Jeff Bezos Is Destroying What’s Left Of The Washington Post To Please Our Dim, Unpopular Autocrats

Journalism

from the the-lords-of-agitprop dept

Jeff Bezos this week continued to dismantle what’s left of the Washington Post via another massive round of layoffs that left remaining staff stunned. Among the latest cuts is the elimination of the paper’s popular sports desk, scaling back of international and local news, the firing of an untold swath of journalists, and the ending of the paper’s book sections, among other major changes.

This comes on the heels of other decisions by Bezos to fire all of the paper’s black columnists, turn the op-ed section into pro-corporatist agitprop, censor cartoonists that criticize Jeff, and generally shift the paper’s journalistic tone in a more right wing, autocrat-friendly, corporatist direction. You know, like every other major corporate media outlet from CNN to CBS.

Of course, nobody actually wants this. The actual audience for extraction class agitprop is arguably very small and already quite well served. So it’s amusing to see WAPO leadership insist that these additional, brutal cuts are necessary because the paper has been losing subscribers and “wants to be competitive“:

“Murray acknowledged that the Post has struggled to reach “customers” and talked about the competitive media marketplace. “Today, the Washington Post is taking a number of actions across the company to secure our future,” he said, according to an audio recording of the meeting.”

Let’s be clear: billionaires like Jeff Bezos don’t want a functioning press. They want the lazy simulacrum of a functional press that caters to their ideology (more for me, less for you) and protects their interests. As with Larry Ellison’s acquisition of CBS and TikTok, and Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, it’s best to view this as a global project to defang accountability for the planet’s richest, shittiest people and corporations.

Former Washington Post editor Marty Baron didn’t really mince words about what this means for a once-functional newspaper that, at this point, probably can’t be salvaged:

WAPO management insist that they’re going to “narrow their focus on politics.” By this they mean more of the feckless, “both sides,” “view from nowhere” DC gossip reporting you see at other billionaire-owned outlets like Axios, Semafor, and Politico. Glad-handy journalism that’s less concerned with the truth than it is appeasing ownership, protecting access, and keeping the ad money flowing.

The kind of wimpy, soft-knuckled cack that can (and repeatedly is) exploited by authoritarian zealots who know these outlets lack the courage to call them out for what they really are. You see, if you’re honest about the extremist nature of our unpopular autocratic government, you might lose access, upset paper management, alienate Republican ad viewers, or piss off regulators eyeing your latest merger.

Bezos could fund functional journalism at the Washington Post for decades to come without making a dent in his finances, were that something of actual interest to him. This is a guy who just blew $75 million on a propaganda puff piece kissing the ass of the president’s wife. That kind of money could fund most independent newsrooms for the better part of the next decade.

Jeff wants to ensure the administration will pay him to launch his unreliable rockets into space, slather his fledgling LEO satellite network with subsidies, coddle his cloud computing empire, allow him to dominate every last aspect of modern retail, and generally be broadly exploitative in a way that undermines competition, consumers, and labor. He wants, and applauds, Trump’s destruction of the regulatory state.

Bezos still “wins” even if the Post doesn’t survive his “leadership.” At worst (for Jeff) the paper is converted into a sad, pseudo-journalistic simulacrum that exists largely to blow smoke up the ass of wealth and power. At best another major media institution is destroyed, eliminating yet another outlet that used to (admittedly with increasing inconsistency) hold billionaires and corporate power to account.

But it’s really something even worse than just rich people destroying journalism to coddle their delicate egos and protect their financial interests. All of this really is part of a broad, multi-generational effort by the extraction class to eliminate checks and balances and accountability, erode informed consensus, befuddle the electorate, and dismantle not just democratic norms, but democracy itself.

And, if you hadn’t noticed, it’s been a smashing success so far.

If there’s a plus side to this mess, it’s that Jeff and Elon and Larry’s clumsy efforts to dominate and destroy U.S. journalism create vast new opportunities for indie newsletter authors, worker-owned newsrooms, and independent outlets (like BestNetTech), to serve a public that’s desperate for something tangible, courageous, and real in a sea of bullshit and clumsy artifice. Give them, and us, your time and money.

Filed Under: agitprop, disinformation, jeff bezos, journalism, maga, media, propaganda
Companies: washington post

Federal Judges Are Done With The Deference: Courts Call Out Admin’s Immigration ‘Bullshit’ In Increasingly Pointed Terms

Legal Issues

from the judges-wept dept

Over the past week, two federal judges have issued rulings on immigration cases that aren’t just legally significant—they’re genuinely extraordinary documents. One includes a photo of a five-year-old in a Spiderman backpack, biblical citations, and closes with Ben Franklin’s warning about keeping the republic. The other spends 83 pages methodically dismantling a cabinet secretary’s decision, includes screenshots of her social media posts, and concludes that she “pounds X (f/k/a Twitter)” instead of following the law. Both judges reached back to the Founders to make their points. Both dropped any pretense of the typical judicial deference afforded to the executive branch. And both made crystal clear that they see what’s happening for exactly what it is.

Let’s start with the shorter one. Judge Fred Biery in the Western District of Texas issued a brief but devastating opinion granting habeas corpus to Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son, Liam—the child whose photo went viral wearing a blue hat with ears and a Spiderman backpack when he was kidnapped by federal agents in Minnesota and shipped to a detention center in Texas. Judge Biery didn’t mince words:

The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. This Court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported but do so by proper legal procedures.

He then offered what he called a “civics lesson to the government,” including reminding them of some key parts that were in the Declaration we signed 250 years ago to be free from a monarch:

Apparent also is the government’s ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence. Thirty-three-year-old ThomasJefferson enumerated grievances against a would-be authoritarian king over our nascent nation. Among others were:

1. “He has sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People.”
2. “He has excited domestic Insurrection among us.”
3. “For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us.”
4. “He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislatures.”

“We the people” are hearing echos of that history.

And then there is that pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.

U.S. CONST. amend. IV.

And the startling conclusion to the civics lesson the US federal government got from a judge.

Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.

And in case anyone missed the point, Biery closed with a reference you don’t often see in federal court opinions: “Philadelphia, September 17, 1787: ‘Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have?’ ‘A republic, if you can keep it.'” Followed by: “With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike, It is so ORDERED.”

