Monday, August 25, 2025

Addendum to "The Feedback Loop" (2 Case Studies)


Testing the "Feedback Loop" Thesis with the Smithsonian Censorship Campaign and Federalized Policing in D.C.

Addendum to “The Feedback Loop Threatening Democracy: Media Normalization and Trump’s Rapid Overreach"

Recap of the Feedback Loop Thesis

The original “Feedback Loop” essay (linked above)  argued that since Trump’s return to power, U.S. democracy has entered a self-reinforcing cycle: unprecedented executive actions—whether defunding universities, targeting protected speech, or deploying federal police—meet with media coverage that is overwhelmingly procedural, technical, or “both-sides” in tone. This lack of strong, contextual, or alarmist reporting not only normalizes these breaches but actively encourages further escalation. When legacy media fail to foreground the existential nature of such violations, the administration is emboldened: the extraordinary rapidly becomes the new routine, eroding foundational democratic and constitutional guardrails.

Purpose of This Addendum

This addendum tests the Feedback Loop model using two sharply contemporary case studies:

  1. Content analysis of mainstream media coverage of the Smithsonian censorship campaign (March–August 2025).

  2. A real-time review of MSM reporting on the dramatic federalization and arming of police in Washington, D.C., now positioned as a federal “template” to extend nationwide.

Purpose: to confirm the correlation, and illuminate how MSM normalization and procedural framing plausibly enable further executive escalation.

A comprehensive, source-linked reference list is appended for transparency.

Case Study 1: Smithsonian Censorship – Content Analysis

In March 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14253, formally titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' directing a sweeping review of Smithsonian Institution content labeled as containing “Improper Ideology” and “Divisive Narratives"—terms unprecedented in U.S. executive policymaking for their lack of constitutional basis and their inherently subjective, interpretive nature. These phrases, which target broad swaths of protected speech and expression without legal definition, were flagged by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and numerous legal and advocacy groups as the foundation for explicit, historic censorship. Nevertheless, major mainstream news outlets largely treated the Order’s language in a neutral or muted manner, declining to foreground its constitutional novelty or the risks to pluralism and free expression. Ultimately, the Smithsonian Museum acquiesced to many of Trump's conditions voluntarily.  As the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) forcefully warns, these “acts of self-censorship” reveal that the Smithsonian is “distorting its programming in response to censorship pressures from the federal government,” fundamentally “undermining its mission” as an independent institution. As anticipated by the feedback loop hypothesis, this normalization enabled the administration to rapidly intensify its crackdown—first on national park signage, and then with a widening censorship program extending to other museums and cultural institutions.

.  

Headline and Framing Patterns:

  • Mainstream outlets (NPR, CNN, NYT, PBS, Washington Post) used bureaucratic language:

    • “White House review,” “comprehensive audit,” “Trump expands ‘woke’ criticism,” or “audit” [NPR, Aug 24, 2025].

  • Warnings from professional voices (like the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), American Alliance of Museums, and American Council of Learned Societies) appeared, but usually buried as “concerns,” not as the organizing principle.

  • No major legacy outlet used “memory law,” “unprecedented censorship,” or direct constitutional language in headline or frame.

  • Advocacy/expert outlets like the NCAC and The New Republic called this “authoritarian censorship,” and threatened the Smithsonian’s independence. NCAC warned the executive order would “turn the Smithsonian into a vehicle for nationalist propaganda” (NCAC, Jul 9, 2025), but MSM substituted the more neutral “audit” or “review” for crisis terms.

  • MSM’s muted proceduralism mirrors the tone used for other Trump campaigns: $9 billion in USAID and NPR cuts were called “budget fights,” not anti-democratic attacks; claims of “fraud” and “improper ideology” were passed on without challenge, as with the Smithsonian orders.

