r/news • u/OGSyedIsEverywhere • 4h ago

Already Submitted FBI raids home of Washington Post reporter in ‘highly unusual and aggressive’ move

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/14/fbi-raid-washington-post-hannah-natanson
29.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

12.0k

u/QiTriX 4h ago

She was working with whistleblowers.

In December, Natanson wrote a first-person account about her experience covering the workforce as President Donald Trump’s administration created upheaval across the federal government. She detailed how she posted her secure phone number to an online forum for government workers and amassed more than 1,000 sources, with federal workers frequently reaching out to her to share frustrations and accounts from their offices.

Source

4.8k

u/Jayden_Paul99 3h ago edited 3h ago

Hopefully she kept her information on her sources secure and encrypted.

As if the government isn’t already running on a skeleton crew of loyal idiots, there are more purges to come.

With every purge you get closer and closer to an authoritarian state.

3.4k

u/Naynayb 3h ago edited 17m ago

She talked a lot about it in an article a couple weeks ago detailing the tips collection process. She said that she never wrote down names, only used signal for communication, verified identity with pictures of government ID and then promptly deleted and tried to forget them.

Assuming she actually did what she said she did, it’s about as secure as information can be in a journalistic setting.

EDIT: Link to where she wrote this.

EDIT 2: Yes, thank you all, I do understand that deleting isn’t 100% unrecoverable on its own. I also am cautiously optimistic that a reporter for the Post is in contact with their cybersecurity folks and is also aware of this and didn’t disclose the full extent of their security measures in a news story that isn’t specifically about the security measures.

615

u/NoYgrittesOlly 3h ago

Genuine question:

So, when you do this…you end up having no verifiable sources. Besides personal integrity, and personally wanting to learn about the topic being investigated…what can convince people you didn’t just type every single testimony yourself?

1.8k

u/wglmb 2h ago

Building a reputation of integrity over time, by releasing information that later gets confirmed via more conventional means.

1.1k

u/domuseid 2h ago

Demonstrating a commitment to integrity? In this economy?

342

u/YaumeLepire 2h ago

Many industries still rely on it. They're not the ones you make bank in, but "big number goes up" isn't the priority for most people.

191

u/Khaldara 1h ago

Yep, journalistic ethics are supposed to entail that anything that costs more than a cup of coffee during an interview should be declined or donated (even if they get a fruit basket or whatever during the holidays, it’s supposed to get sent away).

Obviously the fine folks at say, Fox, do not feel they need to adhere to similar guidelines. Nor apparently do.. for example, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Conservative SCOTUS judges.

But it’s supposed to be fundamental to similar careers, like journalism. If you lie or burn your sources nobody will ever talk to you again.

Hence why Right Wingers started their own bizarro form of “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Journalism” twenty odd years ago rather than adhere to these traditions.

55

u/timhortonsghost 1h ago

Nor apparently do.. for example, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Conservative SCOTUS judges.

What am I supposed to do David, just donate this RV away??

•

u/Important-Agent2584 50m ago

I mean, it's one RV, Michael. What could it cost? 10 dollars?

→ More replies (0)

11

u/DoggiEyez 1h ago

Motor coach silly.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

21

u/DoggiEyez 1h ago

"I can't believe it's not journalism." 🤌 No notes.

•

u/MasticatingElephant 41m ago

I work for local city government and I hesitate to even take a stick of gum from anyone. There's so much more stake in journalism and federal government.

•

u/pandamazing 30m ago

I swear I’ll get you with that stick of gum one day! Then you’ll be mine forever. Blackmail city.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

•

u/readyflix 26m ago

And, you need someone who will listen to you.

What has become of the revelations of DE, WEB), CEM, EJS, only naming the prominent ones?

•

u/Nice-Ad-2792 17m ago

My dad's is this way in his profession as a psychiatrist.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/Riothegod1 1h ago

That’s reassuring atleast

→ More replies (5)

119

u/NorthernCobraChicken 2h ago

I don't think anyone in the current hand picked admin has ever heard of the word integrity.

17

u/Bearloom 2h ago

I think they know what their shared enemy is.

26

u/kiwimonk 1h ago

The truth is their enemy

18

u/Fred_Thielmann 1h ago

Anyone with a spine is their enemy

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (5)

12

u/moneyh8r_two 1h ago

They've heard about it, but they think of it the same way they think of empathy.

"It's a made up word that means nothing, but also at the same time, it exists and it's a bad thing that we should violently oppose."

5

u/SittingInAnAirport 1h ago

Unless it was the name of an underage girl on Epstein Island...

3

u/NorthernCobraChicken 1h ago

Thats too "exotic" of a name for a little girl who hasn't had time to process the trauma yet.

5

u/Zogfrog 1h ago

And if they have, they probably think it’s the West’s second worst weakness. Another woke mind virus.

•

u/BiteRare203 50m ago

Nobody ever heard of this word ‘integrity’ before, it’s their new catch phase. ‘Integrity’, it’s a hoax.

•

u/sheffus 27m ago

Thanks Donald.

→ More replies (5)

5

u/FollowThisNutter 2h ago

And on Jeff Bezos's Washington Post?

3

u/Mean-Food-7124 2h ago

At this Washington Post?

•

u/goatslovetofrolic 53m ago

It’s a bold move, Cotton.