The ruling includes the photo of the five-year-old child, and two biblical citations. The first to “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'” and the second to… “Jesus wept.”

If Judge Biery’s ruling was a shot across the bow—short, sharp, impossible to miss—then Judge Ana Reyes’s 83-page ruling in the Haitian TPS (Temporary Protected Status) case is a full broadside. Where Biery reached for the Declaration and the Bible, Reyes brings receipts—83 pages of them—that lay bare just how far federal judges have moved from customary deference to open incredulity.

The ruling opens with a letter from George Washington in 1783 declaring that “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”

Then it gets to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s position on immigration:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take.

The ruling then includes a screenshot of Noem’s X post declaring “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE. THEY ARE ALL KILLERS, LEECHES, AND ENTITLEMENT JUNKIES. WE DONT WANT THEM HERE.”

Judge Reyes notes dryly: “So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program.”

The plaintiffs in the case are five Haitian TPS holders whom Judge Reyes takes pains to introduce:

They are not, it emerges, killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies. They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse.

The ruling systematically dismantles every single aspect of Secretary Noem’s decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation. But the section on DHS’s supposed “consultation with appropriate agencies” is particularly brutal.

The TPS statute requires the Secretary to consult with appropriate agencies before making a termination decision. Here’s what that “consultation” actually looked like:

On Friday, September 5, 2025—that is, the same day that the NTPSA court set aside the Partial Vacatur of Haiti’s TPS designation—a DHS staffer emailed a State staffer at 4:55 p.m.: “Due to the litigation, we are re-reviewing country conditions in Haiti based on the original TPS deadline. Can you advise on State’s views on the matter?” The State staffer responded within 53 minutes: “State believes that there would be no foreign policy concerns with respect to a change in the TPS statue of Haiti.”

This was it. The full extent of the supposed consultation with appropriate agencies.

The judge notes that she believe she “must be missing something” and included a bit of the transcript from the hearing:

Court: So in the Federal Register notice, the Secretary wrote, “After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary determined that Haiti no longer meets the conditions for the designating as TPS”; right?

Government Counsel: Yes.

Court: What were the appropriate agencies that the Secretary consulted? . . .

Government Counsel: So, Your Honor, it’s the Department of State email found at 409 and 410. That is what we have. . . .

Court: No other agency was consulted?

Government Counsel: No other agency was consulted. . . .

Court: And the extent of the Department of State consultation was the email exchange at 409 and 410.

Government Counsel: That is my understanding

The judge’s response to this 53-minute email exchange being presented as statutory “consultation” is unsparing:

Congress did not vest the Secretary with Humpty Dumpty-like power to make the word “consultation” mean “just what [she] chooses it to mean—neither more nor less.”

It gets worse. The court notes that the State Department’s own Travel Advisory for Haiti—the document that literally says “Do not travel to Haiti for any reason”—was updated after Noem’s first termination attempt. The updated version, warning of worsened conditions, doesn’t even appear in the administrative record. The Secretary responsible for making this determination simply didn’t look at her own government’s assessment of the country’s safety.

Then there’s the pattern. As of this ruling, Secretary Noem has terminated TPS designations for every single country that has come up for review since taking office. Twelve countries. Twelve terminations. The ruling includes a handy chart:

Twelve for twelve. Judge Reyes notes this is “unprecedented in the thirty-five years since the establishment of the TPS program for a DHS Secretary to terminate every TPS designation that crosses her desk for review.”

The ruling then gets into the substance of Noem’s reasoning—or lack thereof. The Secretary claims there are parts of Haiti “suitable to return to” but never identifies a single safe location. Indeed, the Court gave the government a chance to explain exactly where these “parts” of Haiti that were safe were, and was not impressed by the answer:

According to Secretary Noem, “data surrounding internal relocation does indicate parts of the country are suitable to return to.” But the Secretary cited no data to support this proposition and failed to identify a single safe location. In response to an inquiry from the Court, the Government cited an October 29, 2025, USCIS memo in the administrative record as the supporting analysis. “The memo,” it noted, “reflects that individuals have been internally displaced, thereby indicating that Haitian residents found certain areas in Haiti that could be suitable for return.” But the memo also fails to identify a single safe location by name or even geographic area. And the fact that, as the memo notes, 1.3 million Haitians—around twelve percent of the population—have been “internally displaced due to escalating violence” says nothing about whether they escaped to suitable areas. If anything, those areas are presumptively now less suitable for return, having been inundated with internal refugees.

Meanwhile, the administrative record is full of statements like these:

“Haiti’s crisis has reached catastrophic levels” — Human Rights Watch, January 2025

“The violence has increased dramatically in 2024” — Doctors Without Borders, January 2025

“Haiti is paralyzed” — Crisis Group, February 2025

“Top United Nations Officials Urge Swift Global Action as Haiti Nears Collapse” — UN Security Council, July 2025

“The people of Haiti are in a perfect storm of suffering” — UN Secretary-General Guterres, August 2025

Against all of this, Secretary Noem concluded that “there are no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti that prevent Haitian TPS holders from returning [to] safety.” Judge Reyes is incredulous that the Secretary’s analysis relies on “emerging signals of hope” rather than actual changed conditions:

Unable to identify present conditions supporting her conclusion, Secretary Noem turns instead to speculation about future improvement. Each source she cited speaks to how Haiti might improve in the future. She quoted a UN article referencing Secretary-General António Guterres’s statement that despite ongoing violence in Haiti, “‘there are emerging signals of hope.’’’ He cautioned that “these fragile gains” depend on “more decisive international support.” Emerging signals of hope, of course, are not actual change. Secretary-General Guterres’s full remarks to the UNSC underscore this point. They do not describe a nation on the brink of recovery. Rather, they describe a nation in crisis, whose future hinges on internal “unity” and “resolve from [the UNSC].”

