Trump’s movement is no longer just targeting people. It’s beginning to openly discuss pressure campaigns against entire cities, systems, and institutions Americans rely on every day.
Another fire being started to keep the chaos up and people unstable and ready to give up. I would ike to know if this event legal move...like that would matter to drumpf.... Just a thought that floated thru my head.
And, of course, this is directed at the "blue"states. One has to wonder how long California and others are going to tolerate this until they say "enough, you can do this without us". I live in California and I am hearing that sentiment more frequently than I expected. they posit that California would do just fine without the feds, but that might not work out as well for the feds. The level of fed up is at the top of the chart.
Hopkins’ argument about the Mullin episode sits in a longer historical pattern he is implicitly drawing on: moments when elected officials or governing coalitions begin shifting from contesting individual critics to treating entire systems of accountability as adversarial.
The closest historical parallel is often found in late-stage institutional stress periods—where leaders no longer frame oversight as a normal feature of governance, but as obstruction. In 1970s–80s Latin American civil-military governments, for example, critics weren’t just “opponents”; courts, press institutions, and oversight bodies were increasingly described as impediments to national stability. The key step was conceptual: once institutions themselves became “the problem,” the range of acceptable political action widened dramatically.
Hopkins’ point about Mullin is that the same conceptual shift—on a far milder but still recognizable scale—appears when political actors stop engaging accountability structures as neutral referees and start treating them as partisan instruments. In U.S. history, similar tensions have surfaced in episodes like the post-Watergate reforms, when Congress explicitly strengthened inspectors general and ethics regimes precisely because unchecked executive discretion had produced abuse. The lesson of that era was that systems, not just individuals, needed constraints.
What Hopkins is warning about is the reversal of that logic: instead of reinforcing systems after conflict, political actors begin rhetorically and procedurally eroding them during conflict. That includes casting ethics offices, investigative journalism, or congressional oversight as inherently biased or illegitimate.
In that frame, Mullin is not just an isolated figure but an example of a broader governing instinct Hopkins is tracking: the move from “this person is unfair to me” to “this entire mechanism for checking me is hostile.” Historically, that transition matters because it changes the target from individuals—who can be replaced or debated—to institutions themselves, which are harder to repair once their legitimacy is steadily undermined.
Hopkins’ underlying historical comparison is less about a single regime and more about a recurring democratic vulnerability: systems tend to erode not when rules are openly abolished, but when political actors begin treating the rules themselves as optional only when inconvenient.
It all seems to be about creating enemies instead of trying to make converts of blue states or left leaning people. If people of color are enemies, if total states are enemies, if education is the enemy, if research is the enemy, the other party, oh yeah, that too. I’m problem, solution oriented. I see no solutions except voting out everyone allowing this takeover.
Hey Jack, thanks for being this important voice that tells me I am NOT over-reacting, that I am reading this as clearly as possible. At a time when you begin to wonder your own sanity, YOU stand up and say "THIS IS WRONG, and YOU SHOULD KNOW IT". Appreciate your wisdom more than I can say. #HoldingFast
This video explains why he’s not concerned about the midterms — data from all government agencies are about to be funneled into new internet sites that are registered to the office of the President rather than to the agencies. This means little or no Congress oversight. Warning: This video may make your hair turn grey. https://thedreydossier.substack.com/p/i-found-a-second-votegov-and-its?r=g5fey&utm_medium=ios
Okay Jack.. I’m aware of the talk of plans involving airports in so-called Sanctuary Cities. These are some major airports… New York.. Los Angeles.. San Francisco.. Seattle.. Chicago and more. What is the recourse? Can states fight this legally? What can we do that might actually help? What can be done to counteract the normalization of this type of “punishment?” This seems similar to refusing disaster relief to blue states, right?
Maybe Trump isn’t worried about the midterms or maybe.. once again.. he’s lying. Yes, I read “maybe it’s just bluster” but is he really not worried about them?.. and, if so, why not? Losing would be no small thing.. for either side.
Certainly there are Republican Congresspeople who are concerned about losing their seats. Other Republican candidates as well. This can’t help if they go through with it.. Is it just talk at this point or is this an actual plan in the works? Do we even know?
Just some thoughts swirling around in my brain on yet more chaos. It really is exhausting.