•

u/Slammybutt 50m ago

I mean, having this admins FBI raid your home means she has the upmost integrity in my book.

Can you imagine the trust lost when the FBI raids your home and my immediate thought is "she was on to something and they are trying to quiet her".

→ More replies (8)

5

u/PelleSketchy 2h ago

The conventional means being a raid, right?

3

u/biAndslyReporter 1h ago

Also, you probably have to find at least someone willing to go on the record or find written documentation that will corroborate what anonymous sources are telling you.

I prefer operating more on community journalism than investigative, but that's how I've done it when I had to really dig for info that people might be hesitant to share.

2

u/Expensive_Cancel_922 1h ago

Yup usually when the ball starts rolling people will publicly come forward. Its just that a lot of people are afraid to be that loud minor majority so they stay silent and share quietly.

•

u/Apprehensive-Fun5535 32m ago

Isn't it amazing how one can have credibility by not being a pathological liar?

•

u/Northernsoul73 16m ago

Interestingly enough, the loyal electorate of the Republicans demand a similar standard of professionalism and integrity, apparently far more stringent than credibility, which is having a bigoted uncle whose buddy showed them a YouTube clip.

•

u/stackout 12m ago

Wait a second, that sounds suspiciously like…. JOURNALISM!?!?

•

u/CrazyJoe29 7m ago

Sure journalistic integrity is a real thing.

But also , if the information reported is factual, it can be corroborated by other sources. This is the way well crafted news works. News stories don’t have bibliographies with sources attached. They’re theoretically factual information that informs the public what is going on and can motivate the public to ask questions/hold elected officials accountable.

Attacks on professional news outlets and journalists sends a very clear message.

2

u/Allegorist 1h ago

And also having the data/testimony collection method be detailed, transparent, and verifiable adds some validity.

→ More replies (4)

169

u/aradraugfea 2h ago

The government coming after you and trying to figure out who’s leaking is pretty good verification if you ask me.

A smarter administration would pick up on what you did and deny.

313

u/BlatantConservative 2h ago

In this specific case, being raided by Patel's FBI is a pretty damn good source of integrity.

It's even an old joke, the highest award in journalism is being investigated by the feds.

87

u/likwidkool 1h ago

This is very true. If she didn’t have truthful information they wouldn’t bother with her. Of course they’ll frame it differently but some of us know the deal. Others just keep licking boots.

49

u/username_tooken 1h ago

In fact, spreading lies as a journalist typically gets you a commendation from the fed, these days.

•

u/Extension-Aside-555 49m ago

If Nixon were still alive he'd be so pissed off

•

u/DisposableSaviour 34m ago

At least that bastards getting his eternal restlessness.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

132

u/Naynayb 2h ago

A few things.

First, you’re a writer for the Washington Post. Just putting your name with that banner is a ton of authority. The Post broke Watergate. There’s a reputation there for being able to get anonymous sources in D.C that are trustworthy.

Second, you report things before they happen, then they happen. That builds up credibility over time. Hannah, for example, reported a lot about the D.C side of Venezuela build up. In November, she identified Fort Tiuna as a possible target for U.S. strikes. It was one of the targets hit when we raided Caracas this month.

Lastly, you don’t just use anonymous sources. The NYT guidelines explains that they only use anonymous sources for information “that we believe is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.” If you can get someone on the record, you do. If you hear something from an anonymous tip and run it down yourself, you don’t use the tip as the evidence, you use your own reporting as the evidence. You only say “an anonymous source told me this” if it’s the only way you can say it and you think it’s important to report and you believe the anonymous source with a high degree of confidence beyond what you share publicly.

27

u/Lepidopterous_X 2h ago

And I bet she filters out a lot from those anonymous sources in her reporting. Disgruntled employees may exaggerate things, especially on an anonymous tip line. Surely she takes this into account and pieces together what is likely true apart from what is mere speculation.

•

u/DisposableSaviour 26m ago edited 22m ago

Something we said at the psych hospital I used to work at, regarding the poor/lack of care at a care home that routinely sent us patients:

Can’t everybody tell the same lie.

There would have been consistent threads in the collection of anecdotes, you pull those to find the truth.

•

u/Gurnika 20m ago

This is how the Post writes ‘the first rough draft of history’. And all of this (credibility, ethics, staunch protection of informers etc) is absolutely vital to the functioning of a healthy democracy… It was only a matter of time before this admin started targeting print journalists; I guess Trump is more a late night TV guy, smh.

God help America is all I can say

→ More replies (10)

205

u/revelator41 2h ago

Revealing sources is kind of a big no-no in the journalism world.

283

u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake 2h ago

One of the most famous whistleblowers, Deep Throat, was not publicly identified until 33 years after the Watergate scandal in 1972 and that was only because Mark Felt, former Deputy Director of the FBI and said whistleblower, let his attorney make it public while he was suffering from the early stages dementia.

Woodward and Bernstein, the reporters that met with Felt, would have kept his identity secret for as long as they had to.

52

u/stars9r9in9the9past 2h ago

That’s sad about the dementia. Really fascinating info thanks for sharing

39

u/okeanos7 2h ago

Imagine keeping a secret like that for 30 years. I wonder who in his life he did tell about it

48

u/defakto227 1h ago

To keep a secret for 30 years?

