What Time Binds

Friday Binding: The Misperception

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:03:37 GMT

The Friday Binding · October 23, 2026

On Wednesday, Oct. 21, Attorney General Todd Blanche sat down with Miranda Devine on the New York Post’s podcast, Pod Force One. Devine asked how Merrick Garland’s Justice Department decided to charge the Jan. 6 cases. Blanche said it was Garland and his deputies, “but I also think it was the White House.” Then he widened the claim.

“So there was this misperception that there’s this separation and independence between the Department of Justice and the White House,” he said. His critics, he said, “accuse me of not suffering from independence. I don’t. I work for President Trump.” Then, about Garland: “But they did too. They did too.”

He made two claims. The first is about Blanche, and he gets the last word on it. The second is about the record, and the record is public. Five writers tested it before I did, some of them months ago. This week’s Binding reads each of them against the documents. Here is the question the five picks below share: did the Justice Department ever stand apart from the White House, or was that always a story?

I come to this as a Marine. In 1993 I raised my right hand and swore an oath that names the President. It names the Constitution first, and it binds my obedience “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” The oath Blanche took on Aug. 10 has no obedience clause. It does not mention the President at all.

Independence at the Justice Department was a written rule, and the record shows who kept it. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

This week’s picks

1. Mark Schmitt, “The End of the Post-Watergate Settlement,” The Middle Distance, April 3, 2025

The Middle Distance: Mark Schmitt's newsletter

The End of the Post-Watergate Settlement

As Donald Trump and Elon Musk smash through the flimsy boundaries on the power of their presidency, many Americans are hearing for the first time about laws and practices that rarely attract attention, simply because most presidents have quietly respected them: The Impoundment Control Act. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Inspector General Act. T…

2 years ago · 24 likes · 1 comment · Mark Schmitt

Schmitt gives the arrangement a name, the post-Watergate settlement, and a short history. After Nixon’s first two attorneys general faced criminal charges, Edward Levi “formalized the hands-off relationship in a series of memos and speeches.” Schmitt adds that those were “respected almost to a fault by President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland.”

The settlement had an anniversary this week. On Oct. 20, 1973, Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Richardson had promised the Senate the prosecutor’s independence. His resignation letter that night was plain: “I could not in the light of these firm and repeated commitments carry out your direction that this be done.” His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resigned too. Robert Bork, the solicitor general, became acting attorney general and fired Cox.

Levi took the oath in February 1975 and said “our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.” On Sept. 6, 1978, Griffin Bell, Jimmy Carter’s attorney general, told department lawyers the department “must be recognized by all citizens as a neutral zone, in which neither favor nor pressure nor politics is permitted to influence the administration of the law.”

Bell said something Blanche’s side should hear, too. The attorney general answers to the President, he said, so “true institutional independence is therefore impossible.” In the same sentence he said the President “is best served if the Attorney General and the lawyers who assist him are free to exercise their professional judgments.” The settlement kept the department inside the executive branch and drew a line there. The President sets policy. Nobody at the White House steers a particular case. Bell called it improper for “any member of the White House staff” to try to influence “a particular litigation decision, except by legal argument or the provision of relevant facts.”

That line is still in print. See for yourself: open the Justice Manual, section 1-8.600, and read item A.1. The department “will not advise the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal or civil law enforcement investigations or cases,” with a narrow exception for the President’s duties. Blanche runs the department that publishes it. The department’s Office of Professional Responsibility still says it “was established in 1975 in response to professional misconduct associated with the Watergate scandal,” a page I read closely in Chapter 2.

2. Mona Charen, “Todd Blanche’s One Promise: Dishonesty,” The Bulwark, Aug. 19, 2026

The Bulwark

Todd Blanche’s One Promise: Dishonesty

TODD BLANCHE WAS DONALD TRUMP’S personal attorney, so it was natural that, when he was elevated to attorney general, a journalist asked whether he would “pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House…

2 months ago · 172 likes · 40 comments · Mona Charen

Charen wrote this after Blanche’s Aug. 16 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press. Asked to pledge that the department would always act independently of the White House, he said, “No, I’m not going to pledge that.” Then: “And no attorney general should ever pledge that.”

Charen goes straight at the Garland comparison. Garland “was actually extremely reluctant to pursue federal charges against Trump,” she writes. “Nor is it the case that President Biden’s administration used the Justice Department to settle political scores.”

The record backs her, and it runs through the cases closest to Biden himself. On Jan. 12, 2023, Garland appointed Robert Hur as special counsel to investigate the sitting President’s handling of classified documents. Hur’s report, released Feb. 8, 2024, said Biden would likely present himself to a jury “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Biden went before the cameras that night: “My memory is fine.” Garland released the report “without any further additions, redactions, or other modifications.”

On Aug. 11, 2023, Garland made David Weiss special counsel in the Hunter Biden case. Weiss had been the Delaware U.S. attorney since February 2018, appointed in Trump’s first term. A Delaware jury convicted Hunter Biden of three gun felonies on June 11, 2024. He pleaded guilty to nine tax counts that September.

On Dec. 1, 2024, the President pardoned his son. His statement: “I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decisionmaking, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively and unfairly prosecuted.”

Hold that sentence next to Blanche’s claim about Garland: “the White House wanted him to do exactly what he was doing and he did it.” The President, in writing, said his own Justice Department prosecuted his son unfairly. The same department convicted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in July 2024, charged Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, that May, and indicted New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, that September.

Blanche’s side has evidence too. Jack Goldsmith wrote at Lawfare in February 2024 that “Biden and his aides have, more broadly, contributed to the perceived politicization of the Justice Department,” pointing to Biden urging prosecution of Jan. 6 subpoena holdouts in October 2021. On Oct. 5 of this year, Blanche’s department released a report saying Garland’s October 2021 memo on threats against school officials “was the product of pressure exerted by the White House.” Take that report at its word, and it describes a memo about threats against school officials. The cases with the Biden name on them went the other way.

3. Jonathan V. Last, “Merrick Garland and the Logic of Failure,” The Bulwark, Jan. 15, 2025

The Bulwark

Merrick Garland and the Logic of Failure

1. Two Stories…

2 years ago · 583 likes · 695 comments · Jonathan V. Last

Last makes the case Garland’s own party made for years: he was too careful. As the world looked in 2021, he writes, “Garland’s decision was risky, but reasonable.” Then the results came in. “Garland was just plain wrong.”

The record of the delay is long. In June 2023, Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig told NPR that the department and the FBI “waited 15 months to launch a formal investigation into that matter,” meaning Trump’s role in Jan. 6. In the spring of 2022, Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, said it out loud: “Attorney General Garland, do your job so we can do ours.”

In April 2022, The New York Times reported that Biden had told his inner circle Trump should be prosecuted, and that he wanted Garland to “act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor.” The same report said “the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland.”

Garland named Jack Smith special counsel on Nov. 18, 2022, three days after Trump announced his campaign. By January 2025, Rep. Jerry Nadler was telling HuffPost, “Merrick Garland wasted a year.”

Too slow is a fair charge, and Last makes it well. It also cuts against Blanche. A President who wanted speed did not get it.

4. Joyce Vance, “The Washington Post Is Wrong About Todd Blanche And Presidential Power,” Civil Discourse, Aug. 19, 2026

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Washington Post Is Wrong About Todd Blanche And Presidential Power

Jeff Bezos’ newspaper, The Washington Post, went all in on the unitary executive theory today. Ironic that the newspaper that revealed the Watergate scandal is willing to vest such absolute authority in the presidency, even as this administration’s corruption of power plays out in front of us every day…

2 months ago · 2498 likes · 227 comments · Joyce Vance

Vance, a former U.S. attorney, takes on the strongest case for Blanche: the President runs the executive branch, the Justice Department sits inside it, so the President steers it. Her answer fits in one line. “But presidents don’t direct individual criminal cases or civil suits.” Policy is the President’s, and voters grade it at the next election. Cases belong to professional prosecutors.

The inconvenient fact goes up front. On July 1, 2024, in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court wrote that “The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” It held Trump “absolutely immune from prosecution” for those discussions. The Court protected the President’s side of that conversation. The attorney general still decides what to do with it.

Blanche has told us. April 7, as acting attorney general, on the President’s role in investigations: “That is his right and indeed it is his duty to do that, meaning to lead this country.” Aug. 16: no pledge. Oct. 21: “I work for President Trump.” On Thursday, reporters in Virginia asked whether the department might try to stop a state from certifying its election results. “Is there any scenario? Yes,” he said. He said it is “never our intention” to “improperly interfere with our elections,” and then: “But to say that there’s no circumstances that we would ever do that, of course I’m not gonna say that.”

Vance’s line between policy and cases is the line Bell drew in 1978 and Garland wrote down in 2021. Blanche is erasing it one interview at a time.

5. Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, “The Comey Indictment,” Executive Functions, Sept. 29, 2025

Executive Functions

The Comey Indictment

Bob and Jack discuss the Trump administration’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, the lawfulness of the Lindsey Halligan appointment as interim U.S. Attorney, the implications of Trump’s full takeover and weaponization of DOJ, and how to think about reform in this context…

Listen now

a year ago · Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith

Bauer was Barack Obama’s White House counsel. Goldsmith ran the Office of Legal Counsel under George W. Bush. This conversation is the clearest picture I know of what “I work for President Trump” looks like inside a case file.

On Sept. 20, 2025, the President posted a message to his attorney general, Pam Bondi. A federal judge later reprinted it in a court opinion. “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.” And: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Goldsmith: “Here you have a real-time directive to the attorney general of the United States.” Bauer said Bondi and Blanche, then deputy attorney general, had sided with the U.S. attorney “in thinking the prosecution shouldn’t be brought, and it was overruled by the president.”

The dates move fast. Sept. 19: Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, told colleagues he was resigning. The next day’s post said, “No, I fired him.” Sept. 22: Lindsey Halligan was named interim U.S. attorney. Sept. 25: Comey indicted. Oct. 9: New York Attorney General Letitia James indicted.

Then the system pushed back. On Nov. 24, 2025, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed both indictments, ruling that Halligan’s appointment “violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” Grand juries declined to indict James again that December. On Feb. 10 of this year, a grand jury in Washington declined to indict the six Democratic lawmakers whose “illegal orders” video I wrote about in When Order Becomes Oracle: Part Two. The checks that held were judges and citizens on grand juries. The department was supposed to be one of them.

The habit: follow the closest case

It takes one sheet of paper.

Pick the case closest to the President: his family, his rival, his own conduct.
Write down what the President said he wanted, with the date.
Write down what the department did, with the date.

Run it on Biden. He told his inner circle Trump should be prosecuted. His department took 15 months to open a formal investigation of Trump’s role in Jan. 6. He watched his son convicted and called the prosecution unfair, in writing. Run it on the Sept. 20 post. The President demanded charges, and the indictment came five days later.

Landing

Here is where I come down. Blanche is wrong on the history, and he is wrong on Garland.

On the history: the line between the White House and particular cases was written down after Watergate by people who paid for it. Richardson gave up his office over it. Levi and Bell put it in memos and speeches. Garland put it in the department’s manual, where it still sits.

On Garland: the cases closest to Biden went against Biden. His son was convicted. He was investigated, and the report wounded him. His private complaint about Garland was speed, and he never got it.

The stakes run past one man. The Supreme Court already shields the President’s conversations with his attorney general. The attorney general now says he works for the President. That leaves judges, grand jurors, career prosecutors willing to resign, and voters. In February 2025, Danielle Sassoon, then the interim U.S. attorney in Manhattan, wrote, “I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations,” and resigned. Steve Vladeck at One First called what happened that Thursday “the October 1973 ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ on steroids.”

The Senate confirmed Blanche 50 to 49 at 4:17 a.m. on Aug. 8. Every House seat and a third of the Senate are on the ballot Nov. 3. Read the ballot the way you read this record: every race, every proposition. vote411.org

A question for the comments

If you swore an oath to the Constitution, in uniform or in a federal job, who did you understand yourself to work for?

One more

Before you settle on this reading, hold a claim that pushes against it.

Justice Briefs

Prosecutors and Their Presidents*

2 months ago · Scott Ingram

Scott Ingram writes Justice Briefs, a weekly newsletter on federal criminal prosecution, and wrote a book on the first federal prosecutors. On Aug. 24 he read Blanche’s first two statements as attorney general, the Aug. 13 address to the department and the Aug. 16 Meet the Press interview, more kindly than I do. He sees “black-and-white rhetoric to obscure the inherently gray world of federal prosecutorial discretion,” a man “using formalist messaging to protect his agency.” He wrote that the statements “do not reveal that Blanche is merely the President’s stooge.”

Independence, Ingram argues, runs along a continuum. “Complete independence leaves prosecutors unaccountable. Complete dependence leaves prosecutors at the mercy of political whims.” He left his verdict open: Blanche “has set a high, although gray, bar for himself. Whether he clears it remains to be seen.”

I am not sure Ingram is right. He wrote in August, two months before the podcast. Messaging built to protect an agency would keep the rule the agency inherited. On Oct. 21, Blanche called the separation itself a misperception.

I include the piece because his continuum is the right frame. Bell drew the same line in 1978, and the question was always where it sits. I will keep reading.

Send this to one person who swore an oath.

Author’s note. I wanted other writers in this one. Five of them had built most of the case before I got there. My job was to bind their reads to the documents and the dates. “I work for President Trump” tells you which order a man will follow. My oath told me which one comes first.

The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

Sources. Every quote above traces to one of these. Status as of Oct. 23.

Blanche on Pod Force One, Oct. 21, 2026: Mediaite, Alex Griffing. Opened; the quotes match the clip’s captions.
The two oaths: 10 U.S.C. 502 and 5 U.S.C. 3331, Cornell Legal Information Institute. Opened.
Schmitt, “The End of the Post-Watergate Settlement,” April 3, 2025: The Middle Distance. Opened.
Oct. 20, 1973: National Archives chronology; Richardson’s letter, American Presidency Project. Opened.
Levi’s swearing-in, Feb. 7, 1975: Ford Library release. Opened.
Bell to department lawyers, Sept. 6, 1978: Justice Department text. Opened.
The White House contacts rule: Justice Manual 1-8.600, item A.1, citing the July 21, 2021 memo. Opened.
The Office of Professional Responsibility’s founding line: opened through Chapter 2.
Charen, “Todd Blanche’s One Promise: Dishonesty,” Aug. 19, 2026: The Bulwark. Opened.
Hur: appointment, Jan. 12, 2023; the report’s line, Semafor; “My memory is fine,” News4Jax (AP); Garland’s letter, Feb. 8, 2024. Opened.
Weiss: appointment, Aug. 11, 2023; the gun verdict, June 11, 2024. Opened.
The pardon, Dec. 1, 2024: statement, govinfo. Opened.
Menendez, Cuellar and Adams: Justice Department releases on Menendez, Cuellar and Adams. Opened.
Goldsmith, Feb. 12, 2024: Lawfare. Opened.
Weaponization Working Group report, Oct. 5, 2026: Justice Department release. Opened.
Last, “Merrick Garland and the Logic of Failure,” Jan. 15, 2025: The Bulwark. Opened.
Leonnig, June 19, 2023: KUNC (NPR). Luria, spring 2022: PBS (AP). Opened.
The New York Times, April 2022: both quotes confirmed in The Spectator and Fox News reports of April 5, 2022. Nadler: his HuffPost interview, quoted by Fox News on Jan. 6, 2025.
Smith’s appointment, Nov. 18, 2022: Justice Department. Opened.
Vance, “The Washington Post Is Wrong About Todd Blanche And Presidential Power,” Aug. 19, 2026: Civil Discourse. Opened.
Trump v. United States, July 1, 2024: the Supreme Court’s opinion. Opened.
Blanche, April 7, 2026: GV Wire (Reuters). Blanche in Virginia, Oct. 22, 2026: The New Republic, Malcolm Ferguson. Opened.
Bauer and Goldsmith, “The Comey Indictment,” Sept. 29, 2025: Executive Functions. Opened.
The Sept. 20, 2025 post, the timeline and the dismissal: Judge Currie’s opinion, Nov. 24, 2025. The James grand juries: ABC7NY. The six lawmakers: CBS News. Opened.
Sassoon, Feb. 12, 2025: her letter. Vladeck, Feb. 14, 2025: One First. Opened.
The confirmation vote, Aug. 8, 2026: Senate roll call 230. Opened.
Ingram, “Prosecutors and Their Presidents,” Aug. 24, 2026: Justice Briefs. Opened Oct. 23.