The ruling also destroys the government’s “national interest” analysis, which focuses on immigrants attempting to enter the US illegally and those who overstay visas. The problem? TPS holders are already here. Legally:

Secretary Noem’s analysis also focused on those who “overstay their visas” and so remain in the country unlawfully. Id. She claimed that these overstayers “may be harder to locate and monitor,” increasing vulnerabilities in immigration enforcement systems. See id. She also said they “place an added strain on local communities by increasing demand for public resources, contributing to housing and healthcare pressures, and competing in an already limited job market.” Id. But Haitian TPS holders are not in this cohort either. They are in the U.S. lawfully. See Jan. 6 P.M. Hr’g Tr. at 85:15–87:12. Indeed, TPS holders are easy to locate because they regularly update their address information with DHS to maintain that status and their work authorization. See id. at 94:25–95:6. And Secretary Noem provides no data to support the overgeneralization that those who overstay their visas are a strain on their local communities. See Dkt. 122. They may well cause a strain, but terminating Haiti’s TPS termination not alleviate it because, again, Haitian TPS holders do not fall into this cohort.

Regarding that confusion of TPS visitors being here legally, meaning they literally cannot overstay their visas, the judge notes in a footnote how absurd part of the government’s argument is:

With respect, this borders on the absurd. The latter has zero relation to the former or reality.

When asked where in the record the Court could find data on TPS holders represented in “overstay” rates (based on those who maybe overstayed visas prior to getting TPS status), the government comes up empty. See if you sense where the judge loses patience:

The Government responds by speculating that maybe some Haitians overstayed their visas before obtaining TPS status. Maybe. Who knows? Not Secretary Noem. The Court asked the Government: “[w]here in the [CAR] can the Court find the percentage of TPS holders represented in the overstay rates?” The response: “The [CAR] does not contain data that is this finely dissected.” Which is to say, not enough people to even bother counting.

The equal protection analysis is where things get really pointed. Judge Reyes catalogs President Trump’s statements about Haitians and other nonwhite immigrants:

President Trump has made—freely, at times even boastfully—several derogatory statements about Haitians and other nonwhite foreigners. To start, he has repeatedly invoked racist tropes of national purity, declaring that “illegal immigrants”—a category he wrongly assigns to Haitian TPS holders—are “poisoning the blood” of America. He has, Plaintiffs allege, complained that recently admitted nonwhite Africans would “never ‘go back to their huts’ in Africa.” He has complained further that nonwhite immigration is an “invasion,” creating a “dumping ground” that is “destroying our country.” He has described immigrants as “not people,” “snakes,” and “garbage,” who have “bad genes.” He has also stated that he prefers immigrants from “nice”—predominantly white—countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark over immigrants from “shithole countries”

President Trump has referred to Haiti as a “shithole country,” suggested Haitians “probably have AIDS,” and complained that Haitian immigration is “like a death wish for our country.” He has also promoted the false conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were “eating the pets of the people” in Springfield, Ohio. Even after that (ridiculous) claim was debunked, he claimed they were eating “other things too that they’re not supposed to be.” About two weeks after the Termination, he again described Haiti as a “filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting” “shithole country.” He stated: “I have also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries.” Then continued, “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right? Why cannot we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few, let us have a few, from Denmark.” It is not a coincidence that Haiti’s population is ninety-five percent black while Norway’s is over ninety percent white.

The ruling notes that Trump’s statements came close in time to Noem’s decisions, and that Noem herself has made her own views clear, as noted in the screenshot, calling Haitians “leeches, entitlement junkies, and foreign invaders” just three days after making the Termination decision.

And then we get to the conclusion. It’s worth quoting at length because you really don’t see this kind of language from the bench:

There is an old adage among lawyers. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side—or at least has ignored them. Does not have the law on her side—or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter).

And then the kicker:

Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the APA to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that.

These rulings represent something we’ve been watching develop for months now: federal judges completely abandoning the traditional deference typically afforded to government positions, because the government has made clear it doesn’t deserve it. The DOJ’s credibility has been in freefall, and judges are no longer pretending otherwise. They’re reaching back to Franklin and Washington as genuine warnings about what happens when executive power operates unchecked by law or facts.

Some people will dismiss this as “activist judges.” But what we’re seeing is something different: judges trying to do their actual jobs—reviewing whether the government followed the law—and finding that the government isn’t even pretending to follow it anymore.

The administration is ignoring statutory requirements entirely, fabricating rationales after the fact, and treating judicial review as an inconvenience to be steamrolled rather than a constitutional check to be respected. We’re not talking about simple judicial disagreements of interpretation of the law. These opinions read more like desperate signals from the bench that something has gone very, very wrong.

I’ve seen some complaints—in particular about the first short ruling—that it doesn’t read in a very judicial manner. The lack of citations is a bit startling, and probably bodes ill if the government appeals. But that’s almost the point. When a judge includes a photo of a child in a Spiderman backpack, cites “Jesus wept,” and closes with Ben Franklin’s warning about keeping the republic—or when another judge spends 83 pages documenting that the Secretary of DHS ignored her own agencies, ignored the evidence, ignored the law, and instead “pounds X”—they’re writing for more than an appeals court. They’re writing for history. They’re writing for the public. They’re sick of the lies and the gaslighting, and the simple fascism of it all in a supposed constitutional democracy. And they want to make damn sure that someone, somewhere, is paying attention.

Filed Under: ana reyes, arbitrary and capricious, dhs, donald trump, fred biery, haiti, immigration, kristi noem, lies, temporary protected status, tps

Daily Deal: SunFounder GalaxyRVR Mars Rover Kit for Arduino

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The SunFounder GalaxyRVR Mars Rover Kit is your gateway to hands-on learning on robotics, coding, and Mars-like adventures! Its durable aluminum frame and rocker-bogie suspension easily handle tough terrains, while smart sensors ensure smooth navigation. It’s compatible with the Arduino UNO R3, runs on solar power, and includes real-time FPV with app-based control for day or night adventures. Complete with beginner-friendly tutorials and active support, this kit makes learning coding, electronics, and robotics fun and accessible. It’s on sale for $110.

Note: The BestNetTech Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from BestNetTech Deals helps support BestNetTech. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

DOJ Prosecutors Directly Contradict The DHS’s Oregon Shooting Narrative

Failures

from the here-comes-another-DOJ-purge dept

The two murders by immigration officers during Trump’s vengeful “surge” in Minneapolis, Minnesota have grabbed most of the headlines recently. And deservedly so. The violent rhetoric used by nearly every administration official — combined with a lack of training and the explicit understanding no one will be punished by Trump for whatever’s done in Trump’s name — has delivered a day-to-day purge of minorities that this government and its supporters continue to pretend is nothing more than good, solid (immigration) law enforcement.

