Weekly Update with a Twist
Happy Thursday, everyone. Your usual host, Michael Wilner from DC, here, but I’m not alone—California columnist Anita Chhabria is by my side again.
Welcome to another week filled with the whirlwind that is Trump 2.0. So, where do we start?
Is it President Trump’s alarming suggestion to deploy the military in American cities? Or should we dive into the ongoing government shutdown saga?
There’s been enough drama this week that it makes a popular show look tame in comparison. Still, it’s tough to gauge just how significant it all is. And, to be honest, we kind of hope it’s more significant than not.
But for Trump, more chaos seems to mean more excitement. So let’s kick things off with the main character himself.
Internal Threats
“I suggested to Pete that these troubled cities might serve as military training grounds,” Commander Beef said in a speech reminiscent of Kim Jong Il’s rhetoric. Trump chimed in, saying, “San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles—they’re very dangerous. We’re going to deal with them one by one. It’s going to matter to everyone here.”
Yes, LA—you with your quirky opera scene and Hollywood tours—apparently represent a threat to national stability. Is that really where we are now?
These comments came just after Hegseth addressed military personnel.
It almost sounds like the man in charge at a chaotic event. But before we write this off as just theatrics, it’s worth noting how the military seems more receptive than ever to such measures, especially in cities like Portland and Chicago. After LA and DC, Trump seems intent on normalizing the idea of deploying the military on our streets, which many now seem to think is a viable path forward. A study from UC Davis suggests that nearly a third of people believe the federal government should use military force to enforce policy. Yikes.
This is troubling. Protesters aren’t “inner enemies.” Democrats aren’t enemies. Even figureheads in comedy aren’t adversaries. The President’s language has, unfortunately, labeled dissenters as enemies. Just recently, after the government shutdown, the Housing and Urban Development Bureau displayed a message condemning the “radical left.”
So now, those who oppose Trump are seen as foes, and he’s tasked the military with “handling” them.
What About the “Beardos”?
And then there’s Hegseth, who while addressing some serious issues, found time to berate members of the military and disparage “weaker” men. His term “Biados”—a mashup of “beard” and something less flattering—seems crafted to mock the appearance of certain soldiers.
Why do moments like these stand out? Because many of those affected are soldiers of color, who often deal with challenges related to grooming standards.
There’s a deeply troubling pattern here, targeting minority groups and those adhering to cultural practices, like Sikhs who grow beards for religious reasons. Hegseth’s stance on excluding those with beards clearly reflects a larger disdain for inclusivity, which he labels as a mistake. His mantra seems to favor “uniformity” over diversity, leaving one to ponder if the military can indeed unite under such narrow views.
A Bipartisan Issue
Next up is JD Vance, whose humorlessness is now something of a trademark. While railing against the government’s shutdown, he made claims about emergency medical care being overrun by undocumented immigrants, suggesting that Democrats are misappropriating federal funds for them. But that line presents a false narrative; the truth is that emergency rooms are required by law to provide life-saving care—no matter who walks through the door.
Should people in dire need wait for treatment simply because they may not have proper documentation? This raises serious moral and ethical questions. States like California offer healthcare access to undocumented individuals, a point with real-world implications that most folks would support.
When it comes down to it, many Americans—regardless of party affiliation—are struggling with skyrocketing healthcare costs. Both sides need to come together to ensure affordable care for everyone, rather than relentless bickering over political ideologies.
The push for affordable healthcare shouldn’t be sacrificed at the altar of party politics. It’s crucial that ordinary people have access to necessary services without breaking the bank. The stakes are high.
What Else to Read
Must see: How US government shutdowns impact California
What happened: The Pentagon’s plans for new measures against leaks
LA Times Special: Jane Fonda’s journey from “Hanoi Jane” to democratic advocate.
I’d like to note—there’s a lot of attention needed around the chatter from the Department of Homeland Security around cultural protection. We haven’t forgotten that America’s core is about embracing those who seek better lives, regardless of their background.
Was this forwarded to you? If so, sign up to get it directly in your inbox.
