logo
‘The bomber's words sound mainstream. Like he won!' Oklahoma City's tragedy in the time of Trump

‘The bomber's words sound mainstream. Like he won!' Oklahoma City's tragedy in the time of Trump

Yahoo19-04-2025
The world's first reaction to the young military veteran and far-right radical who blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City 30 years ago this month was near-universal revulsion at the carnage he created and at the ideology that inspired it.
A crowd yelled 'baby killer' – and worse – as 26-year-old Timothy McVeigh was led away in chains from a courthouse in rural Oklahoma where the FBI caught up with him two days after the bombing. He had the same crew cut he'd sported in his army days and stone cold eyes.
An hour and a half's drive to the south 168 people lay dead, most of them office workers who had been providing government services, along with 19 young children in a day-care centre directly above the spot where McVeigh parked his moving truck packed with ammonium nitrate and other explosives.
The children were, most likely, his prime target.
Bill Clinton, then president, rallied the country by vowing justice that would be 'swift, certain and severe'. His attorney general wasted no time announcing she would seek the death penalty. Whatever flirtation the country had been entertaining with rightwing militia movements in the wake of a national assault weapons ban that enraged gun rights activists and controversies over the heavy-handedness of federal law enforcement came screeching to a halt.
Even elements of the radical right, McVeigh's fellow travellers, were stunned by the sight of firefighters pulling dead babies out of the wreckage. Before the bombing, they had been full of heady talk of war against the government, but many of them imagined this would involve an attack on federal judges who had displeased the movement, or blowing up a building at night.
'Didn't he case the place?' one acquaintance of McVeigh's asked incredulously. 'The bastard has put the Patriot movement back 30 years,' lamented an erstwhile mentor of McVeigh's from Arizona.
Fast-forward those 30 years, and the movement is not only very much revived but has moved from the outer fringes of American politics to the very centre.
McVeigh wanted to strike at what he saw as a corrupt, secretive cabal running the US government – what Donald Trump and his acolytes refer to as the Deep State and are now busy dismantling.
McVeigh believed the US had no business extending its influence around the world or becoming entangled in foreign wars when white working-class Americans from industrial cities like Buffalo, his home town, were suffering – an early expression of Trump's America First ideology that won him tens of millions of blue-collar votes last November.
McVeigh's favourite book, a white supremacist power fantasy called The Turner Diaries, blamed a cabal of Jews, black people and internationalists for perverting America's true destiny – a sentiment now finding coded expression in Trump's twin wars on immigration and on diversity, equity and inclusion.
McVeigh believed it was up to ordinary citizens like him to take up arms and fight against a tyrannical ruling order, no matter the cost in innocent lives, because that was what the country's founders had done during the American civil war. The T-shirt he wore when he was arrested carried a quote from Thomas Jefferson: 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'
During the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021, the QAnon-friendly Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert expressed much the same as she cheered on the rioters smashing and bloodying their way past uniformed police officers into the halls of Congress. 'Today is 1776,' she tweeted.
The parallels have not been lost on political veterans of the 1990s. Clinton himself observed in a recent HBO documentary: 'The words [McVeigh] used, the arguments he made, literally sound like the mainstream today. Like he won!'
The threat the far right poses to the US government is no longer a physical one – not when it comes to the executive branch, anyway – since the radicals intent on cleaning house now have like-minded leaders like Trump and Elon Musk doing it from the inside. It's hard to imagine McVeigh, who was executed by lethal injection in 2001, objecting to the administration's campaign to hollow out the international aid agency, kicking career prosecutors and government watchdogs out of the Department of Justice, or vowing to refashion 'broken' institutions like the FBI.
'Their beliefs and values are allied,' said Janet Napolitano, who in 1995 played an administrative role in the bombing investigation as US attorney for Arizona and went on to run the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama. 'It is a far cry to say that there are people in political power in the United States now who want to blow up federal buildings. We have to be very clear about that. But the notion that the country has somehow been stolen from them, that it's run by elites, that they are trying to take away our guns – that has become a very accepted view among many.'
Present and former members of the governing class still have reason to fear threats from the far right, either because they have been tagged as Deep State enemies by groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, or because they have been identified by President Trump as targets for 'retribution'.
Those threats, in the Trump era, have included a foiled plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and a hammer attack on the husband of then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi. In concert with the administration, activists sympathetic to Trump have engaged in doxxing and other forms of harassment at people deemed to be political enemies and their families, including whistleblowers, college campus protesters and former associates turned critics of the president.
Seasoned national security experts like Napolitano fear it may not stop there, however, and worry particularly about judges who have issued rulings hostile to administration interests. 'Those far right groups – they've all been given permission,' she said. 'Pardoning all the January 6 defendants sends a terrible message about the rule of law in this country, just like purging from DoJ and the FBI sends a terrible message.'
