On the very day set aside to remember the man who forced America to look at itself without flinching, a movement now ascendant in power is asking us to forget him entirely. Or worse: to replace him. Not with another prophet of justice, but with a man who spent his career attacking the laws King died to secure—and whose followers now whisper, sometimes joke, sometimes shout, that it is his name that should be remembered instead.

This is not metaphor. It is strategy.

The assault on King’s legacy is not a stray provocation or an online stunt. It is a carefully constructed counter-tradition—one that treats white grievance as sacred truth and historical reckoning as heresy. And Charlie Kirk understood this perfectly.

Kirk’s war on MLK and civil rights

At AmericaFest in 2023, Kirk told a room packed with young conservatives that “MLK was awful,” that he was “not a good person,” and that the Civil Rights Act itself was “a huge mistake.” He framed this not as shock talk, but as sober historical correction. America, he insisted, had gone wrong the moment it tried to make racial equality enforceable.

This was not about King’s personal flaws. It was about King’s political clarity.

King named racism as a structure, not a feeling. He named poverty as violence, not personal failure. He named whiteness—not white people, but whiteness—as a lie that requires domination in order to survive. And for that, he had to be destroyed again.

Kirk even promised a coordinated MLK Day “hit job,” boasting that his staff was preparing content to “tell the truth” about King during the holiday that exists because King lived—and was killed—telling the truth about America.

From appropriation to erasure

For years, Turning Point USA tried to profit from King’s moral authority. They sold MLK merchandise. They quoted “Let freedom ring.” They wrapped themselves in a bowdlerized King who spoke only of character and never of power.

When that appropriation collapsed under scrutiny, the pivot was swift. Americans, Kirk claimed, had been fed a “fake history.” King’s “sanctified” image had to be dismantled. What followed was not nuance, but demolition.

Kirk called the Civil Rights Act an “anti-white weapon.” He blamed Black communities for gun violence. He described systemic racism as fiction. And yet, after his assassination in 2025, a familiar ritual began. His record was softened. His rhetoric laundered. He was recast as a fearless debater, a martyr to free speech, a “force of nature” taken too soon.

Movements that lack moral authority often counterfeit martyrdom.

The anti-MLK martyr

In the wake of Kirk’s death, some Christian nationalist circles attempted something obscene: to cast him as a rival saint. Rallies formed where supporters chanted “White men, fight back.” His name was invoked as a symbol of besieged white Christian manhood. Online spaces began floating the idea—sometimes as joke, sometimes as provocation—that MLK Day should be replaced with Charlie Kirk Day.

Black clergy and civil rights leaders rejected the comparison outright, calling Kirk what he was: an unapologetic racist whose words were dangerous. They insisted, correctly, that no one deserves to die for their beliefs. But they also refused the lie that his life stood in the same moral universe as King’s.

That distinction matters. It matters because the modern right demands endless grace for itself and absolute amnesia for its victims.

JD Vance and the doctrine of grievance

Into this carefully prepared ground stepped Vice President JD Vance.

At AmericaFest 2025—the first major Turning Point gathering after Kirk’s death—Vance announced that DEI had been relegated to the “dustbin of history” and assured the crowd, “In the United States, you no longer need to feel sorry for being white.” America, he claimed, now judges solely by character.

This is not reconciliation. It is absolution without confession.

There has never been an era in which white Americans were required to apologize for being white. What Vance offers instead is permission: permission to treat accountability as injury, memory as persecution, and equality as theft. It is the transformation of grievance into doctrine—the formal baptism of resentment as civic virtue.

Bernice King was right to name this lie. The language of “no more guilt” exists only to silence truth-telling. It is the vocabulary of people who believe justice is something done to them.

The moment of replacement

A nation reveals its conscience not by whom it praises, but by whom it needs to erase.

Martin Luther King Jr. Day has become intolerable to the modern American right not because King was imperfect, but because he was precise. He named racism as structure, poverty as violence, and peace as incompatible with domination. That clarity is dangerous. And so it must be buried—replaced by grievance dressed as courage, resentment crowned as faith, and a man like Charlie Kirk offered as substitute.

For years, Republicans tried to neutralize King by quoting a single line while gutting voting rights, dismantling affirmative action, and criminalizing poverty. MLK Day became a safe ritual, emptied of threat.

That pretense is over.

Kirk called King “awful.” He called the Civil Rights Act a mistake. His successors no longer bother pretending this is about honoring King’s words. It is about erasing the tradition he belonged to—and installing a new civic religion in its place.

King spent his final years condemning racism, militarism, and poverty as interlocking evils. Charlie Kirk spent his career trying to roll back the legal victories King died for. And now his heirs—from Turning Point USA to JD Vance—are attempting to turn that backlash into the governing faith of American life.

This is the choice before us in 2026.

We can remember Dr. King as he was: a threat to unjust power, an indictment of American innocence, a man who refused to confuse comfort with peace.

Or we can remember Charlie.

The country will decide which memory it can live with—and which one it must destroy in order to survive.

If there is anything genuinely exceptional about this country, it is not that our leaders are wiser than others, but that generation after generation of Americans—from every party and none—have resisted abuses of power in the name of a promise they refused to surrender.

The real test now is whether those who still care about that promise—on the right, the left, and in between—are willing to do more than wave a flag while other people’s freedoms shrink.

America is at a breaking point. The idea that this nation belongs to all people, not just a protected ruling class, is under open assault. The institutions that claim to defend “law and order” are increasingly staging a different kind of performance: a theater of fear designed to remind the marginalized, the dissenters, and even ordinary working people that their place is conditional, revocable, and policed.

The question is not whether this country has ever lived up fully to its ideals; it has not. The question is whether those ideals still bind our political imagination, or whether we will surrender them to a regime that uses the language of patriotism to justify domination.

The machinery of a constitutional republic matters, but it has never been enough by itself; what decides whether freedom grows or contracts is the moral will of those who have access to the democratic process, and whether they use that access to comfort power or to confront it.

Every major expansion of freedom in this country has come not from the system quietly fixing itself, but from people who refused to comply with injustice and forced power to recalculate its costs. From abolition to labor rights, from women’s suffrage to the civil rights and disability rights movements, the arc did not bend on its own; it bent because ordinary people organized, disrupted, and refused to go away.

The Constitution gives us tools for change—amendments, elections, courts—but those tools have only moved when confronted by organized resistance and moral pressure strong enough to make inaction more dangerous than reform. There is nothing inevitable or automatic about American progress; every ‘correction’ in our history was paid for by movements that forced those with power to choose between change and crisis.

It has always been this way, and the sooner we recognize it, the better chance we have at saving the American Dream of a more perfect union. Yes, it is still a dream until the American Revolution is complete in who counts as fully human and fully included. This position shatters our master narrative myths and reorients us toward a citizenship of liberation through what I call “critical patriotism.”

Critical patriotism does not seek to erase conservative convictions or any other set of cultural values; it insists that every person, including those who hold them, be fully included in the democratic process. Its demand is not ideological uniformity but a common commitment: that the basic rights and dignity of all people cannot be sacrificed to preserve the comfort of any one group.

In a truly democratic society, the rights of all will sometimes override the preferred cultural norms of particular communities; the price of non‑marginalization is accepting a place at a genuinely diverse table, not getting to own the table. Handled with care and purpose, this need not mean erasing distinct traditions or beliefs, but it does mean no group can claim a veto on the full humanity or participation of others.

Even under the best conditions, some will stubbornly refuse coexistence; they will demand a nation remade in their image or none at all. The American promise cannot bend to that ultimatum: a republic committed to liberty and equality cannot license extremism that requires other people to disappear in order to feel at home.

Living into that promise requires at least a minimum of civic maturity: a willingness to share public space with people whose beliefs unsettle us, and an openness to the possibility that the culture of power we grew up with is not the measure of justice.

Those who experience the decentering of their group as an attack on their existence will always be tempted to answer inclusion with backlash; the only antidote is the hard work of learning to see equality not as loss, but as the fulfillment of the very ideals they claim to defend.

Much of the cruelty in our politics flows from people who feel endangered not by tyranny, but by no longer being centered in every story; they mistake a more honest democracy for persecution. Critical patriotism does not indulge that confusion. It asks all of us—whatever our ideology—to look into the mirror of our real history, to see how often ‘being under attack’ has meant nothing more than being asked to share power.

Critical patriotism does not indulge that confusion. It asks all of us—whatever our ideology—to look into the mirror of our real history, to see how often ‘being under attack’ has meant nothing more than being asked to share power.

A patriotism that refuses this maturity, that will not accept a diverse table or the full inclusion of every neighbor, may be many things, but it is not worthy of the American Promise.

This is Part One of Regime Americana: Rescuing the American Promise from a Regime of Fear, a series tracing how the American Promise can survive an age of manufactured fear.

Avi Penhollow, welcomes thoughtful comments and questions from readers who are wrestling with these themes.

🔍 What’s the Crisis?

• The Department has acknowledged a backlog of 1.5–1.6 million Income‑Driven Repayment (IDR) applications and tens of thousands of pending PSLF Buyback requests.
  The 19th+8AInvest+8Investopedia+8

• As of June 2025, over 65,000 PSLF Buyback applications had not been processed—despite an official 45-business-day review timeline that is widely ignored. Monthly processing rates remain stuck around 3–5%.
  InvestopediaForbesAInvest

• Even borrowers who have submitted Buyback requests as early as January 2025 report no response after six months, indicating that the Department is failing its core mission.
  warren.senate.gov+4AInvest+4Forbes+4

⚠️ What Borrowers Are Facing

A borrower representing thousands of others summarized it succinctly:

“I was four payments from forgiveness. I acted in good faith… yet six months later, I’m still in limbo.”
This experience is not anecdotal—it’s systemic.
ed.gov+3Investopedia+3Wikipedia+3Forbes+1people.com+1

These are not just bureaucratic delays—they are denials of a congressionally mandated right.

📌 Why the Department Must Act

• Secretary McMahon has spent her tenure advancing efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, with executive orders aiming to scale back federal oversight—including student financial aid programs.
  Wikipedia+15theguardian.com+15washingtonpost.com+15edweek.org+15Wikipedia+15businessinsider.com+15

• Meanwhile, controversies swirl around politically motivated priorities like school mascots and transgender bathroom enforcement, while statutorily required programs like PSLF are frozen in bureaucratic paralysis.