But before those shootings turned the nation’s attention to Minnesota, hundreds of federal officers had been turned loose in other “Democrat” states. Because officers were encouraged — by arrest quotas and the administration’s portrayal of anyone from other countries as inherently dangerous — to succeed by any means necessary, they did… even if it meant filling people with bullet holes for being on the wrong side of Trump’s version of history.

In January, two Venezuelans were shot by ICE officers. The DHS immediately claimed this was a good shoot, considering how potentially violent these recipients of bullets were.

Yesterday, two suspected Tren de Aragua gang associates—let loose on American streets by Joe Biden—weaponized their vehicle against Border Patrol in Portland. The agent took immediate action to defend himself and others, shooting them. 

After fleeing, the suspects drove nearly five miles to an apartment complex and called emergency medical services. They were transported to separate hospitals. Luis David Nino-Moncada sustained an injury to the arm while Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras was hit in the chest. Nino-Moncada is now in FBI custody. These individuals are not married.  

I’ve highlighted two things from this January DHS press release. Sure, it’s all bullshit but these two sentences need to be called out.

First, just because someone managed to cross the border doesn’t mean they were “let loose on American streets” by a presidential administration.

Second, what the fuck even is this? “These individuals are not married.” Who gives a shit? What bearing does this have on anything? Or are we so far down the white Christian nationalist rabbit hole that simply co-habitating a moving vehicle is justification enough for being shot by federal officers?

Any normal administration would never have included those two sentences, even if it wanted to push the narrative that the people who were shot were dangerous enough to justify the violent reaction. Throwing this shit into the mix is just how the Trump administration does business: like two kids piggy-backed in a trenchcoat, pretending to be a full-grown adult.

And that’s enough to let everyone know very little of what is being said is true. It’s a dog whistle for racism, sexism, and making-a-bunch-of-shit-upism that is meant to appease the Bigot in Chief and make MAGA’s collective panties so wet they should be asking FEMA for flood relief grants. (I’m paraphrasing Shoresy here.)

While that may look good on the permanent DHS press release record, it doesn’t look nearly as bully-smart (I’m coining that) as the people spewing it thinks it does when it runs up against the part of the government that isn’t so easily swayed by bigoted gibberish that’s interspersed with partisan attacks and non sequiturs.

Now that these shootings are being handled in court, the narrative (and I’m being extremely gracious here in treating this froth as the equivalent of an actual narrative) is disintegrating. It turns out prosecutors and investigators can’t actually back up these wild-ass DHS claims. Forced to rely on facts, the DOJ is finding out it doesn’t have many to work with.

During the border patrol stop, the driver, Luis Niño-Moncada, “weaponized their vehicle against” officers, DHS said, prompting an agent “to defend himself and others” by shooting the occupants. Zambrano-Contreras was hit in the chest, Niño-Moncada was hit in the arm and both were hospitalized, then taken into federal custody, DHS noted. The agents were uninjured.

But court records obtained by the Guardian reveal a Department of Justice prosecutor later directly contradicted DHS’s Tren de Aragua statements in court, telling a judge: “We’re not suggesting … [Niño-Moncada] is a gang member.” An FBI affidavit issued following the incident also suggests that in the previous shooting cited by DHS, Zambrano-Contreras was not a suspect, but rather a reported victim of a sexual assault and robbery. Neither Niño-Moncada or Zambrano-Contreras have prior criminal convictions, their lawyers have said.

This is just as sloppy as the quasi-gang database the DHS has been using as an excuse to send Venezuelans to El Salvador’s CECOT hell hole. There’s no investigation going on here. There’s just the DHS claiming that any Venezuelan it shoots or otherwise brutalizes is probably a Tren de Aragua gang member.

No doubt some prosecutors are going to get shit-canned for daring to oppose the DHS’s self-serving narrative in their sworn statements to judges. Given that the DOJ really can’t afford to lose many more of these, one wonders why this administration can’t simply provide a “no comment,” rather than immediately push narratives that it has to know will be contradicted once the facts arrive at the scene.

I mean, just stating what happened in whatever exonerative form you want to use (“officer-involved shooting”), followed by the assertion that the shooting is currently under investigation would be far better than what this administration chooses to do EVERY CHANCE IT GETS.

Whatever dubious charm these statements might have held during Trump’s blustery return to office has long worn off. I suspect even many of the MAGA faithful are getting a little tired of every incident being greeted by government statements that are long on hyperbole but short on facts. Sure, there are still a number of people so fully-cooked that they can’t achieve an erection without being lied to for paragraphs at a time, but given this constant onslaught of pure garbage in response to government violence, I have to believe some of the people who very definitely voted for this are rolling their eyes every time DHS front-mouth Tricia McLaughlin opens her mouth.

Filed Under: dhs, doj, ice, mass deportation, tren de aragua, trump administration

Trumpland Ramps Up Attacks On Netflix Warner Brothers Merger To Help Larry Ellison

Overhype

from the only-OUR-propaganda-is-good-propaganda dept

So we’ve been noting how the Trump administration has been helping Larry Ellison wage war on Netflix’s proposed merger with Warner Brothers. Not because they care about antitrust (that’s always been a lie), but because they want Larry Ellison to be able to dominate media and create a safe space for unpopular right wing ideology.

After Warner Brothers balked at Larry’s competing bid and a hostile takeover attempt, Larry tried to sue Warner Brothers. With that not going anywhere, Larry and MAGA have since joined forces to try and attack the Netflix merger across right wing media, falsely claiming that “woke” Netflix is attempting a “cultural takeover” that must be stopped for the good of humanity.

With hearings on the Netflix merger looming, MAGA has ramped up those attacks with the help of some usual allies. That includes the right wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, which has apparently been circulating a bogus study around DC claiming that Netflix and Warner Brothers are “engineering millions of Americans into a predisposition to accept preferred leftwing ideological dogma”:

“Without ever saying Warner Bros or bid rival Paramount by name, the Oversight Project’s analysis, titled Fedflix: Netflix, The Federal Government, and the New Propaganda State, insists that “relevant federal agencies must scrutinize with extreme intensity any potential Netflix acquisitions of other media and entertainment companies to take into account the full ramifications of the impacts on American society and the health of the Constitutional Republic.”

