Retribution Returns to Washington

Enrique Tarrio and other Proud Boys gather in Washington D.C. in December 2020. Tarrio, whose sentence was commuted by Trump, had been sentenced to 22 years in prison on seditious conspiracy charges related to the January 6th Capitol attack. Victor J. Blue for the New York Times

During the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Donald Trump made a promise to his supporters: “I am your justice…I am your retribution.” At that time, Trump and his political movement were in exile, having made a disgraceful exit after an election loss that many of them believed had been caused by a nebulous “deep state” embedded inside the federal government. Now, Trump and his movement have returned to the halls of power, bringing justice for their friends and retribution for their enemies in equal measure. 

Soon after the inauguration, before cheering crowds at the Capital One arena, Trump signed his first wave of executive orders, presidential pardons, and commutations. The initial pardons and commutations went to over 1500 participants in the January 6th Capitol riot, including rioters convicted of violent felonies and militia leaders convicted of seditious conspiracy. Four days later, Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion activists who had blocked the entrance of an abortion clinic and accosted patients and staff. The message was clear: in Trump’s America, the legal system, once the bane of his most radical supporters, will no longer restrict their activities. Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, fresh out of prison, echoed the sentiment: “Now it’s our turn.”

Trump has also sought to render the federal government more pliable to his wishes. During his first term, a group of officials colloquially known as the “adults in the room” often tried to restrain what they saw as Trump’s worst impulses. Trump’s first executive actions seek to exact revenge against these and other former officials, and to prevent the rise of any successor movement by installing loyal functionaries throughout the federal bureaucracy. Trump has reinstated Schedule F, a classification developed at the end of his first term that makes it easier to fire certain kinds of federal employees and replace them with political appointees. Additionally, Trump has begun directly removing officials who he believes may exhibit an ideological bias against him or otherwise hinder his agenda, including Coast Guard commandant Admiral Linda Fagan, 17 inspectors general, and several high-level Justice Department officials. Trump’s efforts thus far have seemingly found success; as of yet, there is no talk of resistance from within the federal ranks. 

Trump’s animus is not limited to individuals currently serving in the government. Trump removed federal security protection from at least four former officials who served in his previous administration: former CDC director Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and former Iran envoy Brian Hook. This comes despite evidence that Bolton, Pompeo, and Hook have been targeted for assassination by Iran. Additionally, Trump has stripped security clearances from dozens of former intelligence officials, including three ex-CIA directors, who signed an open letter warning that the Hunter Biden laptop story might be Russian disinformation. 

Less than a week into his presidency, Trump has already made an indelible mark. Enemies beware as a new elite, armed with the full power of the American state, pursues justice and retribution with vindictive urgency.

The Tech Oligarchy: Cut a Check and Watch Trumpian Policy Bend to You

Photo taken by Julia Demaree Nikhinson | Credit: AP News

Following former President Biden’s warning of the rise of the tech billionaire oligarchy in his farewell speech, the second inauguration of President Trump confirmed the reality that the wealthy tech elite hold immense power over US politics. While the ultra-wealthy have long held significant influence in the political sphere, the blatant display of President Trump’s priorities was rather jarring. 

Traditionally, the seats closest to the president are held for guests of honor or family of the president. This year, the prestigious spots were taken by an impressive lineup of CEOs, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and of course, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. 

Trump’s administration is clearly operating under a “pay to win” ideology. Meta, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and Amazon all donated $1 million each to the inauguration fund. Elon Musk spent $277 million backing the campaigns of Trump and other Republicans. As the world’s wealthiest man, and the newly announced head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk’s investment into the Trump administration lacks any subtlety. 

In the flurry of executive orders signed by Trump and other actions taken in his first few days back in office, a notable and unsurprising pattern has emerged across the various policy decisions: profit for corporations over the public interest. 

With a whole slew of actions taken since his inauguration as evidence of his willingness to cater to corporations, it’s clear that the entanglement of Trump and the tech industry is one of the most prominent relationships setting the tone for the next four years. The ordeal regarding the TikTok ban, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and later paused by Trump’s executive order, seems to be a political theatre-esque ploy to gain support from younger generations by painting Trump as the savior of TikTok. When users were kicked off during the app’s blackout, they were met with a message of hope in President Trump: “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office.” After TikTok was put back online for US servers, users were then greeted with another Trump-praising pop-up message, “As a result of President Trump's efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.”

Post-blackout, some users suspect that TikTok’s algorithm has undergone changes in favor of pro-Trump content. While data privacy is problematic and serves as a valid source of scrutiny against TikTok, a digital platform independent of and decentralized from the US government presents the ability to share unsuppressed criticism of US politics and the dissemination of a vast variety of political perspectives outside the mainstream media. Without space to explore an assortment of viewpoints and interact with diverse creators, unregulated or intentionally structured algorithms can promote biased content, push political narratives and agendas, and garner massive support from unparalleled exposure. 