• A lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) charges the Department with denying borrowers access to PSLF and IDR, failing to comply with federal law.
  Wikipedia+5American Federation of Teachers+5AInvest+5

This represents not just neglect—but an active abandonment of statutory responsibility.

🛠 What the Department Must Do—Immediately

1. Commit to resolving all PSLF Buyback applications older than 45 business days within 30 days.

2. Publish weekly public data on numbers of pending IDR and Buyback applications—including processing rates and average wait time.

3. Continue uninterrupted PSLF credit for borrowers forced into SAVE litigation-related forbearance, allowing retroactive counting of months lost.

4. Provide whistleblower-style channels for borrowers whose status has been mishandled, with protections against retaliation.

5. Resume full staffing of Federal Student Aid, reversing layoffs that have crippled operational capacity.
   Forbes+2AInvest+2Investopedia+2Investopedia+1warren.senate.gov+1

📢 Public Advocacy & Next Steps

• Borrower advocacy organizations, union leaders, and public service workers should demand a congressional oversight hearing on PSLF implementation and delays.

• Constituents should contact their members of Congress, noting that borrowers are being denied the benefits Congress explicitly created.

• Media outlets must investigate—and expose—how political priorities (e.g., culture wars) may be diverting attention from legally mandated loan forgiveness.

✔️ Bottom Line

Public servants have upheld their end—they have worked, paid, and served. Now it’s time for the Department of Education to do its job. Secretary McMahon must prioritize statutory compliance over political theatre, and deliver forgiveness without further delay.

The message is clear: If you don’t belong to this vision of America, you are not part of the homeland worth defending.

This video is Avi Penhollow’s introduction to his forthcoming article right here on the Proximity Portal.

DHS posted American Progress—a painting that celebrates genocide—with the caption “A Heritage to be proud of.” This isn’t nostalgia. It’s propaganda. In this livestream, I expose how Manifest Destiny is being resurrected by Christian nationalists to justify exclusion, domination, and state violence. This is not righteous. It’s blasphemy.

Avi Penhollow breaks this down on The Proximity Portal LIVE.

Just days after Donald Trump publicly disavowed the Epstein controversy and turned on his own followers for refusing to let it go, his administration handed the MAGA base a new accusation of an old villain. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence—now led by Trump loyalist Tulsi Gabbard—released a declassified intelligence summary accusing the Obama administration of orchestrating a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine Trump’s 2016 campaign and sabotage his presidency.

If the Epstein narrative had become a liability, the ODNI report was its narrative replacement. And it arrived precisely when Trump needed to re-center outrage away from himself and back toward a familiar external enemy.

The Epstein Collapse Left a Vacuum

As documented in The MAGA Memory Hole, Trump’s sudden reversal on Epstein—from years of winking complicity to open hostility—shocked even his most loyal supporters. MAGA influencers revolted. Conspiracy channels raged. Rally attendees demanded the firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi. Trump’s credibility as the “truth-teller” president was fracturing.

But he didn’t beg them to stay.

Instead, he scorched the earth: “Let these weaklings do the Democrats’ work — I don’t want their support.” Then he moved on.

The Epstein narrative was dead. But the base’s emotional need for betrayal, secrecy, and righteous fury was not.

Enter: the ODNI drop.

From Epstein to Obama: Reframing the Enemy

The July 18th ODNI release accused Obama-era intelligence leaders of “manufacturing” Russian interference claims to justify surveillance and damaging leaks against Trump. It painted the intelligence community not as defenders of democracy, but as conspirators who engineered a coup before Trump even took office.

The script was instantly familiar:

• Shadowy bureaucrats

• Fake investigations

• Deep State manipulation

It echoed the same themes the Epstein story had sustained. But now, Trump wasn’t the one being questioned. He was back to being the victim.

On Truth Social, he wrote:

“This is bigger than Watergate. This is TREASON. There must be full accountability.”

Kayleigh McEnany resurfaced on cable news calling for “prosecutions.” Conservative pundits who had roasted Trump days earlier suddenly had new talking points.

The conspiracy was reborn—with a new cast.

The Pivot Wasn’t Reaction. It Was Strategy.

This wasn’t an improvisation. It was a pressure valve.

Trump’s inner circle had watched Epstein coverage turn from political asset to political threat. The ODNI release was a narrative reset—giving permission to the MAGA base to abandon a tainted storyline without losing their shared sense of grievance.

It checked every box:

• ✔ A new villain (Obama’s intel team)

• ✔ A new betrayal (they tried to stop Trump before he won)

• ✔ A new justification for Trump’s war on institutions

Just like that, the MAGA media machine pivoted. The grand jury smoke from Epstein was replaced with “treason” smoke from 2016. The old scandal was replaced by a recycled one with cleaner partisan lines.

The Narrative Swap Is the Strategy

Trump’s handling of the Epstein story revealed more than just hypocrisy—it revealed method. When a conspiracy becomes inconvenient, the goal is not to apologize. It’s to replace. Burn the old bridge and cross a new one.

The Epstein backlash showed that even the base has limits. But Trump’s true gift is not loyalty—it’s narrative control. The ODNI drop wasn’t just a news story. It was a lifeline.

In the politics of perpetual grievance, the enemy can always change. The tactic never does.

References

Read the companion piece: The MAGA Memory Hole: How Trump Betrayed the Conspiracy He Built

• The MAGA Memory Hole: How Trump Betrayed the Conspiracy He Built, Proximity Portal, July 19, 2025. https://www.proximityportal.com/p/the-maga-memory-hole-how-trump-betrayed

• Reuters. “Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy fallout puts Trump, White House in damage-control mode.” July 16, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-white-house-race-stem-epstein-conspiracy-fallout-2025-07-16/

• ABC News. “What Trump has said about Jeffrey Epstein over the years, including on 2024 campaign trail.” July 16, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-years-including-2024-campaign-trail/story?id=123778541

• NPR. “Trump calls for the release of Jeffrey Epstein grand jury testimony.” July 19, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/19/nx-s1-5473430/trump-calls-release-jeffrey-epstein-grand-jury-testimony

• AP News. “With Epstein conspiracy theories, Trump faces a crisis of his own making.” https://apnews.com/article/trump-epstein-conspiracy-theories-bondi-bongino-fbi-a143076353acbc1193cb9697e7fc4a90

"Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax."

With those words this week, Donald Trump didn't just abandon a conspiracy theory—he betrayed the very people who believed him when he promoted it. The same supporters who chanted "Epstein didn't kill himself" at his rallies are now being called "weaklings" whose support he "doesn't want anymore."

This isn't just another case of political flip-flopping. It's a masterclass in narrative laundering: exploit a conspiracy to gain power, then discard it—and the people who believed it—once it threatens your grip on that power.

The Rise: From Social Companion to Political Weapon

The transformation began in elite circles. In 1992, NBC footage captured Trump and Jeffrey Epstein laughing together at a Mar-a-Lago party. A decade later, Trump told New York Magazine: "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy... He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

But by 2016, as Epstein's crimes became public knowledge, Trump's tone shifted. He claimed he "wasn't a fan," denied closeness, and began redirecting blame toward Bill Clinton. After Epstein's 2019 arrest, Trump insisted at the White House: "I had a falling out with him a long time ago."

Then came the conspiracy gold rush.

The Weaponization: Building the "Deep State" Narrative

When Epstein died in his Manhattan jail cell in August 2019, "Epstein didn't kill himself" exploded across conservative social media. Trump didn't just allow this—he amplified it. He retweeted suggestions of Clinton involvement, teased revelations on the campaign trail, and promised to "declassify the Epstein files."

QAnon influencers claimed "the storm" was coming. Conservative media elevated speculation about Epstein's mysterious "client list." The narrative was irresistible: Epstein wasn't just a sex trafficker—he was the tip of the Deep State iceberg, and Trump alone knew the truth.

For years, this served Trump perfectly. The Epstein conspiracy:

• Cast doubt on established institutions

• Implicated political enemies

• Positioned Trump as the outsider with secret knowledge

• Energized his base with promises of coming revelations

The conspiracy became a political weapon—until it turned inward.

The Betrayal: "I Don't Want Their Support Anymore"

Everything changed in July 2025. Trump's own Department of Justice and FBI released a two-page memo that shattered the conspiracy: no "client list" existed, and Epstein died by suicide. The very institutions Trump controlled were contradicting the narrative he'd spent years building.

The MAGA base erupted. Far-right influencers demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi's resignation. Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, and Michael Flynn called for full disclosure. The conspiracy that once united the movement was now tearing it apart.

Trump's response was swift and brutal. He called his former supporters "weaklings" whose support he didn't want. He labeled the entire Epstein saga a "Jeffrey Epstein Hoax" created by Democrats.

At a White House event, he snapped at reporters: "Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? That is unbelievable."

The Memory Hole: Erasing Inconvenient Truths

This is how authoritarian populism handles internal threats: not by addressing them, but by erasing them. The movement builds itself on stories like Epstein's—until those stories become liabilities.

Trump didn't just abandon the conspiracy theory. He performed a complete narrative inversion:

• 2019-2024: "Epstein didn't kill himself" (implied Democratic cover-up)

• 2025: "Jeffrey Epstein Hoax" (Democratic conspiracy against Trump)

The same supporters who once rallied to his coded winks about hidden truths are now branded as traitors falling for Democratic "bullshit."

The Pattern: Pseudo-Transparency as Political Theater

Even Trump's promises of transparency follow a familiar script. When he claimed to support document releases "pending court approval," he knew federal grand jury materials are sealed by law and courts cannot release them. This created a perfect rhetorical trap:

• If courts deny release: Trump claims cover-up

• If materials are released but redacted: He calls them fake

The result? Trump appears cooperative while ensuring the secrecy he ultimately relies on remains intact.

His recent demand to unseal grand jury records follows the same playbook—legal analysts note the releases will be slow, heavily redacted, and unlikely to reveal anything significant. It's optics masquerading as transparency.

