Friday, June 20, 2025

Deranged sabre-rattling on Iran, record-setting anti-Trump protests, assassination in Minnesota, right-wing political violence generally, and a setback for trans rights.

If you'd like to get these posts via email, you can join the international readership and subscribe here.

War with Iran

Here's a quick review: After US led talks over Iran's nuclear program stalled, Israel initiated a wave of surprise airstrikes against Iranian nuclear and military sites and personnel last Friday. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against Israel, and the two countries have continued to trade attacks in the days since. It's not clear whether Israel gave Trump advance notice of the initial attack and, if so, whether Trump approved.

Israel says the attacks are necessary to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, while Iran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Notably, the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, told Congress in March that "while Iran had an unprecedented stockpile of weapons-grade uranium, it did not appear to be building a nuclear weapon."

After wavering in the immediate wake of Israel's initial attacks, Trump has come out strongly in support of Israel, though it's not entirely clear to me why. On his Truth Social platform, Trump has threatened to kill Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei:

And he said Tehran--a city of 9 million people, making it larger than any US city--should be evacuated:

CBS now reports that Trump has approved a plan to attack Iran but has not yet decided whether to proceed with that plan. Apparently, the US, unlike Israel, possesses bunker-buster bombs that are capable of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. "I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump told reporters. Iran has made preparations to attack US bases in the region should the US join the Israeli campaign.

In case it is not clear, this is absolutely deranged, an utterly irresponsible way for the president of the United States to behave. Moreover, recall that under Obama the US negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran that was imperfect but appeared to be working, and that Trump pulled out of the deal apparently because he didn't like that it was negotiated under Obama. It seems likely that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than it would have been had the US stuck with the original deal, and, while a lot is still uncertain, we may end up with a similar or worse deal by the time Trump is done.

Record numbers at Saturday’s “No Kings” protests

Last Saturday, millions of people took to the streets in nationwide "No Kings" protests against the Trump regime and its efforts to drag the country into authoritarianism. With 4 to 6 million people in attendance--which would amount to 1.2 to 1.8% of the entire US population--the protests may have been the largest single-day demonstration in American history, surpassing the Women's March in 2017. The protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, with even some of the limited unrest perpetrated by those opposed to the protests or instigated by law enforcement attacks on peaceful demonstrators.

My wife, my sister, and I joined about 70,000 others and attended the protest in Seattle. The atmosphere was warm and friendly, and I barely saw any law enforcement at all. Here we are setting out for the day:

Our ferry ride there made the local and national news. Here are folks boarding:

With a long day ahead of us, we grabbed refreshments on the way while others gathered outside:

At the protest in Seattle, a local bakery had someone walking around handing out free donuts:

Some photos from the rally:

And some photos from the march:

The University of Washington student newspaper has a bunch more photos here. If you haven't attended a protest, I recommend the experience.

Political assassination in Minnesota

Early last Saturday, a Minnesota state legislator and her spouse were shot and killed at their home in what Gov. Tim Walz called a “politically motivated assassination.” In a separate shooting at a different home, another Minnesota lawmaker and his spouse were seriously injured. The shooter reportedly wore a mask and police uniform, drove a police car, and identified himself to his victims as a police officer. (He seems to have been posing as a police officer, though I suspect the uniform and car were from the suspect’s security business.) 

Law enforcement officers and the suspect traded gunfire at the site of one of the shootings, but the suspect escaped before being arrested several days later. The suspect had apparently also visited the homes of two other lawmakers, one of whom was not home and one of whom was seemingly saved when the suspect left after being contacted by actual law enforcement.

The two legislators shot were Democrats, as were all 45 elected officials on the shooter’s “hit list.” Other reports say the list also included individuals and organizations that support abortion rights. Per local news reports, the suspect’s best friend said the suspect voted for Trump and was a strong Trump supporter. The suspect apparently had papers related to Saturday’s “No King” protests in his vehicle, though, given what else is known, that seems more likely to be related to potential shooting targets than to the suspect’s interest in attending as a protester. That said, there’s a lot that is still unknown.

Amid the growing epidemic of right-wing domestic terrorism, Republicans rush to blame the shootings on Democrats

While neither side has been free of violence, there’s no debate: right-wing terrorism dwarfs violence from the political left in the United States. If you don’t want to listen to experts and academics, maybe you’ll trust a Trump-appointed US Attorney, now a Trump-nominated federal judge. 

Possible explanations suggested for the prevalence of right-wing violence in the United States include the following:

In comparison to left-wing supporters, right-wing individuals are more often characterized by closed-mindedness and dogmatism (9) and a heightened need for order, structure, and cognitive closure (5). Because such characteristics have been found to increase in-group bias and lead to greater out-group hostility (10), violence for a cause may be more likely among proponents of right-wing ideologies. In contrast, in comparison to their right-wing counterparts, left-wing individuals score higher on openness to new experiences, cognitive complexity, and tolerance of uncertainty (5). They are also less likely to support social dominance (11), which could lead to their overall lower likelihood to use violence against adversaries. In line with this reasoning, some studies have demonstrated an empathy gap between liberal and conservative individuals (12).