Again, the goal here is to ensure that Larry Ellison can buy Netflix (and HBO and CNN). Larry, as we’ve seen vividly with his acquisitions of CBS and TikTok, is buying up new and old media to create a propaganda safe space for America’s increasingly unhinged and anti-democratic extraction class. Like Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the goal is propaganda and information control.

And like any good propagandists, MAGA has tried to invert reality, and is increasingly trying to claim it’s Netflix that covertly wants to create a left-wing propaganda empire that spreads gayness and woke:

“With its subtitle of “The Weaponization of Entertainment for Partisan Propaganda,” the report is tailored for the MAGA base. Full of talking points and and mentions of Stranger Things, the Lena Dunham-produced Orgasm Inc: The Story of OneTaste, the controversial Cuties docu from 2020, and the Obamas-produced American Factory, the 47-page report takes repeated swipes at any expansion of the streamer and its library of “leftwing and progressive” content.”

Of course that’s nonsense. Netflix has demonstrated that they’re primarily an opportunist, and will show whatever grabs eyeballs and makes them money (from gay military dramas that upset the pentagon to washed up anti-trans comedian hacks). And they’re certain to debase themselves further to please the Trump administration in order to gain approval of their merger.

That’s not to say that the Netflix Warner Brothers merger will be good for anybody. Most media consolidation is generally terrible for labor and consumers as we’ve seen with the AT&T–>Warner Brothers–>Discovery mergers. They almost always result in massive debt loads, tons of layoffs, higher prices, and lower quality product.

Enter an old MAGA playbook: try to convince a bunch of useful idiots that the authoritarian corporatist MAGA coalition somehow really loves antitrust reform and is looking out for the little guy, despite a long track record of coddling corporate power and monopoly control.

That’s again the game plan here by Heritage and administration mouthpieces like Brendan Carr; pretend you’re obstructing the Netflix deal for ethical and antitrust reasons, when you’re really just trying to help Larry Ellison engage in the exact sort of competitive and ideological domination you’re whining about.

Among the folks helping this project along is former Trump DOJ “antitrust enforcer” Makan Delrahim, who is now Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer. Delrahim played a starring role during the first Trump term in rubber stamping the hugely problematic Sprint T-Mobile merger, and attempting to block the AT&T Time Warner deal (to the benefit of Rupert Murdoch, who opposed the tie up).

And now here we are again, with many of the same folks joining forces to try and scuttle Netflix’s latest merger, simply to ensure their preferred, anti-democratic billionaire wins the prize.

Ideally, again, you’d block all media consolidation.

Since that’s clearly not happening under the corporation-coddling Trump administration, activists — and the two or three Democratic lawmakers who actually care about media reform — are probably better served by aligning themselves with Netflix. It’s most definitely a lesser of two evils scenario, with, as the chaos at CBS shows, greater Larry Ellison control of media being the worst possible outcome.

In any case, expect right wing propagandists and right wing media to start really lighting into Netflix in the weeks and months to come. You know, because they just really love truth and freedom and hate consolidated corporate power.

Filed Under: antitrust, disinformation, donald trump, larry ellison, maga, media consolidation, merger, streaming, video
Companies: netflix, oan, paramount, warner bros. discovery

Kash Patel Creating Tension With Mexico Because He Can’t Shut The Fuck Up On Social Media

Failures

from the kashing-in dept

Kash Patel, FBI Director, is not very good at his job. There are plenty of examples to demonstrate that notion, from him apparently completely misunderstanding the purpose and protections of the 2nd Amendment and Minnesota gun laws (whatever your thoughts on gun rights might generally be), to his gathering of barely trained castoffs to serve in the FBI, to the absolute wild waste of resources he spent last summer trying to root out independent thought within his agency. None of this is justice. None of it is good policing. All of it is the result of putting a podcast host shitposter in charge of America’s federal police force. Ol’ Crazy-Eyes just might not be the right person for the role.

And if you’re going to be the leader of a federal police force, one of the skills you probably want to have is the capability of shutting the fuck up. Kash can’t do this. Rather than simply not answering, it appears Patel may have lied to Congress about the Epstein files (remember those?). In the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, Patel blabbed about suspects all over social media and elsewhere, leading to wasted time and attention on completely innocent parties.

And, now, in the wake of an operation by the FBI that would appear to violate Mexican law, Patel decided to gush about the whole thing on the internet. What other option did he have, I wonder?

Ryan Wedding is a former Olympian who, by all accounts, turned himself into a violent cocaine drug kingpin working with a Mexican cartel. He was charged in Canada in 2015 for cocaine trafficking and in America in 2025 for that and for murder. Recently, Wedding found himself in American custody to face those charges. How that happened wasn’t initially disclosed in coverage of the arrest. But then Kash Patel got out his phone and decided to gush about the whole thing on internet.

On Friday, however, FBI Director Kash Patel announced the joint operation publicly on X. “Our FBI HRT teams executed with precision, discipline, and total professionalism alongside our Mexican partners to bring Ryan James Wedding back to face justice,” he wrote, sending shock waves through Mexico.

Except there’s a problem with that statement. A pretty big one, actually. Mexican law is very clear that foreign LEOs are not to operate on Mexican soil. That would make the FBI’s participation as outlined by Patel illegal. And that might create problems for his eventual prosecution and a really big headache for the Mexican government.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum scrambled to perform damage control, as foreign intervention in Mexico is politically toxic. She said that there was no U.S. involvement in the operation and that U.S. agents in Mexico are limited by law.

“I’m not going to get into a debate with the FBI director, nor do I want there to be a conflict,” Sheinbaum said at a press conference Tuesday. “What they, the U.S. authorities, told the Mexican authorities is that it was a voluntary surrender.” She pointed to a picture Wedding posted to his Instagram account at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico announcing that he was turning himself in.

Wedding’s lawyer disputes that account, because of course he did. Whether Wedding actually surrendered or not is unknown to me, of course, but I’ve been well-trained the past 13 months not to believe a single thing my government says, so who the fuck knows. Wedding’s lawyer claims he was handcuffed and transported to California and that this runs contrary to any claim any of this was voluntary. And because of all of this, the Mexican government now has both an internal problem and has to deal with an unreliable shitposting partner in the American government.