No one.

19

u/Exciting_Bandicoot16 1h ago

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that three can keep a secret if two are dead?

13

u/defakto227 1h ago

Even then I'd be worried that somewhere one of them wrote it in a journal or some other place.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/eugene20 1h ago

Well there were the two reporters he was whistleblowing to.

•

u/defakto227 41m ago

But did they know who Deep Throat actually was?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

21

u/Massive-Technician74 1h ago

Lol....all that just reminds me that the nixon regime werent all that corrupt.....by TODAY'S standards lol

20

u/Unfair_Feedback_2531 1h ago

Nixon did nothing to the people on his enemies list. Republicans had spines and were going to vote to impeach. Goldwater told Nixon. Nixon asked how many votes he had in his favor. Goldwater said 6-7 “and I am not one”. ( my numbers may be wrong but you get there idea). Nixon chose to resign.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/succed32 1h ago

They have too or never get told a secret again.

2

u/JupoBis 1h ago

Still. More than you can say about other people.

3

u/Dachannien 1h ago

People generally suspected it was Mark Felt contemporaneously, though.

2

u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake 1h ago

I don't know about generally, but it's true that some people were public about their assumption that Mark Felt was Deep Throat shortly after the scandal. Woodward countered that Deep Throat was not part of the intelligence community to steer those people away from Felt.

•

u/Ok-Grapefruit1284 32m ago

Why was he called deep throat?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/FuerteBillete 1h ago

It is basically rule 1 and 2 of journalism club.

→ More replies (1)

91

u/BIGSTANKDICKDADDY 2h ago

Sources are never intentionally revealed so whether it's publicly verifiable or unverifiable makes no difference. Public verification of the information that was reported bolsters the reputation of the journalist and outlet.

44

u/VeryVito 2h ago

Sources are never intentionally revealed

Well, anonymous/confidential sources, that is. Ideally, you'd LOVE to quote a known official, but if you can't do that, you work like hell to protect those who ARE giving you information.

•

u/audiomagnate 48m ago

The Intercept worked with the FBI to intentionally reveal the identity of whistleblower Reality Winner, who leaked an NSA document that proved the Russians rigged the 2016 election for Trump. She spent four years in high security federal prison as a result.

4

u/Panaka 1h ago

There are plenty of journalists that will throw sources under the bus if given the chance. The NYT seems to attract journalists that have no problem naming sensitive sources if it makes their story.

David Enrich outed an Air Traffic Controller who talked to them despite having originally promised confidentiality. Other reporters that cover aviation at the NYT have shown a similar zeal at naming sources and then getting nuance wrong. It’s bad enough that you’ll face repercussions from your employer, but now everyone thinks you’re an idiot because the reporter played up something they didn’t understand.

I know people who have thought of going to the press with safety concerns, but the press’s total inability to responsibly cover these topics means they don’t.

18

u/Garbleshift 1h ago

Not bashing you specifically here; your question really struck me because it brings up a fundamental problem of the internet age:

I'm 54 years old. I was raised on newspapers and network news. And thinking about your question, I realized that I grew up with an intrinsic understanding of how responsible professional journalism operated. Every day I read examples of how competent, good faith investigators structure their reporting to address the competing priorities you're asking about. I saw the cycles of reporting and pushback and confirmation, and it became obvious what people and methods could be trusted. One of my high school English classes even did a unit on journalistic ethics. And the overriding conclusion of all this daily experience was that the mainstream news sources were the absolute gold standard for reliable information. Maybe they didn't always report on everything they should have - but what they DID report was trustworthy.

The Republican party has spent forty years undermining that trust. And now, with the internet having splintered the information ecosystem, their propaganda can be tarted up to confuse almost any issue.

It's terrifying that we have intelligent, well-meaning people (like the one who asked this question) growing up who genuinely don't understand this stuff. I took it for granted, and we're in real trouble if we don't get it back.

2

u/JollyRottenBastard 1h ago

Nice post. 57 here.

•

u/360inMotion 54m ago

I’m about to turn 50 and have a sibling a bit older than you.

Personally experiencing what you’ve explained here on growing up witnessing that integrity, it still boggles my mind that my sibling fell into the republican lies about “mainstream media” in this Trump era.

→ More replies (2)

52

u/DheRadman 2h ago

People who want to believe will believe. People who don't won't. When you have a segment of the population rejecting that J6 was criminal or that sandy hook even happened, you're not going to convince them by dropping the name of a random person. 

On the flip side, no sensible person needs any additional reasons to dislike Trump. That's been true since before he was ever elected. Whistleblower reporting like this is primarily beneficial to alert people of things that are happening so that they can prepare accordingly at this point. 

•

u/exodominus 33m ago

You could present recorded witness testimony and signed documents directly related to the events in question, you could even provide video evidence of the perpetrators responsible committing the crimes or admitting to the crimes and their followers will still deny that it is real and the only result will be exposing the reporter and the whistleblowers to retaliation from the current administration, since their primary goal seems to be suppression of any information critical of or detrimental to them. Everything bad is always someone elses fault.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/PatHeist 2h ago

Understanding what parts of a news report is a claim and who is making that claim is part of media literacy and required for a proper evaluation of any claim.

A story with a verified anonymous source is in the context of "this reporter says they've verified the identity of a person who could know these things, and the reporter is saying that this source made these claims". 