The Larger Truth: How Conspiracies Get Laundered

The Epstein case reveals something deeper about modern political manipulation. Conspiracy theories aren't just believed—they're manufactured, deployed, and discarded based on political utility.

Here's the cycle:

1. Create or amplify a conspiracy that serves your interests

2. Weaponize it against enemies while building supporter loyalty

3. Control the narrative through selective transparency promises

4. Abandon it when it becomes politically inconvenient

5. Attack former believers to distance yourself from the consequences

The MAGA base didn't just get gaslit about Epstein. They got a masterclass in how populist movements dispose of supporters once they're no longer useful.

The Real Hoax

Trump was right about one thing: there is a Jeffrey Epstein hoax. But it's not the one created by Democrats.

The real hoax was convincing millions of supporters that he cared about truth and transparency when he only cared about power. The real hoax was building a movement on promises of exposing corruption while engaging in the same manipulative tactics.

The real hoax was making people believe that when he said "I have all the answers," he meant something other than "I have all the power."

The conspiracy is dead. Long live the next one.

Avi Penhollow is a regular contributor to The Proximity Portal. Follow for more analysis of authoritarian political tactics and narrative manipulation.

Sources:

• ABC7 New York. "What Trump Has Said About Epstein Over the Years." 2025.

• Axios. "Trump disavows 'PAST supporters' who believed 'Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.'" July 16, 2025.

• Forbes. "Here's the Timeline of MAGA's Epstein Files Meltdown." July 16, 2025.

• NPR. "Trump tells supporters not to 'waste time' on Epstein files." July 14, 2025.

• Rolling Stone. "The DOJ's Epstein Memo Is Tearing the Trump Administration Apart." July 2025.

• CNN. "Trump lashes out at 'weaklings' who believe Epstein 'bullsh*t.'" July 16, 2025.

I’ve been a public school teacher for over 25 years. I’ve served low-income students, mentored new educators, and stayed in the classroom while others left — because PSLF gave me hope that my service mattered.

But when my forgiveness date came close in 2024, MOHELA placed my account in forbearance — after assuring me it wouldn’t affect my progress. They were wrong. Those months were stripped from my payment count. When I tried to correct it, I couldn’t even get through. Their phone lines were jammed, their portal was broken, and nobody responded for months.

So I did what public servants always do — I kept going. I made extra payments manually. I re-submitted my PSLF application. And I’ve now filed a reconsideration request to get back the credit I rightfully earned. But I’m scared. Not just for me — but for every teacher, nurse, and social worker who’s counting on this program while Donald Trump and Linda McMahon try to dismantle it in real time.

This Isn’t Just My Story. It’s a National Crisis.

The delays and roadblocks I’ve faced are now becoming the norm — not the exception. After the Supreme Court greenlit Trump’s mass firing of Education Department employees, the entire student loan system is buckling. Millions of borrowers are in limbo, trapped by bureaucratic dysfunction and political sabotage at the very moment they were promised relief.

Impact of Supreme Court Decision on Student Loan Forgiveness and DOE Services

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump administration to proceed with firing hundreds of Education Department workers has had a profound and immediate impact on the federal government’s ability to help student loan borrowers, especially those seeking forgiveness or needing urgent assistance

How Has This Decision Affected Student Loan Forgiveness?

• Delays and Disruptions: The mass layoffs—nearly half the Department’s workforce—have created significant delays in processing student loan forgiveness applications, including Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) forgiveness. Borrowers are experiencing longer wait times, reduced communication, and growing backlogs.

• Reduced Oversight and Support: Key offices like Federal Student Aid (FSA) and the FSA Ombudsman, which handle complaints and resolve disputes, have lost a substantial portion of their staff. This has led to fewer resources to help borrowers navigate complex forgiveness programs or address errors.

• Suspended or Paused Services: Some loan servicers have reported that the Department of Education temporarily halted the ability to track forgiveness progress, leaving borrowers in the dark about their eligibility and status. The specialized teams that managed PSLF and IDR issues have been reassigned or eliminated, causing further confusion and service gaps.

• Risk of Unaddressed Errors: With fewer staff to review and process applications or oversee loan servicers, mistakes and unresolved issues are more likely, making it harder for borrowers to get timely corrections or relief.

Evidence That DOE’s Ability to Help Borrowers Has Been Affected

• Direct Testimony and Reporting: Multiple sources, including borrower advocacy groups and federal employees, have confirmed that the layoffs have made it “effectively impossible” for the Department to fulfill its statutory duties, including certifying schools for federal aid and maintaining oversight of student loan servicers.

• Backlogs and Paused Forgiveness: There are currently backlogs of over a million IDR applications, and many borrowers report that their forgiveness progress is not being tracked or processed at all. Some eligible for forgiveness have not had their loans discharged, even when legally required.

• Court Findings: Federal judges and appeals courts have acknowledged the “disabling impact” of the mass firings, stating that the cuts have prevented the DOE from effectively implementing programs and services required by law.

• Borrower Experiences: Borrowers are being advised to meticulously document all interactions, monitor their accounts, and prepare for significant delays, as federal oversight and support are now severely limited.

How to Track and Document the Impact

• Monitor Official Communications: Check StudentAid.gov and your loan servicer’s website regularly for updates on forgiveness processing and service changes.

• File Complaints: Use state consumer protection offices and the FSA Ombudsman (if still operational) to report unresolved issues or delays.

• Advocacy and Media Reports: Follow reputable news outlets and borrower advocacy organizations for ongoing analysis and updates on DOE functionality and borrower experiences.

• Congressional and Court Proceedings: Watch for further legal developments, as ongoing litigation may force the reinstatement of some staff or functions.

What Borrowers Should Do Now

• Be Proactive: Document every payment, application, and communication with your servicer.

• Seek State-Level Help: If federal support is unavailable, contact your state attorney general or consumer protection office.

• Stay Informed: Legislative and legal challenges are ongoing, and the situation may change as courts and Congress respond to these unprecedented cuts.

Join the Conversation:
Have you been affected by PSLF delays or student loan mismanagement? Are you seeing the impact of the Department of Education’s staffing cuts in your own experience? I’d love to hear your story. Share your thoughts, questions, or frustrations in the comments — this space is for us. The more we speak up, the harder it becomes to ignore.

Welcome to The Portal Dispatch, the news and culture hub of The Proximity Portal.

Here you will find critical analysis, cultural commentary, art, interviews, and reflections at the intersection of faith, justice, and the world we live in. Our goal is to help you stay engaged without losing your soul.

Expect:

• Essays on current events and politics

• Conversations on culture and media

• Artist and musician features

• Deep dives on issues shaping our communities

We’re glad you’re here. Let’s get to work

.

Note: This is a longform, detailed analysis for those wanting the full historical, legal, and rhetorical breakdown of Loomer’s “65 million meals” comment and its broader implications. If you prefer a concise, reader-friendly summary of these points, I’ve also published an abridged version here: Read the Short Version ➔

Loomer’s Actual Words and Context

Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a known ally of President Trump, caused outrage with a post on X (Twitter) that appeared to endorse violence against immigrants. Commenting on Florida’s new Everglades migrant detention center (nicknamed

“Alligator Alcatraz”), Loomer wrote: “Alligator lives matter. The good news is, alligators are guaranteed at least 65 million meals if we get started now.”. In plainer terms, she suggested feeding detainees to the alligators that inhabit the area. The context here is critical: this detention camp is literally surrounded by alligators, a fact President Trump himself joked about when he quipped that escapees should learn to zigzag to outrun the gators. Loomer’s comment took that cruelty a step further, implying a massive number of people could become alligator food.

Let’s be objective about what she actually said. Loomer did not explicitly mention any ethnic or racial group in that post. She didn’t say “Latinos” or “Hispanics” by name. What she did do was invoke a colossal number – 65 million – in reference to human beings as “meals” for animals. For perspective, one user immediately responded: “Who are the 65 million you are talking about? That’s approximately a fifth of the U.S. population”. Indeed, 65 million people is roughly one in every five Americans. So while Loomer’s phrasing was coy (and couched as a grotesque “joke”), the scale of her statement was anything but subtle.

65 million is not a random large number – it’s almost exactly the total Latino population in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 66 million Americans identify as Hispanic or Latino. By contrast, the estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is around 11 million, a fraction of that figure. This means Loomer’s “65 million meals” comment, whether she admits it or not, corresponds shockingly well to “every Latino currently living in the United States,” as one commentator summarized. In effect, Loomer’s “joke” fantasized about exterminating an entire marginalized community. No amount of word-twisting can hide how extreme and inflammatory that is.

Progressive Outrage: Correct Message, Missing Nuance

It didn’t take long for progressive voices and civil rights advocates to condemn Loomer’s words. Prominent commentators labeled her post “openly genocidal” and “advocating mass murder”. Many noted the unmistakable implication that she wants to wipe out Latinos or immigrants en masse. For example, former Obama aide Tommy Vietor responded by calling Loomer a “lunatic” and stating bluntly that “what this [Trump advisor] is saying is that every Latino currently living in the United States should go to prison and die.”. The outrage is clearly justified: Loomer’s rhetoric evokes the darkest of historical parallels (commenters even compared her to a “21st century Nazi” targeting Hispanics).

Occupy Democrats, a popular progressive outlet, amplified this story with urgent messaging. They highlighted Loomer’s closeness to Trump and translated her tweet’s subtext into plain English – essentially that 65 million Latinos should be rounded up and fed to alligators. Their viral posts emphasized that “there are 65 million Latinos in the U.S.” and warned that Trump’s allies are now “casually fantasizing about mass ‘unaliving’ ALL Latinos.” This framing is basically correct in capturing the outrageous meaning of Loomer’s words, and it serves to wake people up to the danger. However, it’s also intentionally incomplete: it paraphrases Loomer rather than quoting her. She never used the word “Latinos” herself – and that omission is exactly what her defenders will latch onto.