Patel’s rash decision to post about Wedding’s arrest online doesn’t help the situation right now. It opens Sheinbaum up to political attacks in Mexico and makes the U.S.-Mexico relationship even shakier. Under Trump, though, American law enforcement is playing fast and loose with not just the law but diplomatic relations.

I’m not exactly advocating that the American government carryout these illegal extraditions violating our allies’ own laws and then hiding it through silence. That would be crazy.

Instead, the point is that this administration’s goons, such as Kash Patel, are so shitty that they can’t even carry out such nefarious actions in silence because they can’t shut the fuck up about them.

Filed Under: claudia sheinbaum, doj, international incident, kash patel, mexico, ryan wedding, social media

ICE Is A Paramilitary Force, And Those Don’t End Well

Failures

from the seems-bad dept

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As the operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement have intensified over the past year, politicians and journalists alike have begun referring to ICE as a “paramilitary force.”

Rep. John Mannion, a New York Democrat, called ICE “a personal paramilitary unit of the president.” Journalist Radley Balko, who wrote a book about how American police forces have been militarized, has argued that President Donald Trump was using the force “the way an authoritarian uses a paramilitary force, to carry out his own personal grudges, to inflict pain and violence, and discomfort on people that he sees as his political enemies.” And New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie characterized ICE as a “virtual secret police” and “paramilitary enforcer of despotic rule.”

All this raises a couple of questions: What are paramilitaries? And is ICE one?

Defining paramilitaries

As a government professor who studies policing and state security forces, I believe it’s clear that ICE meets many but not all of the most salient definitions. It’s worth exploring what those are and how the administration’s use of ICE compares with the ways paramilitaries have been deployed in other countries.

The term paramilitary is commonly used in two ways. The first refers to highly militarized police forces, which are an official part of a nation’s security forces. They typically have access to military-grade weaponry and equipment, are highly centralized with a hierarchical command structure, and deploy in large formed units to carry out domestic policing.

These “paramilitary police,” such as the French Gendarmerie, India’s Central Reserve Police Force or Russia’s Internal Troops, are modeled on regular military forces.

The second definition denotes less formal and often more partisan armed groups that operate outside of the state’s regular security sector. Sometimes these groups, as with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, emerge out of community self-defense efforts; in other cases, they are established by the government or receive government support, even though they lack official status. Political scientists also call these groups “pro-government militias” in order to convey both their political orientation in support of the government and less formal status as an irregular force.

They typically receive less training than regular state forces, if any. How well equipped they are can vary a great deal. Leaders may turn to these informal or unofficial paramilitaries because they are less expensive than regular forces, or because they can help them evade accountability for violent repression.

Many informal paramilitaries are engaged in regime maintenance, meaning they preserve the power of current rulers through repression of political opponents and the broader public. They may share partisan affiliations or ethnic ties with prominent political leaders or the incumbent political party and work in tandem to carry out political goals.

In Haiti, President François “Papa Doc” Duvalier’s Tonton Macouts provided a prime example of this second type of paramilitary. After Duvalier survived a coup attempt in 1970, he established the Tonton Macouts as a paramilitary counterweight to the regular military. Initially a ragtag, undisciplined but highly loyal force, it became the central instrument through which the Duvalier regime carried out political repression, surveilling, harassing, detaining, torturing and killing ordinary Haitians.

Is ICE a paramilitary?

The recent references to ICE in the U.S. as a “paramilitary force” are using the term in both senses, viewing the agency as both a militarized police force and tool for repression.

There is no question that ICE fits the definition of a paramilitary police force. It is a police force under the control of the federal government, through the Department of Homeland Security, and it is heavily militarized, having adopted the weaponry, organization, operational patterns and cultural markers of the regular military. Some other federal forces, such as Customs and Border Patrol, or CBP, also fit this definition.

The data I have collected on state security forces show that approximately 30% of countries have paramilitary police forces at the federal or national level, while more than 80% have smaller militarized units akin to SWAT teams within otherwise civilian police.

The United States is nearly alone among established democracies in creating a new paramilitary police force in recent decades. Indeed, the creation of ICE in the U.S. following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is one of just four instances I’ve found since 1960 where a democratic country created a new paramilitary police force, the others being Honduras, Brazil and Nigeria.

ICE and CBP also have some, though not all, of the characteristics of a paramilitary in the second sense of the term, referring to forces as repressive political agents. These forces are not informal; they are official agents of the state. However, their officers are less professional, receive less oversight and are operating in more overtly political ways than is typical of both regular military forces and local police in the United States.

The lack of professionalism predates the current administration. In 2014, for instance, CBP’s head of internal affairs described the lowering of standards for post-9/11 expansion as leading to the recruitment of thousands of officers “potentially unfit to carry a badge and gun.”

This problem has only been exacerbated by the rapid expansion undertaken by the Trump administration. ICE has added approximately 12,000 new recruits – more than doubling its size in less than a year – while substantially cutting the length of the training they receive.

ICE and CBP are not subject to the same constitutional restrictions that apply to other law enforcement agencies, such as the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure; both have gained exemptions from oversight intended to hold officers accountable for excessive force. CBP regulations, for instance, allow it to search and seize people’s property without a warrant or the “probable cause” requirement imposed on other forces within 100 miles, or about 161 kilometers, of the border.

In terms of partisan affiliations, Trump has cultivated immigration security forces as political allies, an effort that appears to have been successful. In 2016, the union that represents ICE officers endorsed Trump’s campaign with support from more than 95% of its voting members. Today, ICE recruitment efforts increasingly rely on far-right messaging to appeal to political supporters.

Both ICE and CBP have been deployed against political opponents in nonimmigration contexts, including Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, in 2020. They have also gathered data, according to political scientist Elizabeth F. Cohen, to “surveil citizens’ political beliefs and activities – including protest actions they have taken on issues as far afield as gun control – in addition to immigrants’ rights.”

In these ways, ICE and CBP do bear some resemblance to the informal paramilitaries used in many countries to carry out political repression along partisan and ethnic lines, even though they are official agents of the state.

Why this matters

An extensive body of research shows that more militarized forms of policing are associated with higher rates of police violence and rights violations, without reducing crime or improving officer safety.

Studies have also found that more militarized police forces are harder to reform than less-militarized law enforcement agencies. The use of such forces can also create tensions with both the regular military and civilian police, as currently appears to be happening with ICE in Minneapolis.