Case Study 2: Federalization and Arming of DC Policing – August 24–25, 2025

In early June 2025, President Trump dramatically escalated federal intervention in local policing, first by deploying federal forces—including the California National Guard—to conduct mass immigration raids in Los Angeles, even over strong objections from California’s governor and L.A.’s mayor and despite the absence of any clear emergency. This move was quickly followed by a sweeping federalization of law enforcement in Washington, D.C., with the White House justifying extraordinary measures under the guise of crime control. While major media coverage often described D.C. as an “outlier” owing to its lack of statehood and unique Home Rule status, the core reality was the normalization of federal troops patrolling a major U.S. city against the will of elected city leaders. By late August, this trend reached a new milestone: National Guard troops, previously portrayed in MSM as “friendly,” unarmed, and limited to supportive roles, were now openly armed and authorized to arrest D.C. residents, signaling an unprecedented deepening of executive policing power with the clear intent to export this “template” to other cities.

 Constitutional Crisis and MSM Downplay

  • For the first time in U.S. peacetime, more than 2,000 out-of-state National Guard troops are deployed in D.C., now openly armed and empowered to arrest residents for local misdemeanors. This unprecedented federal intervention bypasses local courts and undermines the intent and purpose of the D.C. Home Rule Act (1973). As the Brennan Center for Justice has noted, these moves not only strain the intent of the D.C. Home Rule Act but also raise significant legal and constitutional questions about the boundaries of federal power and local democratic control. This development raises serious constitutional and democratic questions about local self-governance and executive power.

  • MSM headlines are technical and muted:

    • “National Guard troops in D.C. to begin carrying firearms” (NBC)

    • “National Guard troops in Washington, DC, begin carrying weapons” (CNN)

    • “Some National Guard units in Washington are now carrying firearms in escalation of Trump deployment” (Politico)

    • “National Guard in D.C. now armed as deployment expands…” (WaPo)

  • Lead coverage relays official talking points, logistics, and only lightly contextualizes the legal shift, which it calls a “shift in posture” or “historically uncommon.”

  • Civil rights and governance experts or DC legal scholars are almost never cited in main coverage. Where referenced, their warnings on constitutional implications and Home Rule violation usually appear in op-eds, not in the core story.

  • MSM consistently normalizes each new executive expansion: as federal arrests for local offenses in DC are quietly authorized, and as planned deployments to New York, Chicago, and Baltimore are floated as a “template,” the coverage remains procedural and non-alarmist.

  • Advocacy journalism (e.g. NCAC, The New Republic) is radically different: covering violence, community rejection, and legal novelty with terms like “federal overreach," “constitutional rupture,” and “attack on local governance,” but these perspectives are marginalized in the MSM agenda.

Comparison of Coverage Across Both Cases

  • Smithsonian Censorship:

    • Most MSM: “Comprehensive audit,” “White House review,” administration “focus on divisive narratives,” some reference to institutional concerns.

    • Advocacy/Expert: “Nationalist propaganda tool” (NCAC), “authoritarian censorship,” “threat to institutional independence,” explicit warnings about “memory law.”

  • DC Policing Federalization:

    • Most MSM: “National Guard troops in D.C. now armed,” “anti-crime plan,” “shift in posture,” government justifications foregrounded, opposition quotes sparse, Home Rule mentioned as legal background if at all.

    • Advocacy and expert sources argue that federal troops arresting residents for local misdemeanors represents a profound democratic rupture, that federal action undermines the intent of the Home Rule Act, and that this rapidly sets a federal template for future city takeovers, alongside pointed descriptions of violence, accountability failures, and warnings about an erosion of self-governance.

  • Press Intimidation Evidence:

    • MSM proceduralism is partly explained by ongoing White House lawsuits and bans: multi-billion-dollar legal threats against the Wall Street Journal and CBS, press bans on AP and Bloomberg, and even demands for “Gulf of America” language enforcement. Washington Post (Aug 21, 2025) notes that these legal and administrative threats to reporters and editors have a chilling effect, muting alarmist framing and making both-sideism the path of least resistance.

    • For the Smithsonian, WaPo (Aug 21, 2025) details how “White House pressure” and repeated threats of funding cuts made risk-averse proceduralism pervasive.

