logo
Why My Near-Future Dystopia Felt Inevitable

Why My Near-Future Dystopia Felt Inevitable

Yahoo25-04-2025

It happened to an electrical engineer from New Hampshire, a medical researcher at Harvard University, and an aging auntie from Seattle—all of them permanent residents. They were each returning home to the United States from an ordinary trip abroad when they were pulled aside by immigration agents, subjected to a lengthy interrogation, and then taken into custody and transferred to a detention facility miles away from home. Now they face an enormous, crushing bureaucracy that uses minor or long-forgotten infractions to keep them under indefinite detention.
This type of encounter is not new, but it is headline news in 2025. It also happens to be how my dystopian novel, The Dream Hotel, opens. Set in a future of total technological surveillance, the book follows an American archivist who is detained at Los Angeles International Airport because an algorithm has used her dreams and behavior to predict that she will commit a crime. One review called it a 'Trump-Era Update' on Philip K. Dick's The Minority Report. Another credited its 'eerie sense of prescience.' When I was on tour for the book last month, someone asked if I'd known that the twice-impeached president and convicted felon would return to power.
I hadn't. I started working on The Dream Hotel in 2014, during Barack Obama's administration, and wrote the bulk of it during Joe Biden's term in office. I had no idea Donald Trump would run for president in 2016, and after he lost in 2020, I didn't expect he'd be reelected. I was thinking instead about the ever-more-invasive forms of data collection that Big Tech had unleashed. I wondered if, one day, one of their devices might target the subconscious. The novel takes U.S. systems of surveillance and incarceration that have been deployed at the southern border or on foreign soil—and applies them to Americans.
In writing about this potential future, I found inspiration in history. Surveillance has always been a part of the human experience, because it's one of the mechanisms that enables power to be exercised and enforced in society. 'No creature is hidden from His sight,' the Bible says, 'but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.' The Quran warns, 'God is all-knowing.'
Omniscience is not confined to the realm of religious belief. Authoritarian systems share in the idea that, even if you're hidden behind the walls of your own home, someone might find out that you said the wrong thing or read the wrong books or met with the wrong people, and punish you for your transgressions. During the Cold War, East Germany's government employed a sprawling network of informants whom it equipped with state-of-the-art technology in order to spy on the population. On a visit to Berlin's Stasi Museum in 2023, I was struck by the range of everyday objects that could be used to conceal miniature cameras—a checkered tie, a jacket button, a watering can. The secret police even endeavored to create an archive of scents, by inducing suspects to touch yellow cloths and saving these in hermetic glass bottles. The Communist Party used this elaborate surveillance system to consolidate its power and crush political dissent for 40 years.
[Read: They dreamed of Hitler]
The United States has a long history of surveillance as well. The FBI famously spied on civil-rights activists, Black Panthers, feminists, Vietnam War protesters, and other leftist groups through programs such as COINTELPRO, which used wiretapping and mail interception to keep tabs on people it considered 'subversive.' This gave the Bureau access to information it could then use to disrupt their activities or sow division among them. The program cast a wide net. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Angela Davis were surveilled, as were Bobby Seale, Tom Hayden, and Jane Fonda. In addition to mechanical data collection, the agency also relied on information collected by informants and undercover officers.
For all its power to harm, though, surveillance can also take forms that almost everyone would agree are benign, or even beneficial. For example, medical doctors have a range of tools at their disposal to track patients' heart rates, brain waves, or blood-glucose levels. The Federal Aviation Administration routinely conducts random drug and alcohol testing of its pilots and crews to ensure that they can fly safely. We watch young children when they play on the monkey bars, and keep a close eye on elders when they grow too frail or incapacitated to care for themselves.
Big Tech's insidious hold on our lives comes from the fact that it combines both ends of this surveillance spectrum. Our devices deliver services that are highly protective (receiving a text alert each time a financial transaction affects a bank account, for example) as well as potentially abusive (making our political speech or our geographic movements available to, say, a police officer or an immigration agent). Technology companies are careful to present the equation as balanced, with convenience and connection on one side and collection of granular information on the other, so it is much harder for users to simply stop using their devices. In the early years of the internet, many people thought their data would be used only for targeted advertising.