A viral Occupy Democrats graphic underscored the implications of Loomer’s comment, equating “65 million meals” with the 65 million Latinos living in the United States. This widely shared image (see above) drove home the horror of Loomer’s statement by spelling out its genocidal subtext. Yet, because it doesn’t detail Loomer’s coy phrasing, her apologists are already howling that she was misrepresented. In other words, the message is true, but its blunt delivery gives bad-faith actors a chance to quibble over wording. We need to be prepared to address that gaslighting head-on.

Anticipating the Gaslighting and Spin

Whenever such hateful rhetoric is exposed, a predictable chorus of defenders emerges to distort the reality and attack the critics. We’re already seeing it with Loomer’s post. “She never said ‘all Latinos’!” is the immediate retort – as if the lack of that exact phrasing means her hands are clean. This is classic gaslighting: attempting to make the public doubt their own eyes and ears. Let’s break down the main deflections we can expect and why they hold no water:

• “She didn’t literally say Latinos, so you’re misquoting her.” – True, Loomer’s tweet doesn’t spell out who the 65 million are. But it absolutely implies it. The number 65 million is a glaring clue. No other interpretation fits: it far exceeds any estimate of undocumented migrants, or of criminals, or any other subgroup her defenders might conjure. It matches only one demographic – the entire U.S. Latino population. Even conservative-leaning observers acknowledged this was intentional. As one commenter noted, “The entire Latino population in the U.S. is 65 million. She means all of us.”. Loomer herself effectively confirmed the target when she responded to that comment by falsely claiming, “There are 65 million ILLEGAL ALIENS in the United States. Nice try though.”. This rebuttal from her was a blatant lie (again, the real number of undocumented people is about one-sixth of that) – essentially a scramble to mask her original meaning. Pretending we are “twisting her words” is absurd when she’s the one tossing out a bogus statistic to cover her tracks. No, she didn’t say “Latinos” explicitly; she just chose the exact number that equals all Latinos and then tried to re-label that number as “illegal aliens.” We’re not falling for it, and neither should anyone else.

• “She only meant violent criminals or illegals, not an entire group.” – Nothing in Loomer’s post mentions crime or specifies any subset of immigrants. The context was a migrant detention center, and her gator analogy explicitly celebrated the prospect of 65 million human beings being devoured. If she truly meant “just the dangerous ones” or something, why use a figure tens of millions higher than even the total immigrant population? The answer: she wanted a provocatively huge number – effectively a whole people – to demonize. It’s the same ugly trick we’ve seen before: paint all immigrants or all members of a minority group as a deadly threat, then claim you only meant the “bad ones.” The scale of 65 million belies any notion of selectivity. Loomer was broadcasting a wholesale hatred, not a nuanced policy proposal.

• “It was just a joke / she’s being edgy.” – Genocidal rhetoric isn’t a joke; it’s propaganda. Calling it “edgy humor” is an insult to basic decency. Throughout history, calls for horrific violence have often been sugarcoated as “just kidding” or hyperbole – that doesn’t make them harmless. Suggesting that an entire ethnic group could become reptile feed is dehumanizing in the extreme. It reduces a population to animal fodder. Even if Loomer thought she was being clever or trolling liberals, her words have power and meaning. Dehumanization of this kind is a well-known precursor to real-world violence. As one aghast commenter told Loomer, “Not very pro-life of you…this is disturbing.”. It’s beyond disturbing – it’s the language of cruelty becoming normalized. No civilized society should shrug this off as a joke.

• “Loomer is just a fringe provocateur, who cares?” – Don’t underestimate the messenger here. Laura Loomer is not a random internet crank yelling into the void. She is a prominent MAGA figure with a significant following and direct ties to those in power. In fact, she has been described as a “close advisor and confidant” to Trump and even reportedly flew on Air Force One with him recently. News outlets confirm that Loomer has Trump’s ear – earlier in his term, he fired a high-ranking security official after Loomer urged him to purge ‘disloyal’ staff. In short, her ideas can influence policy. When someone this close to a former (and potential future) president is comfortable spewing eliminationist rhetoric, we must take it seriously. It’s not just idle shock talk on some fringe forum; it’s coming from the heart of the Trumpist movement. Dismissing it as “just Loomer being Loomer” would be dangerously naïve. She’s saying aloud what others in power may believe or eventually enact.

Rejecting the Propaganda and Standing Up for the Truth

Loomer’s “65 million meals” comment is harmful propaganda aimed at a marginalized group, and it demands a firm rebuke. By framing Latino immigrants (and effectively all Latinos) as less than human – literally as food for predators – this rhetoric seeks to strip an entire community of its humanity. We’ve seen this playbook before: extremist voices dehumanize a minority to justify cruelty, detention, and worse. Today it’s “alligators” instead of gas chambers, but the chilling echo of “ethnic cleansing” is unmistakable. As one outraged observer noted, “MAGA [is] advocating for complete racial genocide”. That is not hyperbole – that is a fair reading of what Loomer floated, even if couched as a twisted joke.

It’s urgent that we call this out for what it is. No amount of gaslighting should deter us from the facts: Yes, she meant all Latinos. No, we’re not “overreacting” by labeling that genocidal – it is genocidal by definition to fantasize about exterminating an entire ethnic population. And no, hiding behind the fig leaf of “65 million illegal aliens” fools no one; it only underscores the bad faith and bigotry at play, since one can only reach a phony number that high by counting every person of Latin American heritage as “illegal.” We refuse to let critics of these inhumane policies be silenced or sidetracked by such rhetorical tricks.

In the face of propaganda, truth and moral clarity are our best weapons. The truth is that immigrants and Latino Americans are human beings who contribute to our society, not “invaders” to be massacred. The truth is that advocating violence – even sarcastically – has consequences: it normalizes hatred and primes people to accept atrocities. And the truth is that we’ve been warned about this rhetoric before. When someone tells you (even half-jokingly) that they want to eradicate 65 million of your neighbors, believe them. As the saying goes, and the far right wants us gone. Believe them. We cannot afford to downplay or forget Loomer’s words, no matter how much her defenders try to gaslight the nation into thinking it was no big deal.

It’s heartening that so many Americans – from liberal activists to libertarians and beyond – immediately recognized Loomer’s post as beyond the pale. Public outcry and awareness are crucial. But outrage must be coupled with resolve. We must reject these dehumanizing narratives and stand in solidarity with the communities under attack. Calling out lies and bigotry is not “hysterical,” it’s responsible. So the next time someone claims “she never said ALL Latinos” as a gotcha, don’t back down. Point them to the facts, challenge the distortion, and re-focus on the real issue: a powerful figure in Trump’s inner circle flirted with genocidal rhetoric against a minority group. That is unacceptable period, and no amount of gaslighting will make it otherwise. Our collective response now isn’t just about one person’s vile tweet – it’s about making it crystal clear that America will not tolerate hate speech that threatens millions of our friends and neighbors. The lives and dignity of our fellow human beings are worth more than an “Alligator Alcatraz” punchline.

Let’s make sure everyone understands that.

Note: This piece is an abridged, reader-friendly version of a longer, in-depth analysis I wrote on Loomer’s “65 million meals” comment, the 14th Amendment, and the normalization of eliminationist rhetoric. If you’d like the full, detailed breakdown with historical context and citations, you can read it here: Read the Full Deep Dive

Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a known Trump ally, posted this on X (Twitter) on June 30:

“Alligator lives matter. The good news is, alligators are guaranteed at least 65 million meals if we get started now.”

Let’s be clear about what she actually said:

• Loomer did not explicitly mention Latinos or immigrants.

• She did reference “65 million meals” in the context of people being fed to alligators.

• There are approximately 65 million Latino/Hispanic people in the U.S. per the Census Bureau.

• There are not 65 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. (the estimate is around 11 million).

In other words, while Loomer avoided explicitly saying “Latinos,” she used a number that only makes sense if you interpret it as referring to all Latinos living in the United States. This is not a random big number; it aligns precisely with the Latino population.

Why This Matters

Loomer’s defenders are already saying, “She never said ALL Latinos!” or “It’s just a joke.” Let’s address these talking points directly:

1️⃣ “She didn’t say ‘Latinos’.”

Correct, she didn’t say it explicitly. But the number she used (65 million) points directly to the Latino population. There is no plausible way to interpret this as referring to “illegal immigrants” or “criminals,” since no such group approaches that size. This is a thinly veiled genocidal fantasy, and pretending otherwise is gaslighting.

2️⃣ “She meant criminals or illegals.”

She never mentioned crime or undocumented status. She simply said 65 million people should be fed to alligators. There are not 65 million undocumented immigrants. If you use that number, you are effectively talking about all Latinos.

3️⃣ “It was just a joke.”

Joking about genocide is not harmless. Historically, calls for violence have often been disguised as humor to normalize cruelty. Dehumanizing a group by calling them “meals” for animals primes people to tolerate inhumane policies and violence.

4️⃣ “She’s a fringe provocateur, who cares?”

Loomer is not irrelevant. She has been described as a “close advisor and confidant” to Trump, with enough influence to join him on Air Force One and reportedly push for the firing of officials she disliked. Her rhetoric is amplified within MAGA circles and has real-world consequences.

Why Progressive Messaging Is Correct but Incomplete

Outlets like Occupy Democrats immediately framed Loomer’s post as advocating for the extermination of all Latinos. They are correct in interpreting the meaning of her statement but did not highlight that Loomer never said “Latinos” explicitly. This leaves an opening for bad-faith actors to deflect and claim “misrepresentation.”

We should acknowledge this omission while refusing to be gaslit:

• Yes, she didn’t say “Latinos,” but the 65 million figure is unmistakable.

• Yes, it was phrased as a “joke,” but genocide jokes aren’t funny.

• No, we will not let extremists normalize hate speech targeting millions.

The Stakes Are Clear

When a prominent MAGA figure jokes about feeding 65 million people to alligators, it’s not “edgy humor”—it is eliminationist rhetoric targeting a marginalized community.

It dehumanizes people, normalizes cruelty, and signals a willingness to treat an entire ethnic group as expendable.

And it is not just about Laura Loomer.

It’s about the normalization of dehumanization and cruelty under the MAGA movement, and the willingness of many to look away or “wink wink” it away as a joke.

Bottom Line

Loomer’s words were:

“Alligator lives matter. The good news is, alligators are guaranteed at least 65 million meals if we get started now.”

