2022 was another year of COVID-induced anxiety with widespread worries about democracy, polarization, climate change and threats to democracy. But in this new year special, Richard and Jim say we have reached peak fear. America may well be calming down and headed towards a new sense of normal. The co-hosts throw caution to the wind with a series of fresh outside-the-box forecasts for the twelve months to come.
Listen: https://open.spotify.com
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stands at attention at the Pentagon on September 22, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called hundreds of generals and admirals stationed from around the world to convene in Virginia on Tuesday — with about a week’s notice. He announced 10 new directives that would shift the military’s culture away from what he called “woke garbage” and toward a “warrior ethos.”
“This administration has done a great deal since Day 1 to remove the social justice, politically-correct, toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department,” Hegseth said. “No more identity months, DEI offices or dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction of gender delusions. No more debris. As I’ve said before and will say, we are done with that shit.”
The secretary largely covered old ground during his 45-minute address to an audience that he has been reshaping. The commanders were already predominantly White men, and there were even fewer women in those ranks for today’s speech than there were when Hegseth took office.
He abruptly fired Gen. CQ Brown Jr., the second Black man to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Adm. Linda Fagan — two of the highest-ranking women in the Armed Forces — were also ousted. Franchetti was the first woman to lead the Navy and the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fagan led the Coast Guard and was the first woman to lead a branch of the military.
Hegseth eliminated DEI programs on his first day on the job, later saying that “Our diversity is our strength” was the “single dumbest phrase in military history.”
Hegseth on Tuesday said that he has made it his mission to “uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal.”
“The new War Department golden rule is this: Do unto your unit as you would have done unto your own child’s unit,” Hegseth said, using the Trump administration’s preferred title for the department, though it has yet to be changed by Congress. “Would you want him serving with fat or unfit or undertrained troops? Or alongside people who can’t meet basic standards? Or where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance and war fighting?”
Military experts and researchers have repeatedly voiced concern with the premise of Hegseth’s argument that the military has become less successful since it embraced diversity; that standards were lowered to include women in combat roles; and that diverse leaders did not have merit.
“Today at our direction, we’re ensuring that every service, every unit, every school house and every form of professional military education conducts an immediate review of their standards — any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms were changed to ensure females could qualify,” Hegseth said. “They must be returned to their original standard.”
Hegseth announced that every service fitness test will now be gender-neutral and age-neutral, and returned to the “highest male standard only” in an effort to “restore a ruthless, dispassionate and common sense application of standards.”
“I urge you to use the 1990 test, which is simple: Ask ‘What were the military standards in 1990?” Hegseth said. “And if they have changed, tell me why. Was it a necessary change based on the evolving landscape of combat or was the change due to a softening, weakening or gender-based pursuit of other priorities?”
“I want to be very clear about this, this is not about preventing women from serving,” Hegseth said. He later added, “Physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.” Every member of the joint force at every rank — from new privates to four-star generals — is required to meet the height and weight standards and pass physical training tests twice a year. He acknowledged that this change might disqualify some men, too.
“It all starts with physical fitness and appearance,” Hegseth said. “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations or really any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are.”
More context:
Despite Hegseth’s remarks, it is against the law to lower standards for women when compared with men in the same role. The National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 established that every occupation in the military — from medics to Catholic priests to people in combat — there are standards that must be gender neutral.
Hegseth has long argued — without substantive evidence — that women’s participation in the military has weakened the country’s war-fighting capabilities. He published a book in 2024 called, “The War on Warriors,” in which he argued women in combat roles made the country less effective and less lethal and more complicated. Women veterans, national security organizations and military historians have pushed back and argued that the future of national security calls for more technological skillsets.
“For too long we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons — based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on so-called firsts,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth acknowledged that he fired several military leaders — including people of color and women — as part of his first actions as secretary. His decision making was “more of an art than a science,” he added but his rationale in ousting those leaders was because it’s “nearly impossible to change a culture with the same people who helped create or even benefited from that culture.”
“An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that ‘Our diversity is our strength,’” Hegseth said. “Of course, we know our unity is our strength. They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQI+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females are totally normal.”
Hegseth announced that from now on, the entire promotion process is being thoroughly examined and promotions will only go to top-performing officers, regardless of race and gender.
“My job has been to determine which leaders simply did what they must to answer the prerogatives of civilian leadership and which leaders are truly invested in the ‘woke department’ and therefore are incapable of embracing the War Department and executing new, lawful orders,” Hegseth said. “More leadership changes will be made.”
