Opinion - Has Trump declared you dead? You won't enjoy it if he does.
And that is precisely the administration's goal: to find people it doesn't like and compel them to leave. It claimed, without proof, that the people they declared dead are criminals or suspected terrorists. The claim is questionable, since the list includes eight children.
So far, the only apparent commonality among the targets is that they were granted legal status during the previous administration. That's right — they are here legally. They followed the process to obtain Social Security numbers and were permitted to remain in the U.S. and work. The new administration, however, has reneged on that commitment and wants them to self-deport.
For the Trump team, commitments made by our institutions can be invalidated based on the subjective judgment of a single individual. Process doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. The only requirement for being declared dead is your esteem in the minds of those who control the data. If that's the deciding factor, why wouldn't any of the rest of us be next?
The consequences of being on the Death Master List are dire. This affects a lot more than eligibility for Social Security benefits. Presence on the list sets in motion credit card cancellations and home loan foreclosures. It ends access to insured medical care. It means that you cannot work or apply for an apartment or open a bank account.
For example, one elderly woman who was inadvertently placed on the list in December 2023 died after months of trying to correct the error. For months, she went without the income she relied on. Her home was listed for sale and her medical insurance was cancelled, leaving her unable to afford life-saving medication. At 88, she died from the stress and consequences of being already categorized as dead. (Her family has sued the Social Security Administration earlier this month.)
If you are placed on this list — deliberately or mistakenly — you no longer exist, according to the institutional engines of our country. You may be alive, but your life will be plagued with irreversible consequences.
Who among us will be next to be economically exiled? Are you a doctor who performs abortions? A journalist who publishes unflattering articles? An attorney who has represented an adversary? Members of these classes have already been subject to harassing lawsuits by Trump or his associates. Are you gay? Muslim? A Tesla protester? All of these classes have been targets of the administration's verbal wrath.
Beyond lawsuits and threats, the administration has already punished foreign nationals residing in the U.S. by rescinding visas and deporting them without due process. And on April 14, in an Oval Office meeting with the president of El Salvador, who is being paid to imprison deportees, Trump announced that he is willing to apply his deportation tactics to American citizens as well.
'We also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways … that are absolute monsters,' Trump said. 'I'd like to include them … to get them out of the country,' he continued.
But we know violent behavior is not the real criterion. Trump's ease in pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, some of whom violently assaulted police officers, proves that it's his personal assessment that is the driving factor in who is punished and who is not.
This newest deportation weapon is an efficient means of delivering that punishment. It's swift, deadly and requires little effort. A simple digital switch can eviscerate an entire existence. Further, there has been little resistance to any of the administration's tactics, so implementation has been frictionless.
The Republican-led Congress has not voiced objection or attempted to protect residents through legislation. And the Supreme Court recently issued what sounds more like a suggestion than a ruling to return a wrongfully deported resident. Add to that the administration's overt defiance of lower court rulings, without consequence, and its path to deporting anyone it deems worthy seems unobstructed.
Criminal or not, citizen or not, we are all at risk.
