The huge banner of a glaring Trump in front of the USDA is a literal sign the U.S. has lost its democracy
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
This is not a campaign advertisement. It is a signal. A warning. A literal and metaphorical sign that democracy in America is no longer functioning as intended.
Historically, such displays of obnoxiousness have not heralded democratic renewal. Quite the opposite. They've marked the entrenchment of dictatorship. Authoritarian regimes the world over have relied on these massive visual monuments to instill fear, demand obedience, and project omnipresence.
For decades, and most especially during World War II, Stalin's steel-eyed portraits towered over Soviet streets and public buildings, reminding citizens that the state saw everything. Mao Zedong's image hung from Tiananmen Gate like a secular deity watching over the masses. It was massive, larger than life, eternal, aloof for a reason..
History books and other visions etched in my memory bring images of Kim Jong Un of North Korea, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and of course Hitler, who all followed the same playbook. They saturate public space with the leader's face and saturate your mind with the leader's authority.
Imagine, for a moment, if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had plastered massive banners of his face across Washington during World War II. Hanging a 30-foot portrait from the Treasury Building or looming over war bond posters with cold, impassive eyes. The public would have been outraged. Congress would have rebelled. Even amid war, Roosevelt respected the distinction between democratic leadership and personal cult.
Trump has now joined this visual canon of despots with his banner brooding over a government institution. It is not just 'deeply creepy,' as some observers have said. It is the textbook behavior of a man who believes the state belongs to him. It is fascist iconography, domesticated.
This chilling banner didn't emerge in a vacuum. Since being sworn in for his second term on January 20, Trump has governed not as a president but as a ruler unbound by law, or at least he thinks he's unbound by law.
His Department of Justice has been purged of independence, its prosecutors reassigned or fired if they resisted Trump's will. And don't even get me started about the 'yes, yes, yes' attorney general, Pam Bondi, who is a perfect lackey for the wannabe dictator. No to Trump in not in her vocabulary.
Trump's suggestion that he should be allowed a third term because one was supposedly 'stolen,' is no longer a fringe fantasy. It's a real and present threat, floated not only at rallies and interviews but by White House aides and conservative media outlets that now function more like state-run propaganda than independent journalism.
He has declared that federal workers must show 'personal loyalty' to him. Inspectors general and career civil servants have been removed en masse and replaced with unqualified loyalists. Programs that support education, public health, and environmental protection have been gutted in favor of funding massive security forces that answer directly to the Executive Branch.
And his takeover of the Kennedy Center, his chosen board of directors, naming himself as chairman, is just another check-mark on the autocrat bucket list and that is control of the arts.
Meanwhile, efforts to erase and rewrite history are accelerating. Trump's allies are systematically removing references to slavery and civil rights from textbooks, recasting the January 6 insurrectionists as 'patriots,' and purging LGBTQ+ references from public libraries. This is not governing. It's regime-building, complete with a giant portrait.
As Trump's face stares down from the side of a federal agency building, it's a 30-foot reminder of who is in charge, who is watching, and who cannot be questioned.
This use of personal imagery as a weapon of psychological control is not just about ego, and it's a key mechanism of authoritarian rule. During Stalin's Great Purge, his image became synonymous with the state itself. To criticize Stalin, even in private, was to invite arrest, or worse.
Saddam Hussein commissioned thousands of portraits of himself, placing them in every school, airport, and office in Iraq. The size and frequency of his image sent a clear message that this country was his.
So too with Kim Il Sung, his son Kim Jong il, and his son Kim Jong Un. whose portraits are reportedly required in every home in North Korea, and most people clean them on a regular basis. Disrespecting the image is a punishable offense.
These leaders understood something simple but potent: Symbols shape reality. And control of the visual environment is control of the collective psyche.
The USDA banner is not just gaudy or excessive. It's strategic. It's authoritarian. It's a message not just to the public but to the bureaucracy itself that loyalty flows up, power flows down, and both are enforced with fear.
Democracy depends on a humble, limited executive, and while we've had some egomaniacs as president here in the U.S. (think Richard Nixon), we've been fortunate not to have one who plasters banners of himself outside of government buildings.
Our presidents have been elected, not enthroned. They serve, not rule. The placement of a massive Trump banner on a government building reveals that this line has been crossed, and we are no longer a republic. We are living under the cult of one man.