More context:
There is no “gender quota, goal or ceiling” in the infantry or at the military academies, as established by law in the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994. In fact, it was the opposite for years when there was a cap on how many women could be allowed in certain roles (Women could only account for 2 percent or less among generals and admirals in the force before 1967).
“Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way,” Hegseth said. “We became the woke department, but not anymore. … We just have to be honest. We have to say with our mouths what we see with our eyes.”
Hegseth said that Military Equal Opportunity policies will be overhauled to disempower “complainers” and make sure commanders are no longer “walking on eggshells.”
He also said the department is reviewing its definitions of “bullying” and “hazing” to make sure leaders can properly train new recruits.
“Basic training is being restored to what it should be: scary, tough and disciplined,” Hegseth said. “We’re empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits, ensuring that future war fighters are forged. Yes, they can shark attack. They can toss bunks. They can swear. And yes, they can put their hands on recruits.”
In a lot of ways, Hegseth’s message to commanders was a call to get on board or get out: “If the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign. We would thank you for your service.”
More context:
The Military Equal Opportunity program and the Defense Department’s civilian equivalent allowed personnel to report discrimination and harassment. Policy changes and cultural shifts will likely impact service members, including victims of sexual assault and harassment, who already face obstacles when reporting bad actors. Nearly 1 in 4 women in the military report having experienced sexual assault and more than half report harassment — though researchers found the vast majority of incidents go unreported altogether.
In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’ was first published on The19th and republished with permission.
Mariel Padilla is a General Assignment Reporter for The19th.
Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.
In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.
Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.
At the plaintiffs’ request, LDAD’s brief focuses on two constitutional pillars: standing and appropriations law. The denial of access harms individual members of Congress by violating a statutory right unique to their office.
Moreover, the fact that the provision guaranteeing unannounced access appears in an appropriations bill does not diminish its legal force. As Mitt Regan, McDevitt Professor of Jurisprudence at Georgetown Law and principal author of the brief, stated: “Federal law explicitly protects Members of Congress’ right to unannounced oversight visits. ICE’s policy violates both the letter and spirit of that law.”
The Trump administration’s argument for restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress to ICE facilities centers on operational control and security concerns. Some of their reasoning includes:
However, critics, including Rep. Bennie Thompson, argue this policy violates federal law, which explicitly allows members of Congress to conduct oversight visits without prior notice to any DHS facility used to “detain or otherwise house aliens.” Furthermore, the policy has led to multiple incidents where Democratic lawmakers were denied entry or arrested during attempted oversight visits, fueling accusations that the administration is trying to avoid scrutiny of detention conditions.
Despite the administration's claims, the case seems clear. Congress has both the legal authority and the moral obligation to inspect detention centers, especially those housing vulnerable populations. Federal law prohibits DHS from using appropriated funds to block or delay such visits. By ignoring this mandate, ICE not only violates statutory law but also erodes the separation of powers that sustains our democracy.
LDAD’s defense of congressional oversight is part of a broader initiative led by Professor Julie Goldscheid and former Judge Rosalyn Richter, who have been sounding the alarm about the administration’s executive edicts and their alignment with Project 2025—the authoritarian blueprint advanced by the Heritage Foundation. In her recent Fulcrum column, “Project 2025 in Action: Sounding the Alarm for Democracy,” Professor Goldscheid warned:
“Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration has systematically taken steps to implement Project 2025… These actions touch on virtually every aspect of public and private life, leaving many Americans across the country overwhelmed, confused, exhausted, and frightened.”
She also offered a powerful call to action:
“Each of us can take steps to support—and perfect—our democracy… The value of the right to speak freely, to celebrate dissent even when uncomfortable, to have a say in our government, to live free from surveillance and the threat of unwarranted punishment, demands no less.”
LDAD was founded to galvanize lawyers in defense of the rule of law amid unprecedented threats to democratic governance. Their mission is nonpartisan and rooted in the belief that legal professionals have a unique responsibility to:
In the Gilded Age of the millionaire, wealth signified ownership. The titans of old built railroads, monopolized oil, and bought their indulgences in yachts, mansions, and eventually, sports teams. A franchise was the crown jewel: a visible, glamorous token of success. But that era is over. Today’s billionaires, those who tower, not with millions but with unimaginable billions, find sports teams and other baubles beneath them. For this new aristocracy, the true prize is authorship of History (with a capital “H”) itself.