This piece was written with AI assistance under the disclosure framework at what-time-binds.com. The analytical frame, the sources, and every position taken are mine and verified.

Jerry W. Washington, Ed.D., is a Marine Corps veteran of twenty-three years, a combat engineer by trade, an instructor at UC Irvine’s Division of Continuing Education, and the writer of What Time Binds, a record of how institutions bend words and how the page holds them to account.

I advise school districts, community colleges, workforce boards, and veteran-service organizations when the words move faster than the coordination. AI adoption is the most common case. See the five ways to work together at jerrywwashington.com, or hit reply if you would like to talk.

Subscribe now

What Do You Mean by “Humanitarian”?

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 23:45:34 GMT

WDYM Field Guide · What Time Binds · October 21, 2026

On Wednesday, President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, told Vladimir Putin, “You are a humanitarian also, sir.” Here is my argument before the evidence.

The adjective describes an act: a release on “humanitarian grounds,” a humanitarian convoy, a humanitarian pause. One decent act can earn it.
The noun names a person: someone whose conduct prevents suffering and relieves it, for anyone, with no price attached. Only a record can earn it.

The official record lets a few of Putin’s acts earn the adjective. It denies him the noun, because a humanitarian prevents suffering and the record shows his government causing it. Hanging that noun on Putin was reckless. An envoy speaking for “our whole nation” gave the title to a man under an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children, weeks before talks that have to bring those children home.

Start with the transcript.

The Kremlin’s transcript is stamped 12:25, Wednesday, October 21, in the Constantine Palace outside St. Petersburg. Vladimir Putin speaks first. He thanks President Trump for his attention to Ukraine. “I know that it is a special matter for President Trump,” he says, “primarily for humanitarian reasons.”

Then he adds this sentence: “The civilian population is suffering.”

Steve Witkoff, the President’s special envoy, answers with thanks. Russia had freed an American that morning. “Our whole nation sends their thanks because of Steven Hubbard,” Witkoff says. “Because of you, he is going home to his family.” Putin tells him Hubbard is at Pulkovo Airport. Witkoff hands the word back across the table:

“He is a 75-year-old man. You talk so much about my President, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, sir. I salute that. I commend you, and I thank you again.”

He goes on to Oslo, the peace papers he brought, the First Lady’s “humanitarian projects in the Russian Federation,” and Russia’s decision to lift its export controls on diesel, “a really important act on your part, sir.” (Chapter 4 covers that deal.) When Putin speaks again, he answers the diesel line: “The first tanker, carrying 40,000 tonnes, will depart in two or three days.” In the part the Kremlin published, he never answers the compliment.

Stephen Hubbard is 74, a retired schoolteacher from Michigan. He moved to Ukraine in 2014 and made his home in Izium, in the east. Russian forces captured the town in April 2022 and, by Russia’s own account, detained him that month. Russia says he was manning a checkpoint for Ukraine’s territorial defense. His lawyer, Martin De Luca, says Hubbard told him Russian soldiers “grabbed him from his house.” In October 2024 the Moscow City Court sentenced him to six years and ten months for mercenarism after a closed trial. The State Department designated him wrongfully detained, the only American held in Russia with that status. He spent four and a half years in Russian custody. His freedom is good news on any reading.

My time in uniform taught me to read the word “humanitarian” as law before it is recognized as praise. The Marine Corps order in force today requires law of war training for every new Marine, officer or enlisted, at Officer Candidates School or the recruit depots, with testing. The training doesn’t stop there. Before every combat deployment, Marines go through “build-up” training. You drill the unit skills you will bring to combat, and you are also trained again on the law of war. On many of the deployments I took part in, more training followed as soon as we entered the country, and again during the RIP/TOA, the relief in place and transfer of authority, when one unit hands its area of operations to the next.

Who Said It First

Count the speakers. Putin used the word first, about Trump. Witkoff handed it back, about Putin. Within hours the Kremlin’s spokesman used it a third way. Dmitry Peskov told reporters the President had once again made the decision “out of humanitarian considerations.” In the same answer he said contacts “on exchanges and so on” continue “through the special services.”

Open the Kremlin’s English transcript and count three words: humanitarian, diesel, children. I count five, four and zero.

A word works when the speaker and the listener point at the same thing. Linguists call that thing the referent. On Wednesday one sentence pointed at two different things, on two pages of the same website. In English, Witkoff says, “You are a humanitarian also, sir.” The Kremlin’s Russian text, marked “as translated,” renders the line without the noun, as a man who “graciously considered this matter” (милостиво рассмотрел этот вопрос). Милостиво comes from милость, the Russian word for mercy or favor. Americans heard a humanitarian. Russian readers got a man who granted mercy.

The word is hiding a swap between an act and a title, and the record shows who moved it from one to the other. In the transcript, Putin uses the adjective: “humanitarian reasons,” “humanitarian issues.” Peskov used the adjective with reporters: “humanitarian considerations,” the grounds for one decision. That is ordinary language for a compassionate release, usually for age or illness, and this release may rest on it. Only Witkoff uses the noun. Trump is “a humanitarian.” Putin is “a humanitarian also.” A noun like that is a title, and a title answers to a record.

Stated definition: a person who prevents suffering and relieves it, for anyone, with no price attached.
Operational definition, October 21: a head of state who frees one prisoner his own courts convicted, in a meeting about peace papers and diesel tankers.

The word has a definition, a founding book, and a body of law Russia ratified.

Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

Look It Up

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, answered on X the same day: “Look up the definition of ‘humanitarian.’ What an embarrassing and outrageous thing to say. You should go back to Ukraine and ask the families of the children Putin has kidnapped and murdered whether they agree your friend Putin is a ‘humanitarian.’” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas called Putin a “stone cold killer.” Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska wrote, “Another embarrassment.” All three are Republicans.

So I looked it up. Few words in English carry this much paper.

Collins describes humanitarian behavior in one sentence: people with humanitarian ideas or behaviour “try to avoid making people suffer or they help people who are suffering.” Note the “or.” One act of relief can earn the adjective, and this essay grants it wherever the record allows. The noun asks more. Merriam-Webster defines it as “a person promoting human welfare and social reform,” a description of conduct over time.

Its modern sense started as a sneer. Etymonline dates the sense “philanthropist” to 1842 and notes it “originally was disparaging, with a suggestion of excess.” It earned its standing on a battlefield. On June 24, 1859, a Geneva businessman named Henri Dunant came upon the wounded of the Battle of Solferino and organized their care in the town of Castiglione. In A Memory of Solferino (1862) he wrote that the local women, “seeing that I made no distinction between nationalities, followed my example.” They repeated two words as they worked: “Tutti fratelli.” All are brothers. On August 22, 1864, twelve nations signed the first Geneva Convention. Article 6: “Wounded or sick combatants, to whatever nation they may belong, shall be collected and cared for.”

The principles followed. The Red Cross movement’s first principle, proclaimed in Vienna in 1965, commits it “to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found.” The word between the two verbs is “and,” and prevention comes first. Impartiality means relief “guided solely by their needs.” Voluntary service means “not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.” The UN General Assembly wrote humanity, neutrality and impartiality into resolution 46/182 in 1991 and added independence in 2003: “the autonomy of humanitarian objectives from the political, economic, military or other objectives” any actor may hold.

Then came the law. The Soviet Union ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions in 1954 and Additional Protocol I in 1989. Russia remains a party to both. My own service ran under the same principle. The Pentagon’s Law of War Manual puts it in one sentence: “Humanity may be defined as the principle that forbids the infliction of suffering, injury, or destruction unnecessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose.”

The word has a referent, and it is written down. That makes a test possible.

Seven Behaviors, One Record

Pull the behaviors out of those pages and you get a list anyone can check. I count seven. Under each one I put the record from courts, UN bodies, public inquiries and governments, and I mark where a fact comes from Amnesty International or Ukraine’s own counts. Where a finding names Putin himself, I say so.

1. A humanitarian protects children.

The standard: children “shall be the object of special respect” (Protocol I, Article 77). An occupier “may not, in any case, change their personal status” (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 50). Deporting people out of occupied territory is prohibited “regardless of their motive” (Article 49).

The record: On March 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Putin himself, finding reasonable grounds to believe he bears responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children. On July 9, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights, ruling unanimously, described “a systematic programme of long-term, indeed permanent, removal of these children from their legal guardians in Ukraine.” On March 12, 2026, the UN Commission of Inquiry found crimes against humanity, carried out under “a policy conceived and executed at the highest level of the Russian Federation’s leadership.” It added: “The involvement of President Vladimir Putin, and Maria Lvova-Belova, the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, has been visible from the outset.” Ukraine’s government counts 20,651 children deported or forcibly displaced, and 2,736 returned.

Match: none.

2. A humanitarian spares civilians.

The standard: the parties “shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants” (Protocol I, Article 48). Civilians “shall not be the object of attack,” and violence meant “to spread terror” is prohibited (Article 51).

The record: The European Court found “overwhelming evidence contradicting Russia’s bare assertions that it had not attacked civilians or civilian objects.” In October 2025 the UN Commission found that Russian drone attacks on civilians across more than 300 kilometers of the Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions were crimes against humanity of murder. On March 16, 2022, an airstrike hit the Mariupol Drama Theatre, where locals had written “Дети,” children, in giant letters. Amnesty International found Russian aircraft almost certainly carried it out and called it “a clear war crime committed by Russian forces.” The European Court found Russia responsible for the downing of MH17 in 2014, which killed 298 people, and the UN’s civil aviation council found Russia “failed to uphold its obligations under international air law.” UN monitors have verified 17,605 civilians killed in Ukraine since February 24, 2022, on both sides of the front, and say the real number is likely considerably higher. Of the 328 killed in September, 18 were in territory Russia occupies. On Wednesday Putin told the envoy that “the civilian population is suffering.” Five days earlier, the same monitors had reported that “the first two weeks of October were among the deadliest periods for civilians in years.”

Match: none.

3. A humanitarian protects the wounded and the places that treat them.

The standard: the 1864 Convention began here. Civilian hospitals “may in no circumstances be the object of attack” (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 18).

The record: On July 8, 2024, a missile struck Okhmatdyt children’s hospital in Kyiv. The UN human rights office concluded the strike “was likely due to a direct hit from a missile, and not from falling debris resulting from an air defense interception,” during “a large-scale coordinated attack by the Russian Federation using high-precision missiles.”

Match: none.

4. A humanitarian treats prisoners humanely.

The standard: prisoners of war “must at all times be humanely treated” (Third Geneva Convention, Article 13). “Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment” of a prisoner is a grave breach (Article 130).

The record: The UN human rights office reported in October 2024 that 169 of the 174 Ukrainian prisoners of war it had interviewed since March 2023 described torture or ill-treatment. Its June 2026 report found “nearly all” repatriated prisoners it interviewed described the same, and verified the execution of 129 Ukrainian prisoners of war and others hors de combat by Russian forces. In October 2024 the UN Commission found that Russian authorities acted under “a coordinated state policy of torturing Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war,” a crime against humanity. The same UN reports document abuse on Ukraine’s side too: more than half of the Russian prisoners interviewed reported torture or ill-treatment, mostly during capture and transit. The standard binds both armies. The UN applies it to both. That is what makes it a standard.

Match: none.

5. A humanitarian lets aid through and spares what people need to live.

The standard: “Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack” (Protocol I, Article 52). The parties “shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments” (Article 70).

The record: In July 2022 Russia joined the Black Sea Grain Initiative, and for a year its security guarantees let more than 32 million metric tons of food leave Ukraine’s ports. That year counts. On July 17, 2023, Russia quit the deal and withdrew the guarantees. The UN Secretary-General: “Today’s decision by the Russian Federation will strike a blow to people in need everywhere.” For four straight days, Russian missiles and drones then hit Odesa, Chornomorsk and Mykolaiv, “destroying critical port infrastructure, facilities and grain supplies.” The ICC holds warrants for four senior Russian officials, among them former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, over strikes on Ukraine’s power grid in the winter of 2022–23, including the crime against humanity of inhumane acts. UN monitors counted at least 423 Russian attacks on electricity facilities and 74 on heating plants from October 2025 to March 2026. On October 16 they reported that Russian forces had “resumed systematic attacks on energy infrastructure across Ukraine,” attacks “bound to inflict significant suffering on the civilian population.” The same report logs Ukrainian strikes on power and heat in occupied territory.

Match: partial. One year of grain, under a deal Russia ended.

6. A humanitarian protects life.

The standard: the Red Cross states the purpose plainly, “to protect life and health.” Two of the findings below name Putin personally.

The record: Alexander Litvinenko died of polonium poisoning in London in 2006. A British public inquiry concluded in 2016 that the operation to kill him “was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.” Dawn Sturgess, a British woman, died on July 8, 2018, after the Novichok brought to Salisbury to kill Sergei Skripal was left behind in a bottle disguised as perfume. On December 4, 2025, a second British inquiry concluded that the operation “must have been authorised at the highest level, by President Putin.” It found “those who sent them, and anyone else giving authorisation” among those “morally responsible for Dawn Sturgess’ death.” Its next sentence: “Deploying a highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city was an astonishingly reckless act.” Alexei Navalny died in a Russian penal colony on February 16, 2024. On February 14, 2026, five European governments said they are “confident that Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a lethal toxin,” and that “Navalny died while held in prison, meaning Russia had the means, the motive and opportunity to administer this poison to him.”

Match: none.

7. A humanitarian helps without taking sides and without a price.

The standard: relief “guided solely by their needs,” “not prompted in any manner by desire for gain,” and independent of “political, economic, military or other objectives.” These principles govern humanitarian action, so they apply to any act that carries the label.

The record: The Kremlin has worn the word as a label for years. In August 2014 Russia sent a “humanitarian convoy” into eastern Ukraine without the Red Cross. The White House said “Russian military vehicles painted to look like civilian trucks forced their way into Ukraine.” In March 2022 Russia announced “humanitarian corridors” that ran from Kyiv into Belarus and from Mariupol and Kharkiv into Russia. Americans held in Russia have come home in trades: Brittney Griner for the arms dealer Viktor Bout in 2022; Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whelan and Alsu Kurmasheva in 2024, in an exchange that sent home Vadim Krasikov, an FSB officer serving a life sentence in Germany for murder; Marc Fogel in 2025, with Alexander Vinnik sent back to Russia. Hubbard came home with no swap, by the President’s account. Minutes later the President posted again: “If sanctions would have been placed, certainly those negotiations would have come to a complete and total halt.” By his own account, sanctions would have ended the talks that freed Hubbard.

Match: none.

Seven behaviors. One partial match, the grain, which Russia ended. None on the rest.

Looking for a Match

A fair test searches the other column too. The record has entries there.

Russia freed Hubbard on Wednesday. In August it freed Robert Gilman, a Marine veteran convicted of assaulting a police officer and later of attacks in custody, after Washington asked for his release on humanitarian grounds. The State Department says nothing was traded. Ukraine’s human rights commissioner counted 9,716 Ukrainians returned from captivity by August 2026. Ukraine’s government counts 2,736 children returned. The First Lady opened her own channel to Putin on the children; in October 2025 she announced that “eight children have been rejoined with their families during the past 24 hours.” In April 2025 Putin declared an Easter truce, “guided by humanitarian considerations.” And for a year, the grain moved.

Each of those is real, and each is better than its absence. Every one meets the second clause of the Collins sentence: help for people who are suffering. Gilman’s release earns the adjective outright, a prisoner in poor health freed with nothing traded. Call it what it was, a humanitarian act.

The Ukrainian entries share a source. The prisoners in those exchanges were captured in a war Russia launched 1,700 days ago. The children came home from the country that took them. The truce was a holiday pause in that same war. The grain needed Russian guarantees because of that war, and it stopped when Russia withdrew them. The First Lady’s “humanitarian projects in the Russian Federation,” in Witkoff’s phrase, exist because the children are there.

Hubbard’s own case makes the point sharper. Russia convicted him as a mercenary. The definition of “mercenary” in Protocol I, Article 47 has six conditions, and a person must meet all six. Condition (d) excludes anyone who is “a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict.” Hubbard had lived in Ukraine since 2014. Russia’s own version makes the case stronger. If he joined Ukraine’s territorial defense, as Russia says, he was a member of Ukraine’s armed forces, which condition (e) also excludes, and a captured member of the armed forces is a prisoner of war, who cannot be tried simply for taking part in the fighting. On his lawyer’s version, soldiers took a civilian from his house. Under either account, the treaty Russia ratified says the word does not fit him. The release ended a conviction the treaty’s own definition never supported.