When the government starts using public property to display the ruler's image, when dissent is criminalized, when history is rewritten and power is centralized, we are not looking at the future. Instead, we are seeing the end of something. The end of accountability. The end of democratic pretense. The end of America as we knew it.
The banner may yet come down. But the damage it represents is already done.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Lula plans new 'national sovereignty' policy for strategic minerals
By Brad Haynes and Lisandra Paraguassu BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters on Wednesday of his plans for a new national policy treating strategic minerals as a matter of "national sovereignty" in order to avoid exporting minerals without adding value locally. "We won't allow what happened in the last century to happen again, where Brazil exports raw minerals and then buys products with very high added value," the president, known as Lula, said in the interview. "We want to add value in Brazil." Lula's comments came as a new 50% tariff hit U.S. imports from Brazil amid a political spat between the two countries linked to an investigation against the South American country's former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, under house arrest since late Monday, is standing trial on charges of plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing. U.S. President Donald Trump, seen as a Bolsonaro ally, has decried what he calls persecution of Brazil's former leader. Trump has long sought to secure U.S. supplies of critical minerals, complaining of China's near-total control of the industry and striking deals with Ukraine to secure critical minerals in exchange for defense help. Currently, Brazil lacks a complete mapping of its mineral wealth, Lula said, adding that his government would start this process by setting up the national council on mineral materials and standards. The council will safeguard Brazil's control of its mineral wealth, allowing the country to become a global leader in the energy transition, Lula said, adding that businesses will not face difficulties following the council's creation. "Few countries in the world have the opportunity that Brazil has in this area," Lula said. Sign in to access your portfolio
Miami Herald
5 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules
The rules for the popular Diversity Visa Lottery — which allows thousands of people each year to legally immigrate to the United States and apply for a green card — could soon change under a new proposal from the U.S. Department of State. The proposed measures, published Tuesday in the Federal Register, are aligned with several immigration and national security policies reinstated under the Trump administration. Officially known as the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program, the initiative is now under review to improve 'vetting and combatting fraud.' The Department of State's proposal would increase screening for applicants to the program, whose immigrant visas are granted through a computerized lottery. The agency is seeking to require DV applicants to submit 'valid, unexpired passport information and a scanned copy of the passport biographic page and signature page uploaded with their electronic entry form.' Another change would involve replacing the term 'gender' with 'sex,' in compliance with Executive Order 14168, as well as using 'date of birth' instead of 'age' in an effort to improve 'the accuracy of information collected and maintained by the Department throughout the immigrant visa process.' The DV Program is administered by the Department of State and benefits countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.: specifically, nationals of countries from which fewer than 50,000 people have immigrated to the U.S. over the past five years. According to official data, millions of applicants submit their DV entries every year through an online registration form. The Department of State says the proposed requirements would strengthen the security framework against fraud in the DV application and adjudication process. 'Requiring passport information with the DV entry would make it substantially more difficult for unauthorized third parties to submit entries on behalf of individuals with partial information,' the rule states. 'This requirement would also enable the Department to more effectively and efficiently confirm the identities of entrants. The Department also anticipates that this requirement would reduce the number of fraudulent marriages that occur within the DV Program.' Early identification of potential fraud would reduce the need to dedicate 'significant resources' to resolving inconsistencies between the DV entry and the visa application, and to 'determine whether the explanation provided by the applicant is credible or whether the entry was fraudulent.' Each year, 55,000 Diversity Visas are made available to those who meet eligibility criteria and qualify under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and State Department regulations. The proposal includes amending certain visa application forms to require 'a passport number or unique identification number associated with the applicant's valid, unexpired passport; the name on the passport; the country or authority that issued the passport; and the expiration date of the passport.' Additionally, DV applicants would be required to submit a scanned image of the passport's biographic and signature pages. This would, according to the proposal, 'significantly enhance' the department's ability to verify applicants' identities — part of the response to Trump's Executive Order 14161, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, issued on January 20, 2025. With access to a scanned passport image, the department 'seeks to reduce the likelihood of a falsified passport number' and enable adjudicators 'to compare the spelling of the principal entrant's name in the native alphabet on the passport with the spelling of the entrant's name in English as provided on the entry form.' Under the new rules, some applicants would need to obtain a valid passport at the time of submitting their DV entry, rather than after being selected for an interview at a consular office or embassy. The proposed rule is open to public comment for 44 days and is scheduled to close on September 19, 2025.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