By 2014, when I began working on my novel, the unholy alliance between Big Tech and the government was becoming apparent. Edward Snowden had revealed the existence of PRISM, a mass-surveillance program that the National Security Agency operated in partnership with tech companies such as Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Google. PRISM was authorized under the PATRIOT Act, and although officials maintained that its targets were foreigners, the communications of Americans were routinely collected as well. A friend of mine, an avowed liberal, shrugged it off; he had nothing to hide, he said, and he trusted that then-President Obama would do the right thing. But even if you conceded that Obama could be trusted with the data—which I didn't—what would happen if this surveillance apparatus were run by someone else?
The Snowden disclosures led to a monthslong national debate about privacy, but that eventually died down, and the program continued to operate. Still, its potential for abuse stayed with me. I grew up in Morocco in the 1970s and '80s, a period of state repression, kidnappings, and disappearances that came to be known as the Years of Lead, so I knew well what could happen when a government set its sights on an individual it found suspect or troublesome. A popular joke at the time went something like this: The CIA, the FBI, and the Moroccan police enter into a friendly contest. The Secretary of the United Nations releases a rabbit into the woods and asks them to catch it. The FBI places informants in the forest and, when it can't find the rabbit, concludes that it was never there. The CIA hits the forest with heavy artillery, then announces that the rabbit is dead. The Moroccan police go in and bring out a fox with two black eyes. 'Okay, okay,' the fox says. 'I am a rabbit.'
[Read: A new kind of immigrant novel]
Growing up under state control made me hypersensitive, decades later, to the dangers of technological surveillance. Tech companies have access to an ever-growing and highly detailed archive of our lives: our texts and emails, our pictures, our habits and movements, our cultural tastes and political opinions. In The Dream Hotel, I wanted to explore a world where privacy as we know it has ceased to exist, and Big Tech's alliance with the government has led to indefinite detention for pre-crime.
Since the novel came out, friends have been sending me stories in the news. Like a Guardian report about how the U.K. government commissioned the development of a homicide-prediction algorithm. Or a CNN piece about how the State Department considers the 'expected beliefs, statements, or associations' of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia graduate and green-card holder currently being held in a Louisiana detention center, to be sufficient reason for his deportation. Or a Rolling Stone article about how the Trump administration might pursue denaturalizing American citizens and sending them to El Salvador. Then there is the New York Times story about how Elon Musk is leading efforts to create a giant government database that merges information from all existing federal records. Under this scheme, the personal, legal, financial, housing, educational, and employment information of every American would be centralized. (In my novel, this is called the OmniCloud.)
I thought I was writing about a time 20 or 30 years into the future. I didn't foresee that in 2025, an unelected billionaire would have his underlings enter federal agencies over staffers' objections and—according to an official whistleblower report—just copy the private data of millions of citizens. Nor did I imagine that the acting director of ICE would bluntly state his vision of a deportation force that operates 'like [Amazon] Prime, but with human beings.'
But the point of a speculative novel isn't to see what a writer got right or wrong about the future. A speculative novel isn't even about the future, exactly, but about an alternative world in which our anxieties about the present moment are on full display. What if we faced a society-altering epidemic? (The Plague, Blindness.) What if the planet warmed? (Parable of the Sower.) What if we could clone ourselves? (Never Let Me Go.) What if some words and ideas were forbidden? (The Memory Police.) What if the government outlawed books? (Fahrenheit 451.)
We don't put firefighters in charge of burning books—at least not yet—but Ray Bradbury gave us language to speak about the freedom to read and showed us how to notice threats to it. My hope is that readers will open themselves to the emotional experience of The Dream Hotel. And yes, maybe they will also think about the data they so easily and so frequently relinquish.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Abuse of power' or necessary protection? Swift fallout over National Guard troops in L.A.
‘Abuse of power' or necessary protection? Swift fallout over National Guard troops in L.A.

