts that “they want to do it now, because even though they’re unpopular, they seem to believe this is the most popular they’ll ever be again.”
I argue that this interpretation is mistaken. A more accurate phrasing might be “because this represents the peak of their power.”
The American Hard Right has reached an unprecedented level of influence. They control the presidency, and with Trump, a master intimidator, they also hold sway over Congress. They have the Supreme Court tilted in their favor with Roberts at the helm. Furthermore, they wield significant financial power, devoid of any accountability for their actions, leading them to act with impunity. They relish their status, while a feckless opposition remains so entrenched in their wealth and privilege that they hesitate to provoke their donors.
The people, the final barrier? They are indeed outraged, yet they do not mobilize in a manner that disrupts the state’s operations. Much like the nation’s reaction to Bush v. Gore—if we permit it to transpire, we bear the responsibility.
Comparative Revolts: Lebanon and the U.S.
Take a look at Lebanon. In 2019, citizens rose against new taxes, but the uprising quickly evolved into a comprehensive protest against systemic corruption, greed, and a detached ruling elite. Their rallying cry captured the essence of their discontent: كلن يعني كلن — “all means all.” The demand was for accountability from every corrupt member of the ruling class.
Protesters gathered outside Riad Al Solh Square in Beirut on October 19, 2019 (Wikipedia)
This revolution achieved some success, compelling the elites to reassess their positions while prompting beneficial changes. (Revolutions often carry inherent limitations; complete success is elusive due to the nature of governance. Ultimately, genuine revolt might only be realized in statelessness, a different topic altogether.)
Contrasting U.S. Response
In contrast, the American environment diverges significantly. Citizens witness masked police and street enforcers, and what follows? Pleading letters, silence, or sporadic protests, and life returns to normal. (“The game just started. Come watch.”) Words without impactful action echo the 2000 election debacle—if we let it happen, we must accept ownership.
This observation is not meant as an indictment but a simple description of reality. Trump is operating from a position of substantial authority; no one has yet risen with the force necessary to disrupt his plans. In the eyes of ideologues like Miller—of whom there are many—the moment to act could very well be now, when their faction appears to be at its zenith.
To Act or Not to Act?
This could certainly fizzle out. There’s a possibility that the courts might curtail any aggressive actions, local authorities could prevail, and the backlash against protests may not escalate beyond the situations involving immigrants or in Israel. Should Trump choose to step back, it would represent a sort of victory, even if we would never fully revert to the past. Similar to the aftermath of 9/11, the nation has undergone fundamental changes.
But what if the forces seeking a right-wing uprising are aiming for more? What if they desire to seize everything, now that “everything” seems within grasp, especially with the Palantir-9/11 security apparatus appearing tailor-made for this scenario? After all, leaders like Thiel and others among the elite show outward disdain for democratic ideals. The state is unlikely to tolerate any rebellion against its authority.
How would individuals like Miller achieve a definitive victory? They already possess their own militia—ICE—active in urban areas. Presently, their targets are predominantly those who appear to be immigrants, along with other dissenters. For their conflict to expand, they need new targets.
Enter “antifa” and NSPM-7, Trump’s security measure, which purportedly criminalizes “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States government; extremism related to migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards traditional American values concerning family, faith, and morality.” This is an extensive enemies list encompassing many non-voters, Democrats, and even some from his own base.
What comes next? An inciting event. Will it emerge from their aggression, or from a response to their actions? Or will something “unexpected” transpire? Whatever the case, escalation is imminent. Perhaps not today, but not long from now. The pivotal moment for Bush and Cheney to declare martial law was during the heightened emotions of the early days, yet they chose to engage abroad instead.
Today, we find ourselves in an emotionally volatile landscape, with no distant war to distract us. This conflict is here, within our own borders. Will they initiate it? The decision rests with them.