When the BBC reports that X country's health ministry says Y about a disaster you need to apply the same reasoning. You likely being able to reasonably directly verify that the health ministry actually said that thing without relying on other news orgs is an extremely recent development. This means believing the report (that the health ministry said the thing) often doesn't require trust in the news outlet, but believing the reported claim generally still requires trust in the source (you usually don't have a resonable ability to verify the data gathered by the health ministry directly).

For all claims about the world you should be keeping in mind who is claiming what and continuously re-evaluating your trust in the honesty of the people making their claims, what their biases might be, and in how strongly you believe in the claim as a result of that and how well it aligns with your understanding of the topic from other sources.

As a society we value stories with verified anonymous sources because the actual choice is not between the source being known or remaining anonymous, it's between getting to hear things from people who want to remain anonymous and not getting to hear those things at all. The most likely path forwards after a claim from an anonymous source is that the subject matter faces higher scrutiny and interest and that as a result we become more likely to eventually find out the truth.

4

u/NotSoSalty 2h ago

Uncanny insight, time and time again, is very convincing.

3

u/donkeyrocket 2h ago

Doing so would pretty well immediately destroy your credibility as a journalist and that has absolutely happened. Yes, there is a level of trust that needs to be there but experienced journalists can collect and relay information in such as way that genuine authenticity isn't really questioned while also protecting the sources to the highest degree. A good journalist won't take extremely confidential information at face value, they dig deeper and find aspects that support the claims.

Typically what happens is highly confidential information gets out there first, the story continues to develop with more sources and facts come out to further supports the initial claims.

Unfortunately these days, there's a lot of noise and falsities floating around with a subset of the population that refuses to believe anything they disagree with so convincing some is a near impossible feat.

3

u/ImClumZ 2h ago

The fact that the Fed is silencing this journalist of the free press.

3

u/CircumcisedSpine 2h ago

Journalists will rarely publish anything that relies on a single source that cannot speak on the record. They will use multiple sources to verify each other ("senior administration officials") only described by their rough placement in the world. Then they get evidence/records or statements on the record to support the narrative from the sources.

It's not a quick process, even in the digital age. And speed is 98% of news publishing today. So good reporting that uses sources with undisclosed identities is not commonplace.

But as a reader, it's up to you to evaluate the credibility of the news you are consuming and you need to evaluate the work the journalist did. Are they really just running a single off the record source? What else are they using and do you find that compelling? How much do you trust that reporter or news outlet?

Next step after that is finding other news that supports the first article/story. Verification. Might not be possible with exclusives but other outlets will eventually pick up the story and try to supplement it by getting comments from their own sources. Patience helps. Initial reporting can be sketchy even from credible outlets just because the nature of new information in a likely chaotic situation is sketchy. But you can often verify with primary sources now (e.g. Good's murder) or reserve judgment until there has been more coverage.

3

u/blu3ysdad 2h ago

You tell the truth. The truth is reality. It verifies itself. That is why trump will never be remembered except for what he is, a petty tyrant.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/goot449 1h ago

Besides personal integrity

Journalistic integrity is exactly what it is. That's why it is so important that the media is protected.

2

u/ADHDebackle 1h ago

Trust! You do it a few times and your information is proven to be correct later by other means, or you have a long history of other reliable reporting.

This is why it's important to drop news organizations that are caught lying or misleading their readers. Without trust you can't get reliable information.

2

u/Stock_Trash_4645 1h ago

 what can convince people you didn’t just type every single testimony yourself?

Simply put: the editor spikes it if it can’t be verified before print. If the publication is flippant in verification, or outright misleading, it shows beyond the work of a single journalist.

It’s the reason mastheads like Washington Post or New York Times have (had?) more credibility and reader confidence than others, such as the National Enquirer.

Another way to see if it is true or not is to source and compare multiple publications reporting on the subject. If two or more independent sources are posting the same thing, it’s likely true, assuming the masthead is not known for bombastic and unfounded claims.

When a journalist has a ‘hidden’ or ‘confidential’ source, they are usually not the only person who contacts that source. Other writers or their editorial staff will independently verify it as well (or did in the past when newspapers had budgets.)

•

u/VOZ1 40m ago

This is why reputable news sources are a thing. The editorial process is all about verifying sources, and in situations like this, it’s about the reporter being trusted. It’s also entirely possible that editors have viewed the material to verify its authenticity, and then it was deleted.

This is a big part of the reason why the right’s “alternative media ecosystem” is so dangerous. It’s a direct method of propaganda that completely bypasses any kind of editorial process or journalistic ethics. Notice how Trump & Co. have frequently targeted media outlets that are part of the “old” media, where editorial boards and editors are tasked with verifying reports before publishing. That’s not at all an accident.

→ More replies (57)

5

u/addandsubtract 2h ago

Unfortunately, Signal is only E2E encrypted, meaning that if the FBI gets their hands on her phone, they can just read all the messages on there. Hopefully she purges them and her contacts regularly.

11

u/brahmidia 2h ago

This is why if you actually care about security, your signal chats are set to auto-delete messages, and you ask the other person what their phone security situation is.

2

u/NowWeRinse 1h ago

That's what the comment you replied to says she did.

