As Donald Trump's influence wanes and his public demeanor becomes more erratic, there has been an escalation in hostile rhetoric aimed at female journalists and ethnic communities, with Somali Americans being the latest target. The impact of these insults stems from the animosity behind them and his position, not any basis in truth. Similarly, the government's actions against immigrants are poorly executed and driven by misinformation. It is abundantly clear that the goal extends beyond targeting those who have committed crimes. The assault is directed at anyone with brown skin.
This includes Indigenous peoples carrying tribal IDs to American citizens by choice, from essential workers in building sites and hospitals to military veterans, university attendees, residents asleep in their beds, and very young children: a wide array of the country's inhabitants are being threatened.
"ICE operations are brutal, inhumane and achieve nothing for community security," states a prominent New York City official. Scenes featuring officers concealing their faces breaking car glass and dragging parents away from infants, instilling fear and hindering the function of institutions, achieves the opposite effect.
These waves of calculated hatred—directed at Haitians during the election, Venezuelans this year, and now Somalis—lean heavily on libelous lies and slurs. The reason is simple: the truthful data about these groups of people cannot support such hostility.
This campaign of terror and demonization claims to seek at recreating a uniformly white United States that is a fantasy. Although America had a larger white population in the mid-20th century, it never constituted a purely white nation. In 1776, the thirteen founding colonies contained a substantial percentage of Black and Indigenous peoples—certain states in the South had Black populations exceeding a third.
Following American expansion, annexing Texas in 1844 and acquiring northern Mexico in 1848, it absorbed a vast Spanish-speaking population long established in the modern Southwest and California. Historical records show the initial Muslim of African descent in this land came as part of a Spanish expedition almost one hundred years prior to the Mayflower's English Puritans landed in Massachusetts in 1620.
The systematic targeting of vast numbers of brown-skinned individuals and attempts at large-scale expulsion cannot fabricate the all-white nation of far-right dreams. A city like Los Angeles, for instance, is close to 50% Hispanic, and despite enforcement outrages, arrests, and deportations, it remains so. Its name itself is Spanish, an enduring reminder of its original inhabitants.
The entirety of this animus and oppression looks like the fear of racists who pretend they can stop the coming changes of a country that is ceasing to be majority-white through sheer brutality.
It is coupled with an attack on abortion access that is, at times, openly intended to encourage white women to have more children. The argument points to a fertility rate below replacement level in the US, a trend less impactful than in some other nations because of a young, industrious immigrant workforce which keeps the economy functioning. However, instead of offering the social support that might make raising children easier, the strategy has been based on punishment and force.
A prominent journalist observes that the policies on childbirth espoused by figures like JD Vance—along with insults toward childless women—amount to pronatalism. This philosophy "usually combines worries about declining birth rates with opposition to immigration and anti-feminist ideas."
In a similar vein, analyses show that "attempts to raise the fertility rate cannot make up for wider administrative priorities aimed at slashing government assistance initiatives like Medicaid and children's health insurance. The so-called 'pro-family' focus isn't merely about encouraging procreation. Instead, it is being weaponized to advance a conservative agenda that threatens the health of women, bodily autonomy, and economic participation."
The combination of anti-immigrant and pro-birth policies constitute an effort to forcibly alter the country's population future. Ultimately, they represent foolish bullying by proponents of hate who unintentionally demonstrate that their claims to superiority must be rooted in race and gender; absent these categories, their positions devolve into incoherent nonsense.
A lot of the reasoning offered by the Trump team fails to align with observable realities and real-world results. For example, naval operations in the southern Caribbean often target tiny boats not confirmed to be carrying narcotics and incapable of making it to the United States. Similarly, Venezuela's involvement in the fentanyl trade is negligible, and its involvement with cocaine is far less than that of neighboring countries on the continent.
The government's position extends to climate issues, with a rejection of "climate change ideology" and "Net Zero goals." There is a sentimental commitment to fossil fuels, particularly coal, resulting in measures that compel localities to invest in outdated and polluting power sources while sabotaging affordable, clean alternatives. Concurrently, health officials have advanced unscientific nutritional plans while eroding general public health safeguards.
The core premise of the attacks on immigrants is that non-white individuals not born in the US are threatening outsiders. However, across the nation—in cities like L.A. and Charlotte, Chicago to Portland—it is the administration's own agents, immigration enforcement personnel, whom local communities view as the unwelcome, violent invaders.
There is no clearer sign of the widespread rejection of these tactics than the countless individuals organizing, protesting, facing danger and detention to defend their neighbors. Municipality after municipality has stood up in defense of its residents. No amount of derogatory language or intimidation can change that reality.