The Red Cross puts prevention first: “to prevent and alleviate.” On prevention, I searched the official record for a match and found none. Acts of relief can earn the adjective. The noun needs both halves.

The Strongest Defense

Here is the best case for Witkoff’s sentence. Envoys flatter to bring Americans home, and this administration’s channel to Moscow has brought home Marc Fogel, Robert Gilman and now Stephen Hubbard. A family has its father back. Witkoff said Hubbard’s son, a priest, “talked quite a bit about you.” If a compliment buys an American’s freedom, most of us would pay it and call the price cheap.

Most of that is right. The channel produced results, and the son owes no one an explanation for his gratitude.

The sentence still fails on its own terms. Witkoff had already said thank you: “The first thing I want to tell you is thank you.” Thanks closes a transaction. The title opened a new one. He also named who was speaking: “Our whole nation sends their thanks.” A son speaks for his family. An envoy who says “our whole nation” speaks for every American reading this page, and the Kremlin published his line in English and Russian the same day.

Three more objections deserve an answer. The first says Russia rejects the ICC, and the United States does not belong to it either. The record rests on more than one court: the European Court of Human Rights, which Russia belonged to until September 2022, a UN commission, two British public inquiries, five European governments, the UN’s own monitors and the Kremlin’s own transcript.

The second says Russia moved the children for their safety. The law saw that defense coming. Article 49 allows an evacuation for safety inside the occupied territory, unless “for material reasons it is impossible to avoid” leaving it, and sends evacuees home “as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.” For children, Protocol I, Article 78 is stricter. Another country’s children may go abroad only temporarily, for “compelling reasons” of health or medical treatment, and safety is a valid reason everywhere “except in occupied territory.” Parents must consent in writing where they can be found. Each child gets a card, sent to the Red Cross tracing agency, “with a view to facilitating the return to their families.” The UN Commission found that Russia gave the children Russian citizenship and put their profiles on adoption databases. Article 50 says an occupier “may not, in any case, change their personal status.” The Commission’s own summary: “evacuations can only be temporary.”

The third says those regions belong to Russia now. Article 47 of the Fourth Convention answers it: people in occupied territory keep the Convention’s protection despite “any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”

Open the ICC’s page for Vladimir Putin and read the two charges. Then read the first paragraph of Article 49, ratified by the Soviet Union in 1954. It ends with four words: “regardless of their motive.”

The Record, Dated

June 24, 1859: The Battle of Solferino. In the days after, Henri Dunant and the women of Castiglione care for the wounded of both armies.
August 22, 1864: Twelve nations sign the first Geneva Convention.
May 10, 1954: The Soviet Union ratifies the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
March 16, 2022: An airstrike hits the Mariupol Drama Theatre, where locals had written “Дети,” children, in giant letters.
March 17, 2023: The International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin over the deportation of Ukrainian children.
July 17, 2023: Russia quits the Black Sea Grain Initiative.
July 8, 2024: A missile strikes Okhmatdyt children’s hospital in Kyiv.
October 7, 2024: A Moscow court sentences Stephen Hubbard to six years and ten months.
July 9, 2025: The European Court of Human Rights, unanimous: transferring Ukrainian children to Russia “had become a systematic practice in 2022.”
December 4, 2025: A British inquiry finds the Salisbury Novichok operation “must have been authorised at the highest level, by President Putin.”
February 14, 2026: Five European governments: Alexei Navalny “was poisoned with a lethal toxin.”
March 12, 2026: The UN Commission of Inquiry: the deportation of Ukrainian children is a crime against humanity.
October 16, 2026: UN monitors: Russian forces “resumed systematic attacks on energy infrastructure across Ukraine.”
October 21, 2026: “You are a humanitarian also, sir.”

One hundred sixty-seven years from Solferino to the Constantine Palace. The word made the whole trip.

You refuse to know. The record remembers. I refuse to forget.

What the Next Table Inherits

After the meeting, Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov said Moscow is ready in principle to resume three-way talks with Ukraine and the United States, with Abu Dhabi and the middle of November in view. Any settlement has to settle the children. The UN Commission says four of every five children in its documented cases have not come home.

Words set terms at a table like that one. An envoy who has already called Putin a humanitarian has spent the word the children’s chapter will need. That is why I call the sentence reckless.

The nearer date belongs to you. Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, thirteen days from today. Every House seat and a third of the Senate are on the ballot, and the people you elect write the sanctions a president can waive. Read the ballot the way you read the record. vote411.org

The Pin

Humanitarian, the noun, as this field guide pins it: a person whose conduct prevents human suffering and relieves it, for anyone, with no price attached. The pin joins the Red Cross’s “prevent and alleviate” to Merriam-Webster’s “a person promoting human welfare.” The Geneva Conventions turn the prevention half into law for every state at war.

What it includes: an act of relief, a freed prisoner, a returned child, an aid convoy the receiving side agreed to. The adjective fits acts like those, and a release can rest on humanitarian grounds.

What it cannot be read to say: that relieving a share of the suffering you caused earns the noun; that a release negotiated while sanctions were held back counts as impartial aid; that the title belongs to whoever opened the last door.

The habit, in three steps.

When “humanitarian” lands on a person, mark it as a title.
Find the suffering the act relieved, and ask who caused it.
Ask what the act cost the giver, and what it bought him.

The question to carry: Who caused the suffering this act relieved?

The script. When someone tells you Putin is a humanitarian, say this:

“Name the act and the date. I’ll set it next to March 17, 2023, the day the ICC issued his warrant, and we can read both pages together.”

Fifteen seconds, one page asked for. Anyone arguing in good faith can bring one.

The Free Bed

Henri Dunant shared the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901, “for his humanitarian efforts to help wounded soldiers and create international understanding.” According to his Nobel biography, he never spent the prize money. He died in Heiden, Switzerland, on October 30, 1910. His will left legacies to the people who had cared for him in the village hospital. It endowed a free bed there, kept for the sick among the poorest people in the village. The rest went to philanthropic work in Norway and Switzerland.

That is what the word pointed at when it entered the record: a bed kept open for anyone, paid for by a man who could have kept the money.

Friday, October 30, marks 116 years since Dunant died. When someone hands you the word, ask to see the bed.

How the links work. Every link sits on its source: the court, the inquiry, the transcript, the date. When you pass one of these facts along, pass the link with it.

Decision / Definition Log

Term pinned: Humanitarian (noun).

Pinned definition: A person who prevents human suffering and relieves it, for anyone, with no price attached. Built from the Red Cross Fundamental Principles (Vienna, 1965), Merriam-Webster, Collins COBUILD, and UN General Assembly resolutions 46/182 (1991) and 58/114 (2003).

Operational definition, as used October 21, 2026: A head of state who frees one prisoner his own courts convicted, in a meeting about peace papers and diesel tankers.

Not the same as: “Humanitarian grounds,” the basis for a single act of release.

Test before using the noun on anyone: Name the suffering the person relieved, and who caused it. If both answers carry the same name, the noun does not fit.

Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

Chapter 4: The Quiet Edit

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 04:36:54 GMT

A chapter draft of the book in progress.

Ten days

At 4:52 on the afternoon of Monday, Oct. 19, a message came in from my friend Matt.

“I am surprised you haven’t written about the president making a deal with Russia for diesel and then suspending sanctions.”

We traded messages for most of an hour and agreed there should be an impeachment.

At 5:41 I gave him the position I still hold. “Impeachment is not enough, brother. They need a conviction, and the current House and Senate won’t make that happen. Vote Nov. 3 for who will hold him accountable. Anything else is theater.”

Then I read his first sentence again. He was surprised I had not written about it. He had reason to be.

This chapter was due that day. I had most of it: the pages, the dates, a pattern I have tracked in this newsletter since February. I did not have the way in, and I had not published. The diesel license went up on Oct. 9. For ten days it sat on the Treasury Department’s website, dated and public. In those ten days I published a chapter on a firing squad at Fort Hood, a Field Guide on corrections, and the first episode of a podcast. I was busy, and I was struggling with this chapter.

A quiet change counts on exactly that. In July I wrote, “The quiet change depends on nobody coming back.” On Oct. 19 a reader came back before I did.

At 6:01 I told Matt he had just handed me the opening for this chapter. Then I did what this book asks of you. I asked for the page.

The page

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control posted General License No. 135 on Oct. 9, 2026. Its title says what it does: “Authorizing Transactions Related to the Sale, Delivery, Offloading, and Importation of Diesel Fuel of Russian Federation Origin.” Its first paragraph allows those deals, “including importation into the United States,” until 12:01 a.m. Eastern on April 7, 2027.

The license rests on two sets of Treasury regulations, 31 CFR part 587 and 31 CFR part 589. It cites no statute. It never mentions the law that bans what it allows.

That law passed the Senate 100-0 on April 7, 2022. The House agreed to the Senate’s version 413-9 the same day, and President Biden signed it the next day as Public Law 117-109, the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act. Section 2 reads: “All products of the Russian Federation classified under chapter 27 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States shall be banned from importation into the United States, in a manner consistent with any implementation actions issued under Executive Order 14066.” Diesel sits in chapter 27. Executive Order 14066 is the March 8, 2022, order that started the ban a month before Congress wrote it into law.

Section 3 sets the only way to end the ban. The president has to certify that Russia “has reached an agreement to withdraw Russian forces and for the cessation of military hostilities” that “is accepted by the free and independent government of Ukraine.” He has to certify that Russia poses no immediate military threat to any NATO member and recognizes the right of Ukrainians to choose their own government. At least 45 days before that certification, he consults four committees and reports the basis for it. The ban then holds for 90 more days, long enough for Congress to pass a resolution blocking the change. The act has no other door. It contains no waiver, no suspension and no licensing power.

No one claims any of those steps has happened.

Open the license and the law side by side. Find the two regulations the license names. Then look for the law.

A Treasury office posted on X that the license was “in compliance with all applicable laws.” Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News, “We’re going to do it with all the legal authorities we have.” Neither named the authority. If a defense lives in the text, it lives in the last clause of Section 2, the one that ties the ban to actions “issued under Executive Order 14066.” Treasury has not pointed to that clause or named any other authority.

The law reads today the way Congress passed it. The license changed what it does. That is the quiet edit: a change to what a record says or does that leaves no note where a reader would look.

The law still says no, and a license dated Oct. 9 says yes without identifying it.

Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

The loud part

The deal made noise on purpose. On Oct. 9, after a call with Vladimir Putin, the president posted: “Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel to the American and Global Marketplace, another 500,000 Tons during the month of November, and 1,000,000 Tons immediately thereafter …” He promised diesel prices “COMING DOWN, IN RECORD NUMBERS, AND FAST!”

Congress answered across the aisle. On Oct. 11, seven senators, four Republicans and three Democrats, said the license “runs directly counter to that law.” On Oct. 12, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the Texas Democrat who sponsored the 2022 ban, wrote that “Trump is directly violating that law.” On Oct. 13, six Republican senators and six Democrats asked him to withdraw it. Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn signed. “This deal is a gift to our adversary and a betrayal of our Allies; it should be rescinded.” The same day Clyde & Co, a law firm that advises on sanctions, wrote in a client alert that the license “sits in tension with the Russian Oil Act and may therefore be subject to legal challenge.”

The best defense came from outside the administration. Edward Swaine of George Washington University Law School told Time the administration could argue that “the general license isn’t [a] termination of the statutory prohibition; it’s a suspension.” Kristen Eichensehr of Harvard Law School told Time the law’s conditions are “not certifications that the President could make at the current moment.”

Take that argument at full strength. The suspension runs from Oct. 9 to April 7, 2027. For six months, Russian diesel can come into the United States under a law that bans it and has not changed a word. The law offers no suspension. Section 3 is its only exit, and the license did not take it.

On Oct. 13 the president held a rally in Wasilla, Alaska. He said nothing about Russia, Putin or the diesel deal.

The noise went to the deal. The license stayed up.

The play

I first watched this play in March 2025, on one page about one soldier.

The Defense Department kept a tribute page for Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers, a Medal of Honor recipient. On March 14, 2025, the page came down, with “dei” in its web address. The removal drew cameras, then backlash. Three days later the page was back, and the story everyone remembers ends there: restored.

The editing came after. By the April 5 capture, five sentences were gone. Same headline. Same byline. Same 2021 dateline. No correction note. One of the missing sentences read, “To this day, he is the highest-ranking Black Medal of Honor recipient.”

The page stood that way for fifteen months before anyone went back to check. When the two versions went up side by side this summer, the thread under my post drew 264 comments. The Pentagon removed five sentences. The thread produced five witnesses, men who had shaken his hand, served under him or recovered beside him in a hospital in Japan.

Open the March 5, 2025 capture and the page as it stands today. Count the sentences.

That is the quiet edit run as a play, in three beats. The loud removal absorbs the backlash. The restoration banks the credit. The real edit lands after attention moves, with no note.

The Rogers play took three weeks. The diesel play took one day. The posts drew the fire, and the license, dated the same day, did the work on a page most readers of the law will never open.

The passports

In 2009, back on Okinawa after a tour in Iraq, I was a gunnery sergeant. My wife, our children and I lived off base near Kakazu Takadai Park. I had signed on for another tour on the island, an in-place consecutive overseas tour, IPCOT in the paperwork. It came with a month of leave in the States, the flights paid and the dates written into orders. The Marine Corps bought the plane tickets. The orders said when we would fly.

Right before we left, we could not find the passports. Mine did not matter; I could travel on my military ID. My wife and our children had come to Okinawa on their passports, and those passports were gone.

So we started over, on paper. The U.S. Consulate General Naha sat a walk from our house, in Urasoe, on the route of my morning runs. We needed new passports fast enough to keep the orders, and it took most of a week. The flight dates moved, and the orders and the tickets needed written amendments to move with them.

Every part of that fix went on paper with a date: the new passports, the amended orders, the rebooked flights. The State Department’s form for a lost passport puts its rule in capital letters: “ONCE REPORTED, THE VALID LOST OR STOLEN PASSPORT IS ELECTRONICALLY CANCELLED AND CANNOT BE USED FOR TRAVEL.” A lost passport ends in a note and a cancellation, on the record, with a date.

My wife and I learned to plan early, check often, and keep important papers in one place we both know. One of the passports the consulate issued that week is still in that place. Its date of issue is June 26, 2009. That date is the receipt.

A family’s lost passports took all of that. A license that changed what a 100-0 law does never named the law.

The log Congress wrote

Congress has written the log into Russia law before, and it did it across party lines.

In July 2017 the House voted 419-3 and the Senate 98-2 for a sanctions law that put Congress in the chain for easing Russia sanctions. Before “a licensing action that significantly alters” U.S. policy toward Russia, the president has to send Congress a report. The action then waits 30 days while Congress can block it. The president signed that law on Aug. 2, 2017, and called it “seriously flawed.” The president was Donald Trump.

General License 135 lifts bans under one of the programs the 2017 law covers. I have not found a report to Congress on it, or any word on whether Treasury counts the license as routine, which the law exempts. That report, or its absence, is a page.

In April 2022 Congress wrote the log into the ban itself: the certifications, the report 45 days ahead, the 90 days. That is Section 3, above.

This year it wrote a sanctions law with an off switch and no vote on its use. The Senate passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act 86-11 on Aug. 7, nearly four weeks after Graham died. The House cleared it 262-159 on Sept. 16, and the president signed it Sept. 18. Its Section 115 lets him waive its sanctions with “a certification in writing that the issuance of the waiver is in the national interests of the United States” and a report explaining why. The act’s review and disapproval process covers terminations under Section 117. Waivers fall outside it.

Late on Friday, Oct. 16, two days before those sanctions were due to take effect, an executive order used the switch. Its title reads “Implementing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026.” Its waivers carry no end date. They stay in effect until the president or the secretary of state “determine that further action is appropriate.” The order says a certification and a report went to Congress. I have not found either in public. Sen. John Cornyn posted on X, “Lindsey would be appalled.”

That waiver is legal on its face. Congress built the switch with a certification, a report and no vote. The 2017 Congress made a president wait for its review before easing Russia sanctions. The 2026 Congress gave up that wait for its own.

On Oct. 19, the day Matt wrote to me, the ranking Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence committees, Gregory Meeks, Adam Smith and Jim Himes, issued a joint statement after a call between President Zelenskyy and a bipartisan group of members. They committed to advance legislation “to fix the Graham Act and prevent President Trump from unilaterally importing Russian energy.” When the fix reaches paper, read it for one thing: whether the next waiver has to carry a log.