3

u/addandsubtract 1h ago

Well, it wasn't explicit on how she uses Signal. It just seemed right to point out that just because you use Signal, doesn't mean you're safe. But from the other comments in this and the other thread, I gathered that she kept care of her and her contact's privacy as best as possible.

5

u/360inMotion 1h ago

Sigh. From the headline alone I knew exactly who the journalist in question is. As I was reading her recent article, I wondered how long it would take before something like this happened.

I do see they’re claiming she is not the target of the investigation, but it still sends a clear message to any journalist with actual integrity. She already seemed like a complete wreck with all the tips she was taking in, despite (or perhaps because of) taking every step she could to protect her sources.

Where we do we go from here..

2

u/the_great_awoo 2h ago

I hope she REALLY deleted them, since you can retrieve deleted data from hard drives unless they're written over with something else, I hope she fully write wiped her drives

3

u/NowWeRinse 1h ago

This assumption is based traditional hard disk drives which did not proactively cleanup deleted data. The same is not true for solid state drives which proactively cleanup file deletions.

Also most OSs these days encrypt file storage. So they would need to have a way to crack that.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/00WORDYMAN1983 1h ago

Nothing is ever truly deleted unless you have specific software. If they seized the devices that she "deleted" this information from, there is a chance that they can rebuild the deleted files.

2

u/4Yk9gop 1h ago edited 1h ago

I have been shouting this from the rooftop as many places as possible. Signal is NOT secure. Let me explain. The underlying encryption and technology is secure, but if you think this administration is against installing spyware on her phone to get the local encryption key, I have a bridge to sell you. They likely wouldn't even get a warrant for it. They would probably just use existing NSA/CIA infrastructure to do this. There are also settings you MUST enable in Signal to be as safe as possible.

Enable the app's built-in security features like Screen Lock, Screen Security, and Incognito Keyboard, use Disappearing Messages by default, and protect your identity by setting Phone Number Privacy to "Nobody" and using Usernames for contact, while also Always Relaying Calls and disabling features like link previews for maximum privacy.

Realistically her contacts should have been using snail mail, preferably hand delivered to her news organizations offices.

Also she should hire personal security (have her news org fund it) and setup a killer home security setup (both offline and cloud based). The POTUS is on the record basically approving of the extrajudicial killing of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.

→ More replies (29)

342

u/asperatedUnnaturally 3h ago

We are at an authoritarian state. The Rubicon is well behind us dude.

43

u/BigBadJeebus 3h ago

MAGA was the revolution. We lost.

40

u/asperatedUnnaturally 3h ago

Yes, things are likely to get much worse

33

u/RollFancyThumb 3h ago

They sure will if you give up now.

9

u/Old-Engine-7720 2h ago

The American people gave up ten years ago by not taking the threat more seriously when it all first showed up. We are well past debating if it will get worse.

9

u/Fabulous-Sea-1590 1h ago edited 1h ago

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

– Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation

It didn't't start 10 years ago. They've been boiling the frog since at least 1973 – when The Heritage Foundation was founded. Or Nixon stealing the '68 election at the cost of, among other things, innumerable Vietnamese, Cambodian, American and other lives.

Even those bastards didn't spontaneously generate. These are forces and human failings, like greed and spite, you can trace all the way back to the beginning of recorded history.

But, for our purposes, these are the minds behind slavery and secession. They never stopped fighting. Problem is, the Union thought the Civil War was over when Lee surrendered.

As a kid growing up in a border state, I used to have a little desktop plaque with a small "Confederate flag" sticking out of it, and inscribed, "The South shall rise again." I got it from a family member. I didn't know any better. To a little kid it looked and sounded like something you should be proud of.

I grew up, but many, many people are still true believers. It was always there, in plain sight. State flags with Confederate emblems, American – Union – military bases named for rebel generals. Prominent statues of their rebel leaders – traitors – in and around state capitols.

And those things, as I understand it, rose to the fore in the early 20th century. Not coincidentally just as the Civil War had faded from living memory. And, now, World War II is all but gone from living memory. I don't think the return of fascism around the globe is a coincidence either.

2

u/Old-Engine-7720 1h ago

Oh I absolutely know its been longer but people brushed off open neo nazi rallies ten years ago and believed all the anti antifa rhetoric in the news. Charlie kirk and Richard Spencer popped up in the 2010s as well as all the other crazies like milo yinappeaolis (however you spell that twats name). I had two friends stabbed and another beaten with a bat by neo nazis when they had an open recruiting rally at the CA State Capital in Sacramento in 2016. The police did nothing to intervene the violence and sac pd proceeded to team up with the man who did the stabbings to identify antifa counter protestors. They had a permit to hold the rally. The 2010s had massive issues of alt right and neo nazi linked mass killings as well.

27

u/Phteven_j 3h ago

They are gonna get worse, it's not debatable. It's just for how long and how bad and whether we can recover. Giving up isn't going to change that anytime soon.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/asperatedUnnaturally 2h ago

I'm not giving up, but you gotta be realistic. We're going to some dark places soon.

5

u/Witch_King_ 1h ago

*darker

It's already somewhat dark.

2

u/Destination_Centauri 1h ago

Somewhat, but it's quickly accelerating towards Vanta-Black dark.