She meant what she said. She said it publicly. She wants you to flinch, normalize it, and move on.

We will not.

We see it. We name it. We reject it.

Because human beings are not meals.

Sources:

• U.S. Census Bureau: 65 million Hispanic/Latino population

• Estimated undocumented immigrant population (~11 million): Pew Research Center

• Loomer’s original tweet (June 30, 2025)

When people today talk about “illegal immigrants,” they often treat the category as timeless. But the truth is, “illegality” is a modern invention.

For much of U.S. history, there were no federal restrictions on immigration. People simply arrived, seeking work or refuge, and began building their lives.

The Early Openness of America’s Borders

• Pre-1875: The federal government did not restrict entry. States managed their own ports, but there was no overarching system of documentation for entry.

• Who came? Millions of Europeans arrived without visas or papers, simply stepping off ships and becoming part of the American landscape.

• Citizenship was largely limited to “free white persons” under the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entry itself was open.

Key Point: For white Europeans, “illegality” did not exist.

The Turn Toward Exclusion and Documentation

The shift came when the government began targeting who could enter:

• 1875 Page Act: First federal restriction, targeting Asian women under claims of preventing prostitution.

• 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act: Banned Chinese laborers, creating the first large-scale system of federal immigration enforcement.

• Early 1900s: Literacy tests, head taxes, and medical inspections became barriers at Ellis Island and other ports.

• 1906 Naturalization Act: Required immigrants to learn English and register documentation to become citizens, tying identity to paperwork for the first time.

As the country industrialized and waves of Southern and Eastern European immigrants arrived, fears of “undesirable” populations drove policies that formalized border inspections, paperwork requirements, and deportations.

How Whiteness Shielded Many from Enforcement

Even as restrictions grew, immigration enforcement was uneven:

• Western European immigrants, once in the U.S., blended into white society and were rarely targeted.

• Asians, Mexicans, and others faced policing, exclusion, and violence under laws designed explicitly to keep them out or to limit their rights once inside.

The system was never neutral. It was designed to protect whiteness as the default American identity while restricting others.

“Undocumented” Status Is a Policy Choice

The modern concept of being “undocumented” is the result of:

• Shifting quotas and caps (1924 Johnson-Reed Act, which severely restricted immigration from Asia and Eastern/Southern Europe).

• Border Patrol establishment in 1924 to enforce the new restrictions.

• Economic demands that brought workers in while denying them legal pathways.

People became “illegal” not because of who they were, but because laws changed beneath their feet, transforming neighbors, coworkers, and friends into targets for exclusion.

Why This Matters Now

Understanding this history exposes the myth that “illegality” is a moral failing. It is a construct used to control who belongs and to protect narrow definitions of American identity.

As we face a new wave of restrictionist policies under Project 2025, remembering that “illegality” is not inherent—but politically constructed—helps us see whose interests these narratives serve, and whose lives they endanger.

Next in This Series:

📖 Part III: The Demographic and Cultural Shift—Why America’s Diversity Is Here to Stay (and Why That Terrifies Some People)

Call to Action:

• ✏️ Share your family’s immigration story in the comments.

• 💬 What surprised you about this history?

• 📢 Share this with someone who thinks “illegal immigration” has always been a crime.

America is fighting over who gets to belong.

As the Trump administration races to reshape government through Project 2025, debates over immigration, race, and power are sharpening into a single, urgent question:

Will American identity remain open and evolving, or will it be forcibly narrowed by those in power?

This is not just about politics; it’s about who we are, and who we want to be.

The Current Moment: A Struggle for Definition

In 2025, the stakes are clear:

• Project 2025 aims to reshape federal institutions to enforce a narrow, exclusionary vision of America before the political window closes.

• Culture war rhetoric is escalating, with some claiming that “real” Americans are under siege, while others argue that true patriotism demands defending diversity and democracy.

• The alignment of all three branches of government under this ideology has created an unprecedented push to centralize power and roll back pluralism.

This fight over American identity isn’t new. But it is reaching a breaking point.

A Nation Defined by Its People—Not Its Gatekeepers

Throughout history, American identity has evolved not because the powerful willed it, but because ordinary people forced the nation to live up to its promises.

• Enslaved people demanding freedom.

• Immigrants arriving with nothing, building communities and reshaping culture.

• Civil rights activists refusing to accept second-class citizenship.

Time and again, American identity has expanded because people refused to let it remain small.

Today, those seeking to narrow “American” to a single race, religion, or political identity are pushing against the tide of history—but they are also deploying real power to make their vision stick.

Why This Matters Now

If we accept a static, exclusionary vision of American identity, we risk losing:

• The richness of cultural exchange that defines our cities and towns.

• The promise of democracy grounded in all people’s participation.

• The opportunity to build a future shaped by diversity, not fear.

We are at a moment where choices matter. Silence and inaction serve those who want to redefine “American” on their terms.

What This Series Will Explore

Over the coming weeks, we will explore:

1. The hidden history of American identity and immigration, and how “illegality” was invented.

2. The demographic and cultural shifts that are irreversible—and why they are sparking backlash.

3. Project 2025’s concrete plans to remake government and enforce cultural homogeneity.

4. Why a complete reversal of diversity is impossible, no matter how hard the push.

5. What real opposition looks like beyond party politics.

6. How vigilance and civic participation can protect democracy.

7. Why the arc of American identity still bends toward inclusion—if we fight for it.

This series is for those who believe that America’s strength lies in its fluid, people-powered identity, not in gatekeeping who gets to belong.

Join the Conversation

In the weeks ahead, I invite you to:

✅ Share your stories about what “American” means to you.
✅ Ask questions you want addressed in this series.
✅ Share this post with friends and family who are grappling with these questions.

America’s identity is not fixed. It is made by people willing to stand up, participate, and define it for themselves—and for the generations to come.

If you’re ready to engage, stay tuned for Part 2: From Open Borders to Documentation: The Hidden History of Immigration in America.

On June 21, 2025, President Trump authorized airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, thrusting the United States into the heart of a dangerous regional escalation. The decision—announced without congressional approval or public intelligence briefings—immediately raised alarm among constitutional scholars, military analysts, and foreign policy experts alike.

In the hours following President Trump’s announcement of the bombing, a familiar pattern began to unfold across conservative media and pro-Trump corners of the internet. Instead of discussing the legal or strategic justification for the strikes—or the potential for regional escalation—the online narrative pivoted. Within minutes, the story wasn’t about Trump’s decision. It was about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.

Memes flooded social media, making bold and emotionally charged assertions:

• Hillary Clinton gave Iran uranium.

• Obama handed them $1.7 billion for nukes.

• Biden unblocked $16 billion in funding for terrorism.

These claims, presented with patriotic conviction, were designed to rewrite the chain of causality—to suggest that if Trump was acting rashly, it was only because Democrats enabled Iran in the first place.

But none of these claims hold up. And if we’re going to understand how we got here, we need more than ideological memory. We need facts.

🔻Claim 1:

“Hillary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium to enrich their nuclear program.”

Status: ❌ False. There is no evidence—nor any mechanism—by which Hillary Clinton “gave uranium” to Iran.

This claim originates from the long-debunked Uranium One conspiracy theory, which ties back to a 2010 sale of a Canadian mining company (Uranium One) to a Russian firm (Rosatom). The company held rights to roughly 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity—not 20% of uranium itself, and certainly not weapons-grade material. The deal required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which included nine federal agencies, one of which was the State Department.

There is no evidence that Clinton directly influenced the decision. More importantly, the uranium in question never left the United States. It was under the watch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the entire time.

Much of the public confusion stems from a $145 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, mostly attributed to Frank Giustra—a mining executive who had sold his shares in Uranium One before Clinton became Secretary of State. The optics are murky. The facts are not.

🟠Claim 2:

“Obama gave Iran $1.7 billion that they used to fund their nuclear program.”

Status: ⚠️ Misleading. This was a legal settlement of a decades-old dispute, paid in a manner dictated by U.S. sanctions policy—not a gift, and not aid.

The $1.7 billion in question was Iran’s money, paid to the U.S. in the 1970s for military equipment that was never delivered due to the Iranian Revolution. For decades, Iran pursued legal action in the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at The Hague.

In 2016, the Obama administration chose to settle the case: $400 million in principal, plus $1.3 billion in interest. Because Iran remained under heavy financial sanctions, the funds were delivered in cash, using foreign currency and third-party banks. That fact—combined with a coordinated but separate release of American prisoners—created the appearance of a ransom payment.

The administration’s insistence that this was not quid pro quo may be technically accurate. But the optics were damning: a plane full of cash arriving within hours of a prisoner release. The public was never going to see that as anything but a deal. Still, there is no evidence the funds were used to advance Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, the nuclear deal signed that year (the JCPOA) significantly restricted Iran’s uranium enrichment—until Trump later withdrew from it.

🟡Claim 3:

“Joe Biden unfroze $16 billion of funds for Iran’s nuclear program.”

Status: 🚫 Highly misleading and factually thin.

This claim is based on Iranian assets frozen under international sanctions, some of which were made accessible for strictly humanitarian purposes—such as food and medicine—under Biden’s administration. The funds were held in foreign banks, not U.S. accounts, and were not taxpayer dollars. The $16 billion figure is an inflated estimate, often repeated without sourcing.

There is no indication that any of these assets were directed toward Iran’s nuclear program. Moreover, the release of these funds came with monitoring mechanisms and conditions, including third-party oversight through banks in Qatar.

Of the three claims circulating, this one may be the weakest—yet it’s also the most recent, and thus the most useful as a political deflection.

🧭 What These Claims Are Really Doing

This sudden wave of recycled allegations is not about Iran. It’s about shifting responsibility. The goal is to insulate Trump from scrutiny by arguing that he inherited an impossible situation—one made worse by the alleged generosity or naivete of his predecessors.

But none of the claims hold water, at least not in the way they’re being shared.

Yes, past administrations made choices. They struck deals, froze funds, enforced sanctions, lifted others. And yes, every one of those moves can be debated. But rewriting history to suggest that Clinton, Obama, or Biden actively enabled Iran’s nuclear ambitions with American help is a deliberate distortion of the record.