The ways in which federal immigration forces in the United States resemble informal paramilitaries in other countries – operating with less effective oversight, less competent recruits and increasingly entrenched partisan identity – make all these issues more intractable. Which is why, I believe, many commentators have surfaced the term paramilitary and are using it as a warning.

Erica De Bruin, Associate Professor of Government at Hamilton College

Filed Under: cbp, donald trump, ice, militarized police, paramilitary forces

ICE Director Says Officers Are Now Allowed To Make Arrests Without Warrants

Legal Issues

from the constitution-apparently-just-left-wing-virtue-signalling dept

The administration’s racist goon squads have absolutely been steamrolling the Constitution since Trump’s return to office. When ICE et al started roving throughout the nation looking for anyone non-white enough to be foreign, all rights were considered expendable.

The DHS made swift work of the Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendments by denying arrestees due process and access to legal representation. Officers grabbed people, sent them far from their home states, and shoved them into planes headed to foreign hellhole prisons as quickly as possible in hopes of nullifying the inevitable legal challenges.

The 14th Amendment got kicked while it was still down when the administration decided birthright citizenship was no longer a thing. And the entire administration simply pretends the First Amendment doesn’t apply to anyone who says things or does stuff it doesn’t like.

The Fourth Amendment got turned into a doormat last May when the DHS Office of Legal Counsel (usurping the role usually held by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel) told federal officers they no longer needed judicial warrants to enter homes so long as they could semi-credibly claim the person they were seeking was subject to immigration court order of removal.

Now, ICE is coming for what’s left of the Fourth Amendment, as the New York Times reports:

Amid tensions over President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota and beyond, federal agents were told this week that they have broader power to arrest people without a warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo reviewed by The New York Times.

The change expands the ability of lower-level ICE agents to carry out sweeps rounding up people they encounter and suspect are undocumented immigrants, rather than targeted enforcement operations in which they set out, warrant in hand, to arrest a specific person.

“Amid tensions,” Polish journalists wrote in late 1939. That bit of coyness aside, there’s additional coyness in the memo issued by ICE’s acting director Todd Lyons. There’s very little in the way of legal citations. But there’s definitely a permission slip ICE agents can write for themselves when they head out to terrorize US residents.

Lyons thinks he can redefine legal terms on the fly to allow immigration officers to arrest people without warrants. The memo says “flight risk” (which allows for a warrantless arrest) is not the correct term since it can only be applied after an arrest:

Without explanation, and without any formal policy, ICE previously applied the phrase “likely to escape” as being the equivalent of “flight risk. ” This unreasoned position was incorrect. In fact, there are significant differences between the two standards in the immigration regulatory context and immigration officers should avoid conflating them. A flight risk analysis looks at whether an alien is likely to attend future immigration court hearings, appear before ERO as directed, surrender for removal, and comply with other immigration obligations. Flight risk determinations are made after an alien’s arrest, where the alien has already been identified, fingerprinted, interviewed, and may have had DNA collected.

That’s simply no good for this administration — especially when immigration forces are expected to come up with 3,000 arrests per day. Lyons says (again, without supporting legal citations) that “likely to escape” should be the standard for warrantless arrests, which is a determination agents should be able to make on their own without having to seek an arrest warrant. After all, if they go get a warrant, there’s a good chance the person they want to arrest might be a bit more difficult to find.

While the flight-risk analysis assesses whether an already identified and detained alien is likely to comply with future immigration obligations such as court appearances and appearances before ERO , the likelihood-of-escape analysis is narrowly focused on determining whether the person is likely to escape before the officer can practically obtain an administrative arrest warrant, while in the field. This on-the-spot determination as to the likelihood of escape is often made with limited information about the subject’s identity, background, or place of residence and no corroboration of any self-serving statements made by the subject.

The goalposts are moved. If an officer thinks a person they just happened to come across while performing an arrest with an actual warrant might not stick around to be arrested later, the officer can just arrest them as well, citing the lowered standard of “likely to escape.”

And what makes one “likely to escape” under this arbitrary, completely made the fuck up “legal” standard? Well, it’s a fine blend of “anything” and “everything.”

The subject’s behavior before or during the “encounter,” which covers anything from “suspicious behavior” to simply refusing officers’ commands to let them in a house (without a warrant) or yank them from a car (without a warrant). For that matter, being in a car is all that’s needed to be considered “likely to escape.” (“The subject’s ability and means to promptly depart the scene.”)

Or maybe the “subject” looks like they just may be healthy enough to leave on foot:

The subject’s age and health…

Also on the list: documents an officer “suspects” might be fraudulent (with no demand made that officers attempt to verify documents before engaging in a warrantless arrest). The list also says officers can make warrantless arrests if they suspect the person has violated any immigration law, even though they are not required to do anything at all to seek information that might corroborate their suspicions.

The end result is exactly what this administration wants it to be: a blank check for warrantless arrests that can then be justified after the fact by the officers who performed the arrest. And if they happen to be wrong, they’ll just cut the person loose, secure in the knowledge they’ll never be punished by their superiors, much less held accountable in court now that the Supreme Court has made it impossible to sue federal officers for rights violations.

Given this further erasure of civil rights, one can only assume the coming weeks will bring us DHS/ICE memos declaring the use of private homes as federal operation centers to be well within the confines of the Third Amendment. Perhaps we’ll even see some women jailed for attempting to vote during the upcoming midterms. ALL RIGHTS MUST GO!, says the administration proudly hosting this dumpster fire of a civil liberties fire sale. And once again, the party claiming to make America great continues to eliminate all the stuff that makes America America.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, bigotry, cbp, ice, mass deportation, todd lyons, trump administration, warrants

Turns Out They Didn’t Really Want You To Bring Your Whole Self To Work

Overhype

from the incentives-are-everything dept

For years, we watched Silicon Valley executives perform elaborate corporate theater about “values” and “belonging” and “bringing your whole self to work.” If you were skeptical that any of that was real, well, congrats.

Aaron Zamost, a longtime tech communications exec, has a piece in the NY Times that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the tech industry’s sudden, conspicuous rightward lurch. His argument is refreshingly blunt: this isn’t about ideology. It never was. It’s about leverage.