Kirti Schoener is a former tech executive and current concerned citizen.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
Tulsi Gabbard explains why Russia must have thought Hillary Clinton win was ‘inevitable'
The Russians privately felt it was 'inevitable' that Hillary Clinton would triumph in the 2016 election, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Miranda Devine's 'Pod Force One' podcast. Despite widespread narratives that Russia was in President Trump's corner, Moscow's objective was to sow chaos in the American political process and brace itself for a Clinton presidency, Gabbard claimed, citing the trove of intelligence documents her team has released. 'It surprised me that all of these documents still existed, quite frankly,' Gabbard said in an episode set for release Wednesday. 'As we've learned in later documents that we've reviewed throughout that campaign, Russia believed that Hillary Clinton would win the election. Advertisement 'They felt it was inevitable.' Last month, Gabbard's team began disclosing a trove of documents that gave a behind-the-scenes look at the intelligence community's machinations during the 2016 election cycle regarding the probe of Russian interference. 4 Tulsi Gabbard accused the Obama administration of mounting a campaign to subvert President Trump. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post Advertisement 4 Hillary Clinton once implied that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. Getty Images This included a House Intelligence Committee report from 2020 that claimed the Russians may have had intelligence that Clinton was 'placed on a daily regimen of 'heavy tranquilizers' and while afraid of losing.' That was supposedly due to her alleged 'psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.' Gabbard pondered why that supposed Russian intelligence wasn't leaked to the public if Moscow's chief objective was to prop up Trump and undermine Clinton. Advertisement 'If Russia aspired to help Trump get elected, which is what the manufactured January 2017 intelligence community assessment says with high confidence, according to Brennan and Clapper, then Putin would have released the most damaging information and emails to help President Trump,' she said. 'It was intentionally withheld and not released because they assumed that Hillary Clinton would win that election, and their plan,' Gabbard added, citing the 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, '[was to] wait until maybe days or weeks before her inauguration to release these documents.' The Russians were widely alleged by US officials to have hacked Democratic National Committee emails during he 2016 campaign. 4 Narratives about Russian interferences in the 2016 election haunted President Trump during his first term. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement The 2020 House Intelligence Committee report had concluded that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's 'principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process' and that he didn't necessarily prioritize propping up one candidate over the other. 'The American people, I think, have been, and our republic, has been most harmed by this,' Gabbard said of the Russia collusion narrative. 'Of course, President Trump went through hell and his family because of this Russia hoax that was manufactured by President Obama and his administration.' Critics such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper accused Gabbard of peddling 'patently false' accusations about their Russiagate activities. Much of what Gabbard has released centered around rebuffing a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded among other things that 'the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.' Brennan, Clapper and others have pointed to a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which noted the panel 'heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.' Clapper and Brennan recenty penned an op-ed insisting that the intelligence community report never referenced 'collusion' between Trump and the Russian government, and stood by their claims that the Kremlin prefered him in the 2016 election. Tulsi Gabbard's Russiagate claims Tulsi Gabbard's claims of election interference focus on the controversial 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which President Barack Obama ordered his intel chiefs to compile. The report fueled the Russiagate investigations against President Trump. Gabbard alleges it amounted to a political hit job, claiming Obama officials knowingly used shaky intel and then lied about it. Gabbard's new claims are based on a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, which she has publicly released. Its findings differ in some key ways from both the Obama report and a previously released Senate Intelligence Committee report. Democrats, however, point to the Senate report, which was backed by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — now Trump's secretary of state. That supports some of the findings of the Obama report. Here are the biggest points — and what the dueling intel reports say: The Steele dossier The House report contradicts the claims of Obama officials that they never relied on the discredited Steele dossier — which was compiled by Hillary Clinton's campaign — as part of the Russiagate investigation. In a 2017 House hearing, Obama CIA Director John Brennan denied that his agency used the Steele dossier for intelligence assessments. However, the full Steele dossier was still included as an attachment to the Obama intel report, the newly public House report found. Additionally, according to the House report, Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed to use the Steele dossier for the Obama intel report. Senior intel officials also confronted Brennan about the legitimacy of the Steele dossier, the House report said, but he shrugged it off. Brennan's response was reportedly, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?' The