It’s also a distraction. Because the real questions—the ones we’re avoiding by rehashing old memes—are the ones we need to ask now:

• Why did President Trump authorize military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional approval?

• Was this action justified by intelligence, or was it political theater?

• What happens next—and who will bear the cost if things escalate?

Those are the questions this moment demands. And no amount of retroactive blame-shifting will answer them.

These narratives are designed to distract—to shift attention away from the present and toward selective interpretations of the past. But once we dispense with the myths, we’re left with the real question:

Why did President Trump order these strikes in the first place—and what evidence did he offer, if any?

The rationale offered was familiar: a looming threat. According to the administration, the strikes were a necessary part of a joint campaign with Israel to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But what was missing was equally familiar: evidence.

Despite dramatic rhetoric about an imminent nuclear breakout, no specific intelligence was made public to support the claim that Iran was on the verge of weaponization. In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies had repeatedly assessed that Iran remained several years away from developing a viable nuclear weapon—an assessment that had not changed in the weeks prior to the strikes.

“This is not just reckless; it’s a direct violation of the Constitution’s war powers,” said one Democratic senator, echoing a chorus of bipartisan concern.

🚨 A President Alone

The decision came without consultation or authorization from Congress, marking yet another instance of executive overreach in military affairs. No declaration of war. No War Powers Resolution notification in advance. Just a sudden assertion of presidential authority to carry out targeted military action against a sovereign state—without formal oversight.

This unilateral approach stood in stark contrast to Trump’s previous campaign claims. He had promised to end “forever wars” and keep America out of new conflicts. Instead, this strike expanded U.S. military involvement in one of the most volatile regions on the planet—without a clear objective, exit strategy, or accountability framework.

🧨 Escalation by Design?

Some observers suggest this was more than just a military miscalculation. It was a political maneuver. With domestic investigations mounting, economic turbulence threatening reelection narratives, and foreign policy credentials in need of a boost, a high-stakes international strike may have served as a distraction, not a solution.

Even conservative voices expressed caution:

“We need to be very clear about what we’re doing here,” said one former Trump official anonymously. “The risk of blowback is enormous.”

Critics argue that without a formal declaration of war, coordinated diplomacy, or broad international support, this operation undermined U.S. credibility and raised the risk of further destabilization—not just in Iran, but across the region.

⚖️ What Comes Next?

Already, protests have erupted across global capitals. Iran has vowed retaliation. And members of Congress—many of whom were caught off guard—are calling for emergency hearings.

The legal questions are mounting:

• Did Trump violate the War Powers Resolution?

• Was the intelligence sufficient to justify a self-defense rationale?

• Will this spark retaliatory action against U.S. assets or allies?

What’s clear is this: the decision to strike was made in the absence of debate, evidence, and democratic process. And the consequences may extend far beyond the bomb craters in Fordow.

What A Loved One Shared

This morning, like so many mornings before it, I opened my phone to find my social media feed flooded with the usual propaganda. But one image stopped me cold—a meme that crystallized everything wrong with this moment in American history. It read: "Imagine being mad at two guys Trump and Musk who haven't taken a salary for exposing the guys stealing your money while taking a salary."

Within hours, a loved one had shared it. So had countless others—good people, decent people, people who work hard and pay their taxes and want desperately to believe that someone, somewhere, is fighting for them. People who have been so betrayed by the system that they will embrace any narrative, no matter how preposterous, that promises them heroes instead of more disappointment.

There is something deeply American about the way we create our myths, and something even more American about the way we cling to them long after the truth has made itself plain. For nearly a decade now, we have been asked—no, commanded—to believe a story so preposterous that it would be laughable if it were not so dangerous. The story goes like this: Donald Trump and Elon Musk, two of the wealthiest men in human history, have sacrificed their comfort, their fortunes, their very peace of mind, all for love of country and concern for the common man.

This is the narrative that echoes through cable news studios and reverberates across social media feeds, painted in the broad strokes of martyrdom and persecution. These men, we are told, are victims—hounded by a corrupt system for daring to challenge the established order, selfless patriots who set aside personal gain to serve the American people. The faithful repeat this gospel with the fervor of true believers, as if repetition alone could transform fiction into fact.

But I have lived long enough to know that when rich men speak of sacrifice, when powerful men claim victimhood, when those who feast at the table of power insist they are starving for the people—it is time to examine the books. And the books, dear reader, tell a story that would make even the most hardened cynic blush with embarrassment for having underestimated the audacity of it all.

Donald Trump: The Alchemy of Public Office

The Sacred Theater of the Forfeited Salary

Let us begin with the most sacred piece of this mythology: Donald Trump's decision to forgo his $400,000 presidential salary. How many times have we heard this figure invoked, this supposed proof of selfless service? How many speeches, how many rallies, how many late-night social media posts have elevated this gesture to the status of holy writ?

But here is what they do not tell you in those speeches, what gets lost in the righteous indignation and the claims of persecution: while Trump was performing this theater of sacrifice, his businesses were conducting the most successful money-laundering operation in the history of American politics. Not laundering dirty money, mind you, but laundering dirty politics into clean profit.

According to Forbes—no bastion of liberal conspiracy—Trump's businesses raked in over $2.4 billion during his first term alone. Government officials became regular customers at Trump hotels. Foreign dignitaries found themselves inexplicably drawn to Trump golf courses. Lobbyists discovered that Mar-a-Lago memberships had become, quite suddenly, essential to their work. The presidency itself had become a marketing campaign, and every day in office was a commercial for the Trump brand.

That $400,000 salary he so generously forfeited? It was not sacrifice; it was the best investment he ever made. Every dollar he declined was transformed into six thousand dollars of business revenue. This is not patriotism; this is alchemy.

The Monetization of Memory

But if you thought the grift ended when Trump left office, then you have not been paying attention to the American capacity for turning everything—even failure, even disgrace—into profit. The post-presidency years have been, if anything, more lucrative than the presidency itself. Paid speeches have brought in millions. Media deals have fattened already substantial bank accounts. Digital trading cards—NFTs, they call them, as if the acronym somehow makes the absurdity more palatable—have generated tens of millions more.

And then came the masterstroke, the piece de resistance of this grand performance: the $TRUMP meme coin. Launched in the wake of his 2024 campaign, riding the wave of political fervor like a surfer catching the perfect storm, this digital currency has generated over $350 million in fees alone since his re-election.

Think about that number for a moment. Let it settle in your mind like sediment in still water. Three hundred and fifty million dollars—more money than most people could spend in several lifetimes—extracted from the very people who believe he is sacrificing for them. This is not governance; this is not service; this is not even capitalism in any recognizable form. This is something else entirely, something that would make P.T. Barnum himself tip his hat in grudging admiration.

The American Tradition of Gilded Saints

But before we turn our attention to Musk, let us pause to acknowledge that this story is not new. America has always had a peculiar relationship with its wealthy men, a tendency to canonize those who accumulate the most while claiming to sacrifice the most. The robber barons of the Gilded Age built libraries and universities while their workers died in industrial accidents. The oil tycoons of the early 20th century funded charities while poisoning rivers.

Yet even some of those men—rapacious as they were—possessed something that Trump and Musk seem to lack entirely: moral introspection. Andrew Carnegie struggled genuinely with the contradictions of his wealth, writing extensively about the moral obligations of the rich. He called great fortunes a "sacred trust" and gave away 90% of his wealth. In our own time, Bill Gates has pledged to give away most of his fortune, stating recently that he considers it a moral imperative to use his wealth to address global suffering.

Carnegie understood, however imperfectly, that great wealth carried great responsibility—that accumulation without contribution was a form of moral bankruptcy. He felt the weight of his contradictions and attempted to reconcile them.

What is new is the brazenness, the sheer audacity of the performance we witness today. What is new is the way that the very act of self-enrichment has been rebranded as public service, the way that personal profit has been transformed into patriotic duty. What is new is the complete absence of moral struggle, the utter lack of introspection, the transformation of greed from a vice to be overcome into a virtue to be celebrated. What is new is men like Elon Musk.

Elon Musk: The Gospel of Self-Made Mythology

The Subsidy King's Crown

If Trump is the master of personal branding, then Elon Musk is the virtuoso of public relations mythology. We are asked to see him as the embodiment of American innovation, the rugged individualist leading humanity boldly into the future. He is Iron Man made flesh, the genius entrepreneur who dares to dream of Mars while the rest of us are stuck thinking about quarterly reports.

But strip away the mythology, examine the ledger books, and a different picture emerges—one that should make every American taxpayer sit up and pay attention. This is a man who began his American journey by gaming the immigration system itself, falsely claiming enrollment at Stanford University for nearly two years while working illegally on a student visa. Even then, Musk understood that rules were suggestions, that systems existed to be exploited rather than respected.

Since 2016, Musk's empire—Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink—has gorged itself on over $10 billion in direct subsidies, contracts, and tax breaks. Ten billion dollars. That is not a subsidy; that is a way of life. Tesla alone has netted more than $3 billion from the sale of regulatory credits—a government program that essentially pays Tesla for making electric cars that other companies are required by law to buy credits for. SpaceX, meanwhile, has secured over $6 billion in NASA and Pentagon contracts since 2020. Far from being the rugged individualist of popular imagination, Musk has revealed himself to be one of the most successful welfare recipients in American history.

The irony is breathtaking: the same man who violated immigration law to establish his foothold in America now champions mass deportations. The same man who built his fortune on government largesse now advocates for slashing social safety net programs that help working families survive. It is not hypocrisy; it is something far more calculated—the systematic pulling up of ladders after one has climbed them.

The Capture of Democracy Itself

But Musk's genius—and make no mistake, it is a form of genius, albeit a perverse one—extends beyond mere financial manipulation. Since 2023, he has engaged in what can only be described as the systematic capture of the regulatory apparatus meant to oversee his companies. Former company executives have been installed in key federal positions with the regularity of a corporate reorganization.

The result? SEC investigations into Tesla's accounting practices have been quietly shelved. NHTSA safety inquiries have evaporated like morning mist. The very agencies meant to protect the public from corporate excess have been transformed into protective services for Musk's expanding empire. His companies now operate with fewer checks and balances than a small-town lemonade stand, their growth fueled by public money and shielded by political influence.