Analysis and Confirmation: Feedback Loop Fully in Evidence

Bold executive overreach is now routinely presented as business-as-usual. The normalization feedback loop is both confirmed and explained:

  • Legal/intimidation context: Trump’s administration openly threatens the press with lawsuits (WSJ, CBS), enforces bans (AP, Bloomberg), and exerts linguistic and credentialed access pressure. This is not “just media weakness,” but the result of systematic intimidation and legal weaponization. The chilling effect explains why even constitutional crises are processed through a lens of policy squabbles and administrative logistics.

  • Downplaying democratic and legal stakes: The bypassing of D.C.’s Home Rule Act (1973)—as the executive arms National Guard troops and authorizes federal arrests for local misdemeanors—receives only muted, shift in posture headlines from mainstream media, rarely framed as a fundamental challenge to local self-government, city democracy, or established norms of separation between federal and municipal authority..

  • MSM bias toward procedure: Across domains—Smithsonian, policing, public media funding, and more—legacy newsrooms adopt administration frames (“audit,” “anti-crime agenda,” “budget fight”), even as executive statements rely on unsupported claims of “fraud,” “improper ideology,” or “out-of-control crime.”

  • Advocacy voices are pushed to the margin: Only organizations like NCAC, The New Republic, and some legal advocacy groups offer direct language (“nationalist propaganda,” “federal overreach,” “constitutional rupture”), and their critical framing appears almost solely in niche outlets or op-ed sections.

Comprehensive Reference List

  • National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), “Executive Order Threatens Smithsonian Independence,” July 9, 2025.

  • NPR: “Smithsonian artists and scholars respond to White House list…,” Aug 24, 2025.

  • CNN: “Trump’s ‘chilling effect’ is coming for museums…,” Aug 20, 2025.

  • NYT: “Will Museums Fight Back Against Trump?” Aug 22, 2025.

  • PBS: “Trump amplifies attacks on ‘out of control’ Smithsonian museums…,” Aug 19, 2025.

  • WaPo: “White House Pressure on Smithsonian Amplifies,” Aug 21, 2025.

  • The Cincinnati Herald, The Art Newspaper, The New Republic: various stories on Smithsonian and media framing.

  • NBC News, CNN, AP, WaPo, NYT (Helene Cooper), Politico, The New Republic, and more (Aug 24–25, 2025 – federalization and arming of National Guard in D.C.).

  • WSJ and CBS lawsuit coverage, AP and Bloomberg bans, WaPo’s press intimidation analysis (Aug 2025).

  • Legal/statutory background: D.C. Home Rule Act (1973).

Endnotes

  1. “The Feedback Loop Threatening Democracy: Media Normalization and Trump’s Rapid Overreach,” Books & Ideas, Aug. 23, 2025.

  2. NCAC, “Executive Order Threatens Smithsonian Independence,” July 9, 2025.

  3. WaPo, “White House Pressure on Smithsonian Amplifies,” Aug 21, 2025.

  4. Politico, “Some National Guard units in Washington are now carrying firearms…,” Aug 24, 2025.

  5. NPR, CNN, NYT, PBS, TNR, The Art Newspaper, Cincinnati Herald, and others, see above.
  6. Additional press intimidation evidence: WSJ, CBS lawsuits; AP, Bloomberg bans; “Gulf of America” enforcement, WaPo, Aug 2025.
  7. Brennan Center for Justice, One Week of Trump's DC Takeover   , August 19, 2025
  8. National Coalition Against Censorship, Behold The Fall of 'American Greatness' at the Smithsonian Institution, August 11, 2025

Conclusion: 

Legacy media have moved from acting as alarm bells to functioning as engines of normalization. With every muted headline and technical lead, the Feedback Loop strengthens: new breaches become templates; new “templates” soon become the new ordinary. As the National Coalition Against Censorship cautions in its warning about the Smithsonian Institution, “if the nation’s premier cultural institution surrenders its independence and becomes a mouthpiece for the ideologies of the current political administration, other cultural institutions may very well follow”—putting the very ideals of liberty, inquiry, and self-government in jeopardy. Whether in art, law enforcement, or the Fourth Estate itself, democracy is imperiled not by a lack of facts, but by a collective failure to name and contextualize warning signs forcefully enough to halt the slide. 


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)