Senate investigation found that the Steele dossier was not used as part of the Obama intel report. Obama's involvement Gabbard claimed Wednesday that Obama ordered the creation of the 2017 intel report and suggested it 'was subject to unusual directives directly from the president and senior political appointees.' She added: 'Obama directed an intelligence community assessment to be created, to further this contrived false narrative that ultimately led to a year-long coup to try to undermine President Trump's presidency.' The 2020 Senate intel report confirmed that Obama ordered the report to be drafted, but did not comment on the political motivations. Obama said that 'the bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' Did Putin want Trump to win? The Obama report said that 'Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability' and that Putin had a 'clear preference for President-elect Trump.' But the House report contradicted this, saying that Putin's 'principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process.' The Russian strongman also seemed to expect Clinton to win, and held back on 'some compromising material for post-election use against the expected Clinton administration.' The Senate report said lawmakers were given 'specific intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government demonstrated a preference for candidate Trump.' Did Russia alter the 2016 election? To buttress her claims that the Obama intel report was political interference, she highlighted the findings of multiple intelligence agencies that Russia 'had neither the intent nor capability to impact the outcome of the US election.' On this, all three reports are in agreement. Gabbard pointed to how Obama ordered the 2017 ICA of Russian interference in the 2016 election and his administration's machinations detailed in the document dump to accuse the 44th president of subversion. Advertisement 'What we now know came from President Obama was a covert mission, essentially, to subvert the will of the American people, create this lie that would challenge the legitimacy of President Trump's election and the four years of his administration, resulting and affecting in what was truly a years' long coup,' Gabbard said. Reps from Obama have refuted those characterizations, saying that the 'bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement last month. 4 Tulsi Gabbard has drawn President Trump's attention with the document dump on Russiagate. REUTERS Advertisement Gabbard made referrals to the Justice Department based on her findings, and the DOJ has since formed a 'strike force' to comb through the claims.
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Texas Democrats leave the state to block vote on redrawn House map backed by Trump
Advertisement 'This is not a decision we make lightly, but it is one we make with absolute moral clarity,' said Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, in a statement. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up To conduct official business, at least 100 members of the 150-member Texas House must be present. Democrats hold 62 of the seats in the majority-Republican chamber. At least 51 Democratic members are leaving the state, said Josh Rush Nisenson, spokesperson for the House Democratic Caucus. 'Apathy is complicity, and we will not be complicit in the silencing of hard-working communities who have spent decades fighting for the power that Trump wants to steal,' he said. The move marks the second time in four years that Texas Democrats have fled the state to block a vote. In 2021, a 38-day standoff took place when Democrats left for Washington, D.C. in opposition to new voting restrictions. Advertisement Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session of the Legislature that started last month to take up the redistricting effort, as well as to respond to flooding in Texas Hill Country that killed at least 135 people in July. Trump has urged Texas Republicans to redraw the map to help the party net a handful of seats in the midterms next year. 'For weeks, we've been warning that if Republicans in Texas want a showdown — if they want to delay flood relief to cravenly protect Donald Trump from an inevitable midterm meltdown — then we'd give them that showdown," Democratic Party Chair Ken Martin said in a statement. 'That's exactly what Texas Democrats did today: blowing up Republicans' sham special session that's virtually ignored the plight of flood victims in Kerr County.' Speaker Dustin Burrows said the Texas House would meet as planned on Monday afternoon. 'If a quorum is not present then, to borrow the recent talking points from some of my Democrat colleagues, all options will be on the table. . .,' he posted on X. Attorney General Ken Paxton on X said the state should 'use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law.' 'Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately,' he wrote. Abbott's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment Sunday afternoon. Texas Republicans last week unveiled their planned new U.S. House map that would create five new Republican-leaning seats. Republicans currently hold 25 of the state's 38 seats. Advertisement By leaving the state, Democrats are looking to block Republicans from the needed quorum to hold votes on the map set for Monday. The Texas House has rules to fine lawmakers $500 each day they break a quorum. Paxton has said previously that if Democrats break quorum, 'they should be found and arrested no matter where they go.' A large chunk of the Texas Democrats are heading to Illinois, where Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker had been in quiet talks with them for weeks about offering support if they chose to leave the state to break quorum. Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has been one of Trump's most outspoken critics during his second term. Last week, Pritzker hosted several Texas Democrats in Illinois to publicly oppose the redistricting effort. California Gov. Gavin Newsom held a similar event in his own state. Pritzker also met privately with Texas Democratic Chair Kendall Scudder in June to begin planning for the possibility that lawmakers would depart for Illinois if they did decide to break quorum to block the map, according to a source with direct knowledge who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. Now, with Texas Democrats holed up in Illinois and blocking the Trump-backed congressional map, the stage may be set for a high-profile showdown between Pritzker and the president. Trump is looking to avoid a repeat of his first term, when Democrats flipped the House just two years into his presidency, and hopes the new Texas map will aid that effort. Trump officials have also looked at redrawing lines in other states, such as Missouri, according to a person familiar with conversations but unauthorized to speak publicly about them. Advertisement Associated Press writer Nadia Lathan in Austin contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
How Trump's EPA is giving up the role of US protector
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, last week proposed to repeal the landmark scientific finding that enables the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. In effect, the EPA will eliminate its authority to combat climate change. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Speaking at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, Zeldin said the EPA would reverse a 2009 scientific conclusion, known as the endangerment finding, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. He said the agency would also rescind Biden-era regulations designed to reduce planet-warming emissions from automobile tailpipes. Advertisement While few people have heard of the endangerment finding, it has had a profound effect on society. Its establishment cleared the way for the Obama administration to set the country's first limits on greenhouse gases from cars and power plants, with the goal of putting more electric vehicles on the roads and adding more renewable energy to the electric grid. Advertisement But Zeldin's announcement was only the latest in a rapid-fire series of actions to weaken or eliminate protections against climate change. In April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government's flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country. In May, President Trump proposed to stop collecting key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part of his 2026 budget plan. And since January, he has called for eliminating or overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency to shift disaster response to the states. Joe Aldy, a professor of environmental policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said that by repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration was relinquishing the country's historical role as a protector of public health. 'The concern here isn't just the attack on regulation,' he said. 'There is this much bigger question of what does it mean to promote the general welfare?' In response to questions, an EPA spokesperson, Brigit Hirsch, said in an email, referring to the 2009 endangerment finding: 'How does a partisan policy from the mid-2000s qualify as a 'time-honored American tradition'? EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress and Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks.' Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said that the endangerment finding had been misused to justify excessive regulation and that the administration was 'putting everyday Americans First by restoring consumer choice and sidestepping the left's out-of-touch climate policies.' Governments have taken steps to protect citizens from environmental hazards for centuries. After cholera outbreaks in the mid-1800s, England worked to improve sanitation and water quality. In the United States, research into contaminated drinking water in the early 20th century led to investments in sanitation. And the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963 and amended in 1990, helped solve issues including smog in Los Angeles, acid rain in New England, and the depletion of the ozone layer high in the atmosphere. Advertisement 'This is a real retreat from the social compact that I think has been dominant in the US for some time,' said Margaret Levi, a professor of political science at Stanford University. 'Part of government's responsibility is to protect the health and well-being of its citizens to the extent that it can, and that does require some regulation.' The Trump administration's approach has supporters. Several conservative scholars and politicians applauded the imminent end of the endangerment finding, saying it had empowered the EPA to restrict Americans' choices of how to heat their homes and what kinds of cars to drive. 'The endangerment finding became a pretext for the agency, without congressional authorization, to impose centralized economic planning on the US transportation and electric power sectors,' said Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing research organization. After the proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will solicit public comments for 45 days. The agency will then finalize the rule, most likely within the next year. The debate over the proper use of the government's regulatory hand has been going on for centuries. Adam Smith, an 18th-century philosopher and economist, argued that governments should play a limited role, emphasizing the importance of free markets and individual rights. A century later, philosopher John Stuart Mill contended that governments should promote the common good. Advertisement 'What this government is doing is going outside the frame of that debate,' Levi said. 'It's not talking about what are the cost to citizens. It's only really focusing on what are the costs to business, and denying the science that demonstrates there is a cost to the public.' This article originally appeared in