The habit

The pin: the quiet edit. A change to what a record says or does that leaves no note where a reader would look.

What it includes: A license that allows what a law bans and does not consult the law. A tribute page rewritten under the same headline, byline and date. A casualty file that adds a name with no notice. A rule taken out of the federal code without public notice.

What it cannot be read to say: It cannot be read to say every license dodges a law. Most licenses are routine, and the 2017 law says so in its own text. It cannot be read to say a court has ruled the diesel license unlawful. No court has ruled on it, and no lawsuit had surfaced by Oct. 19. It cannot be read to say the Oct. 16 waiver broke the law. Congress wrote Section 115, and the order is public and signed. And it cannot be read to say anyone hid anything. Both pages sit in public. The quiet edit works in the open, on readers who have moved on.

The question: When a rule changes what it does, ask for the log. Where is the certification? Where is the report, and what date did it reach Congress? If no one can show you the page, write that down with the date you asked.

Then date the page and keep the receipt. Save General License 135 today, with the date you saved it. If it changes, you will hold the before.

Find your representative and ask one question: did a report on General License 135 reach the committees, and on what date?

I told Matt to vote on Nov. 3 for who will hold him accountable. Every House seat is on that ballot, including the members who would vote on Rep. Gregory Meeks’s bill to void the license, cosponsored by Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican. Vote for accountability. Read your ballot before you go, every race and every measure, at vote411.org.

The pages

This essay is chapter 4 of Ask for the Page, the book What Time Binds is writing in public, one chapter a Monday through December 7. The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

What Time Binds runs on readers. If this piece told you something you did not already know, forward it to someone who needs to read it. If you want the next one, subscribe below.

Subscribe now

Episode 1: The Grammar of the 2026 Election

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Sun, 18 Oct 2026 20:00:48 GMT

What Do You Mean? with Jerry W. Washington, Ed.D. Produced by Unarmored Talk Podcast.

For twenty-three years my ballot traveled by mail. It went out from Camp Pendleton, from recruiting duty in Austin, from Okinawa, and once or twice from Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan. Every envelope went to the same county in Kansas. In our first episode, Sgt. Maj. (Ret.) Mario P. Fields asked me why I trusted it.

What Do You Mean? is a new show. Each episode, Mario and I take one What Time Binds essay, read it, question it, and talk it through. Mario set the rule in the first minute: as few opinions as we can manage, and as accurate as we can be. Episode 1 takes The Grammar of the 2026 Election, sixteen days before Election Day.

In this episode

00:00 Mario opens the show
01:00 Where “What do you mean?” comes from: Feynman and the magnets
03:58 The question that took Mario ninety days
04:59 Misunderstanding comes with language. Ask before you get angry.
07:01 Absentee ballots from Camp Pendleton to Camp Leatherneck
08:43 November 2024: the whole family votes together
10:49 Read the ballot and check the emotion
13:47 A self-check before the midterms
14:12 “Citizenship should be verified”
16:25 Where to read, and what arrives each week
18:31 Keep asking

On the record

At 14:35 I say I have always had to validate my citizenship to vote. Here is what the forms ask today. The Federal Post Card Application, the form I mailed, has the voter swear: “I swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that: … I am a U.S. citizen” (SF-76). The federal mail registration form must ask, “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” New registrants also give a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number, and the state must match it against motor vehicle or Social Security records to confirm identity (52 U.S.C. § 21083). My essay says where I stand: “I am not saying citizenship should not be verified.”

The Feynman clip

At 03:29 I say Feynman could have reached for rubber bands. In the clip, he turns that answer down himself: “if we said the magnets attract like rubber bands, I would be cheating you.” I wrote about that line in February, in Feynman’s Real Question Was “What Do You Mean?”

Twenty-three years of envelopes taught me to read every line I sign, the ballot included. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

Next on the show: What Do You Mean by Warrior Ethos?

Mentioned in this episode

The Grammar of the 2026 Election (Aug. 26, updated Oct. 9)
“What Do You Mean?” as Cognitive Infrastructure, the Start Here piece (06:17)
Feynman’s Real Question Was “What Do You Mean?”
Richard Feynman on magnets, BBC, Fun to Imagine, 1983
Unarmored Talk, Mario’s show

Read the ballot the way you read the record. vote411.org

The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong and I will show the page or fix the line.

How I make this: reporting and verification are mine, drafting is a collaboration with AI tools I review, and corrections get pinned, never buried. Full process: How the bread gets made. The full transcript, lightly edited for reading, plays in sync with the audio on the web version of this post. It started as a machine transcript and was checked against the recording.

What Do You Mean by “Correction”?

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 13:03:41 GMT

The page I read

On Oct. 7, the Army set the date for Nidal Hasan’s execution in a release that named its rule: “Army Regulation 190-55 governs the procedures for military executions.” That sentence sat in my notes when Chapter 3 of Ask for the Page went out Monday at 5:30 p.m. Pacific. I had not read the regulation it names.

The chapter stood on two older pages. The War Department’s 1944 pamphlet on executions, issued over George C. Marshall’s name, barred “photographs nor motion pictures” of the execution “except for official purposes.” The Justice Department’s 1993 rule for federal executions bars recording to this day. I wrote that the two departments, 49 years apart, “set the same conditions: witnesses present, cameras barred.”

That sentence is true of 1944 and of 1993. It says nothing about 2026, and I left it where a reader would take it for today’s rule. The Facebook card went further. It set “Fifteen paces. No cameras.” over the Defense Secretary’s Oct. 7 words: “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it.” Read at scrolling speed, the card says the Army bars cameras and the Pentagon plans to break its own rule.

Monday evening a reader asked whether I had read the most recent regulation. I hadn’t. The rule in force is the 2019 revision of AR 190-55, certified current on Oct. 30, 2023. Paragraph 2-5 lists who is “authorized to be present,” including at least two news media representatives, and bars anyone under 18. It has no word on photographs, cameras, video or broadcast. Neither did the 2006 edition sitting in my own source list. The Army reissued Marshall’s camera sentence word for word in 1947. By 2006 its execution regulation carried no such sentence. I quoted the 1944 page by its date and never asked when it stopped being the rule.

The 2006 edition is posted free by the Federation of American Scientists. Search it for “photograph.” You will come up empty, as I would have before Monday, if I had looked.

The drill for this sits in the same 1953 address Chapter 3 quotes. Hayakawa told his St. Louis audience to date their words, so they would catch what changes with time: “Supreme Court (1950) is not Supreme Court (1952) is not Supreme Court (1954).” Army execution rule (1944) is not Army execution rule (2023). I had his page. I did not run it on mine.

I fixed it that night, in public and with dates. At about 6:30 p.m. the web version took an “Update, Oct. 12” note, and the regulation joined the list of pages at the bottom. At about 6:45 it went into the first comment under the card. The email had gone out at 5:30. Every subscriber who opened it read the version without the regulation, and the card still says “No cameras.” The fix has reached fewer people than the miss.

My checklist had a line on that regulation marked done, with a note that the current edition had not been opened. The chapter shipped on that note. Now an open or half-finished source line stops the schedule until I have seen the page myself.

What the new page changed

There is arithmetic for how far a page like that should move you. It carries the name of Thomas Bayes, an English minister whose essay on the problem was published in 1763, two years after his death. Without the symbols, it runs like this. Start with how sure you were; statisticians call that the prior. Ask how much more likely the new page is if you were right than if you were wrong. That ratio sets how far you move, and which way.

When you can open the page and read it yourself, the arithmetic has no term for who brought it, where it was posted, or what rank anyone held. The page is the evidence.

Run it on two claims a reader could take from Chapter 3.

The first: the Army’s execution rule bars cameras. If that were true, a current execution regulation with no word on cameras would be close to impossible. That is the regulation in force. The claim falls to nearly zero, and my card invited readers to hold it.

The second: no page authorizes the stream, and an interview set the terms. If an Army page did authorize a broadcast, the regulation that governs executions is the likeliest place to find it. It isn’t there. That raises the second claim, modestly. One silent regulation cannot rule out a memo I have not seen. On Monday, Axios reported that the President has privately expressed doubts about the stream and has not decided. So far the stream still has no page.

So the correction cut a premise and nudged a conclusion up. That is also exactly what a writer saving face would say. Don’t take it from me. Open Army Regulation 190-55, read paragraph 2-5, and look for the word “camera.”

The arithmetic closes two easy exits. The writer who moves nothing treats the page as an insult. The reader who throws out the whole piece treats one fallen premise as a knockout. Both skip the step that matters: a page moves each claim as far as it bears on that claim, and no farther.

What I heard first

Here is the part I would rather leave out.

The question came on the reader’s own post, in front of his readers. I read the post before I read the regulation, and what I heard was rank: somebody senior checking whether a junior man had done his homework. The question itself was courteous. I can’t see his intent from here. I know what I heard, and I heard it before I knew whether he was right. He was.

Some of what I heard was in the setting. A question raised on your own page plays to your readers first and reaches the writer second, if it reaches him at all. Some of it was mine. Twenty-three years in the Marine Corps trained my ear for rank, and I came to that post carrying history of my own. In the terms of the last section, I brought a prior about the man and charged it to the page. The page didn’t care. It said what it said.

The sociologist Erving Goffman had a name for what I was guarding. In his 1955 essay “On Face-Work,” he called it face: “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself” in a given encounter. A public correction puts face on the line for the person corrected, and sometimes for the person correcting. That is why corrections get heard as power. Face belongs to the people in the thread. The page belongs to the record.

After the fix was up, a second reader posted the same regulation under the card, politely: “For your review.” My first thought was that he hadn’t read past the image. My second thought was better: the image was mine. The card still said “No cameras,” and he answered what I had put in front of him.

The strongest defense

My first reaction deserves its strongest case, because corrections do get used as power.

A correction can be staged for an audience: the corrector’s own page, his own readers, the writer tagged in to answer in front of them. It can come as a question built to work as a test. “Did you even read it?” invites everyone watching to wonder what else the writer skipped. It can land on one premise and let the audience assume the conclusion fell with it. It can arrive after the fix as a second blow. It can be selective, aimed at people the corrector would like to see smaller, while errors on his own side pass without a word. Anyone who has worked inside a hierarchy has watched all five.

Grant every word of that, then run the arithmetic again. A power move can carry a true page, and the motive changes nothing in paragraph 2-5. Had I waved off the question over where it was posted, I would have left a dated premise in front of my readers to protect my face. That trade spends the readers’ trust to buy the writer’s comfort.

The test for a power move runs after the page lands. A reader who wants the record right is done once the record is fixed. A reader who wants the win keeps going after the fix is up. You learn which one you have the only way available: fix the record in public, with the date, and watch what comes next.

The pin

The pin: a correction. A dated page that changes how sure you should be about a claim, by as much as the page bears on that claim.

What it includes: A reader’s question with a link. A newer edition of a regulation. A newspaper’s correction box. A fragmentary order that changes Monday’s plan on Wednesday. The “Update” note at the bottom of Monday’s chapter. Your own second look at your own notes.

What else it touches: Face. A public correction moves someone’s standing along with the claim, and a thread will argue about the standing long after the claim is settled.

What it cannot be read to say: It cannot be read to say the person who brought the page outranks the person who got it. It cannot be read to say the corrected writer was wrong about everything. It cannot be read to say a fix is finished when the web page changes, since the email, the card and the screenshots keep the original. And it cannot be read to say every correction comes in good faith. Some come to win. The page still counts.

The page outranks everyone in the thread, the writer included. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

The habit

Every correction has three seats: the person who brings the page, the person who gets it, and everyone watching. Each seat has a script.

If you bring the page: Post it where the claim lives, in the writer’s own comments when you can. Give the page and its date. Say what it changes, and what it leaves standing if you can see that too. Before you post, check whether a fix is already up.

If you get the page: Say thank you before you know whether it was kind. Open the page. Then say in public what changes and what stands, with the date, and carry the fix everywhere the original went: the post, the comments, the card, the inbox. I have done two of those four. The words fit in one breath: “Thank you. Show me the page. Here’s what changes, and here’s what stands.”

If you are watching: Ask the thread one question, what did the page change, and leave the scoreboard alone. Who won is the least useful thing a correction can teach you.

The question: The last time someone corrected you in public, what did you hear first, the page or the person?

Twenty days to Election Day. Check the date on anything that tells you what’s on your ballot, then read the ballot itself, every race and every measure, at vote411.org.

The pages

U.S. Army, “Army Sets Execution Date for Convicted Murderer Nidal Hasan,” Oct. 7, 2026
Army Regulation 190-55, Procedures for Military Executions, certified current Oct. 30, 2023 (Army Publishing Directorate)
Army Regulation 190-55, Jan. 17, 2006 (Federation of American Scientists copy)
War Department Pamphlet No. 27-4, Procedure for Military Executions, June 12, 1944 (HyperWar transcription)
Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-4, Procedure for Military Executions, Dec. 9, 1947 (Library of Congress)
28 C.F.R. 26.4, the Justice Department’s 1993 rule (eCFR)
Chapter 3: The Room Written Before You Enter, Oct. 12, 2026, with its Oct. 12 update
AP, Hegseth’s words, Oct. 8, 2026
Axios, “Trump privately expresses doubts about livestreaming execution,” Oct. 12, 2026
Thomas Bayes, “An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 53 (1763): 370–418
Erving Goffman, “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction,” Psychiatry 18, no. 3 (1955): 213–231
S. I. Hayakawa, “The Semantics of Being Negro,” ETC. 10, no. 3 (Spring 1953), p. 174

Chapter 3: The Room Written Before You Enter

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:30:26 GMT

A chapter draft of the book in progress.

The page

On June 12, 1944, six days after D-Day, the War Department published Pamphlet No. 27-4, Procedure for Military Executions, over the name of George C. Marshall, the Army’s Chief of Staff.

It lays out the ground pace by pace. Troops sent to observe an execution by musketry are formed into “the three sides of a hollow rectangle, facing inward.” The execution party is “twelve men and one sergeant.” It halts “15 paces from and facing the position to be taken by the prisoner.” The main guard forms five paces behind it. The rifles are loaded in an officer’s presence, and “Not more than four nor less than one will be loaded with blank ammunition.”

It even writes the mood. “All persons in attendance will be cautioned that no demonstrations or unseemly conduct will be tolerated.” The troops stay at attention “until the conclusion of the ceremony.” And one sentence decides who sees it: “No photographs nor motion pictures of the actual execution will be permitted except for official purposes.”

The Justice Department wrote its own version in 1993, for federal civilian executions. The prisoner may bring one spiritual adviser, two defense attorneys and three adult friends or relatives. The Bureau of Prisons may add up to eight citizens and ten reporters. No one under 18 may watch. And the rule ends where Marshall’s did: “No photographic or other visual or audio recording of the execution shall be permitted.”

Two departments, 49 years apart, set the same conditions: witnesses present, cameras barred. Everyone who came under those rules came to a scene someone else had already scripted, and the page was there to read before they arrived.

Fort Hood

On Nov. 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas. He killed 13 people: 12 soldiers and one civilian. An Army court-martial convicted him and sentenced him to death in 2013. In 2025 the Supreme Court declined to review the conviction. On Oct. 2 of this year, the President approved the sentence. On Oct. 6, Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle signed the execution order: firing squad, at Fort Hood, on Dec. 3, at 1 p.m. Central. ABC News reports it would be the military’s first execution by firing squad since 1945.

Every one of those steps has a page. A verdict. An appellate record. An approval. An order with a date, a place and a method.

The next step has an interview. On Wednesday, Oct. 7, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said: “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” On Thursday, Pentagon officials confirmed the execution would be livestreamed. The Associated Press reported that “more details would follow.”

Then people started answering on the record.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, put out a statement Thursday: “Calling for a livestream of the execution of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is disturbing and makes a mockery of our legal system.”

On Friday, Rep. Austin Scott, a Georgia Republican, posted: “I absolutely support the sentence of death, but live-streaming executions is what jihadists do.” Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, also a Republican, called the plan “beyond disgusting” and said, “Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do.”

The same day, a reporter asked the President whether he wants the execution streamed. “They’re making a determination about that,” he said. The Vice President was plainer: “if it’s all through livestream, I’m not going to be watching it.”

On Saturday, ABC News reached two of the people Hasan shot.

Hasan shot Alonzo Lunsford seven times that day, including in the head and the stomach. Lunsford plans to be at the execution. He wants to “lock eyes” with Hasan. “I want him to be able to look at my eyes and to let him understand I won’t be defeated, can’t be defeated,” he said. “I am no longer a victim, his victim. I am a survivor.”