Another fire being started to keep the chaos up and people unstable and ready to give up. I would ike to know if this event legal move...like that would matter to drumpf.... Just a thought that floated thru my head.
#HOLDFAST
Teri
And, of course, this is directed at the "blue"states. One has to wonder how long California and others are going to tolerate this until they say "enough, you can do this without us". I live in California and I am hearing that sentiment more frequently than I expected. they posit that California would do just fine without the feds, but that might not work out as well for the feds. The level of fed up is at the top of the chart.
Hopkins’ argument about the Mullin episode sits in a longer historical pattern he is implicitly drawing on: moments when elected officials or governing coalitions begin shifting from contesting individual critics to treating entire systems of accountability as adversarial.
The closest historical parallel is often found in late-stage institutional stress periods—where leaders no longer frame oversight as a normal feature of governance, but as obstruction. In 1970s–80s Latin American civil-military governments, for example, critics weren’t just “opponents”; courts, press institutions, and oversight bodies were increasingly described as impediments to national stability. The key step was conceptual: once institutions themselves became “the problem,” the range of acceptable political action widened dramatically.
Hopkins’ point about Mullin is that the same conceptual shift—on a far milder but still recognizable scale—appears when political actors stop engaging accountability structures as neutral referees and start treating them as partisan instruments. In U.S. history, similar tensions have surfaced in episodes like the post-Watergate reforms, when Congress explicitly strengthened inspectors general and ethics regimes precisely because unchecked executive discretion had produced abuse. The lesson of that era was that systems, not just individuals, needed constraints.
What Hopkins is warning about is the reversal of that logic: instead of reinforcing systems after conflict, political actors begin rhetorically and procedurally eroding them during conflict. That includes casting ethics offices, investigative journalism, or congressional oversight as inherently biased or illegitimate.
In that frame, Mullin is not just an isolated figure but an example of a broader governing instinct Hopkins is tracking: the move from “this person is unfair to me” to “this entire mechanism for checking me is hostile.” Historically, that transition matters because it changes the target from individuals—who can be replaced or debated—to institutions themselves, which are harder to repair once their legitimacy is steadily undermined.
Hopkins’ underlying historical comparison is less about a single regime and more about a recurring democratic vulnerability: systems tend to erode not when rules are openly abolished, but when political actors begin treating the rules themselves as optional only when inconvenient.
#HOLDFAST
It all seems to be about creating enemies instead of trying to make converts of blue states or left leaning people. If people of color are enemies, if total states are enemies, if education is the enemy, if research is the enemy, the other party, oh yeah, that too. I’m problem, solution oriented. I see no solutions except voting out everyone allowing this takeover.
Hey Jack, thanks for being this important voice that tells me I am NOT over-reacting, that I am reading this as clearly as possible. At a time when you begin to wonder your own sanity, YOU stand up and say "THIS IS WRONG, and YOU SHOULD KNOW IT". Appreciate your wisdom more than I can say. #HoldingFast
This video explains why he’s not concerned about the midterms — data from all government agencies are about to be funneled into new internet sites that are registered to the office of the President rather than to the agencies. This means little or no Congress oversight. Warning: This video may make your hair turn grey. https://thedreydossier.substack.com/p/i-found-a-second-votegov-and-its?r=g5fey&utm_medium=ios
We should ask our congressional representatives to investigate these plans.
It’s like fkn Chinese water torture, til it turns in to water boarding, and by then it’s too late!
Okay Jack.. I’m aware of the talk of plans involving airports in so-called Sanctuary Cities. These are some major airports… New York.. Los Angeles.. San Francisco.. Seattle.. Chicago and more. What is the recourse? Can states fight this legally? What can we do that might actually help? What can be done to counteract the normalization of this type of “punishment?” This seems similar to refusing disaster relief to blue states, right?
Maybe Trump isn’t worried about the midterms or maybe.. once again.. he’s lying. Yes, I read “maybe it’s just bluster” but is he really not worried about them?.. and, if so, why not? Losing would be no small thing.. for either side.
Certainly there are Republican Congresspeople who are concerned about losing their seats. Other Republican candidates as well. This can’t help if they go through with it.. Is it just talk at this point or is this an actual plan in the works? Do we even know?
Just some thoughts swirling around in my brain on yet more chaos. It really is exhausting.
Thank you for laying it all out so clearly, Jack.
#Holdfast
~Susan