It was a very different world when McVeigh washed out of the army in 1991 following his service in the first gulf war. After bouncing from one dead-end job to another and racking up thousands in sports gambling debts, he hit the road in his trusty Chevy Geo Spectrum to sell army surplus supplies and copies of The Turner Diaries at gun shows around the country. This was the very definition of a marginal existence.
McVeigh was part of a cohort of so-called 'angry young men' who felt the brunt of a downturn in manufacturing and defence contracting jobs at the end of the cold war and found their solace in guns, gun culture, and radical politics verging on the paranoid. Talk at the gun shows – which one violence prevention group memorably nicknamed 'Tupperware parties for criminals' – obsessed over black helicopters and jack-booted government thugs. McVeigh himself told people the government had inserted a computer chip in his backside.
Some of the movement's loudest grievances were entirely genuine. McVeigh kept a list of raids that federal law enforcement agencies conducted in the name of the War on Drugs and the innocent people caught up in them through error or inadvertence. He was appalled when the feds besieged a cabin in the Idaho mountains in October 1992, killing both the wife and the 14-year-old son of a survivalist who had refused to act as an informant on the far right. And he was appalled all over again the following spring by a second botched raid at a religious compound outside Waco, Texas, culminating in a deadly fire that killed more than 80 men, women and children.
In Washington, these events were not generally viewed as indications of deep structural rot, but rather as operational screw-ups to be addressed through internal after-action reports and congressional review. McVeigh, though, was shocked by the sight of Bradley fighting vehicles moving in to force an end to the Waco siege, because he'd driven Bradleys in the Gulf and, as a decorated military gunner, knew just how deadly they could be. Using them against civilians, including children, struck him as an abomination that cried out for revenge.
Despite his later protestations to the contrary, compelling evidence suggests that McVeigh targeted the daycare centre as revenge for the children who died at Waco. The centre's operator, Danielle Hunt, told the FBI she remembered McVeigh visiting four months before the bombing, pretending to be an active member of the military with his own young children. He asked a lot of strange questions about security, she recalled, looked at the windows and said, over and over, 'There's so much glass'.
The FBI confirmed that McVeigh was indeed in Oklahoma City at the time, along with his friend and fellow veteran Michael Fortier, who ended up cutting a deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony against McVeigh at trial.
When agents first showed photographs of the dead children to Fortier, he showed no empathy for them, according to contemporary FBI records. Rather, he jumped out of his seat and exclaimed: 'This is about Waco! Those parents did not kill their own children!'
'These guys were just evil people,' said Kenneth Williams, one of the first FBI agents to question Fortier. To this day, Williams believes Fortier should have received a far harsher sentence than the 12 years he and the government agreed on.
Largely because of the children, the radical far right soon abandoned its dream of overthrowing the government by force. Even McVeigh, who hoped to be seen as a hero and a martyr to the cause, came to wonder if he shouldn't have opted for targeted killings of federal agents instead of indiscriminate slaughter.
Much of the high emotion surrounding the bombing has been lost in the intervening decades. Outside of Oklahoma, few Americans under 30 know much if anything about it. In the age of Trump, that looks like a lost opportunity – for the country to understand the nature of the disillusionment and rage building for decades in 'rust belt' cities and in farming communities across the heartland.
Part of the reason for that lost opportunity is the US government's failure at trial to tell the full story of who McVeigh was, the subculture he moved in, and the deep ideological wellsprings that led to his act of folly. For reasons largely dictated by courtroom expediency, prosecutors chose to depict McVeigh as a lone mastermind, with significant help from only person, another fellow army veteran named Terry Nichols, who later confessed helping McVeigh to purchase materials for the bomb and to assemble it.
'Two evil men did this, and two men paid,' the Oklahoma governor at the time of the bombing, Frank Keating, said when the trials were over. Yet few in government or on the prosecution team believed that everyone involved in the plot had been caught, or that those who had been identified necessarily received the punishment they deserved.
'Some people got away with bloody murder, Fortier being one of them,' Williams, the former FBI agent, said.
Related: 'More than just a crime story': the Oklahoma City bombing and a rise in domestic terrorism
The government dropped several promising lines of investigation – into a radical religious compound in eastern Oklahoma, into a neo-Nazi bank robbery gang, some of whose members later accused others of involvement in the bombing, or into Louis Beam, at the time the chief propagandist of the anti-government right, who was reported to have said in 1994 that 'some kid' was going to blow up a building in Denver, Dallas, or Oklahoma City in revenge for Waco.
The justice department's fear was that following one or more of these leads and pointing to a wider conspiracy would weaken the case against McVeigh, when the directive from above was to obtain the death penalty at all costs. 'At some point,' Napolitano acknowledged, 'a strategic decision was made to focus and get a clean straightforward case against McVeigh, and not pursue every rabbit down its hole.'
And so the wider story, of a heartland America desperate and cynical about its government, of a small but growing minority willing to embrace the notion that one day it might have to take up arms against tyranny in Washington, went largely untold. In 2025, we know at last how important that story was, and where it was destined to lead.
Andrew Gumbel is the author of Oklahoma City: What The Investigation Missed – And Why It Still Matters (William Morrow, 2012)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Eric Adams adviser suspended from campaign after being accused of giving local reporter cash
Eric Adams adviser suspended from campaign after being accused of giving local reporter cash