San Francisco Chronicle​

time19 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

‘Abuse of power' or necessary protection? Swift fallout over National Guard troops in L.A.

State and national leaders responded swiftly after President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles in an effort to quell protests of immigration raids. Soldiers arrived early Sunday and were reported to be gathering at the Edward Roybal federal building near the Metropolitan Detention Center, several Los Angeles news outlets reported. Trump had thanked them for their efforts Saturday night via a Truth Social post before they arrived. 'Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,' he wrote at 11:41 p.m. Saturday, adding that it was a 'job well done.' Less than an hour later, just after midnight, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass asserted that the National Guard had not yet been deployed in the city. She also thanked the Los Angeles Police Department and local law enforcement for their efforts on X. California Gov. Gavin Newsom also pointed out Trump's discrepancy Sunday morning. The White House announced Trump's plan to quell the widespread protests, which erupted in response to a series of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests, with 2,000 National Guard troops Saturday, citing that protest activity or violence that interfered with the work of immigration officials served as 'a form of rebellion' against the government. 'This federalization is benign done under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which means the Guard troops will still be subject to the prohibitions in the Posse Comitatus Act,' Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Ca. wrote on X Saturday as part of a post condemning Trump's actions. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents federal troops from interfering with civilian law enforcement activities. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement Saturday about the situation. Penned by Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, described the deployment of the National Guard as 'an abuse of power' that is 'recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Others have deemed the decision as a brave response to chaos. 'President Trump is stepping up to provide safety while L.A. leaders hide from reality,' Rep. Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, wrote X Sunday morning. On the official X account for the House Committee on the Judiciary, Republicans shared a news clip of a man circling a burning car on a bike in Los Angeles while waving a Mexican flag with the caption 'Democrat-run Los Angeles.' Several other state and national political leaders, however, said sending in the National Guard was overreach. 'That move is purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,' Newsom wrote on X, noting that local law enforcement had a handle on the situation. 'This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.' Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs of San Diego, where an ICE raid at a local Italian restaurant led to several arrests and sparked community outrage last week, similarly deemed Trump's intervention an 'unnecessary escalation' on X. She warned that the move 'raises the potential for people to get hurt and erodes public trust.' Protests erupted in Los Angeles after a series of ICE arrests in the area Friday and Saturday. The Department of Homeland Security said Saturday that 118 immigrants were arrested in Los Angeles in the past week, though it was not specified how many were in the country illegally. The city of Paramount, where the Los Angeles Times reported that a protester and Border Patrol agent were injured Saturday, has become a major hub for protests. Many news outlets in Los Angeles have reported tense confrontations between both sides, with law enforcement deploying rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades and tear gas against protesters, and demonstrators hurling rocks, fireworks and bottles in return. Dozens of protesters, including David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California, have been arrested by federal agents and Los Angeles police. 'The Trump administration has repeatedly broken the law while deporting American citizens, including children, without the due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution,' wrote Jeffries, D-N.Y. 'Across the country, the American people are exercising their First Amendment right to lawfully and peacefully demonstrate against these actions. Observing law enforcement activity is not a crime and the administration's deployment of the National Guard in response is inflammatory and provocative.' The National Guard is typically tasked with responding to domestic emergencies, including civil unrest, and can be summoned by any state governor or the president. Usually, presidents activate troops at the request of state leaders. The decision is rarely made by a president independently. 'Calling in the National Guard when the Governor has not requested assistance is an intentional move by the Trump Administration to unnecessarily escalate the situation in Los Angeles County,' Rep. Nanette D. Barragán, D-Carson (Los Angeles County), wrote Saturday on X. 'This is an abuse of power and what dictators do. It's unnecessary and not needed.'

Mike Johnson downplays Musk's influence and says Republicans will pass Trump's tax and budget bill
Mike Johnson downplays Musk's influence and says Republicans will pass Trump's tax and budget bill

Hamilton Spectator

time22 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Mike Johnson downplays Musk's influence and says Republicans will pass Trump's tax and budget bill

With an uncharacteristically feistiness, Speaker Mike Johnson took clear sides Sunday in President Donald Trump's breakup with mega-billionaire Elon Musk. The Republican House leader and staunch Trump ally said Musk's criticism of the GOP's massive tax and budget policy bill will not derail the measure, and he downplayed Musk's influence over the GOP-controlled Congress. 'I didn't go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,' Johnson said on ABC's 'This Week.' 'What we're trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,' Johnson insisted. Johnson said he has exchanged text messages with Musk since the former chief of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency came out against the GOP bill. Musk called it an 'abomination' that would add to U.S. debts and threaten economic stability. He urged voters to flood Capitol Hill with calls to vote against the measure, which is pending in the Senate after clearing the House. His criticism sparked an angry social media back-and-forth with Trump, who told reporters over the weekend that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk. The speaker was dismissive of Musk's threats to finance opponents — even Democrats — of Republican members who back Trump's bill. 'We've got almost no calls to the offices, any Republican member of Congress,' Johnson said. 'And I think that indicates that people are taking a wait and see attitude. Some who may be convinced by some of his arguments, but the rest understand: this is a very exciting piece of legislation.' Johnson argued that Musk still believes 'that our policies are better for human flourishing. They're better for the US economy. They're better for everything that he's involved in with his innovation and job creation and entrepreneurship.' The speaker and other Republicans, including Trump's White House budget chief, continued their push back Sunday against forecasts that their tax and budget plans will add to annual deficits and thus balloon a national debt already climbing toward $40 trillion. Johnson insisted that Musk has bad information, and the speaker disputed the forecasts of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that scores budget legislation. The bill would extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, cut spending and reduce some other levies but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over the decade , according to the CBO's analysis. The speaker countered with arguments Republicans have made for decades : That lower taxes and spending cuts would spur economic growth that ensure deficits fall. Annual deficits and the overall debt actually climbed during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and during Trump's first presidency , even after sweeping tax cuts. Russell Vought, who leads the White House Office of Budget and Management, said on Fox News Sunday that CBO analysts base their models of 'artificial baselines.' Because the 2017 tax law set the lower rates to expire, CBO's cost estimates, Vought argued, presuming a return to the higher rates before that law went into effect. Vought acknowledged CBO's charge from Congress is to analyze legislation and current law as it is written. But he said the office could issue additional analyses, implying it would be friendlier to GOP goals. Asked whether the White House would ask for alternative estimates, Vought again put the burden on CBO, repeating that congressional rules allow the office to publish more analysis. Other Republicans, meanwhile, approached the Trump-Musk battle cautiously. 'As a former professional fighter, I learned a long time ago, don't get between two fighters,' said Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin on CNN's 'State of the Union.' He even compared the two billionaire businessmen to a married couple. 'President Trump is a friend of mine but I don't need to get, I can have friends that have disagreements,' Mullin said. 'My wife and I dearly love each other and every now and then, well actually quite often, sometimes she disagrees with me, but that doesn't mean that we can't stay focused on what's best for our family. Right now, there may be a disagreement but we're laser focused on what is best for the American people.' —- Associated Press journalist Gary Fields contributed from Washington. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