The "Big Beautiful Bill": A Monument to Shamelessness

Just months into his 2nd term, President Trump promoted what he called the "Big Beautiful Bill"—a federal tax and spending bill that includes extended tax cuts, stricter eligibility requirements for federal benefits, and a dramatic increase to the national debt.

But examine the fine print—as so few Americans ever do—and the familiar pattern emerges once again. Billions upon billions of dollars have been earmarked for projects that disproportionately benefit Trump donors and Musk's companies. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife: the bill's largest beneficiaries are the very billionaires who have built their political brands on the promise of draining the swamp.

They have not drained the swamp, friends. They have simply built a bigger, more profitable one, with themselves as the primary inhabitants and the American taxpayer as the unwitting benefactor.

The Weight of Willful Blindness

And so we return to that meme, the one a loved one shared this morning, the one that reduces this vast con game to a simple morality tale of good guys and bad guys. "Imagine being mad at two guys Trump and Musk who haven't taken a salary for exposing the guys stealing your money while taking a salary."

I think about the person who shared it when I see such things—about a generation that lived through times when a handshake meant something, when a man's word was his bond, when public service carried with it at least the pretense of sacrifice. I think about how desperate they must be for heroes, how tired they must be of being disappointed, how ready they are to believe that someone, somewhere, is finally fighting for people like them.

But here is what that meme does not tell them, what gets lost in the comforting simplicity of its message: the men they are defending have not forfeited anything except the pretense of serving anyone other than themselves. They have not exposed the thieves; they have simply perfected the theft.

Let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not suggesting that either Trump or Musk is stupid, or incompetent, or accidentally successful. Quite the opposite. What we are witnessing is a masterclass in the manipulation of democratic institutions, a clinic in the art of transforming public service into private profit. It is brilliant in its way, as brilliant as it is morally bankrupt.

What I am saying is this: the numbers do not lie, even when everything else does. The ledgers do not care about mythology or political loyalty or the desperate human need to believe that our heroes are actually heroic. Donald Trump and Elon Musk have not sacrificed anything for this nation except the pretense of serving anyone other than themselves.

Trump's business revenue from 2016 to 2025 has exceeded $2.4 billion, according to Forbes. His meme coin has generated over $350 million in fees in 2025 alone. Musk's companies have received more than $10 billion in government subsidies and contracts since 2016, with Tesla collecting over $3 billion in regulatory credits and SpaceX securing more than $6 billion in government contracts since 2020. These are not opinions or partisan talking points; these are facts, as solid and immutable as the Washington Monument.

The next time someone tells you that these men are victims, that they are sacrificing for the nation, that they are being persecuted for their patriotism—ask them to explain the numbers. Ask them to reconcile the mythology with the mathematics. Ask them why men who claim to be giving up everything keep getting richer and richer and richer.

Because in the end, that is what this is really about: not politics or patriotism or the future of America, but the oldest and most American story of all—the story of how to separate a fool from his money while convincing him you are doing him a favor.

A loved one shared that meme because they want to believe in heroes. But the men they are celebrating have turned that faith itself into profit, that hope into their dividend, that trust into their treasure.

And if that is not a heist, then I do not know what is.

Key Numbers:

• Trump's business revenue (2016–2025): $2.4 billion+ (Forbes)

• Trump's $TRUMP meme coin fees (2025): $350 million+

• Musk's government subsidies and contracts (2016–2025): $10 billion+ (ProPublica)

• Tesla regulatory credits: $3 billion+

• SpaceX government contracts (2020–2025): $6 billion+ (WSJ)

• "Big Beautiful Bill" new spending: Record increases, with billions flowing to connected interests (CBO, news summaries)

But behind the slogans and sweeping promises lies a massive restructuring of how federal education funds are distributed—particularly those tied to programs serving our most vulnerable students.

So what does this mean for students with disabilities?

The budget claims to increase funding for IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), the cornerstone law ensuring students with disabilities receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). At first glance, this sounds like good news. But the fine print tells a different story: the increase comes at the cost of eliminating dozens of other programs—programs that provide direct support to parents, train special education teachers, and fund vital services like assistive technology, early intervention, and post-school transition planning.

Now that you’ve seen the high-level changes, let’s go deeper.

Programs That Are Still Funded

• IDEA Part B Grants to States – This is the main funding for special education services in schools. It’s still going.

• Section 611 Services – These are the core services for students with disabilities ages 3–21. Also still funded.

Programs That Were Cut or Merged

These programs used to have their own separate money, but now they’ve either been eliminated or combined into one big pot of money that states can use however they want:

• Early help for babies and toddlers with disabilities (Part C)

• Parent support and training centers

• Teacher training and preparation

• Tools like books, tech, and accessible materials

• Support for job training and employment for students with disabilities

• Legal help and advocacy protections

What States Can Now Decide

Instead of getting separate funding for each of those programs, states now get one big grant. It’s up to the state to decide how much money (if any) goes to each of those areas.

From Funding Reform to Ideological Control: Who Pays the Price?

At first, the restructuring of federal education funding might seem like a bureaucratic reshuffle—dry policy changes buried in a 200-page document. But when you follow the money, a much darker pattern emerges: the dismantling of federally protected services for vulnerable students is not just about “efficiency” or “returning power to the states.” It’s about control.

The new education budget does not just slash dozens of targeted programs—it replaces them with block grants controlled by state governments, many of which are now subject to ideological litmus tests under the banner of so-called “patriotic education.” This isn’t theoretical. It’s explicitly written into the K–12 Simplified Funding Program, which encourages states to use funds to “promote patriotic education,” a term that has become a catch-all for censoring accurate history, marginalizing LGBTQ+ and racial justice curricula, and enforcing conformity to nationalist narratives.

So where does that leave students with disabilities?

It leaves them in a hostage situation.

Special education funds—once protected by federal law and earmarked for specific, evidence-based programs—are now part of a giant “flexible” pool. The rules of that pool are increasingly being shaped by culture war priorities, not student needs. The result? States and districts may choose to fund special education programs only after satisfying the ideological demands of the moment. In short: services for the most marginalized are no longer guaranteed unless they align with political loyalty tests.

Let’s be clear: this is not decentralization. This is weaponization.

It is the strategic erosion of federal protections that were fought for by parents, educators, and disability advocates over decades—and replacing them with a system that rewards compliance with the ruling regime’s values.

This is how authoritarian governance creeps in: not through sweeping declarations, but through budget reallocations, coded language, and the slow but deliberate disempowerment of those most likely to dissent.

If you care about equity, disability rights, public education, or just basic decency, this isn’t the time for passive observation. It’s the time for scrutiny, resistance, and relentless advocacy.

Call to Action: Demand Protections from Ideological Hostage-Taking

We can have a real debate about funding models. We can even talk about flexibility for states. But what we cannot accept is this:

Attaching services for students with disabilities to an ideological purity test.

That is exactly what’s happening under the new “patriotic education” provisions buried inside the Department of Education’s FY2026 budget.

When special education, early intervention, teacher training, and family support programs are lumped into one giant block grant—and then paired with language promoting a political agenda—we are no longer talking about education reform. We are talking about coercion.

If a state must prove its ideological alignment before receiving funding for students with disabilities, then:

• Students are hostages.

• Parents are pawns.

• And public education becomes a tool of political control.

We need to be crystal clear:

✅ Flexibility is acceptable.

❌ Ideological gatekeeping is not

No student—especially those most vulnerable—should be forced to pass an ideological test to receive the services they are legally guaranteed.

This budget doesn’t just change how schools are funded. It changes who gets to matter.

We can’t let that happen.

Some readers may see this critique and think it’s overblown. That we’re reading too much into a funding shift. That “patriotic education” is just vague language. That this budget is about efficiency—not ideology.

But here’s the truth:

This threat is not speculative.

It’s not inferred.

It’s not imagined.

It’s documented—in plain sight.

In my next article, I’ll examine the exact language in Trump’s executive orders on education, including the one quietly referenced in this very budget summary. I’ll also trace its direct connection to Project 2025, the sweeping right-wing plan to overhaul the federal government with ideological loyalty as its cornerstone.

About the Author

Avi Penhollow has worked in public education for over 25 years, serving as a classroom teacher, special education case manager, and curriculum developer. His career spans Title I schools, inclusive education programs, and university-level teacher preparation. He currently supports students with disabilities in California’s public school system and specializes in literacy, equity, and culturally sustaining pedagogy.

Penhollow brings a practitioner’s lens to education policy—grounded not in theory, but in the lived realities of students and families. His work consistently centers those most affected by shifts in law and funding, particularly students with disabilities, multilingual learners, and historically underserved communities.

This article reflects his growing concern that what appears on the surface as a technical funding adjustment is, in fact, part of a broader ideological project. He writes not from partisanship, but from a deep commitment to public education as a cornerstone of democracy—and a conviction that every child deserves protection from political manipulation.

In the latest episode of Trumpian delusion, the former president is melting down over a court ruling that dared to check his imperial delusions of economic grandeur. After a three-judge panel struck down large swaths of his tariffs as illegal, Trump turned to his favorite playbook—smear the judiciary, whine about “activist judges,” and hope the base doesn’t Google anything.

But let’s look at the facts. The ruling wasn’t handed down by some deep state liberal cabal. It came from a panel composed of three judges: Timothy Reif (appointed by Trump), Jane Restani (appointed by Reagan), and Gary Katzmann (appointed by Obama). That’s not judicial activism. That’s a bipartisan slap in the face to Trump’s fantasy that the presidency comes with unlimited power and zero accountability.

Let’s be clear: Trump is raging against his own judge.

The decision wasn’t ideological; it was constitutional. The judges cited conservative legal reasoning, leaning on doctrines like nondelegation and the major questions doctrine—the very principles conservative legal scholars have spent decades waving like flags at Federalist Society cocktail hours. Far from judicial overreach, the ruling was a textbook exercise in separation of powers. Congress gives the president authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but not a blank check to reshape the global economy with rage tariffs every time Trump stubs his toe on China.