NBC News

timea few seconds ago

  • NBC News

Eric Adams adviser suspended from campaign after being accused of giving local reporter cash

A longtime ally, adviser and fundraiser for New York Mayor Eric Adams was suspended from his reelection effort after being accused of attempting to hand a local journalist a cash-stuffed potato chip bag. Winnie Greco was outed by a local newspaper, 'The City,' for attempting to give cash surreptitiously tucked inside of a Herr's Sour Cream & Onion ripple potato chip bag to one of its City Hall reporters after a campaign event Wednesday afternoon in Harlem. According to the news outlet, the reporter, Katie Honan, initially refused the potato chips, which she believed to be a genuine snack offer, but Greco insisted. Upon discovering the wad of cash, which reportedly included at least one $100 bill and several $20 bills, she immediately contacted the Adams' confidante to return the unwanted gift. 'I can't take this, when can I give it back to you," Honan texted Greco, to no response, according to The City. Greco later called the money offer "a mistake" and apologized profusely when confronted by the local paper about why she attempted to give a reporter who covers Adams' administration a cash gift following an event meant to support his reelection. Greco, who is Chinese, said the act was "a culture thing," a position her attorney supported in a statement to The City. 'I can see how this looks strange,' Greco's attorney, Steven Brill, told The City. 'But I assure you that Winnie's intent was purely innocent. In the Chinese culture, money is often given to others in a gesture of friendship and gratitude. Winnie is apologetic and embarrassed by any negative impression or confusion this may have caused.' Todd Shapiro, a spokesperson for Adam's mayoral campaign saidthat "Grecco [sic] holds no position in this campaign and has been suspended from all VOLUNTEER campaign-related activities." 'We are shocked by these reports," Shapiro said, adding, "Mayor Adams had no prior knowledge of this matter." Greco has been a close ally of Adams for more than a decade, serving as a conduit between the mayor and the city's Asian-American communities, a top fundraiser for his campaigns, and landing a role in his administration as director of Asian Affairs. She resigned from that role last year, months after the FBI raided two of her properties as part of an investigation into a straw donations scheme in Adams' 2021 campaign. The probe into the straw donations was one of several legal scandals surrounding the mayor, who was charged by federal prosecutors last year for abusing his position "as this City's highest elected official, and before that as Brooklyn Borough President, to take bribes and solicit illegal campaign contributions." The Trump Justice Department later dismissed those charges. Shapiro said Adams "has always demanded the highest ethical and legal standards." Richard Kim, the editor in chief of The City, called Greco's cash gift "deeply disturbing." 'The fact that one of mayor Adams' closest, longtime advisors would attempt to ingratiate herself to any reporter, much less Katie Honan, with a cash gift is deeply disturbing and speaks to a rampant and blatant disregard for the role of a free and fair press," Kim said. "The choice of sour cream and onion chips is also questionable.'

Analysis: The Democrats go ‘Trump lite' in latest plan to save democracy
Analysis: The Democrats go ‘Trump lite' in latest plan to save democracy