News Analysis: A political lesson for L.A. from an unrestrained president
News Analysis: A political lesson for L.A. from an unrestrained president

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

News Analysis: A political lesson for L.A. from an unrestrained president

When racial justice protests roiled cities across America at the depths of the pandemic, President Trump, then in his first term, demonstrated restraint. Threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and to federalize the National Guard never materialized. This time, it took less than 24 hours of isolated protests in Los Angeles County before Trump, more aggressive than ever in his use of executive power, to issue a historic order. 'The federal government will step in and solve the problem,' he said on social media Saturday night, issuing executive action not seen since civil unrest gripped the nation in the 1960s. It was the latest expression of a president unleashed from conventional parameters on his power, unconcerned with states' rights or the proportionality of his actions. And the targeting of a Democratic city in a Democratic state was, according to the vice president, an intentional ploy to make a political lesson out of Los Angeles. The pace of the escalation, and the federal government's unwillingness to defer to cooperative local law enforcement authorities, raise questions about the administration's intentions as it responds to protesters. The administration skipped several steps in an established ladder of response options, such as enhancing U.S. Marshals Service and Federal Protective Service personnel to protect federal prisons and property, before asking the state whether a National Guard deployment might be warranted. Read more: Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means? Local officials were clear that they did not want, or need, federal assistance. And they are concerned that Trump's heavy-handed response risks escalating what was a series of isolated, heated clashes consisting of a few hundred people into a larger law enforcement challenge that could roil the city. The president's historic deployment prompted fury among local Democratic officials who warned of an infringement on states' rights. Trump's takeover of the California National Guard, Gov. Gavin Newsom said, was prompted 'not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle.' 'Don't give them one,' he said. Vice President JD Vance, calling the anti-ICE protesters 'insurrectionists,' welcomed the political pushback, stating on X that 'one half of America's political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil.' Protests against ICE agents on Friday and Saturday were limited in scale and location. Several dozen people protested the flash raids on Friday afternoon outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, with some clashing with agents and vandalizing the building. The LAPD authorized so-called less-lethal munitions against a small group of 'violent protesters' after concrete was thrown at an officer. The protest disbursed by midnight. On Saturday, outside a Home Depot, demonstrators chanted 'ICE go home' and 'No justice, no peace.' Some protesters yelled at deputies, and a series of flash-bang grenades was deployed. Read more: Photos: A fierce pushback on ICE raids in L.A. from protesters, officials 'What are you doing!' one man screamed out. Times reporters witnessed federal agents lobbing multiple rounds of flash-bangs and pepper balls at protesters. Despite the limited scale of the violence, by Saturday evening, the Trump administration embraced the visuals of a city in chaos compelling federal enforcement of law and order. 'The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Saturday night. 'These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The commander-in-chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a statement Saturday, said the administration is prepared to go further, deploying active-duty U.S. Marines to the nation's second-largest city. 'This is deranged behavior,' responded California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. Trump's decision Saturday to call in the National Guard, using a rarely used authority called Title 10, has no clear historic precedent. President Lyndon Johnson cited Title 10 in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers during protests in Selma, Ala., but did so out of concern that local law enforcement would decline to do so themselves. Read more: 2,000 National Guard troops will be sent to L.A. amid clashes over immigration raids By contrast, this weekend, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department said it was fully cooperating with federal law enforcement. 'We are planning for long-term civil unrest and collaborating with our law enforcement partners,' the department said in a statement. The 2,000 Guardsmen called up for duty is double the number that were assigned by local authorities to respond to much wider protests that erupted throughout Los Angeles in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder in 2020. Tom Homan, the president's so-called border czar, told Fox News on Saturday evening that the administration was 'already ahead of the game' in its planning for a National Guard deployment. 'This is about enforcing the law, and again, we're not going to apologize for doing it,' he said. 'We're stepping up.' National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, deploying around federal buildings in L.A. County. "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs," Trump wrote on Truth, his social media platform, "then the federal government will step in and solve the problem." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store