Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump's march on Washington

Opinion

Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021

Supporters of President Donald Trumps stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Kleinfeld is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and States United for Democracy.

What separates a democracy from a dictatorship? The ability for the will of voters to determine who governs them. The rule of law, a force that holds even the most powerful to a set of rules and institutions independent of the will of any one man. The peaceful transfer of power between parties.

This month, Americans are learning how thin that line can be.

As Cassidy Hutchinson described Donald Trump’s plan to march with his followers to the Capitol, I heard echoes of Benito Mussolini’s March on Rome – when conservative leaders handed the country to a dictator without a shot.


On Oct. 28, 1922, about 25,000 of Mussolini’s black-shirted supporters gathered on the outskirts of Rome, threatening a march on the capital. The prime minister had been warned just a few days before – but refused to believe the threat was real. The military could have overwhelmed the marchers – but the government decided not to.

Mussolini’s Fascists were already the country's strongest political party, having used persuasive fears of communism mixed with street violence to get business leaders and others on their side, one locality at a time. Conservative elites thought they could pull the strings and control Mussolini, using his popularity to forward their agendas. By the time the marchers entered the capital, Mussolini had already been handed control of the country by the king and conservative party leaders.

Americans are rightfully stunned by the revelations of the select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. The president of the United States was aware that his followers were armed. He knew that the armaments were not intended for him. He directed the armed mob to march on the Capitol to pressure his vice president to overturn a legitimate election, after his own calls that morning had not succeeded. When Mike Pence did his constitutional duty, Trump was willing to let the man next in line for the presidency be killed by the angry mob he had summoned.

For two more weeks, this leader – a man who allegedly grasped for a steering wheel from the back seat so that he could lead his marchers to a transfer of power by force, whose word can launch thousands of nuclear missiles – remained in charge of the United States of America.

The country should be shocked by these devastating revelations. But they are not a surprise to the members of Congress who had been involved in the plotting and later sought pardons. They were not a revelation to the Republican Party and state leaders who had been privy to nearly two months of attempts to grasp at power over a lie through false accusations, demands to “find votes,” and fake elector schemes. They were not a shock to his staffers or his Cabinet, who failed to invoke the 25th Amendment, as was their constitutional duty.

Trump’s character was well-established during the 1,446 days he was in power before the events of Jan. 6. The intimidation and violence Trump directed his supporters to launch at anyone who stood in his way was also well known. Oathkeepers and other organized violent movements had provided volunteer security during his first inauguration and at multiple campaign events. The violent threats and armed protestors a Trump tweet could direct at the home of a Republican who voted for his impeachment, supported bipartisan legislation or otherwise opposed his will had been occurring for years.

Trump failed to take over our democracy by force on Jan. 6. But like Mussolini, his popularity and threats of violence led conservatives to hand him power well before the march.

More concerning is his continued grip. Weeks after the election was decided, Republicans in leadership positions refused to allow classified security briefings and other necessities that enable our country to continue to function during a time of government transition. The MAGA faction of Republican elites continued to pay obeisance after Jan. 6, building Trump’s power by repeating lies about the election that they knew were untrue. And as Republican primaries are demonstrating, Trump continues to hold sway over local Republican elites.

America needs a conservative party to serve the tens of millions of conservatives whose beliefs deserve representation. But a two-party democracy cannot function if one party allows an authoritarian to take the helm. Judge J. Michael Luttig has warned that the Electoral Count Act, which determines the presidency, is not up to the challenge of another attempted takeover. We remain in “clear and present danger.”

But Congress can reform the Electoral Count Act. They can protect election officials like Shaye Moss from intimidation. State GOP leaders can stop using violence to buttress their own power and instead prosecute people who intimidate and threaten. Republican voters can reject lies and threats. Democrats can stop supporting anti-democracy Republicans in the hopes that doing so will help Democrats in general elections. It is time to take back our elections from a potential dictator and his mob.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less