CNN

time31 minutes ago

  • CNN

Analysis: The Democrats go ‘Trump lite' in latest plan to save democracy

Democrats have tried everything to beat Donald Trump. But they're only 1 for 3 in presidential elections against him. Twice, they impeached him — but that didn't destroy his political career. Several top Democratic prosecutors brought the force of the law against him, but in trying to bring him down, they only made him stronger. They've tried to 'go high' when he went low. But he went lower and won. And painting Trump as the worst-ever threat to American democracy didn't thwart the greatest White House comeback story in history. So, what do Democrats do now? The latest plan, piloted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose counteroffensive just won the support of former President Barack Obama, is to be a bit more like Trump — but only up to a point and for a limited time. California state legislators are expected on Thursday to pass bills to set up a statewide referendum in November on redrawing the state's congressional maps in a way that could net Democrats five seats in the House of Representatives. The counterattack went into force after deep-red Texas enacted its plan, ordered by the president, to launch a rare mid-cycle redistricting effort in search of five Republican House seats. Trump is blatantly attempting to save the GOP — and himself — from losing the chamber in the 2026 midterms and is prepared to do anything to prevent it. Texas Democrats made a big noise, leaving the state to block votes on the plan — but like almost all other party schemes to slow Trump, it was doomed to fail. The Texas House passed the redistricting bill on Wednesday; it will now move to the state Senate. Newsom — who has a long and testy history with the president — but who shares some of his instincts for stunt politics — is not just taking on Trump by leveraging the mechanics of government in the Democratic cause. He's also personifying the maxim that one way to defang a bully is to laugh at him. The governor's turned his social media accounts into a parody of the president's own huffing and puffing in block capitals on Truth Social. 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! — GN' Newsom wrote after a post on X earlier this month, trolling Trump by mimicking one of his online quirks. This might all seem rather immature and below the dignity of the governor of one of the most powerful states in the union. But it's playing Trump at his own social media game and recognizes that the president has shattered the norms of political speech. A more serious argument many Democrats are now making is that the Republican Party has transformed into such an anti-democratic force that they must do everything to fight back. Sure, it would be more noble for Democrats to stand on principle and refuse to follow Republicans down an authoritarian path by just drawing up more House seats because they feel like it. But they'd be sure to lose. Newsom's response might be cynical. But he's also seized on the Texas redistricting fight because he's one of the few Democrats who have power and know how to use it. He's also channeling palpable demands from the Democratic base for more of a fight. 'He doesn't play by a different set of rules,' Newsom said of Trump last week. 'He doesn't believe in the rules.' On Monday, Newsom seized on Trump's latest Truth Social rant about mail-in voting with his own post on X that aimed to get into the president's head. 'Trump knows he is going to LOSE in 2026,' Newsom wrote. 'His plan to rig new Congressional seats is going to backfire — thanks to California. Now, he's clamoring for other ways to cook the results. This man reeks of DESPERATION.' Newsom is taking a political gamble. There is no guarantee that enough of California's voters will agree with his attempt to change the state Constitution. The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is a cherished plank of state democracy. But as he eyes the White House, the California governor has created a platform to elevate himself over Democratic rivals in galvanizing demands for more urgency in the fight against Trump and his administration challenging election fairness on multiple fronts. In effect, he's soft-launching a bid for the 2028 Democratic nomination without having to make it official. If he succeeds in creating more seats for his party and it captures the House next year, he will claim a lion's share of the credit. Obama addressed the conundrum of whether to play by the rules on redistricting as a true democrat might in a speech on Tuesday night. 'I've had to wrestle with my preference, which would be that we don't have political gerrymandering,' he said at a fundraiser for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. The ex-president added: 'What I also know is that if we don't respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.' Obama said he had 'tremendous respect' for Newsom's approach in that Newsom made the California response conditional on what Texas did. He also praised Newsom's proposal to restore the state's independent redistricting committee after the 2030 census — following Trump's term. The 44th president's pragmatism reflects bitter experience, since he rocketed to attention in a 2004 Democratic National Convention address in which he declared, 'There's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America.' Obama might be best remembered for soaring speeches. But eight years since he left the White House, it's often forgotten he could play hardball: His 2012 reelection campaign ruthlessly savaged GOP nominee Mitt Romney's character. Arguing that democracy was not 'self-executing,' Obama said that if Democrats really believe their own rhetoric, they should do something about it. He called for more support for the NDRC, litigation and organizing. And Obama also made striking allusions to the fights against slavery and racial discrimination in the 20th century. 'It took organizing and activism, and people demonstrating and sometimes getting beat or thrown in jail. It took a civil war,' he said. 'It took extraordinary leadership and courage in order to amend the Constitution. And then to make sure that those victories were actually manifested required people to march and go to jail and in some cases, die.' This came against a backdrop of the supine response of law firms, universities and corporate chieftains to Trump's power grabs. Obama's warning posed the immediate question of whether the ex-president will be taking a more prominent political role himself. Obama has been a caustic critic of Trump at key moments — for instance during the 2020 and 2024 Democratic National Conventions, when he warned about his successor's threat to democracy. But he has wide interests in a lucrative retirement, including in film production and advocacy for his post-presidential foundation. And ex-presidents (among many others) know there can be a price for standing up to a successor who has weaponized the Justice Department. And would Obama be an effective force? His efforts in 2024, including a barn-burner speech at the convention in Chicago that was one-upped by former first lady Michelle Obama, couldn't prevent Trump's return to the White House. Many Democrats are pining for a new generation of leaders. And the next Democratic president, whenever he or she arrives, will require fresh vision and energy after the GOP's attempt to eviscerate the government. Meanwhile, Newsom isn't the only Democrat adopting some of Trump's methods to try to gain traction in the age of fragmented media and online anarchy. Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, for instance, has been trolling the president, Trump-style on social media. 'The man in the White House wants to 'crack down' on crime in D.C.… cute,' she wrote on X this week. 'The audacity of sitting in the Oval Office with felony charges and thinking you can lecture anyone on 'law and order.'' Still, Democrats had better be careful. However brazen they get, they'll never match Trump's flame-throwing. A subtext of Trump's populism is that all politics are corrupt. And if voters believe that the Democrats are just as bad as the president, his own more venal behavior won't seem as bad. Trump and MAGA Republicans are trying to create such equivalence. They've portrayed the criminal indictments against Trump during his campaign as the cold-blooded exploitation of government power — even though several of them arose from his attempt to steal the 2020 election. The GOP has better arguments that he was singled out in a successful civil fraud prosecution against him, his adult sons and the Trump Organization in New York. And when Republicans argue that Democrats are guilty of flagrant partisan redistricting of House seats in states they control, like Illinois and Maryland, they have a point. Still, most such efforts fit into the conventional corruption of the age-old practice of gerrymandering. No modern political figure has attempted the assaults on democracy and elections carried out by Trump. The run-up to the midterms may also show whether voters want another showdown over democracy when they are pained by still-high grocery prices and a struggle to afford housing. Neither party has compelling plans to offer relief. No wonder Trump's approval ratings are underwater and Democrats have been plumbing record lows in popularity this year. Democrats are now vowing to 'fight fire with fire,' as New York Gov. Kathy Hochul put it recently. But getting down in the muck and fighting dirty with Trump is risky. He's miles better at it than they are.