These judges didn’t legislate from the bench—they read the law. That’s their job. The ruling affirmed what anyone not deep in the throes of cultish propaganda already knows: presidents, even gold-plated reality TV ones, must follow the law. If you find that controversial, you might be in a cult.

Trump’s tantrum is less about law and more about ego. When the judiciary does its job and tells a president “you can’t do that,” it’s called checks and balances. When it happens to Trump, he calls it treason. MAGA supporters eat it up, screaming “deep state!” and “weaponized justice!”—all while ignoring that Trump literally picked one of the judges. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so corrosive.

The truth is this: shouting “activist judge!” doesn’t make it true. It just makes you look like a petulant child throwing LEGOs at the Constitution. And if your followers believe it without question, that’s not patriotism—it’s propaganda swallowing itself whole.

This wasn’t rogue justice. It was the rule of law tapping Trump on the shoulder and saying: You’re not a king. Sit down.

Recent social media posts and news coverage highlight President Trump’s assertion that his recent Middle East trip secured unprecedented investment deals-figures like $600 billion from Saudi Arabia, $243.5 billion from Qatar, and $200 billion from the United Arab Emirates are prominently cited. The White House and supportive outlets have touted a total of over $2 trillion in economic agreements, characterizing the trip as a historic economic and diplomatic success.

But let’s get real: the numbers are more fantasy than fact. They’re not binding deals. They're not verified investments. And they definitely didn’t appear out of thin air because of one diplomatic trip.

Here’s what’s actually going on:

Trump’s team and media allies have claimed over $2 trillion in Middle East agreements. But when we do the math, we find that real, trackable contracts add up to less than $700 billion — and that’s being generous. Much of that number comes from non-binding pledges, press release promises, and deals that were already in motion before Trump’s trip. Some of these contracts have been recycled so many times they’re practically antiques.

Meanwhile, independent sources like Reuters and The Washington Post point out that many of these so-called “deals” are nothing more than memoranda of understanding — vague future intentions with no teeth. They're the diplomatic equivalent of saying, “Let’s grab lunch sometime” and calling it a restaurant opening.

Nature of the Agreements

• Non-binding and Long-term: Many of the agreements are non-binding or represent intentions to collaborate over a decade or more, rather than immediate, guaranteed investments.

• Sectoral Focus: The deals span sectors including defense, aviation, technology, and energy. For example, Saudi Arabia’s $600 billion commitment includes joint ventures with U.S. tech firms and infrastructure projects, but the breakdown of these figures is not always transparent.

• Business as Usual: Experts emphasize that many of the largest deals-such as aircraft sales to Qatar Airways-would likely have occurred regardless of who was president, as they are driven by commercial needs and long-term business relationships.

And let’s not forget the political theater: U.S. presidents and Gulf states have long played this game — announce massive numbers, take a few photos, and go home to headlines about “historic deals.” The difference is that Trump turned that normal diplomatic fluff into a full-on branding campaign, hoping nobody would notice the fine print.

So no, this wasn’t an economic miracle. It was a carefully staged PR event, designed to look like a once-in-a-lifetime breakthrough. But peel back the layers, and it’s mostly smoke and spin — no matter how many flags they wrap around it.

Trump loves this kind of Inflation

While Trump’s team flaunted trillion-dollar graphics and golden photo ops, the actual diplomatic outcome of the Middle East trip was hollow. There were no peace breakthroughs in Gaza, Ukraine, or anywhere else—just a string of symbolic handshakes and headline-chasing press releases. Gulf leaders showered him with praise, but the substance was missing. Critics across the spectrum have pointed out that the administration’s obsession with big, flashy investment numbers conveniently masked the absence of real geopolitical progress.

And behind the curtain of choreographed deal-making? A deepening swirl of ethical concerns, as the Trump family’s business entanglements in the region quietly expanded. For all the talk of statesmanship, it looked a lot more like branding than diplomacy. But what else do we expect from our gaudy giddy grifter?

That being said, let’s take a look at one of the meme’s floating around. This one comes from the Hodge Twins.

Meme Analysis:

The meme claims that during a trip to the Middle East, President Trump secured over $1 trillion in investments and economic deals from Saudi Arabia ($600B), Qatar ($243.5B), and the UAE ($200B). It implies this was a major diplomatic and economic success that President Biden could never replicate.

2. Fact-Check:
This claim dramatically inflates and distorts the truth. Here's what actually happened:

• The $600 billion number from Saudi Arabia is false.
  During Trump's May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia, the administration announced over $350 billion in total economic pledges, but much of it was aspirational, non-binding, or based on previously existing deals. The only concrete agreement was a $110 billion arms deal, which also included packages already in progress during the Obama administration.

• The Qatar and UAE numbers are fictional.
  There is no official or verified record of $243.5B in deals with Qatar or $200B with the UAE tied directly to Trump’s visit. These numbers appear entirely fabricated for the graphic. Even Fox News, which aired similar graphics, was vague about what those figures actually represented — often lumping together memoranda of understanding, private investment discussions, and ambiguous long-term goals.

• These are not U.S. investments.
  The phrase "$600B in U.S. investment" suggests America sent that money to Saudi Arabia. In reality, these were promises of investment from Saudi Arabia into the U.S., or arms purchases from U.S. defense contractors. The graphic flips the direction of the money to make it sound like Trump orchestrated outbound American investment.

3. Rhetorical Technique:
This meme uses false equivalency, numerical inflation, and jingoistic framing. It implies:

• That Trump's “deals” were unique, real, and productive.

• That Biden’s foreign policy is weak by comparison.

• That televised deal-making optics equal economic success.

In reality, much of Trump’s Middle East diplomacy was theater. Deals were announced but not enforced, and the U.S. under Trump often pursued personal and political alliances with authoritarian Gulf states, even when they conflicted with long-term diplomatic goals or human rights principles.

I’m a special education teacher. I’ve spent 25 years in public and charter schools working with some of the most vulnerable students in the education system. My job is hard, essential, and almost invisible. I’ve never done this work for the money. And I’ve never expected a medal. But I did expect the government to honor its word.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program was created as a simple contract: work ten years in public service, make 120 qualifying payments on your federal student loans, and the remaining balance would be forgiven. It wasn’t a handout. It was a bargain. A trade. I give my career to the public good, and in return, the system won’t bury me in debt I can never repay.

But now, at the very edge of forgiveness, the rules are shifting. Again.

Despite years of service and 120 confirmed payments, I find myself entangled in a bureaucratic web where forgiveness isn’t denied outright—it’s just endlessly delayed, stalled, reinterpreted, or deferred. Buyback programs are offered but impossible to access. Servicers like MOHELA are unreachable. And the Department of Education sends mixed messages, offering congratulations with one hand and closed cases with the other.

Some will read this and say, "Well, you borrowed the money. Pay it back."

To those people, I say: walk a year in our shoes.

The Math Doesn’t Add Up

The average starting salary for a public school teacher in the U.S. is just over $41,000. The average overall teacher salary is around $66,000. Special education teachers often earn less despite having advanced degrees. In 25 years of service, my salary has risen slower than the cost of living, while the interest on my student loans has grown faster than my ability to pay it.

Teachers across the country often find that their salaries aren’t enough to keep pace with the interest on their student loans. Many return to graduate programs to stay certified or improve their practice, accruing more debt in the process. Forbearance becomes a strategic necessity—not to avoid responsibility, but to survive financially through unpaid summers, medical hardships, or career moves between districts or states.

When people say "pay it back," they ignore that the system was designed to be unpayable under a teacher's salary. PSLF was never about ducking a debt. It was about creating a path out for those who sacrificed higher earnings to serve.

The Trump Administration's Slow Sabotage

Today, under the Trump administration, PSLF is still technically alive—but barely. They haven’t killed it. They’ve chosen something more cynical: slow sabotage.

Forms are lost. Rules are quietly reinterpreted. Servicers are unresponsive. Buyback programs are introduced, then made inaccessible. Borrowers are left in limbo, unable to pay, unable to progress, unable to get a straight answer. I’ve made the final payments. I’ve sent the documents. And now I’m told to wait 90 business days while my case disappears into another opaque review process.

Meanwhile, the public narrative hardens against people like me. We’re cast as freeloaders, as if teachers have been living large on taxpayer dollars. In reality, I’ve subsidized this system with my labor for decades. And now the system wants to walk away from its side of the deal.

PSLF Is a Contract, Not a Giveaway

The promise of PSLF is not charity. It is not a political favor. It is a contract: a commitment made to those who chose to serve the public instead of chase profits. The government made that deal. I signed on. I upheld my end. And now I want the government to uphold theirs.

This isn’t just about me. It’s about every teacher, nurse, social worker, firefighter, and nonprofit worker who believed this country when it said, "We honor public service."

If that promise can be revoked by delay, misdirection, or administrative bad faith, then PSLF is no longer a program. It’s a trap.

And some of us are done staying quiet about it.

The “Pay It Back!” Slogan Is Simple. The Reality Isn’t.

On the surface, “you borrowed the money, pay it back” sounds like common sense—and to many working Americans who’ve paid off car loans, mortgages, or credit cards, it feels like a moral baseline. Responsibility. Fairness. No handouts. But student debt—especially for public servants—isn’t a consumer choice in the same way. Teachers don’t take out loans for luxury or speculation; they borrow just to qualify for jobs that barely cover their rent. And unlike other debt, student loans often grow faster than they can be repaid, especially under income-driven repayment plans where interest outpaces earnings. PSLF was meant to account for that gap—to honor the service, not punish the borrower. So when people who have never needed a master's degree to earn a living wage scream about fairness, they’re ignoring the system we actually live in—and the lives caught in it.

To those shouting “Pay the loans back” like it’s a moral axiom—spare us the lazy slogans. You don’t even bother to distinguish between a for-profit scammer with a master’s in cryptocurrency and a public school teacher who’s spent decades wiping noses, writing IEPs, and buying their own classroom supplies. You parrot outrage while ignoring the rigged economics of public service work. PSLF isn’t about handouts—it’s about honoring a promise to those who served while the rest of you chased profits or peddled grievance politics. Maybe stop yelling long enough to learn who your enemies actually are.