The War on Terror comes home: Learning the dark lessons of Trump's first 50 days

Salon - Mar 30th, 2025

The article discusses the alarming escalation of antidemocratic policies under Donald Trump's second term. With a focus on racial and ethnic discrimination, the story highlights Trump's continuation and intensification of trends set during the Global War on Terror. Key policies include the dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, restrictions on asylum seekers, and the introduction of new travel bans. Additionally, the administration's efforts to erase public records and undermine judicial independence further threaten democratic norms.

The context provided traces the roots of these issues back to post-9/11 policies that eroded civil liberties and established dangerous precedents for discrimination and secrecy. The lack of accountability post-9/11 and the normalization of government secrecy have paved the way for Trump's current actions, which are described as a 'perversification' of past misdeeds. The implications of these developments are significant, posing a threat to the rule of law and civil liberties in the United States, and underscoring the need for vigilance and reform to protect democratic institutions.

Donald Trump Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion War On Terror Civil Liberties Executive Orders Accountability Racism Secrecy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical analysis of the Trump administration's policies and their connection to the legacy of the War on Terror. It effectively highlights issues of public interest, such as democratic norms and civil liberties, while maintaining timeliness and readability. However, the article's accuracy and balance are limited by a lack of specific evidence and a one-sided narrative. The absence of diverse perspectives and authoritative sources weakens its credibility and potential impact. Greater transparency and a more balanced approach would enhance the article's quality and foster more constructive engagement.

Accuracy

The story makes several factual claims about the erosion of democratic norms post-9/11 and under Trump's leadership. It accurately references the NSEERS program and Trump's Executive Order 13769, both of which are well-documented events. However, the article lacks precise details and evidence for some claims, such as the extent of record erasure and the impact of Trump's policies on the judiciary. The assertion that Trump's administration is planning new travel bans with "red" and "orange" lists remains speculative without concrete evidence. Overall, while many claims align with known facts, the story could benefit from more specific evidence and citations to strengthen its verifiability.

Balance

The article presents a predominantly critical perspective on the Trump administration and the legacy of the War on Terror. It focuses on negative outcomes, such as increased discrimination and secrecy, without offering counterarguments or perspectives that might defend or explain these policies. This one-sided narrative limits the range of viewpoints and may contribute to a perception of bias. A more balanced approach would include perspectives from supporters of the policies or discussions on the complexities of national security and civil liberties.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to readers. It presents information in a logical flow, with distinct sections addressing different aspects of the topic. However, the tone is somewhat alarmist, which may affect the perceived neutrality of the content. While the article effectively communicates its main points, a more neutral tone could enhance clarity and reader comprehension.

Source quality

The story relies heavily on the author's interpretation and analysis, with limited attribution to specific sources or expert opinions. While it references known events and policies, the lack of direct citations or interviews with experts weakens the credibility of the claims. The article would benefit from a broader range of authoritative sources, such as legal experts or government officials, to support its assertions and enhance its reliability.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the basis for its claims and the methodology used to reach its conclusions. There is little explanation of how the author arrived at the analysis, and potential conflicts of interest are not addressed. Greater transparency regarding the author's background, potential biases, and the sources of information would improve the article's credibility and allow readers to better assess the impartiality of the content.