Trump, 79, Forgets the Name of an Ocean
Trump, 79, Forgets the Name of an Ocean

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump, 79, Forgets the Name of an Ocean

President Trump's senior moments have seen him confuse several land-based locations, but now his possible cognitive slide seems to have extended offshore. During a Tuesday morning interview on Fox and Friends, Trump discussed his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and seemed to forget the name of the ocean that separates the U.S., Europe and Russia. Trump said that European leaders like Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are 'consumed far more with [Ukraine] because they're right there.' 'You know we have an ocean that's separating us, right? A thing called... an ocean,' he said. 'A big, beautiful ocean. And, uh, they don't, they're right there. So it's a different kind of a thing for them.' Trump possibly appeared to be referring to the Atlantic, which separates the U.S. from Europe and the west of Russia. The U.S. is, however, also separated from Russia to the west by the Bering Sea. The coast of the mainland of Alaska, where Trump and Putin met last Friday, is separated by 55 miles of sea from the eastern coast of Russia. At the closest point of any land, Alaska's Little Diomede Island is separated from Russia's Big Diomede Island by 2.4 miles of open water—which turns to ice capable of bearing human weight in winter. Infamously, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said that 'you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska' in 2008, providing fodder for a viral SNL spoof starring Tina Fey. Trump considered offering Palin a cabinet position in his first administration, but his knowledge of her home state seems to have grown fuzzier since 2016. At a press conference last week, Trump said twice that he was going to Russia, leaving Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt to explain why the president didn't seem to remember that his meeting with Putin was being held on American soil. On Tuesday, the Fox hosts allowed Trump to bulldoze through his lapse, as he continued to ramble about negotiations with Ukraine and how the war is Joe Biden's fault. 'It was always thought that Ukraine was sort of a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe. And it was, it was a big wide buffer. Everything worked out well until Biden got involved,' he said. 'Biden gave them $100 billion right up front, I don't give them anything... since I've been there, we don't pay.' In fact, the Trump administration has largely kept the Biden administration's military aid to Ukraine intact, delivering $6.2 billion in weapons to the country in the first half of this year. After promising dozens of times during the 2024 campaign that he would end the war 'within 24 hours,' Trump has found it more difficult than expected to broker peace. 'I have ended six wars. I thought maybe this would be the easiest one, and it's not the easiest one,' he said on Monday. 'It's a tough one.' It could remain tough sledding for Trump if his geographic recall doesn't improve. The White House declined to answer 'stupid questions about oceans.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store