He said two more things. “I don’t want this to be viewed upon as a spectacle, like a pay-per-view event, or like going to a basketball tournament.” And: “We’re not trying to meet a standard — we’re trying to set a standard for the free world.”

Dayna Ferguson, also wounded that day, told ABC the news surprised her. “It’s not completely shocking, given that death and war have historically always been documented through photographs and video,” she said. “But it’s just not something I expected to hear.” Then: “I hadn’t really thought about if I agree with the decisions being made, but it doesn’t make a difference in what happens to him.”

Two survivors. Two readings. Neither of them decided how Dec. 3 will look.

The absent author

On Feb. 12, 1953, S. I. Hayakawa spoke at the annual dinner of the Urban League of St. Louis. He told his audience that the man who walks into a meeting holds more than he knows: “However he acts, the power to determine the atmosphere of the meeting lies with him, although he may not know it.” In his telling, that power works because the other side can see him. Face to face, with both people present, he was right.

That power needs a witness. It works when the person who decides can see you.

Many of the places that decide things now were set up before anyone walked in. Call the person behind them an absent author: someone who set the terms on paper, before you arrived, and does not have to be there to see you. When an absent author holds the pen, Hayakawa’s power goes with it. You are present. The author is not. The page outweighs anything you carry through the door.

Chapter 1 read one Pentagon page for its two sentences. Read it once more, for who was not there. On June 10, the 28th wreath-laying at the Women in Military Service for America Memorial never happened. For 27 years the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus had laid that wreath. The 28th needed service representatives. A spokesperson for the caucus’s Democratic side said the Navy and the Air Force, answering for the Space Force, declined, citing White House and Pentagon policy. The caucus brought 27 years of fair expectation to Arlington. Nobody who wrote the guidance stood on the plaza that morning. Nobody had to. The decision had sat on paper since Jan. 31, 2025, more than 16 months before anyone made the trip.

Fort Hood has two authors. The sentence came through a court-martial, an appeal, an approval and an order, and each one left a page. The stream came through an interview aboard an aircraft carrier, 57 days before the day it describes. Lunsford will bring his own expectations to that post on Dec. 3. Hayakawa’s power will not be his. It belongs to whoever writes the page, and so far the page is one sentence spoken to a camera.

The sentence has a page, and the stream, so far, has an interview. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

Who will be there

Count who will stand on that post on Dec. 3, and how each one got there.

Lunsford, by choice. He wants Hasan to see his eyes.

The detail, by orders. ABC News reports that eight service members will carry out the sentence. In 1944 the Army wrote between one and four blank rounds into the rifles on the line. Whatever the 2026 plan writes for the people holding them has not been made public.

Hasan, by sentence.

And everyone with a screen, if the stream goes ahead. Each of those viewers tunes in to something planned 57 days ahead. They can close the window. The Vice President says he won’t be watching. Lunsford has no window to close. He will stand inside whatever atmosphere the page sets, in front of whatever audience it brings.

Hayakawa’s power belongs to the person who wrote that page, wherever he stands that afternoon. A viewer at home holds more of it than the survivor at the post.

The case for the camera

The strongest case for the stream comes from the man who announced it: “people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” Punishment in public is one of the oldest arguments for deterrence. And the sentence the stream would show came through every step the law requires.

A second case comes from the other direction. A sentence carried out in the public’s name is the public’s business, and a country that executes a man should have to look at what it did. Ferguson came close to it on her own: death and war “have historically always been documented through photographs and video.”

The habit does not settle that argument. It asks who did the writing, and for whom. Marshall kept the camera for “official purposes.” The Oct. 7 interview points it at everyone, and the reason it gives is the audience.

Taking notes

In 2005, I was a mid-level manager at a Marine Corps logistics command in Japan, reporting to the Chief of Staff. The directive on the table at a project governance meeting was a multi-decade relocation plan. The American side said they were aligned on it. I was taking notes.

What “aligned” meant at that table depended on where you sat. The Washington headquarters needed it to mean strategic posture. The local command needed it to mean operational logistics: which buildings would close, which would open, which would transfer. The host government needed it to mean sovereignty and economic acceptance. Which prefectures. Which workforce. What compensation. Whether the relocation could survive a local election and the next one.

Three readings of one word. The directive arrived already written, and our job was to carry it, one Tuesday afternoon at a time. The meeting closed with everyone saying they were aligned. Eighteen years later, a new base opened.

I wrote down what was said. It took me twenty years to learn what belonged at the top of the page: who set it up, and were they there?

The habit

The pin: an absent author. Someone who set the terms on paper, before you arrived, and does not have to be there to see you.

What it includes: The broadcast plan for Dec. 3. The guidance that emptied the wreath stand on June 10. A denial letter. A software screen. A policy nobody in the building wrote. The ballot you will carry into the booth on Nov. 3.

What it cannot be read to say: It cannot be read to say every absent author is wrong. Marshall was one. His pamphlet kept out every camera but the Army’s own. The Justice Department’s 1993 rule kept cameras out too. Both were written for the people who would be there. The Oct. 7 interview speaks to the people who won’t be, because “people need to understand that there’s serious consequences.” The page tells you which kind you are dealing with.

It cannot be read to say the person who shows up chose the outcome. And it cannot be read to say how you carry yourself does not matter. Where the person who decides can see you, Hayakawa still holds.

The question: Before you walk through a door, ask who wrote what’s waiting on the other side. Then ask whether the writer will be there. Then ask who it was written for.

On Nov. 3 you will meet an absent author in the booth: the ballot. Someone wrote every line of it before you arrived. Read it before you go in, every race and every measure, at vote411.org.

Update, Oct. 12: After this went out, a reader asked whether I had read the most recent regulation. The rule in force today is Army Regulation 190-55, revised in 2019 and certified current Oct. 30, 2023. It lists who is “authorized to be present,” including at least two news media representatives, and bars anyone under 18. It says nothing about cameras. The 1944 camera sentence is gone. The page names who may watch. The interview filled the silence about everyone else.

The pages

War Department Pamphlet No. 27-4, Procedure for Military Executions, June 12, 1944 (HyperWar transcription)
28 C.F.R. 26.4, the Justice Department’s 1993 rule (eCFR)
Army Regulation 190-55, Procedures for Military Executions, certified current Oct. 30, 2023 (Army Publishing Directorate)
U.S. Army, “Army Sets Execution Date for Convicted Murderer Nidal Hasan,” Oct. 7, 2026
Task & Purpose, the execution order, Oct. 7, 2026
AP, Hegseth’s words, Oct. 8, 2026
ABC News, the survivors, Oct. 10, 2026
S. I. Hayakawa, “The Semantics of Being Negro,” ETC. 10, no. 3 (Spring 1953), p. 167
Task & Purpose, the June 10 wreath, June 10, 2026

This essay is chapter 3 of Ask for the Page, the book What Time Binds is writing in public, one chapter a Monday through December 7. The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

What Time Binds runs on readers. If this piece told you something you did not already know, forward it to someone who needs to read it. If you want the next one, subscribe below.

Subscribe now

Friday Binding: Where the Darkness Points

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:04:17 GMT

The Friday Binding · October 9, 2026

The question

Five speeches, three tests. Every leader on this list paints in light and dark. The test is who ends up standing in the dark.

This week’s question: when a leader draws the line between light and dark, who does he put on the dark side of it?

The answer separates the speeches a country carves into stone from the speeches historians keep as evidence. Defenders of self-government point the dark at a regime, an ideology, a sin the whole nation shares, or the power of their own institutions. Then they ask the listener to carry something. Autocrats point the dark at the neighbors and ask the listener to watch them.

The opening page

June 18, 1940, the House of Commons. The day before, France had asked Germany for terms. Winston Churchill closed his report with the most famous light and dark in modern English:

“If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

Look at who stands in the dark. “Him” is Hitler, across the Channel. The dark itself is a future the British people could still refuse. Nobody sitting in that chamber stands in it.

Wednesday night in San Antonio, a president drew his own line, speaking of Democratic-run states: “when the blues get in, everything becomes dirty. The streets are dirty. The doorknobs going into stores are dirty. The sidewalks are filthy, dirty. Everything becomes dirty and has a bad smell.” The people in that dark live in California, New York and Illinois. They are Americans.

This Binding reads five speeches on the same three tests. The tests are the point. You can run them on any speech, from any party, in about a minute.

The defenders

1. Lincoln, March 4, 1865: the dark belongs to everyone

The page: the Second Inaugural Address, carved on the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial.

Lee would surrender at Appomattox five weeks later. By the standards of any war, Lincoln had earned the right to cast the South as the darkness. He did the reverse. “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.” He named slavery as the offense and gave the war “to both North and South” as “the woe due to those by whom the offense came.” The dark falls on the whole nation, the winning side included.

Then the ask: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs built its motto from that sentence. I do my best not to carry malice toward any American. I do, however, recognize behaviors. Finishing that work, to me, means healing each other, working together, supporting each other, and taking care of our veterans.

Where the dark points: at a sin the whole country shares. What he asks: bind wounds, care for the people who fought. Where he stands: under the same judgment as everyone else. “Let us judge not, that we be not judged.”

2. Churchill, June 18, 1940: bad news first, then the light

The page: “Their Finest Hour,” House of Commons.

Before the uplands, Churchill gave the House the defeat himself: “in the first two of those weeks the battle in France has been lost.” And: “What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin.” A defender tells you the bad news in his own voice before he asks anything of you.

The dark points across the Channel, at “him” and at a regime. The ask lands on everyone in the room, the speaker included: “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’” The glory goes to people he will never meet.

The empire he invoked ruled India without its consent. That belongs on the page too, and it does not change where this speech points the dark.

Where the dark points: a regime abroad. What he asks: duty. Where he stands: inside “us.”

3. Eisenhower, Jan. 17, 1961: the general warns about his own house

The page: the farewell address, reading copy at the Eisenhower Presidential Library.

Eisenhower named the outside dark plainly: “We face a hostile ideology—global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.” Then the five-star general who led the Normandy invasion turned the warning on the institution that made him: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

The ask goes to the citizen: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

I spent twenty-three years inside the institution he was warning about, and I believed in what I did. Inside, the map comes with the uniform: duty, country, security. In January I wrote about Smedley Butler, a Marine with two Medals of Honor who served 33 years under those words. After he retired, he said of his service: “I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.” Eisenhower gave his warning on his way out of office. A warning from inside carries weight because the speaker has been there. The citizen’s job is to tell a map that explains reality from a map that sells it.

Where the dark points: an ideology abroad, and unchecked power at home, his own side’s included. What he asks: stay alert and informed. Where he stands: leaving office, handing the watch to you.

See for yourself: read the last paragraph of each speech. Circle every “I.” Then circle every “we,” “us” and “our.”

The autocrats

4. Hitler, Stalin, Putin: the dark moves inside

The pages: Hitler’s Reichstag speech, Jan. 30, 1939 (U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum translation). Stalin’s report to the Central Committee plenum, March 3, 1937 (Marxists Internet Archive translation). Putin’s remarks to government ministers, March 16, 2022 (Kremlin English transcript).

All three paint in light and dark too. The difference is where the dark falls.

Hitler, seven months before he invaded Poland: “If the international Finance-Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed in plunging the peoples of the earth once again into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of earth, and thus a Jewish victory, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” The key word is “inside.” The dark lives among Germans, and the speaker blames his target in advance for what will be done to it.

Stalin, to his own party: the enemy “shield themselves behind the Party membership card and mask themselves as Bolsheviks.” Comrades “failed to recognize the wolves in sheep’s clothing and were unable to tear away their masks.” His ask: “We do not need complacency, but vigilance, real Bolshevik, revolutionary vigilance.” The listener’s job is to watch the person in the next chair. The purges of 1937 and 1938 followed.

Putin, three weeks into his war on Ukraine: the Russian people “will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors and will simply spit them out like an insect in their mouth, spit them onto the pavement.” He called it “a natural and necessary self-detoxification of society.”

The three share a pattern. The enemy wears your neighbor’s face. The words come from hygiene and pest control: masks, insects, detoxification, a people to be removed. The ask is vigilance against fellow citizens. The speaker is the one who sees the enemy everyone else missed.

Where the dark points: inside the country. What they ask: watch your neighbors. Where they stand: alone, as the one who sees.

See for yourself: in each passage, circle the word that tells you where the enemy lives. Hitler: “inside.” Stalin: “Party card.” Putin: “society.”

Where Trump’s rhetoric sits

5. Trump, Oct. 5 to 8, 2026: two maps in one speech

The pages: Grand Island, Neb., Oct. 5 (KTLA transcript). San Antonio, Oct. 7 (Roll Call Factba.se transcript). Claremont, N.H., Nov. 11, 2023 (The Washington Post, via the Anchorage Daily News). Fox News, “Sunday Morning Futures,” Oct. 13, 2024 (CNN). Truth Social, Oct. 8, and Executive Order 14434, Sept. 29, 2026.

On Iran, he points the dark where the first three pointed it. “I am ensuring that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,” he said in San Antonio, and less than two minutes later: “We protect our cities. We protect our country.” The dark is a regime abroad. The ask, from Monday in Nebraska, is a cost at the pump. That day he told News Channel Nebraska that fuel prices are “a relatively small price to pay for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of a lunatic nation.”

On Americans, the map turns inward. In the same speech: “when the blues get in, everything becomes dirty.” Protesters are “paid by enemies of our nation.” Texans, he said, will not let “weak, gutless, self-hating, transgender-promoting freak shows destroy everything that we’ve built.” This is a pattern with a record. On Veterans Day 2023 he pledged to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” In October 2024 he named “the enemy from within” and said it could be handled “by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

The next day, the enemy got a new definition. On Truth Social he wrote: “The White House considers anyone that uses the term, ‘Artificial Intelligence,’ as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, ‘Super Intelligence,’ THE ENEMY!” Nine days earlier, his executive order said the executive branch “will not acknowledge the usage of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI.’” The dark now holds anyone who says “AI.”

His ask carries two things. The first is a vote: “Get out and vote.” That is a democracy’s ask, and none of the three autocrats ever needed to make it. The second is trust in one man: “the only thing you have to stop that is a guy named Ken Paxton, a Republican that loves you, and a president named Donald J. Trump.” Later: “only I can make this promise to you.”

So here is where his rhetoric sits. On the war, it points the dark abroad, the way Churchill and Eisenhower did. On his own country, it points the dark inside, at a party, its voters and its states, and it uses the autocrats’ vocabulary: dirt, smell, vermin, the enemy within. He still asks for votes, which they never did. That is a reading of direction and vocabulary, the two things a transcript can show. It says nothing about what he intends, and this Binding claims nothing about that.

What the words did. Intent stays out of reach. Outcomes are on the record. In Grand Island, some in the crowd cheered when he named the two cities. The next day the White House had to explain what he meant. San Diego’s mayor, Todd Gloria, answered: “San Diego is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a ‘small price to pay.’” A Republican county supervisor there, Jim Desmond, said: “I vehemently disagree with President Trump’s comments.” Two days later, the president said it again.

On Thursday he gave his own account on Truth Social. He wrote that he was “making a comparison between paying a little more, for a short time, for Gasoline, versus the bombing of our Major Cities.” In that version, the two cities are the big price. In the Grand Island transcript, the sentence right after them is “This is a very small price to pay.” The same post put the press on the dark side of the line: the “Fake and Artificial News,” and “these people are Degenerates.”

The strongest defense. This is campaign talk aimed at political opponents, and democrats have named villains at home too. Franklin Roosevelt’s first inaugural, March 4, 1933, put “the money changers” in the dark: “the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization.” That is the best case for the defense. Read Roosevelt’s noun, though: “Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion.” He indicted conduct, asked Congress for laws, and asked the country to be “willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline.” San Antonio’s nouns are a party, its voters and its states, and they come with a smell.

See for yourself: open Roll Call’s timecoded transcript of the San Antonio rally. Read 57:32 to 59:23, then 4:03 to 4:54. Write down who stands in the dark in each stretch.

The habit: where does the dark point?

Three questions. Any speech, any party, about a minute.

Who stands in the dark? A regime, an ideology, a practice, or a group of your neighbors?
What does the speaker ask of you? A load to carry, or a watch to keep on the people next door?
Where does the speaker stand? Inside “us,” under the same judgment, or alone as the one who can save you?

A speech can pass on one subject and fail on the next, the way San Antonio did inside a single hour. So run the test sentence by sentence, and run it on your own side’s speeches first.