There are many theories about Silicon Valley’s swift, and very conspicuous, rightward turn. Tech leaders course-corrected from an overly permissive era. The Trump administration demands fealty in exchange for critical regulatory favors. Mr. Trump’s re-election reshaped the national climate and reoriented the values of tech leadership.

Each of these explanations is convenient, but none are correct. I’ve worked in tech for 20 years, across both Big Tech and venture-backed start-ups, and I can tell you the truth is much more mundane. Silicon Valley’s chief executives have always been driven by economics, not ideology. As Michael Corleone put it: It’s not personal — it’s strictly business.

This tracks with everything we’ve observed about how these companies actually operate. The notion that tech CEOs underwent some kind of ideological awakening—either leftward in 2020 or rightward in 2024—always gave them way too much credit for having coherent beliefs about anything other than what would help them with Wall Street in the long run.

What actually happened? This is where my undergrad degree in labor relations actually comes in handy: because, as Aaron notes: labor economics happened. When you’re in a vicious war for talent and engineers have infinite options, you do whatever it takes to keep them happy. And if that means mental health stipends and letting employees “bring their whole selves to work,” then that’s what you do. Not because you believe in it. Because replacing a top engineer costs a fortune.

Big tech companies and growing start-ups are in constant, vicious competition with one another to hire and retain the best employees, especially in product and engineering roles. When these companies are in hypergrowth mode, and particularly when the job market is tight, hiring top talent can be nothing short of a matter of survival. And they are fishing in a largely progressive pond: Political donation data shows tech employees are predominantly Democratic-leaning.

The late 2010s and early 2020s were a particularly intense period in the industry’s war for talent. Hiring exploded. Meta nearly doubled to 86,000 employees in 2022 from approximately 45,000 three years earlier. Amazon added over 400,000 employees in 2020 alone. As Silicon Valley recruiting teams relentlessly poached one another’s people, tech labor had infinite choices and all the leverage.

So what did companies do when a generous compensation package was no longer enough to win over candidates? They instead sold a sense of belonging. Amid fierce competition, many companies realized that encouraging workers to bring their perspectives and passions to the office could increase their loyalty and their willingness to work hard. That, in turn, served the real financial objective: higher job acceptance rates, lower employee attrition and faster growth.

So when tech companies said all those nice things about diversity and belonging and employee voice, it was merely a calculated business decision to attract and retain workers in a brutally competitive labor market. The “whole self” culture wasn’t a political movement. It was, as Zamost puts it, “a labor-market artifact where talent war conditions made employee empowerment economically rational.”

And then the market shifted.

Growth slowed. Interest rates rose. Suddenly companies didn’t need to compete for labor at any cost. And the moment that leverage flipped back to management, all those “values” evaporated faster than you can say “return to office mandate.”

It’s worth asking whether many tech companies’ professed values were ever real. We’ve seen leaders who built their reputations on defying authority become foot soldiers for the administration. The same elasticity informs their rollback of the culture they once championed.

Four years ago, Marc Benioff, the Salesforce boss, said, “Office mandates are never going to work.” He now works from home in Hawaii much of the time while most of his employees are required to be in-office three to five days a week. In 2020, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would donate $10 million to groups working on racial justice. Last year he rolled back Meta’s D.E.I. programs. Did his values change? Or did the power dynamics?

The answer, obviously, is the power dynamics. And this isn’t a particularly controversial thing to say. The thing that gets lost in all the discourse about tech’s “MAGA turn” is how utterly banal the explanation actually is. It’s got nothing to do with ideology. These are business actors responding to incentives. When employees had leverage, executives catered to them. When executives got leverage back, they stopped.

Zamost makes an important point that may get buried by the rest of the article though: the response to all this from tech workers hasn’t been outrage. It’s been detachment. And that’s going to boomerang back on these tech leaders.

This about-face will prove counterproductive over the long term. In my conversations with tech employees, the result hasn’t been anger at hypocrisy so much as detachment — a loss of tribal loyalty (fewer T-shirts emblazoned with tech company logos), and a clearer understanding of the limits of corporate idealism.

This is the part that should worry these executives. They’ve revealed the game. They’ve shown that all the talk about values and culture and belonging was contingent on market conditions. And employees noticed. They’re not mad—they’re just not going to forget.

And, yes, the cynical among you will say “come on, no one ever believed these companies were serious” and perhaps that’s true. But there was a time when Silicon Valley employees really liked where they were working and really felt like, as a team, they were achieving stuff.

That’s gone.

Labor markets are cyclical. At some point, these companies will need to compete for talent again. And when they do, they’re going to discover that the employees they’re trying to recruit remember what happened. They remember that the “values” disappeared the moment they became inconvenient. They remember which executives lined up behind Trump. They remember the layoffs and the return-to-office mandates and the sudden silence when it actually mattered.

The recent reassertion of managerial prerogative was only possible in an economic environment where top executives could flex their muscles like a boss. It won’t last forever. When labor is scarce again, many of these companies will rediscover the values they abandoned. The question is whether employees will forget just as quickly.

The optimistic read is that employees won’t forget. That this period will serve as a permanent reminder that corporate values are, at best, marketing. That the next generation of tech workers will enter these companies with clear eyes about what the relationship actually is: transactional.

The pessimistic read is that Zamost is right to pose it as a question. Because companies have been pulling this bait-and-switch for decades, and workers keep falling for it. Maybe the cycle just repeats.

Either way, the lesson isn’t really about politics. It’s about understanding what these companies actually are. They’re not movements. They’re not communities. They’re not families. They’re businesses that will say whatever they need to say to achieve their business objectives. And right now, the (somewhat short-sighted) business objective is staying in the good graces of an administration that has made clear it rewards loyalty and punishes dissent.

So no, they didn’t really want you to bring your whole self to work. They wanted you to bring the parts that were useful to them, for exactly as long as it was useful to them. The “whole self” thing was just the price of admission in a seller’s market. Now that it’s a buyer’s market, they’d prefer you just shut up and (use AI to write) code.

The irony is that employees who actually believe in what they’re building tend to build better things. These executives may have just taught an entire generation of workers that the relationship is purely transactional. When the labor market tightens again—and it will—they might find that lesson stuck.

Filed Under: hiring, labor economics, politics, retention, silicon valley, values