It seems TikTok has now conformed to the practice of flattering Trump in pursuit of its own self-interest, mirroring the rest of the social media and tech industry. With the fall of fact-checking and content moderation on Meta platforms, Twitter’s backslide into chaos under Musk, coupled with TikTok’s newfound affinity for President Trump, he has arguably monopolized influence over social media. While  there are alternative platforms emerging, such as Bluesky, Twitter’s biggest counterpart and competitor, they lack the seniority and social establishment that Meta platforms hold from years of user engagement. Exemplifying the networking effect, the value of Twitter currently still outweighs that of Bluesky, as the majority of users have yet to migrate from Twitter to competitors. However, Bluesky did recently hit 27 million users, and Twitter is indeed experiencing a mass exodus— so perhaps the tide will turn as word of the Twitter alternative spreads. 

The rich have pulled strings behind politics for decades, but the nature and unique power held by social media giants is cause for major concern. Controlling the narrative on political topics and suppressing opposing viewpoints can manipulate users to shift their opinions or prohibit them from discovering new ones. The power of the algorithm is the supreme influence over what content people are exposed to; by pushing individually specified content, the potential for creating echo chambers is quite high. 

In response to the immense power Big Tech holds over US political processes, tech reform advocacy organizations have called for concrete policy solutions, in particular updating “the law that created the internet”: Section 230. Enacted by Congress in 1996, it protects social media and tech companies from being held liable for user posts on their platforms, while simultaneously giving them free reign over their content moderation. Initially intended to protect platforms and websites from legal risk by allowing them to host user forums and discussions without fear of liability, Section 230 gives far too much unregulated power to platforms acting out of political interest and profit. A high standard of regulation, fact-checking, and transparency is necessary to mitigate rampant political corruption. The rise of Big Tech’s influence in US politics cannot be ignored, and must be addressed as soon as possible. 

No, Maduro Won’t Invade Puerto Rico

CNN en Español

At a closing speech made at the Global International Antifascist Festival, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro made claims about liberating Puerto Rico with Brazilian troops. He invoked Simón Bolívar’s goal of liberation from Western oppression to argue for the necessity of Venezuelan intervention. This threat was met with backlash from the Puerto Rico governor, Jenniffer González-Colón, who called it an “open threat to the United States.”

Maduro’s words, while aggressive, are all bark and no bite.

Following Maduro’s internationally rebuked re-election in July, this divisive move could be interpreted as an attempt to restore legitimacy in the wake of electoral discontent. This strategy, known as diversionary foreign policy, has been used by leaders to restore unity and patriotism around the state. Under this theory, the possibility of war could create a rally ‘round the flag effect that would invoke nationalist sentiment and restore internal cohesion, skyrocketing Maduro’s approval rating. 

While the conditions may be ripe, and a conflict could generate positive effects for Maduro, waging a war with the U.S. would be a disastrous blunder. The U.S. is a nuclear-armed superpower whose military strength is unrivaled by any great power, let alone a smaller state like Venezuela. As such, any potential domestic political benefits would be largely outweighed by a decisive military loss at best, or at worst, a prolonged conflict with tens of thousands of military casualties. Furthermore, while Maduro’s re-election received the support of Russia, China, and Iran, it’s unlikely that any of them would support the state in a conflict, given Russia’s war with Ukraine, China’s domestic economic troubles, and Iran’s regional focus.

Ignoring the risk of a U.S. counterstrike, an amphibious invasion would be difficult to mount. Puerto Rico’s terrain is incredibly mountainous, with 60% of the country covered in mountains. Beyond that, it is unlikely that Maduro would be able to utilize Brazilian troops, as Brazil has no incentive to get involved in a war with the U.S. Given the increasing diplomatic estrangement between Brazil and Venezuela, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is unlikely to support such a move. While relations between the two states have historically been strong, Lula has pivoted recently, distancing himself from Maduro and openly critiquing the authoritarian regime and election outcome.

If Maduro were to wage a war, he wouldn’t go too far. Long-standing border disputes with Guyana over ownership of the Essequibo region have escalated in recent years, as Maduro has made similar references about liberating the oil-rich territory. In December 2023, Maduro unveiled a map of the country that included the Essequibo region, and has long announced his intention to take over the oil-rich region. While Maduro has made declarations domestically, Guyana has sought international recognition from bodies like the International Court of Justice to resolve these disputes. Given Venezuela’s oil-based economy, their comparative military dominance over Guyana, and Maduro’s reference to polls (albeit questionable ones) that show an overwhelming majority of Venezuelans would support incorporating the region into Venezuela, the Essequibo region seems primed for a Venezuelan invasion.

But once again, Brazil serves as the foil to Maduro’s plans. Lula has distanced himself from Maduro, improved relations with Guyana, and positioned himself as a mediator between the two states in their quarrel. While Maduro may scoff at the Guyanese army, he can’t ignore the Brazilian Army, who moved armored vehicles to their northern border to further deter Maduro from invasion. Lula’s military move comes after Maduro agreed to pursue diplomatic measures to acquire the region, indicating the growing mistrust between the leaders.

As such, the fate of Venezuela’s military decisions could end up being a question of Brazil’s positioning–specifically the degree to which Lula will seek to influence or restrain Maduro in his ambitions. Therefore, how Brazil navigates this thorny issue will play a decisive role in the region’s stability for the foreseeable future.