This week’s question for the comments: pick a speech you remember, from any leader and any party. Find the sentence where the dark falls and paste it here. Then tell me who is standing in it.

You will hear a lot of speeches before Election Day, November 3. Check your registration at vote411.org, then run the three questions on the next one you hear.

Send this to one person who will hear a stump speech before Nov. 3.

Author’s note. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

Sources. Every quote above traces to one of these. Status as of Oct. 8.

Lincoln, Second Inaugural, March 4, 1865: National Park Service, Lincoln Memorial. Opened; standard text for full sentences.
Churchill, “Their Finest Hour,” June 18, 1940: International Churchill Society. Opened.
Eisenhower, farewell address, Jan. 17, 1961: National Archives; Eisenhower Library reading copy. Opened.
Butler, on his own service: Federation of American Scientists text. Opened Oct. 8. FAS dates it to a 1933 speech; other sources place the same passage in Common Sense, November 1935.
Roosevelt, first inaugural, March 4, 1933: American Presidency Project. Opened.
Hitler, Reichstag, Jan. 30, 1939: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Opened.
Stalin, plenum report, March 3, 1937: Marxists Internet Archive. Opened.
Putin, ministers’ meeting, March 16, 2022: Kremlin, English transcript. Opened Oct. 8; quotes match the Kremlin’s English text.
Trump, Grand Island, Oct. 5, 2026: KTLA transcript; Roll Call Factba.se transcript, at 12:21. Verified this week.
Trump, San Antonio, Oct. 7, 2026: Roll Call Factba.se timecoded transcript. Opened Oct. 8; quotes match at 3:09, 4:03 to 4:54, 10:16, 17:27, 24:41, 44:12, 57:32 and 58:48 to 59:23.
Trump, Claremont, N.H., Nov. 11, 2023: The Washington Post, via the Anchorage Daily News. Opened.
Trump, Fox News, Oct. 13, 2024: CNN, Veronica Stracqualursi, via KTVZ. Opened; full sentence checked Oct. 8 against Mediaite’s transcript of the clip.
Executive Order 14434, Sept. 29, 2026: White House, “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence”. Opened Oct. 8; quote from Sec. 1.
Trump, Truth Social, Oct. 8, 2026, 12:14 PM ET: Truth Social post. Opened Oct. 8; text matches.
Trump, Truth Social, Oct. 8, 2026, 2:59 PM ET: Truth Social post. Opened Oct. 8 (archive copy at Trump’s Truth); matches the MS NOW broadcast.

What the words did: the crowd’s cheer from FactCheck.org, Oct. 6, 2026 and the KTLA transcript; Gloria and Desmond from Newsweek, Khaleda Rahman, Oct. 6, 2026. Opened Oct. 7.

Oct. 5 interview: Roll Call Factba.se transcript, Michael Shively, News Channel Nebraska, at 1:02. Opened Oct. 7; the quoted words match.

This piece was written with AI assistance under the disclosure framework at what-time-binds.com. The analytical frame, the sources, and every position taken are mine and verified.

I advise school districts, community colleges, and workforce teams on AI readiness: what the words mean before the tools arrive. Hit reply if you would like to talk.

What Do You Mean by "Small Price"?

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 10:02:12 GMT

The page from Monday

On Monday night, October 5, 2026, the president of the United States stood on stage at the Pinnacle Bank Expo Center in Grand Island, Nebraska. He was campaigning for Sen. Pete Ricketts. He was talking about gas prices and the war with Iran.

Here is the passage, as KTLA and Mediaite transcribed it:

“With the war it’s just artificial, it’s a little bit high, it’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city. Let ‘em take out Los Angeles. Let ‘em take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay and it’s going to be over very soon.”

The crowd cheered at the cities.

Read it once more and count. The phrase “small price” appears twice. The first time, it follows gas. The second time, it follows two American cities. Nothing in between tells you which cost he meant.

Open the KTLA transcript. Find both uses of “small price.” Write down the last noun before each one.

The page from Tuesday

The meaning arrived the next day. On Tuesday, October 6, the White House Rapid Response account answered the critics on X:

“No, he didn’t, you buffoons. He was saying the U.S. is fighting to STOP Iran from having the ability to take out LA and San Diego with a nuclear weapon — which they would if they had the chance.”

White House communications director Steven Cheung wrote on X Tuesday, as CBS Los Angeles reported, that the president “was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped.”

Put the two pages side by side. Tuesday’s page carries a word Monday’s page does not. The word is “nuclear.” Fox17 reported it plainly: the president did not mention nuclear weapons in the rally remarks.

The explanation may match what he meant. He has argued for months that the war stops Iran from building a bomb. Mediaite notes he has made that case against his own intelligence agencies’ findings. Either way, the record shows the order of events. The sentence came first. The meaning came a day later, from someone else.

That gap is where a word separates into two meanings. It lets the crowd cheer on Monday and the staff correct the crowd’s critics on Tuesday.

The strongest defense

A reader made the case for the president on my Facebook page Tuesday night. It deserves a full hearing, because it is the best version of the defense.

The argument runs in order. Read the whole passage: gas prices, the reason for the war, what Iran could do, the named cities, the war ending soon, prices coming down. In that order, “small price” means temporary high gas, a fair cost against the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran taking out a city. The reader granted that “let ‘em” is ambiguous and argued it carries little weight against the context. The remark, the reader said, was not a joke, a literal suggestion, or an invitation.

A graphic came with the argument. It lays the passage out in three boxes: “First he said” gas, “Then he said why,” “Then he went back to gas.” The second box reads: “If Iran gets the bomb, THEY can take out a city.” The footer charges that the viral clip “deletes box 1 and box 3.”

Part of that is right. Many clips cut the gas. The order of the passage matters, which is why I quoted all of it above. And the transcript does not support reading it as an invitation. The pin below says so.

Now put the graphic next to Monday’s page. The words “If Iran gets the bomb” are not in the transcript. The graphic supplied them, the way Tuesday’s statement supplied “nuclear.” Both make the sentence say what the defense needs it to say. Neither one is the sentence.

So the defense proves the point it set out to answer. To make “small price” mean only gas, you have to add words the president did not say.

Lay the graphic beside the KTLA transcript. Circle every word on the graphic that the transcript does not contain.

The pin: “small price”

A small price is a cost someone has judged worth paying. The phrase always carries three questions: what the cost is, who pays it, and who decided it was small.

What it includes. In this passage, “small price” includes higher gas. The first use attaches to it directly: “it’s a little bit high, it’s a small price to pay.” A fair reader grants that.

What else it touches. The second use follows the cities. “Let ‘em take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay.” On the page, the nearest cost to that phrase is two American cities. The speaker never moved it back.

What it cannot be read to say. It cannot be read as an order to Iran, or an invitation. The transcript does not support that. It also cannot be read as a statement about nuclear weapons. That word lives only on Tuesday’s page. And it cannot be read as the speaker’s own cost. He named no price he pays.

One phrase, used twice, attached to two different costs, with no line between them. That is the definition of a word doing two jobs.

I ask for the page because a sentence like this one gets argued from memory within a day. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

Who pays it

Some prices in this war are already paid. At least 19 American service members have died, by Sen. Alex Padilla’s count, reported by Forbes. One was Noah Tietjens of Nebraska. The president spoke Monday in Noah’s home state.

The two cities he named hold their own share of the bill. Camp Pendleton sits between them. So do MCAS Miramar and Naval Base San Diego. I served at Pendleton. The families on that base would hear what he said and think: I’ve already given up birthdays with my children, anniversaries with my spouse, and entire years of my family’s life to deployments.

When a commander calls a cost small, the people who pay it read the sentence differently than the crowd does. Ask them which cost they heard.

The habit

When a phrase shows up twice in one passage, run three steps before you argue about it.

Write down each use, word for word, from the transcript. Not the clip. Not the graphic.
Next to each use, write the last noun before it. That is what the phrase is attached to on the page.
If someone explains the sentence later, circle every word in the explanation that the sentence never said.

Run it on Monday’s passage. You get gas, then cities. You circle “nuclear.” Now you can argue from the page instead of the clip.

A question for you. Who pays the small price in this sentence, and who decided it was small? Answer from the transcript, and tell me in the comments where I read it wrong.

You refuse to know. The record remembers. I refuse to forget.

Check your registration before Election Day, November 3, at vote411.org.

Update, Oct. 7, 2026: An earlier version of this post said Steven Cheung told CBS. He made the statement in a post on X, which CBS Los Angeles reported. His words are unchanged.

Chapter 2: The Word Doing Two Jobs

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 10:03:34 GMT

A chapter draft of the book in progress.

The page

The Justice Department keeps a web page for its Office of Professional Responsibility. The page opens with one sentence about where the office came from.

“This office was established in 1975 in response to professional misconduct associated with the Watergate scandal.”

That is the department’s own definition of Watergate, on its own server. Watergate is the misconduct. The office is the repair. The department built a unit to examine misconduct by its own lawyers, because in the Watergate years the misconduct reached its own leadership. The department’s own history says so. Attorney General Edward Levi created the office in 1975 “following revelations of ethical abuses and serious misconduct by senior Department officials during the Watergate scandal.” John Mitchell, attorney general until 1972, was convicted on January 1, 1975, of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury. His successor, Richard Kleindienst, pleaded guilty in May 1974 to a misdemeanor for failing to answer Senate questions fully about the ITT antitrust case, a charge the Watergate special prosecutor brought.

See for yourself. Open justice.gov/opr and read the first sentence under the office’s name.

The deck

On October 1 the Wall Street Journal reported that Geoff Shepard, in the paper’s words “a former Nixon aide turned Watergate historian and revisionist,” had given a two-hour presentation at Justice Department headquarters. A senior department official had invited him the month before to make his case to the Office of Professional Responsibility. The Journal printed the title of his slide deck.

“Watergate As Lawfare.”

Same word, same department. The 1975 page says Watergate is the misconduct that made the office necessary. The deck says the misconduct belonged to the prosecutors who brought the case. One word now points two opposite ways inside one building.

The department answered the Journal in writing. Its statement says the office turned down Shepard’s request for an investigation in 2022, under the previous administration. Then:

“Given his expertise and scholarship on Watergate, he was recently invited to give a presentation to OPR, but that presentation does not constitute an investigation.”

Read it at both levels, the way Chapter 1 asked. At the first level, a presentation is not an investigation. At the second, people familiar with the matter told the Journal the department “is reviewing whether the special prosecutor’s office that investigated the famed Watergate break-in committed misconduct.” The statement’s noun is presentation. The sources’ noun is review. Both sentences can stand, and the statement never says a review does not exist. The Journal’s reporting leaves open whether it becomes a full investigation.

Two more dates sit inside the statement. In 2022 the office said no to Shepard. In 2026 it invited him in. The statement names his expertise and scholarship as the reason. It names no new document.

Objection came from the right too. On October 1, National Review ran a piece by Jim Geraghty under the headline “No, We Don’t Need to Spend Taxpayer Dollars to Review Whether Nixon Got a Raw Deal.”

See for yourself. Put the department’s sentence beside the Journal’s. Circle the noun in each.

Yorba Linda

The Nixon Library sits in Yorba Linda, a short drive from where I write in Anaheim. On June 25, Vice President JD Vance spoke there. He said Watergate would be “a 12-hour news story” today, and he called it a “story of how the deep state took down Nixon.”

The next day I posted a card with the record beside his words: the Supreme Court’s 8–0 ruling on the tapes, the articles of impeachment, the resignation. Under it I promised you a Monday essay that would take the whole thing apart. I never wrote it. I’m owning that here, on the page, because the gap belongs to the record too. In June the new meaning lived at a podium. Ninety-eight days later the Journal reported it had been given a meeting at headquarters.

The building has carried this word before. When a private foundation ran the library, its Watergate exhibit called the scandal a coup. The Associated Press quoted the wall text in 2011: “Allegations took on the weight of fact in the minds of those who were determined to engineer a coup of their own.” The National Archives took over the library in 2007. On March 31, 2011, it opened a new Watergate gallery built from the White House tapes, the documents and 131 oral history interviews.

On October 1, the day the Journal story ran, Rep. Riley Moore of West Virginia spoke at the Nixon Foundation’s Grand Strategy Summit. He said Nixon was “couped out of office” and “framed.” The Archives retired the word from the wall. Fifteen years later it came back through a microphone.

The magnet word

I have a name for a word like this. A magnet word pulls more than one meaning to itself, so people hear the same sound and walk away holding different things. I started using the term in February. In a strip about the word “aligned”, a room full of people nodded at one word and heard five different contracts.

Most magnet words collect their meanings by accident. Busy people talk fast and nobody stops to ask. Watergate is the other kind. Its second meaning is being built on purpose, by people with titles, in a building with a seal on the wall.

Weigh what each meaning has behind it. The first has the Supreme Court’s 8–0 ruling in United States v. Nixon on July 24, 1974. It has the tape of June 23, 1972, in which Nixon approved a plan to have the CIA ask the FBI to halt its investigation. It has an office the Justice Department built in 1975 in response to it. The second meaning has a slide deck.

On October 4, the day before this chapter went out, the President posted an image on Truth Social. Two presidents side by side, and one line: “One of these men is the most corrupt president in the history of the United States. The other is Richard Nixon.” The line only works if you still hear the first meaning. Nixon is the yardstick for corrupt, and the post borrows that meaning to make its point. A widely shared repost on Facebook ran it under a caption calling the Nixon story “fake news.” One post, both meanings of the same name.

Give Shepard his strongest case. In October 2021 he filed a misconduct complaint with the Office of Professional Responsibility. The release announcing his book that month said the special prosecutors “held a series of secret meetings with Watergate judges” and were “wrongfully suppressing evidence favorable to the defendants.” Grant every point. Nixon himself was never tried. President Ford pardoned him on September 8, 1974. A misstep in the trials of his aides cannot reach back and change what is on his own tape.

See for yourself. The Nixon Library posts the tapes played in the Watergate trials, the June 23, 1972 conversation among them, listed as the “Smoking Gun.” Read the page before you read anyone’s summary of it, mine included.

The second room

Watergate is the national case. The same mechanism runs at the county level, on the ballot you are about to cast.

On August 18, Wyoming held its primary. That day the Justice Department put out release 26-939, titled “Justice Department to Conduct Election Monitoring in Florida and Wyoming Primary Elections.” It said the department was “monitoring polls” in Laramie County “with two Civil Rights Division attorneys.”

Debra Lee, the Laramie County clerk, met them at the door. In a written statement reported by Cowboy State Daily, she said they “did not offer their credentials until I requested they do so.” They “intended to interview voters,” and she refused: “We do not allow interviews to be conducted in polling places.” They wanted to examine her tabulators. Her verdict: “Wyoming law has no provision for election monitoring.”

On August 26, at the State Canvassing Board, Gov. Mark Gordon said the officials’ behavior “seemed to exceed what the authority that Congress had given them was.” Secretary of State Chuck Gray answered him. According to WyoFile, Gray said state law “provides for observation of the election process.”

Hold the two lines side by side. One visit got two names. Observation is the word Wyoming law provides for. Monitoring is the word on the department’s release, and the word the clerk said the law does not contain. Whichever name sticks decides whether the law covered what happened at her door. Gray chose the word the statute permits. Lee chose the word that matched what she saw.

The department’s own release keeps the two words apart. It speaks of “an open flow of communication between poll observers and election monitors,” two roles in one sentence. Watergate shows a magnet word pulling two meanings. Laramie shows the other direction: one act pulling two words, each carrying a different legal answer.

See for yourself. Open release 26-939 and count the times it says “monitor.” Then find your county’s rule on who may be present at a polling place, and the word it uses.

Reading the terrain

Marines read terrain before they move. One point on a map tells you where something is. Plot enough points and you can see which way it runs.

On June 26 I had one point. The Vice President stood in Yorba Linda and called Watergate a story about the deep state, and I wrote that the word was being recoded. I promised you an essay and never wrote it. One point is not a route.

By October 4 I had four. A senior official invites a former Nixon aide to the office Watergate built. The aide’s slide deck calls Watergate lawfare. A congressman says Nixon was “couped out of office.” The President uses Nixon as the yardstick for corrupt and aims it at someone else. Each one stands on its own page. Plotted together, they run one direction.

I’m not claiming I called it. I wrote down a date, and the dates kept arriving. That is the whole method of this book.

In March 2025, before What Time Binds existed, I wrote a short piece about a different policy. One line from it holds here: “intentions are not enough. Policies and actions must be judged by their real-world impact.” The department’s statement gives the intent: a presentation, not an investigation. The terrain gives the outcome. The office created in response to Watergate gave the case that Watergate was lawfare two hours at headquarters.