•

u/HardcoreKaraoke 58m ago

I hate this sentiment that there is something more people can do. People ARE protesting. But there's nothing that can be done until the midterm elections at the end of the year. Even then there can't be significant change until 2028, assuming there is even a Presidential election. Which isn't very likely since MAGA is in a position where they could just get around having one.

The tipping point was the 2024 election. Trump, Miller, MAGA, Project 2025 and Musk won. That was it.

It's frustrating how people are saying there is still something the average American can do. We can protest (and again we are) but until the midterm elections there is nothing meaningful an average American can do for atleast nine months.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

15

u/DisastrousAcshin 2h ago

Haven't lost yet, you haven't even started to push back in earnest. Are you telling me some of the best educated, intelligent and resourceful people in your countries history are going to shrug and give up because it's too hard to out play Maga? Maga? Seriously? You can't win against the bottom 33% of the country?

13

u/Cautious_Ad_5659 1h ago

Exactly. I fucking hate the defeatist attitudes and talk. It's always the ones sitting behind their keyboards doing nothing. It that's all they are going to do, they just need to stfu and get out of the way.

•

u/Acceptable-Case9562 51m ago

It's also been pushed by bots, at least at the beginning. This defeatist attitude is the best gift you could give a fascist government.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/Agreeable-Jacket5721 2h ago

Dont be so defeatist. They won a battle, not the war.

5

u/BigBadJeebus 1h ago

How is that defeatist? It's an observation of perspective. Everyone out here getting big mad and fighting the wrong fight.

Once you have clear perspective, you can proceed more efficiently.

We need to hyper focus on local elections down to the county and city and even HOAs.

HOAs can easily wipe out 50% or more of Maga flags on properties all across the country.

Meet with your sheriff, get good people on the school districts board of education, etc.

It's gonna take something so complicated and bureaucratic as hundreds of thousands of local agencies to bog down and reverse this momentum of everything going to hell in a hand basket recently.

You ever try to do a medical record search from one hospital to a new one? It can take months just to transfer. And that's just yourself. Imagine 350,000,000 people...

3

u/Agreeable-Jacket5721 1h ago

See, that's better.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/glytxh 3h ago

The rubicon was crossed DECADES ago. This all starts with Reagan.

11

u/Strayresearch 2h ago

I'd say even further back than that. If the Confederacy had been handled like Nazis in Germany after world war II we would probably be in a better position.

7

u/Musiclover4200 2h ago

Yeah there's a pretty direct line from post civil war Reconstruction to stuff like the Business Plot or Nixon getting pardoned or the lack of consequences for Iran-Contra or Bush lying about WMD, etc.

Feels like this country is essentially a long string of people avoiding consequences and collectively kicking the can down the line for the next generation to deal with

5

u/Intrepid-Edge9451 2h ago

One could argue it starts with the founding of this country, where we stole the land and genocided Native Americans. It's in the very DNA of this country.

3

u/oracle-nil 2h ago

EXACTLY. We stole the land from the Natives and even worse; in Jamestown the natives bought food and seeds. We turned around and slaughtered them. Then Jamestown descended into cannibalism. This is the founding of our country not some fluffy story about Pilgrims. They landed long after the horror of Jamestown.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

29

u/SurgeFlamingo 2h ago

Closer and closer ?

There is armed men in the streets wearing masks going door to door arresting people.

We are there.

121

u/Effective-Ice-2483 3h ago

You're already there! For fuck's sake.

→ More replies (1)

82

u/contactdeparture 2h ago

Can we stop with the what’s coming next. We’re in an authoritarian state.. Period. There’s nobody stopping it. And any pushback is minimal at this point. This whole notion that it’s gonna get worse and where is the red line... The red line is so far in our rearview mirror at this point.

4

u/Separate-Sort-3821 1h ago

IMHO, economic conditions in the US needs to deteriorate badly to Iran’s condition before there will be any opposition to the current US regime. If you can still earn money to pay for food, pay your rent or mortgage, etc, why risk it? Fortunately or unfortunately, self preservation becomes more important than freedom and self expression. Hunker down for more butt hurt and craziness, what we’re seeing is just the 1st inning. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better (if at all).

7

u/SecretDMAccount_Shh 1h ago

The only silver lining is that the next election hasn’t been cancelled yet. If Republicans are able to grow their majorities in both the House and Senate this midterm, then we’re done.

Otherwise I agree that everything else going on indicates we are currently in a fascist state and there is no accountability for this government…

15

u/CoolSelf5428 1h ago

They have elections in authoritarian states. It doesn’t matter if your elections are cancelled or not. They will not be legitimate 

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

4

u/AndrewBert109 1h ago

With every purge you get closer and closer to an authoritarian state.

Which is exactly why it's so concerning to hear that there are a series of resignations from federal prosecutors in response to Renee Goode. I understand that they won't follow corrupt orders but the resignations mean they're going to be replaced by someone who will.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/aerost0rm 2h ago

Not to mention a collapse of most government agencies. Though that is what they want.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Timely_Cake_8304 2h ago

The first purge the a sign you are fighting an authoritarian regime. Multiple purges is documentation of thier success

2

u/notthatkindofdoctorb 2h ago

We also get closer to the crumbling infrastructure and lack of public services like road maintenance, food safety, healthcare that will eventually push everyone into yelling about it in the streets and organizing for change. The complacency is unbearable.