Once you pass a certain threshold of wealth, it seems, mere possessions no longer thrill. At the billionaire’s scale, you wake up in the morning searching for something grand enough to justify your own existence, something commensurate with your supposed singularly historical importance. To buy a team or build another mansion is routine, played, trite. To reshape the very framework of society—now that is a worthy stimulus. That is the game. And increasingly, billionaires are playing it.
Look closely at the moves of men like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Marc Andreessen, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and others. Their empires extend, not just over products and markets but over political culture, public institutions, and even national policy. They cast themselves as visionaries, masters of grand strategies invisible to ordinary eyes. They fund initiatives that fracture public life, manipulate information ecosystems, and bend governments toward serving private rather than public interests. Their reward is not merely financial return but the intoxicating sense of power that comes from steering the destiny of millions.
Hence, nothing startling or puzzling in their fascination with transhumanism, for instance, or radical life extension, or the technological pursuit of immortality. Many of the same figures who bankroll think tanks and media platforms also invest heavily in longevity biotech, cryonics, brain-computer interfaces, and artificial general intelligence (AGI) research. Their interest is not only speculative engineering; it is existential. For some, the quest for radically extended life or the ability to preserve or upload consciousness promises a literal escape hatch from mortality—a way to make their projects and preferences persist beyond a single lifespan. For others, belief in a coming “singularity” and the transformative power of AGI supplies both a metaphysical narrative and a practical tool: If intelligence can be engineered and amplified, then so too can social order. This fusion of immortalist yearning and techno-utopianism explains why investments in AI, neural interfaces, and longevity industries sit comfortably alongside their type of political interventions: Both are attempts to institutionalize control over the future, to render one’s will durable across time and bodies.
The strategies vary in method but not in essence. One path has been the evisceration of the working class through globalization. By financing the offshoring of jobs, billionaires restructured the global economy in ways that hollowed out American towns while enriching multinational corporations. The move was not simply about lowering costs. It was a restructuring of social power—weakening organized labor, disempowering the industrial base, and leaving workers in constant insecurity. A diminished working class is easier to control.
Another path has been through culture and media. Billionaires have poured money into think tanks, foundations, and media platforms, not simply to influence policy but to shape what can even be discussed in the first place. When the world’s wealthiest individuals own the megaphones, the boundaries of acceptable debate unsurprisingly shrink to what suits their interests. What we see is not merely ownership of companies but ownership of discourse; the power to decide which ideas circulate and which die in obscurity.
Still, another strategy involves direct policy warfare. For decades, billionaire-backed movements have sought to dismantle the social safety net, shrinking the welfare state until it can barely function. Ostensibly, this is done in the name of efficiency, but the effect is brutally clear: Millions forced into precarity, vulnerable populations left exposed, and minorities disproportionately harmed. Such policies don’t happen by accident; they are engineered through lobbying, campaign financing, and strategic political donations. The result is a polity where the government serves private profit more than public welfare.
At the same time, billionaires have fueled divisions that weaken democratic solidarity. The stoking of identity-based conflicts—pitting groups against one another over cultural issues—distracts from the consolidation of economic power at the top. Immigration, terrorism, and crime are hyped, not because they are unmanageable threats but because fear justifies surveillance, militarization, and new tools of control. By the time the public realizes what has happened, the state has been repurposed into a security apparatus that protects, not citizens but capital.
This is not to suggest that billionaires meet in secret to plot each of these moves together. Instead, it is to point out that they meet openly and plot and strategize and tell us exactly what they plan to do in glittering gatherings, such as the Bilderberg Meetings, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Aspen Ideas Festival, the Milken Institute Global Conference, etc. Because, after all, History and the Future are theirs to design, and democracy is merely a clay to be molded here and there by their collective strategic genius.
The danger is not only that this distorts democracy but that it erodes the very principle of democratic agency. When a handful of individuals hold the power to rewire economies, manipulate debates, and reshape policies at will, ordinary citizens are reduced to spectators. Political life becomes a contest, not of ideas but of bankrolls. The myth that all citizens have equal say in democracy collapses under the sheer gravitational pull of billionaire ambition.
Defenders will say this is just philanthropy or “visionary leadership,” that great fortunes bring with them great “responsibility.” But responsibility without accountability is not democracy—it is monarchy by another name. When billionaires intervene in climate policy, education, or even space exploration, their priorities may align with the public good for a time, but what happens when they don’t? Who checks them? Who votes them out?