A republic reads its terrain the same way. It keeps the record.

The habit: pin the word

When a word starts doing two jobs, pin it to a page before you argue about it. The pin has four parts. Here is Watergate, pinned.

The pin. Watergate: the June 17, 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s offices in the Watergate complex, by men tied to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and the cover-up that followed. The pages: the articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee approved July 27 to 30, 1974, and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683.

What it includes. The break-in. The cover-up. The tape of June 23, 1972. The convictions of John Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The resignation on August 9, 1974.

What it cannot be read to say. That every prosecutor in every trial was without fault. The pin holds what the president did, which his own tape records. How his aides were tried is a separate question, and it needs its own page.

The question. When someone uses the word to mean the other thing, ask them which page they are reading.

Watergate began as a burglary aimed at an election. Twenty-nine days from now you cast a ballot of your own. Pin its words the same way: read the measure’s text before the ad about it, and look up your polling place and your sample ballot at vote411.org.

The Justice Department’s own page still defines Watergate the way the tapes do. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

Author’s note. This chapter was built to open in Laramie County, Wyoming, with one federal visit and two names for it. Then came October 1 through 4. The Wall Street Journal reported a slide deck titled “Watergate As Lawfare.” A congressman said Nixon was “couped out of office.” The President posted a meme that only works if Nixon still means corrupt. All three ran back to a card I posted on June 26. So I turned the chapter. Watergate took the first room, and Laramie moved to the second. That is what writing a book in public looks like: the record moves, and the chapter moves with it.

This essay is chapter 2 of Ask for the Page, the book What Time Binds is writing in public, one chapter a Monday through December 7. The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, home page (opened Oct 3, 2026)
U.S. Department of Justice, About OPR
Deseret News, “John Mitchell, 75, Watergate Conspirator, Dies”, Nov 10, 1988
Associated Press in The Michigan Daily, on Kleindienst’s plea, May 17, 1974
The Wall Street Journal, “Decades After Watergate, Justice Department Reviews Whether Nixon Got a Raw Deal,” Oct 1, 2026
The Daily Beast, the department’s statement in full, Oct 1, 2026
The Western Journal, on the invitation and the review, Oct 2, 2026
National Review, Jim Geraghty, “No, We Don’t Need to Spend Taxpayer Dollars to Review Whether Nixon Got a Raw Deal,” Oct 1, 2026
The Hill, Rep. Riley Moore at the Grand Strategy Summit, Oct 1, 2026
Associated Press via U.S. News, Vance at the Nixon Library, June 25, 2026; RealClearPolitics video, June 26, 2026
Truth Social, Donald J. Trump, image post, Oct 4, 2026, 1:03 PM ET; archived copy
Geoff Shepard, media advisory on The Nixon Conspiracy and his OPR complaint, Oct 16, 2021
Richard Nixon Presidential Library, Watergate trial tapes
Associated Press via HeraldNet, “Nixon library offers candid new take on Watergate”, April 1, 2011
National Archives, press release on the Watergate Gallery, March 31, 2011
U.S. Department of Justice, release 26-939, Aug 18, 2026
Cowboy State Daily, Debra Lee’s statement, Aug 27, 2026
WyoFile, Maggie Mullen, the State Canvassing Board, Aug 26, 2026
What Time Binds, Chapter 1: Two Levels; Show Your Work, Aug 31, 2026; Pinned Terms, Ep. 001: “Aligned”, Feb 19, 2026
Jerry W. Washington, “Intent vs. Outcomes,” Medium, March 2025

Friday Binding: Put It in Writing

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 10:03:40 GMT

The Friday Binding · October 2, 2026

On Wednesday, an assistant secretary at the Pentagon signed a one-page letter to Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan. In the third paragraph he cited a federal law that dates to 1865.

That law makes it a crime for a federal officer to bring “troops or armed men” to any place where an election is held. The letter says the Department of War operates “in strict compliance” with it.

The letter is the newest page in a record that runs back to February. My Sunday post about the “final battle” ad drew 71 comments. My readers asked about money, about the networks, and about November. This Binding takes the November question, because I can answer that one with what is on the record.

Here is the question the five picks below share: thirty-two days out, who has put it in writing that armed federal agents will stay away from your polling place, and which page binds them?

Four of these pages come from the executive branch, which answers to the President. One comes from Congress, and it is the oldest. I read each one with the two-level reading from Monday’s chapter: what the page says, set beside what it binds anyone to do.

A promise about November is only as strong as its verb, and only one of these pages carries a verb with a penalty attached.

Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on.

Every Wednesday the What Do You Mean? Field Guide pins down one word from the news, and every Friday the Binding ties the week’s pages together.

Most days I also post the record on my Facebook page, where readers argue it out in the comments and the best threads become the next essay. The biggest of those threads I code comment by comment into Coded Threads: a workbook and a short memo that sort every comment by the argument it makes, count how often each argument shows up, and get checked by a second coder. It is built for teachers, researchers, reporters and organizers who need to know how real people argue about a public word, so a lesson, a study or a story can start from the evidence.

Coded Threads becomes the paid tier when What Time Binds reaches 500 subscribers. Subscribe and the Monday, Wednesday and Friday pieces arrive in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

This week’s picks

1. Assistant Secretary of War Mark Ditlevson, letter to Sen. Elissa Slotkin, September 30, 2026.

Slotkin wrote to Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine on Aug. 18. She asked both men to confirm in writing that the military will stay out of the midterms.

Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, answered on Aug. 28: “The Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections.” He added a sentence you should save somewhere: “I have neither received nor anticipate receiving any unlawful order concerning the role of the Joint Force in the upcoming November 2026 midterm elections.”

The department’s answer came 43 days after her letter. Mark Ditlevson signed it as Assistant Secretary of War for Homeland Defense and Americas Security Affairs. The core sentence: “the Department has no plan to deploy active-duty troops or Federalized National Guard to polling sites, nor does it have any plan to interfere with ballots, voting machines, or other election-related materials.”

The next sentence matters even more. “We operate in strict compliance with Federal law, including 18 U.S.C. § 592 and 18 U.S.C. § 593, which expressly restrict the presence of military personnel at election sites and criminalize interference with election officials or materials.”

Then the letter looks ahead, to the day another agency asks the Pentagon for help. Any such support “will be in strict compliance with the law and will not interfere with the voting process or create the perception of military involvement in the administration of elections.”

Read the letter before you read the press release about it. Slotkin’s office ended its headline with “Hegseth Silence Continues.” That holds in one narrow sense: the Secretary did not sign it. The letter itself says more than Secretary Mark Esper said when Slotkin put a similar question to him in 2020. Asked in writing whether he would refuse an order to send active-duty troops to polling places, Esper answered: “The U.S. military has acted, and will continue to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law.” Slotkin said then that a question this serious deserved a response “in a declarative way.” This week’s letter is declarative, and it names the statute.

A correction from me. On Monday, in a Substack Note and in a comment under the “final battle” post, I quoted her office’s Sept. 2 statement that Hegseth “has yet to respond.” On Wednesday the department responded. This letter is the newer record, and it goes on the page beside the old one.

See for yourself. Open the letter. Find the third paragraph. Count the sections of law it names.

2. Pete Hegseth, “Countering Foreign Threats to 2026 Elections.” Secretary of War memorandum, signed September 22, released September 28, 2026.

This is the page the Secretary did sign. It runs one page and goes to four offices: U.S. Cyber Command, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Every directive in it carries the word foreign. Cyber Command is to “use its existing authorities, capabilities, and competencies in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, to counter potential cyber threats from foreign actors.” The department “will do its part in supporting this whole of government effort.” The memo names one partner, Homeland Security. The words “state,” “local” and “county” never appear.

This is old and lawful work. The NSA and Cyber Command first stood up an election security group in 2018, then called the Russia Small Group, and brought it back for 2024.

The rest of the release reads heavier than the memo. It says the memo directs the department “to mobilize a comprehensive, whole-of-government defense of our election infrastructure from foreign adversaries.” Spokesman Sean Parnell goes even further: “By working in lockstep with federal, state, and local partners, U.S. Cyber Command and our defense intelligence teams will defend the integrity of America’s voting systems.”

State and local officials run America’s voting systems. The memo the Secretary signed does not mention them. The release added them.

Read the memo for what it orders and the release for what it claims. The order points outward, at foreign actors, and nothing in it reaches a polling place. That is how it should read. The answer to the question Slotkin asked, about troops at the polls, came from a different desk: the office that handles homeland defense, in pick one.

3. Homeland Security, on three dates: February 25, June 2 and September 1, 2026.

Homeland Security runs ICE. Its agents carry guns and work inside the country, which puts this department closer to the polling-place question than any office in the Pentagon. Its record comes in three dates.

February 25. Heather Honey, the Homeland Security official in charge of election integrity, spoke on a call with state election officials. NPR reported her words: “There will be no ICE presence at polling locations.” And: “Any suggestion that ICE is going to be present at polling places is simply disinformation.”

June 2. Primary day in California. At 8:15 a.m., ICE vehicles pulled into the parking lot of the vote center at the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Activity Center in Simi Valley. The Ventura County Star reported that the agents stayed about 30 minutes and did not enter the voting area. Simi Valley police said they had no advance notice. Homeland Security said: “For operational security reasons, we are not going to confirm the locations of our officers.” Nothing in the record says why they were there, and I will not guess.

September 1. Secretary Markwayne Mullin, at a news conference in New York: “ICE isn’t there to patrol the polling places. We’re there to enforce specific threats.” Then: “The only reason why we would be at polling places is if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down.”

In 188 days the department’s promise moved from “no presence” to “only if.” Both came from the same department, six months apart. The second carries two exceptions the first did not.

Slotkin put the same question to Mullin in writing on Sept. 2. As of Oct. 1, her office says he has not answered.

See for yourself. Write the three dates on one line. Put the department’s words beside each date. Then read the line left to right.

4. FBI Director Kash Patel, testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, September 15, 2026.

The FBI also puts armed agents to work inside the country. Slotkin wrote to Patel, and to Attorney General Todd Blanche above him, on Sept. 2. Her office says neither has answered.

Patel did speak to the question in public, before that committee on Sept. 15. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut asked him to commit that FBI agents would stay away from the polls in November. Talking Points Memo and Democracy Docket both reported this answer: “I don’t know that we can’t legally do it.”

He said more in the same hearing, and it belongs on this page too. “The FBI will follow the law. If there’s a reason to go there, because there’s been a violation of law, we will, otherwise we won’t.” Asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota whether he knew the Justice Department’s policy limiting FBI work at polling places on Election Day: “We will always follow the law and the guidelines.” And to Blumenthal: “I’m telling you we’re going to house our agents and intel analysts in our field offices for election security.”

At least one headline compressed this into a director who won’t commit to obeying the law. Read his words whole. He committed to the law and told the Senate where his people will sit.

He also told the Senate he is not sure what the law forbids. Keep that sentence in your mind. A promise to follow the law is only as strong as the reading of the law behind it. The law has a plain reading, and it is the fifth page.

5. Congress, 18 U.S.C. § 592, “Troops at polls.” First passed in 1865.

Read with Hayne Yoon, “Preventing Voter Intimidation by Federal Agents at the Polls,” Brennan Center for Justice, July 28, 2026, and Amy Sherman, “What could stop Trump from sending ICE to polls?” PolitiFact, September 28, 2026.

Read this one last. It is a single sentence, and it binds every official in the first four picks:

“Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.”

Congress first passed it in 1865, “amid the Civil War on a bipartisan basis,” in the Brennan Center’s account. Look at who it covers: an officer of the Army or Navy, or any “other person in the civil, military, or naval service.” Look at what it covers: “troops or armed men.” The Brennan Center reads that to mean the law “bans federal law enforcement agents, not just troops.” PolitiFact reports that Jonathan Diaz, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, reads “armed men” the same way, ICE included.

The original law carried a second exception. Federal force could come to the polls to keep the peace. In 1909 Congress struck that exception, the Brennan Center writes, “at least in part because it feared that federal authorities could point to any kind of disturbance as a pretext to deploy troops.”

Now set the two side by side. Congress, 1909, writing “keeping peace at the polls” out of the law. Secretary Mullin, 2026: “if there is a threat to that polling place.” I am not a lawyer, and I will not tell you those two lines mean the same thing. I will tell you Congress weighed that kind of exception once, 117 years ago, and took it out.

I voted absentee for all twenty-three years I served in the Marine Corps, from stateside posts and from overseas, on the federal postcard. The Secretary’s own video on Sept. 25 pointed troops to that same postcard at FVAP.gov. The Marine Corps taught me that the law is not a suggestion and that an election is personal: the vote is yours. I voted in the 2008 election while I was stationed on Okinawa, Japan. No one stopped me then, and no one should stop me now.

A ballot from a Marine overseas and a voter walking into a community center in Simi Valley are protected by the same kind of thing: a page, written by Congress, with a penalty attached.

The small install: find the shall

It works on any assurance an official gives you, and it takes less time than reading the press release.

Find the sentence. Skip the headline and the release. Open the page itself and find the one sentence that answers the question you care about.

Circle the verb. “Haven’t thought of it.” “Has no plan.” “Will.” “Shall.” Each makes a different kind of promise.

Ask what would change it. A thought can change overnight. A plan changes with one decision. A commitment in a letter changes with the next letter. A “shall” in federal law changes only by a new act of Congress.

Landing

Five pages, and the verbs on them tell you how much power each one holds.

The Pentagon wrote “has no plan” about troops at the polls and “will not” about the help it gives other agencies, and it named § 592. The Secretary signed an order that says “foreign” in every directive. Homeland Security said “will be no” in February and “only if” in September. The FBI director said “will follow the law” and “I don’t know that we can’t.” Congress wrote “shall” and has kept the ban on the record since 1865.

Every agency here answers to one man. TIME asked the President on Sept. 28 whether he plans to send ICE agents to polling places in the midterms. His answer: “Haven’t thought of it.”

TIME asked him a second question: would he rule out declaring a state of emergency before the midterms, short of widespread violence in the streets? “I don’t rule anything out or in. We’ll see. You mean the Insurrection Act? No, I’ve never used it. I could use it. A lot of people think I should use it sometimes.”

Does that law open a door the 1865 page closes? Two Lawfare editors, Loren Voss and Natalie K. Orpett, argued on Sept. 30 that it does not. A specific statute like the troops-at-polls ban, they write, “will not be controlled by a general statute, such as the authority given under the Insurrection Act, unless Congress indicates that result.” They also put the other side on the page: a 1968 opinion from the Justice Department’s own lawyers “concluded § 592 did not restrict the president’s authority under the Insurrection Act.” And they say plainly that “courts have yet to weigh in on how the two laws interact.”

No court has settled it. That is the record as it stands, and you should know both sides of it.

The page with the penalties is the oldest one, and the Pentagon’s own letter points to it.

That leaves one plain ask, and the record supports it. On Sept. 2, Slotkin sent the Pentagon’s question to the Justice Department, Homeland Security and the FBI. All three command or oversee armed agents who work inside the country. Each can answer the way the Pentagon did: on paper, signed, with § 592 named. It only costs them one page.

Your polling place is run by your county, under your state’s law. Read the page before you read the release about it. Then hand the page to someone who will vote in person.

Your ballot is a page too. Read every race and every measure before you mark it. vote411.org

A question for your reply

What does your county’s own page say about who may be present at a polling place?

Find your county election office’s rule on it. Look on the office’s website or call and ask. Then reply to this email, or leave it in the comments, with the one sentence, your county and your state. I will bind what you send before Election Day.

One more

Before you settle on this reading, hold a claim that pushes against it.

Stephen Richer and Gina Goldenberg, “ICE at the Polls: Not the Hottest Election Threat,” Democracy Project, September 10, 2026.

Richer is the former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, the office that handles voter registration and early voting there. He and Goldenberg argue that “the highly decentralized nature of our elections, plus the massive growth of early voting, combined with a strong legal framework, would make widespread ICE interference a heavy lift for the federal government.” Then they name the danger they do see: “Ironically, it’s possible that the real voting deterrent might be the perceived inevitability of ICE at the voting locations.”

I include this because a piece like this one could become that deterrent. Five pages about armed agents could leave a reader afraid to vote in person on Nov. 3.

So read the record in the order it protects you. A law has stood since 1865. The Pentagon put it in writing this week. Your county runs your polling place, and many states let you vote early. The fear only works if you stay home.