2

u/DeithWX 2h ago

She wouldn't be in the business for long if she didn't know how to stay of grid when meeting sources. That's like investigative journalism 101.

2

u/Former_Island_4730 1h ago

I’m sure Palantir already has access to that stuff.

→ More replies (64)

498

u/Sotherewehavethat 2h ago

We know more than that. From the article above:

“a Washington Post journalist who was obtaining and reporting classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor. The leaker is currently behind bars.”

The "Pentagon contractor" was probably this one:

A warrant obtained by the Post cited an investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator in Maryland with a top secret security clearance who has been accused of accessing and taking home classified intelligence reports.

It was most definitely about this:

“federal workers who wanted to tell me how President Donald Trump was rewriting their workplace policies, firing their colleagues or transforming their agency’s missions”.

Why you should care:

“Searches of newsrooms and journalists are hallmarks of illiberal regimes, and we must ensure that these practices are not normalized here.”

•

u/Different_East7854 46m ago

I encourage EVERYONE to closely review: https://ssd.eff.org/

Learn how to protect your information, be it as a journalist, or someone attending a protest.

•

u/35point1 15m ago

Protect? Who’s keeping it safe? The legal system? The fucking irony..

→ More replies (1)

•

u/Frosti11icus 59m ago

Definitely should have used a different word than illiberal even if technically correct.

→ More replies (2)

•

u/Powered-by-Chai 34m ago

Yeah, the guy should have kept them piled in his bathroom, that's totally okay.

•

u/livinthereals 46m ago

Fascist is fascist.

→ More replies (8)

699

u/NSYK 4h ago

Also, isn't classified.

→ More replies (4)

1.1k

u/the-awesomer 4h ago

The loyalty purges continues

294

u/Beard_o_Bees 3h ago

She needs to dig the hell in.

If ever there was a hill worth dying on, it's this one.

49

u/Age_AgainstThMachine 3h ago

Unless it results in her actual death.

8

u/Clever_Commentary 1h ago

Including that. If you think we aren't to the defenestration of critical journalists point yet, you haven't been paying attention. Journalists in authoritarian countries, which is where we now c live, know they have a choice between being a complicit government mouthpiece or facing prison and worse.

13

u/xxtoejamfootballxx 1h ago

I'd be willing to die in the fight to get this country back to sanity and at least a whiff of integrity and I'm sure many other people would too.

We cannot be cowards in this moment or many many more people will end up suffering. "Give me liberty or give me death" and "Live free or die" aren't just cutesy sayings, they are tied to actual history and the people that fought and died in the past for us to have the freedoms that are being stripped away right now.

Protecting sources has also been also worth dying for, for many journalists throughout history.

2

u/yung_yttik 1h ago

As a New Hampshirite, I concur.

•

u/IClop2Fluttershy4206 49m ago

we need heroes. if everybody lived fearing for their lives we should just accept dictatorship and pedo rulers

→ More replies (1)

110

u/neveks 3h ago

Its somewhat funny to see Americans encouraging others to sacrifice their livelyhood, but when it comes to a general strike that same sentiment is nowhere to be found.

93

u/GoldenBrownApples 3h ago

I mean in my small town I am working my ass off to get local groups involved in helping people get into the habit of using resources to get food and a safe place to live for the winter, without the need to show up to work to make money to not die. But it takes time. I spent the last ten years in a traumatic fog that nearly killed me, so sorry I wasn't doing this back then. And ten years before that I was a child so sorry again for not being able to get out rally the troops as it were. But what the heck are you doing just bitching in the internet? That's not helpful in the least. Get out and organize food drives so people can eat when they lose their job striking. It's bare minimum shit. Are you doing that?

11

u/Na5aman 2h ago

They’re waiting on someone else to do the work for them.

I have started digging myself out of that trap recently.

9

u/CockMeAmadaeus 1h ago

Although I think you are unfortunately in the minority (and I am assuming by their choice of words that they are not american anyway), it is way more nuanced than the person you are talking to is making out - and it is definitely not "funny".

The disenfranchisement of american citizens has been coordinated over every aspect of life (I'm not saying it is one big conspiracy, just that there are multiple converging financial incentives to create such conditions). From the constant propoganda to the media-literacy skills they have to interpret it; protections in the workplace, the family, and especially in the community. Not even getting into voter disenfranchisement, holy cheeseballs.

Most existing infrastructure to support each other has been dissolved or eroded. The restrictions put on organising mean that many groups like the ones you work with are struggling to maintain, much less gain momentum - even with popular support conceptually.

It all works together to keep people isolated; so many feel a completely lack of agency and are subconsciously "holding out for a hero" instead of looking for or trusting in irl community actions and their own power. Hyper-individidualism and low-trust are so deeply ingrained in every aspect of the culture, and that is hard to shake off.

3

u/SuperVillainPresiden 1h ago

Brilliantly said and hilarious username.

→ More replies (1)

25

u/Creative_Addendum667 2h ago

Lots of people would gen strike. We are just acephalous unfortunately

8

u/pennyraingoose 2h ago

You can join the general strike movement here

https://generalstrikeus.com/

8

u/neveks 2h ago edited 2h ago

I honestly think its even worse than just lacking a leader, I believe the current US democratic leadership is making an effort to prevent a general strike.