But right-wing figures also encourage violence by their words and actions. Trump and others on the political right have repeatedly condoned violence against their opponents. When not directly speaking about violence with approval, they demonize, dehumanize, and desensitize in ways that will be taken as authorization for violence. It's the language of dictators and mass murder. And things like ending security services for Dr. Anthony Fauci and Ret. Gen. Mark Milley, who Trump has suggested should be executed, communicate that Trump wants them to be harmed. And then, of course, Trump pardoned those who attempted to violently prevent the peaceful transition of power to Joe Biden, which necessarily says violence on Trump’s behalf will not be punished. Notably, the Trump regime has scaled back FBI staffing for domestic terrorism, presumably because they approve of it.

Another way Trump and his allies encourage violence is by downplaying right-wing violence when it happens, or by denying that it was committed by their ideological fellow travelers. For example, Republicans laughed off the horrifying attempt to assassinate Nancy Pelosi that left her husband seriously injured, and they suggested that the incident wasn’t political at all but rather a spat between Paul Pelosi and a male sex worker. 

We again saw attempts to deny and deflect not long after news of the attacks on Democratic state legislators in Minnesota broke. The evolving nature of the situation and the significant evidence to the contrary didn’t stop various right-wing figures from suggesting, based partly on meritless conspiracy theories, that the shooter was a Democrat who is murdering Democrats. Here is a pinned tweet from Republican Senator from Utah, Mike Lee (the photo is of the masked suspect):

The Salt Lake Tribune has more details. 

And here is a tweet from Bernie Moreno, GOP Senator from Ohio: 

It’s long past time to speak plainly about the desire of Trump and his supporters to foster violence against their opponents, and it was refreshing to see Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut, do just that:

This phenomenon--how Trump and his supporters encourage violence--is worth keeping in mind as you follow the news. When you do, it's clear that the decision by Trump prosecutors to "name" and "shame" opponents against whom they've failed to manufacture criminal charges is not merely usual but rather malicious and sinister: It's a call for Trump's supporters to kill them.

Trans rights are not legal rights, I guess

In a case captioned United States v. Skrmetti, The US Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. Chris Geidner summarizes:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors as constitutional. 

To do so, Chief Justice John Roberts held for the 6-3 conservative majority, the state needed only show a “rational basis” for the law — a basis the court easily concluded that Tennessee had shown in passing its law, S.B. 1.

The decision came over the dissent of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Most remarkable to me are the mental gymnastics Chief Justice Roberts employs to conclude that the law classifies neither on the basis of sex nor on transgender status, which bode poorly for Equal Protection rights more generally. An essay at Balls and Strikes explains:

In 2023, Tennessee lawmakers enacted a law that prohibits medical providers from administering hormone therapy to minors, if—and this is a big if—the purpose of the treatment is to help the kid “identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” or to alleviate “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” Doctors who prescribe hormones to kids for other medical reasons can do so. . . .

* * *

You may also recognize the arguments in Skrmetti as the same argument the Court rejected in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that struck down bans on interracial marriage. Then, Virginia insisted there was no equal protection problem because no person could marry outside their race and any person could marry within their race, and the legislature should be free to respond to “scientific” debates about the harms of interracial marriage. Now, Roberts says there is no equal protection problem because “no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence.” Further, he says, “minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes,” and “scientific uncertainty” underscores “the need for legislative flexibility.”

Or put differently (and paraphrasing a famous law-related quotation):

In another essay that also discussed the elite media's complicity in stoking an anti-trans moral panic, Chris Geidner points out that even Trump judges previously understood that the reasoning employed by the Supreme Court in Skrmetti was faulty:

Even when lawmakers started passing bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, however, judges of all stripes started blocking them as likely unconstitutional. 

This was not, Trump appointees even agreed, a close question.

“At bottom, sex-based classifications are not just present in [Indiana]'s prohibitions; they're determinative,” U.S. District Judge Patrick Hanlon, a Trump appointee, wrote in blocking Indiana’s law back in June 2023. 

As another Trump appointee, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, wrote later that month in blocking Tennessee’s ban, “Though the Court would not hesitate to be an outlier if it found such an outcome to be required, the Court finds it noteworthy that its resolution of the present Motion brings it into the ranks of courts that have (unanimously) come to the same conclusion when considering very similar laws.“

It's yet another unprincipled ruling by an illegitimate court, and if not surprising, the ruling is deeply disappointing. Time permitting, I'll try to elaborate on the lawless nature of this Supreme Court in a future update.

Miscellanea

Trump’s DOJ moves away from protecting voting rights in favor of chasing conspiracy theories.

Musings on what the military will do when the cards are down.