If democracy is to mean anything, it cannot allow its destiny to be the playground of a few titans seeking meaning through stimulation. The ownership of History must remain collective, not private. That requires reining in billionaire power by imagining a whole new way of doing politics and government that renders the oceans of money that billionaires control null currency in the arena of democratic decision making.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.
Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.
In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.
The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.
But back at the UN, translators keep working on the aliens' mysterious book. The meaning comes only in fragments. Meanwhile, protagonist Michael Chambers grows comfortable with the idea of boarding one of the ships. If hunger is solved and peace secured, why not see what else the Kanamits have to offer?
The suspense builds as he walks up the ramp. Just then, his colleague runs forward in panic. She has cracked more of the book's text. Her voice is urgent as guards push Chambers aboard: "Don't go! The book—To Serve Man—it's a cookbook!"
The final image shows Chambers trapped in a cell, speaking directly to the audience from aboard the alien vessel. He tells us that sooner or later, we'll all be on the menu.
Serling, a World War II paratrooper, used science fiction because network censors blocked his scripts about lynching and war. As he said, "I found that it was all right to have Martians say things Democrats and Republicans could never say." The Kanamits needed everyone to believe their lie about benevolent service.
Today's authoritarianism works differently. It operates multiple cookbooks simultaneously: sanitized bureaucratic language for institutions, protective messaging for supporters, and open intimidation for opponents. The Kanamits needed universal deception. This administration has discovered something more efficient—and more chilling: you don't need to fool everyone when you can convince enough people they're the chefs, not the meal.
Consider what happened to Jimmy Kimmel. After he mocked the political response to Charlie Kirk's assassination, FCC Chair Brendan Carr didn't work behind closed doors. He went on podcasts and threatened Disney's broadcast licenses publicly. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr declared. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
Within hours, major station owners Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would no longer air Kimmel's show. Disney, facing the loss of crucial broadcast licenses worth billions, caved immediately. The show went dark that same night. PEN America called it "government-instigated censorship." Even Republican senators like Rand Paul condemned it as "absolutely inappropriate." But it worked—the threat was public, immediate, and devastatingly effective.
The administration declared a "crime emergency" in Washington, D.C., deploying 800 National Guard troops to patrol the capital's streets like an occupying force. The move came after a single incident involving a government worker, but the response was overwhelming: armed soldiers in fatigues manning checkpoints, conducting searches, and establishing what the administration called "protective perimeters."
In Los Angeles, the deployment was even more dramatic: 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines swept into neighborhoods during immigration raids. Residents watched through windows as military vehicles rolled down residential streets and troops in body armor set up operations. The administration framed it as protecting federal agents, but a federal judge saw through the euphemisms.
The judge's ruling was scathing: the administration had "systematically used armed soldiers" whose "identity was often obscured by protective armor" to "demonstrate a military presence" and conduct law enforcement activities. This violated the 19th-century Posse Comitatus Act, which explicitly bars the military from policing American citizens. The judge wrote that such conduct amounted to "creating a national police force with the President as its chief."
Just this week, a new executive order took the normalization further. Federal agencies must now "question and interrogate" individuals engaged in political violence regarding the entity or individual organizing such actions before any plea agreements. The order describes this as part of a "comprehensive strategy to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle" domestic terrorism networks.
But strip away the sanitized language, and this is expanded interrogation authority—the power to extract information about political associations before defendants can even consider plea deals. It's presented as "Countering Domestic Terrorism," another cookbook that frames broad investigative powers as protective service for the American people.
In Serling's episode, the turning point comes when the translator finally reads beyond the title. Until then, "To Serve Man" was enough to calm suspicion. Only a full translation revealed the cookbook's true purpose.
Democracy depends on such translators—journalists who track how laws work in practice, watchdog groups that expose how "reforms" harm people, and courts that check whether emergency powers match legal boundaries. Without them, promises of service go untested.
The Kanamits needed to hide their cookbook because they required universal compliance. Modern authoritarianism operates in plain sight because it needs only selective permission. Some resist, some look away, and some board willingly, convinced they'll be dining, not being served.
Leaders will always promise they've come to serve. Our job is to translate what that really means—before we board the ship.
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and the author of The Stability Brief, with over 40 years of experience in civic leadership.
