I was struck by an article in the Saturday, March 21, 2026, edition of The New York Times. Click the following link to read that article, which is titled, "In Trump’s Administration, Military Housing Is Becoming a Hot Commodity."
The article to which I am referring is headed up by the set of photographs reproduced below. If you can't identify those pictured, read the article. They include the person whom our current president has selected as his Deputy Chief Of Staff For Policy, who is the person who has urged on the kind of attacks by ICE agents which have terrozied many, throughout the country, and which have led to the death of a few citizens who have protested or objected. Others pictured below include those persons selected to guide our foreign policy, our intelligence policy, the "War" Department, the Department of "Homeland Security," and the author of "Project 2025," which has provided an outline of many of the most controversial initiatives of the administration. All of those individuals pictured below are now living in "military housing."
The picture at the top of this blog posting appeared in a different article in The Times, that article published on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, and titled, "When Trump Wants Something Done, He Dispatches ICE To Do It."
Another Times' article that I suggest is important is "Chuck Schumer: This Is Trump’s Plan To ‘Guarantee The Midterms.’"
I am informed that all of the articles I have linked can be read in their entirety (no paywall!), and I certainly encourage anyone reading this blog posting to make use of those "gift links" to do just that. My following comment, as I already said, has been prompted by that article that lets us know that a number of key advisors to our current president have now been provided with "military" housing. When I read that, I began wondering why - and as I began wondering why, I began entertaining what are really some rather dark thoughts.
Here's my thought process. The highest legislative priority for our current president is, clearly, the so-called "SAVE Act." Click the link just provided to hear from the League of Women Voters, which strongly opposes this suite of bills. The "SAVE Act" and its impact is also well-described by Chuck Schumer in that opinion piece from The Times that I have linked. If enacted, the "SAVE Act" would help ensure that the current administration's control over Congress will continue. But what if it is not enacted (and there is a good chance that it won't be)? In that case, political forecasters are thinking that the current administration will probably lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate, in the so-called "midterm elections" coming up in November. If that happened, our current president would, to a significant degree, lose his ability to act unilaterally, as though he were a "King," a title that he has has enjoyed discussing in the past.
Assuming that the Congress does not pass the so-called "SAVE Act," and/or that upcoming elections do deprive our current president of his current ability to do whatever he wants to do, unimpeded by the currently acquiesent Congress, the extent of his frustrations can be imagined. I would not be surprised if he began making increased use of those Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) troops, which have already been deployed to carry out operations that seem intended to terrorize the communities to which they are dispatched. As that Times' headline says, when he "wants something done," our current president "dispatches ICE to do it."
Well, is there some possibility that our current president might be thinking about sending ICE troops to local communities which have "resisted" - or might "resist" - his desires, to compel then to sit down, shut up, and do what he says? Is there some chance he might send them to the polls, during elections? Things like that could occur, should our current president continue to assert that he, and "he alone," is going to make decisions for this nation. If he used federal (ICE) troops, and/or regular armed forces troops, to insist that things be done "his way," we would be facing a real, constitutional dilemma, with the armed forces asserting control over our constitutional and "civilian" government.
Could that ever happen? I would like to think not, but IF it ever did, it might be very important for our current president to have those he relies upon most in his administration protected in their homes, which could be accomplished by locating their homes in "military housing."
That was my thought process. Is there some hidden reason that the key administrators of our key administrative agencies are now living in housing located in the midst of a "military" enclave in our nation's capital? Maybe, they're all just a bit "greedy," and wanted to take over desirable residences formerly allocated to people serving in leadership positions in the military. That's pretty much the impression left by the article in The Times.
But, there could be a different explanation. If you have been following along with my "thought process" you will understand at least one possible explanation that came to my mind.
How should we all be acting, given what has been going on in this country? Well, what I will call the "Minnesota Model" has come to mind. That model relies on small groups of neighbors and friends, who coordinate with other such small groups, and confront difficult situations nonviolently. Those whose minds might contemplate the kind of thoughts I have outlined here should probably start thinking seriously about the contingencies that might become realities in the months ahead. Forming up a "Nonviolent Peaceforce," and getting ahead of the curve, could be an appropriate reaction to our recent news.
As our current president might say, "Thank you for your attention to this matter." Let's all start thinking, seriously, that things could get a lot worse than they already are.
Image Credits:
I completely agree with you. I expect it will come to that.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the links to the Times articles.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking we may need to implement a "shadow vote", an electronic vote on the web. open to everyone, "unofficial," of course, but a measure of the temper of people nonetheless. If "official" voting is curtailed, the "People's Vote" would reveal the manipulation.