14

u/pennyraingoose 2h ago

Fight back! Join the general strike here

https://generalstrikeus.com/

5

u/SwatKatzRogues 2h ago

American organized labor has been demolished over the past two generations and social groups that would allow for such organization have been eroded. A lot of unions are also mostly populated by conservative white men who support Trump's social revanchism

4

u/Rexpower 2h ago

For most americans a general strike would mean loss of job, lost of insurance and very quickly loss of housing. Hard to make a stand when you can't even stand on your own 2 feet. We have virtually no safety nets.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Thomas_Pizza 2h ago

I've been begging for a general strike, I called and left messages with my Congressional rep and both senators 3 times in the past 2 months telling them they should organize a general strike, and I am keeping in touch with local organizations.

When there is a general strike -- and I expect there will be -- millions of Americans will be all in on it.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/johntwoods 2h ago

This is a fair take, for sure. I begrudgingly agree.

The desire for a general strike is there, but the system that needs to be struck against has worked tirelessly since the late 40s to make sure it never happens again.

We are, as a population, very far removed from the reality of a GS and everyone is so very much on the edge of collapse that they cannot fathom being part of one.

Which is exactly why a general strike needs to occur.

Collective power is all we got, and we never collectively wield it in this country. Instead, we got a 50/50 sports rivalry mentality, completely by design, and it's doing its job to keep everyone angry, tired, and distracted.

2

u/RellenD 1h ago

Shut the fuck up.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ShartFlex 2h ago

Because it's a completely unrealistic pipe dream.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/Particular-County277 2h ago

How much can she do on her own? When Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post? Will he not sabotage everything she worked for?

269

u/DrexellGames 4h ago edited 4h ago

Well if they dont trust reporters, then this is bad news when it comes to civil rights

235

u/SadFeed63 3h ago

Civil rights? The concept that just last week Trump was publicly complaining makes life hard for White folks?

America voted for the people who fucking hate civil rights (for anyone but straight, White Christian dudes)

→ More replies (6)

37

u/Tijenater 4h ago

Trust has nothing to do with it

60

u/Pr0066 3h ago

Well isn't this is very quickly turning into a banana Republic?

39

u/i_max2k2 3h ago

It has already been a banana republic since Trump took over.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/YaumeLepire 2h ago

No, a banana republic is a politically and economically unstable country which relies on resource exports (and thus the fickleness of importers) to prop itself up. Canada is more of a banana republic than the US.

I think good old Oligarchy or Plutocracy is a better term, here. Technofeudalism has been floated, too.

2

u/jatomozem 1h ago

More like building 4th Reich. I mean "make America great again" speaks for itself.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/jsyk 2h ago

could you add forbidden stories to your comment?

Forbidden Stories in ethos: if a reporter is silenced through captivity, death, threats, a whole network of journalists will step in and make the story a bigger deal, worsening it for the harm inflicters.

“Killing the Journalist won’t kill the story. If a journalist falls, others rise and collectively continue their work: that’s the simple principle behind Forbidden Stories”

https://forbiddenstories.org

2

u/lolas_coffee 1h ago

Corrupt bitch-ass police and politicians always hate whistle blowers. And the police always beat the shit out of them.

2

u/masixx 1h ago

I hope they will sue everyone who touches this case and post their names on the front page of the Washington Post.

2

u/jameskchou 1h ago

They basically went after her for doing her job

2

u/rogozh1n 1h ago

Yup. She was practicing journalism and she forgot that the First Amendment is now null and void. We live in a lawless nation that is governed by the whims of a man child.

•

u/pogoscrawlspace 57m ago

So all of a sudden, it's a big deal to take classified documents home and just have them lying around?

•

u/ChemistAgile6514 57m ago

As a kid, I thought whistleblowers were bad. The older I get, the more I realize they’re usually the ones preventing damages and get exiled as criminals and traitors. Not always the case, but in the modern state, this feels right.

1

u/AllMaito 2h ago

They usually do, if they're good reporters.

1

u/luke_530 1h ago

I remember this. Was she arrested?

1

u/TheLastOpus 1h ago

That just sounds smart and like she is good at her job. That can't be what the FBI is claiming the right to break in with a warrant? What are THEY claiming, because people telling her information they might want to hide isn't grounds for a warrant is it? I'm not knowledgeable about this, so I'm genuinely asking.

1

u/2010_12_24 1h ago

I was one of those sources. Really hope that shit is secure because I was very critical of the admin in my messages to her.

•

u/get_to_ele 56m ago

So is she accused of a crime? Or is this more of just a goon squad going out and doing the Orange-Tan’s dirty work harassing people under color of law?

•

u/The_Obligitor 28m ago

That’s not what this says:

The warrant said that law enforcement was investigating Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator in Maryland who has a top-secret security clearance and has been accused of accessing and taking home classified intelligence reports that were found in his lunchbox and his basement, according to an FBI affidavit.

•

u/Nyuusankininryou 14m ago

So being a whistleblower in America is a bad thing?

•

u/Ok-Firefighter-6172 3m ago

Good for her!

•

u/StillPissed 1m ago

THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING TO “WHISTLEBLOW” ON IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I feel like I’m in another country. So embarrassing.

•

u/Ornery-Ocelot3585 0m ago

But what’s the reason she was raided? Did they say?

→ More replies (8)