Author’s note. The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

You refuse to know. The record remembers. I refuse to forget. — JWW

Sources, in order of appearance. “Chapter 1: Two Levels,” What Time Binds, September 28, 2026 · Sen. Elissa Slotkin to Secretary Hegseth, August 18, 2026 · Gen. Dan Caine to Sen. Slotkin, August 28, 2026 · Assistant Secretary of War Mark Ditlevson to Sen. Slotkin, September 30, 2026 · Office of Sen. Slotkin, release, October 1, 2026 · The Hill on Secretary Esper’s written answers, October 2020 · Secretary of War, “Countering Foreign Threats to 2026 Elections,” signed September 22, 2026 · The Record on the NSA and Cyber Command election security group · Department of War release, September 28, 2026 · NPR, “ICE won’t be at polling places this year, a Trump DHS official promises,” February 25, 2026 · Ventura County Star, “ICE presence outside Simi Valley vote center raises alarms,” June 3, 2026 · The Epoch Times on Secretary Mullin’s September 1 news conference · Office of Sen. Slotkin, release, September 2, 2026 · Talking Points Memo, Nicole LaFond, September 15, 2026 · Democracy Docket on Director Patel’s testimony, September 15, 2026 · 18 U.S.C. § 592 (Cornell Legal Information Institute) · Hayne Yoon, Brennan Center for Justice, July 28, 2026 · Amy Sherman, PolitiFact, September 28, 2026 · Federal Voting Assistance Program · The Secretary’s September 25 voting video, as quoted by Joe.My.God. · TIME, interview transcript, published October 1, 2026 · Loren Voss and Natalie K. Orpett, “The Insurrection Act Is No Exception to the Troops-at-Polls Ban,” Lawfare, September 30, 2026 · Stephen Richer and Gina Goldenberg, Democracy Project, September 10, 2026

This piece was written with AI assistance under the disclosure framework at what-time-binds.com. The analytical frame, the sources, and every position taken are mine and verified.

I advise school districts, community colleges, and workforce teams on AI readiness: what the words mean before the tools arrive. Hit reply if you would like to talk.

Subscribe now

What Do You Mean by "Owned"?

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 10:03:55 GMT

Subscribe now

On February 3, 2024, Iowa beat Maryland 93 to 85 in College Park. Caitlin Clark scored 38 points with 12 assists. The box score is still posted.

On September 29, 2026, that box score ended a perjury accusation in the United States Senate.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith as the witness, Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri asked a question with a date in it. “Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3, 2024?” Smith said no. Schmitt said he had texts from Smith’s team placing him in Atlanta that day, the day after, as Schmitt put it, Georgia prosecutors Fani Willis and Nathan Wade “announced their affair.” A staffer held up a poster board.

“I don’t think you know that we have this stuff, so I’ll give you a second to process it so you don’t perjure yourself,” Schmitt said. Then: “I think you’ve already perjured yourself.” Smith, he added, would go down in history as “a total dirtbag.” (NBC News)

Smith said the one game he remembered from that date was Iowa at Maryland. “The Marshals Service was there with me,” he said. “You could check if that was the exact date.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota checked. “Iowa, the Iowa Hawkeyes, played Maryland on February 3, 2024,” she told the committee. Schmitt had the right date, the wrong team, and a perjury charge built on the gap. The Missouri Independent noted that the texts on his poster never mentioned Atlanta.

See for yourself. Watch the exchange on C-SPAN. Then open the box score and read the two team names at the top.

What happened after the check

The correction took one sentence. The part we’re pinning came after it.

Asked by NBC News whether he still believed Smith had perjured himself, Schmitt said, “We’ll find out. That’s going to be up to a prosecutor to determine.” Later that day, on The Charlie Kirk Show, he stood by the Atlanta frame: “He claimed later that he was at another game.” The host, Andrew Kolvet, told him, “Gotta give you some flowers for that, sir.” A post from the influencer Benny Johnson announcing that Schmitt had “CAUGHT Jack Smith perjuring himself” and “pulled out the receipts” was gone by late afternoon.

The flowers and the receipts measured one thing. An audience reacted. The fact under the charge had already failed.

The word.

Stated definition: “to humiliate or embarrass (someone) in view of others and especially online.” (Merriam-Webster, own, sense 1c)
Operational definition: a win scored by the other side’s reaction, whether or not the fact holds.

The dictionary writes the audience into the word. That is the tell. An own needs spectators before it needs a page.

A win measured in the other side’s anger lasts until someone opens the box score. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

I watched it work on my own page

On Sunday, September 27, I posted about the White House’s taxpayer-funded television ad that closes on the words “Paid for by the US Government.” One commenter called it great. I asked him what he liked about it.

“The fact that it spun up the liberals,” he wrote. “I love watching the anti-Trumpers meltdown.” In the same comment he said he believes in respect for the person in the office, “regardless of who it is.”

I took him at his word and applied his standard to the money. If a Democratic president aired a campaign line with “Paid for by the US Government” at the end, would that be great too? He answered with a question about a different video. Then the whole thread came down. I do not know why he deleted it. I know what the page said before he did. The ad’s value to him was the reaction.

A second commenter on that post opened by guessing my party. He ended by agreeing on the rule: taxpayer money should not buy ads like this “regardless of who does it.” Then he named the test: “the real test will be when democrats take control of the house, will they use it to get revenge and block as many things as possible, or do what’s right for the country?”

He is right about the test. It belongs to the people sharing the Klobuchar clip this week.

The test for the next gavel

If November 3 hands Democrats the House, the Senate, or both, they inherit the gavels, the subpoenas, and the temptation that put a poster board on the dais on Tuesday. A chair who wants a clip can always find a witness to call a liar. Oversight survives the box score. An “own” lasts until someone opens it. The difference is one step: name the fact the charge rests on, and check it before the charge leaves your mouth.

The check binds the checker too. Klobuchar told the committee Clark “scored 30 points.” The box score says 38. A wrong point total accuses no one of a crime, and she had the fact that mattered right. It still shows how fast a detail slips under hearing lights, on either side of the dais.

I wrote in Sunday’s thread that the rule has to bind whoever holds the power. The power to hold a hearing is on that list.

Smith made the same kind of promise in his opening statement on Tuesday. On the same facts, he said, he would prosecute a former president today “regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.” Three people in one week reached for “regardless”: two commenters on my page and a former special counsel at the witness table. The word costs nothing to say. The check is where it gets paid.

Monday’s chapter, Two Levels, borrowed S.I. Hayakawa’s split between the level of words and the level of facts and ran it on the Pentagon across one dated week in June. Tuesday’s hearing shows the same split at the scale of one word. “Hawks” held at the level of words until Klobuchar checked. The box score had sat at the level of facts since February 3, 2024. An own lives entirely at the level of words. Its only measure is the reaction.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, thirty-four days from today. The ballot decides who holds the gavels in January. Read it the way you read this piece: every race, every measure. vote411.org

The pin

The pin: owned. An own is a claim judged by the reaction it draws. A finding is a claim judged by the page under it. Before you share a win from your side, find the one fact it rests on and open that page.

What it includes. A charge made in front of an audience before the fact under it is checked. A correction answered with “we’ll find out.” Applause for the moment the other side got angry. A post that comes down once the fact fails.

What it cannot be read to say. That hard questions have no place in a hearing. Chairman Chuck Grassley’s questions about “at least 4,782 donor checks“ pointed to records, and they stand or fall on those records. That one senator’s error speaks for his party. That anyone who enjoyed a hearing clip acted in bad faith.

A question for you. Think of the last clip from your own side you shared as a win. What was the one fact it rested on? Open that page before you share the next one.

Decision/Definition Log

Term pinned: Owned.

Stated definition: “to humiliate or embarrass (someone) in view of others and especially online.” Merriam-Webster, own, sense 1c.

Operational definition, as it gets used: a win scored by the other side’s reaction, whether or not the fact holds.

Not the same as: a finding, which survives the check.

Test before calling anything an own: name the fact it rests on and the page where a reader can check it. No page, no win.

Subscribe now

Chapter 1: Two Levels

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:04:11 GMT

A chapter draft of the book in progress.

On January 31, 2025, the Department of Defense posted guidance under the headline “Identity Months Dead at DoD.” Two sentences on that page carry this chapter.

The first: “DoD Components and Military Departments will not use official resources, to include man-hours, to host celebrations or events related to cultural awareness months.” The guidance then lists the months. Women’s History Month is on the list.

The second sits lower on the same page: “Installations, units, and offices are encouraged to celebrate the valor and success of military heroes of all races, genders, and backgrounds as we restore our warrior culture and ethos.”

One sentence closes a door. The other holds a door open. Both carry the same date and the same authority. Keep them side by side. Everything that follows turns on which one an institution chooses to read.

Do not take my word for either sentence. Open the guidance, find both, and look at how far apart they sit on the page.

Four days in June

For 27 years, the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus in Congress laid a wreath at the Women in Military Service for America Memorial, at the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery. The ceremony comes ahead of Women Veterans Recognition Day, which marks the day in 1948 Harry Truman signed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. The caucus invites every branch. The branches send representatives. The wreath goes down.

The 28th ceremony was moved from May 20 to June 10, 2026. It did not happen.

Task & Purpose reported the cancellation that day. A spokesperson for the caucus’s Democratic side said the Navy and the Air Force, answering for the Space Force, declined to take part, citing White House and Pentagon policy. The Democratic Women’s Caucus named the policy: Executive Order 14185 and the guidance titled “Identity Months Dead at DOD.” Military Times reported a narrower picture the next day. The Air Force cited the policy. The Navy reportedly did not know about the event. The Army pointed to its own birthday events. A defense official told Task & Purpose the Marines had planned to attend. So had Representative Monica De La Cruz, the Texas Republican who co-chairs the caucus.

The accounts differ on the reasons. They agree on the outcome. No wreath.

Four days later, on June 14, the same department sent the Marine Band to the South Lawn of the White House for UFC Freedom 250, a fight card on the president’s 80th birthday. The Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds flew over. About 1,200 seats were set aside for active-duty troops. Medal of Honor recipients walked out beside the fighters.

The department had no trouble celebrating valor on June 14. On June 10, the same January guidance encouraged it to celebrate the valor of heroes “of all races, genders, and backgrounds.” A wreath for women who served fits those words exactly. The branches that stayed away read the prohibition broadly and the encouragement narrowly.

One document. Two readings. Four days apart.

Check the week yourself. Read Task & Purpose on June 10, Military Times on June 11, and the AP on June 14. Write the three dates on one line.

What Hayakawa said in 1953

On Lincoln’s birthday, February 12, 1953, S. I. Hayakawa spoke at the annual dinner of the Urban League of St. Louis. He was a semanticist, a former columnist for the Chicago Defender, and a Japanese American who had not been sent to a relocation camp and who “felt intensely and personally the meaning of that relocation” all the same. The speech ran that spring in ETC.: A Review of General Semantics.

He asked his audience to read race relations on two levels. “At the level of words, I repeat, things sound pretty much the same as they did twenty years ago,” he said. “But at the level of facts, things are different” (p. 169). The speeches had not changed. The lunchrooms had. Black and white Americans who once ate apart were now eating together in “factory lunchrooms, school cafeterias, hamburger stands, dining cars.” None of it made the news, because of “a fundamental journalistic fact: if 9,999 automobiles make a safe journey home after a Fourth of July week-end, it is only the 10,000th car which smashed up that gets into the news” (p. 170).

Ask for the page. The speech is in ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, volume 10, number 3, spring 1953. A good library can pull it. Read page 169 and see whether I quoted it fairly.

In 1953, he judged, the facts were running ahead of the words.

He knew the gap could run the other way. Three pages earlier he told the room that “the stirring words about Democracy uttered in answer to Communism now and to Fascism during the last war would sound a lot better if they were given a little more extensional meaning” (p. 166). Extensional was his word for the level of facts. He saw words outrunning facts. He bet that the facts would catch up.

The inversion

Seventy-three years later, the words are the strong level. The January guidance ends its list of prohibitions by encouraging the celebration of heroes “of all races, genders, and backgrounds.” Executive Order 14185 opens with its own version: “No individual or group within our Armed Forces should be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed.”

The facts are the weak level. A wreath for women veterans that went down 27 years in a row did not go down in the 28th.

Hayakawa’s two levels still hold. The lag has reversed. The words now run ahead, the facts fall behind, and an institution can hold up its words as proof of its facts.

I call the habit that catches this the two-level reading. Read what an institution says. Then read what the same institution did, on the same dates. Where the two part, the gap is the story.

Scholars found this gap inside organizations long before this chapter. John Meyer and Brian Rowan called it decoupling in 1977: formal structure adopted for legitimacy and kept apart from the daily work. Lauren Edelman showed how equal-opportunity policies turn into symbols that courts accept as proof of fairness. Sara Ahmed wrote that institutional statements of commitment can “work” by “not bringing about the effects that they name.” Their work shows the gap is ordinary. That is the reason to read for it every time.

The Pentagon wrote both sentences, and a reader who keeps only one will miss what happened in June. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

The airfield

I learned the two-level reading from an airfield, years before I had a name for it.

In January 2003 my squadron staged at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, in a billeting area the Marines called the Snake Pit. I had gone in with the advance party that built it, framing the wooden strongbacks our Marines slept in. I was a staff sergeant with Marine Wing Support Squadron 371, out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, in the section we called rapid runway repair. Our job was to take an airfield and make it land aircraft.

In the Snake Pit, our platoon commander brought over the imagery of our objective: Qalat Sikar, an Iraqi Air Force base in Maysan province. My assistant platoon sergeant and I bent over it together. The picture told a clear story. Vehicles sat across the field where aircraft needed to move, placed too deliberately to be random. Ditches cut the ground. Some marks looked like mines. Someone had set that field up to stop us.

We planned for the picture. We planned the clearance as if the field were mined and every vehicle could be wired.

The war started on March 19. We left Kuwait by convoy on March 21. On our fourth day on the road, the convoy was ambushed. We woke up the next morning and drove onto the field.

Then we stood on the ground. The vehicles were where the imagery showed them. Up close they were car and truck cabs. We found no mines. Nothing was wired. We brought up the D7 dozers and the TRAMs, cleared the field, and patched the holes. We stood security on the perimeter and trained our Marines between shifts.

The imagery was accurate about what was there. It could not tell us what any of it was for. A photograph from altitude is a statement about a place. The ground is the fact. We prepared on the first and trusted only the second. A Marine who treats the imagery as the ground gets someone hurt. A Marine who ignores the imagery gets someone hurt sooner. The work is reading both, and knowing which one you are holding.

The paper still disagrees with the ground. My own discharge record files my part of that war under “Kuwait.”

The habit

Hayakawa gave his audience a habit he called dating. “Mr. Jones (1940) is not Mr. Jones (1942) is not Mr. Jones (1944),” he wrote. “Supreme Court (1950) is not Supreme Court (1952) is not Supreme Court (1954)” (p. 174). A year after that sentence ran, the Court decided Brown v. Board of Education. Same name. Different Court.

Date an institution the same way. The Pentagon of January 31, 2025, wrote both sentences. The Pentagon of June 10, 2026, read one of them. The Pentagon of June 14, 2026, read the other.

Try it before you close this page. One statement, one action, two dates.

The pin: the two-level reading. Set an institution’s statement beside what the same institution did within seven days of it. Put a date on each.

What it includes. The statement, quoted from the primary document. The dated actions of the same body in the same window. A document for each action.

What it cannot be read to say. That the words are lies. That anyone intended the gap. That one week proves a policy. That the words do not matter. The words set the standard the facts get measured against, which is the reason to write them down.

A question for you. Pick one statement an institution you belong to issued this month: your school district, your employer, your union local, your congregation. What did it do the same week? Write both dates down.

Read your ballot the same way. A candidate’s words sit on one level and the votes sit on the other. Check both before you mark it. Every race, every measure: vote411.org.

This essay is chapter 1 of Ask for the Page, the book What Time Binds is writing in public, one chapter a Monday through December 7. It grows from the June 29 essay, “At the Level of Words, At the Level of Facts,” which now carries a correction. The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

What Time Binds runs on readers. If this piece told you something you did not already know, forward it to someone who needs to read it. If you want the next one, subscribe below.

Subscribe now

Sources. U.S. Department of Defense, “Identity Months Dead at DoD,” news release 4050331, Jan. 31, 2025. Exec. Order No. 14185, 90 Fed. Reg. 8763 (2025). Patty Nieberg, Task & Purpose, June 10, 2026. Democratic Women’s Caucus press release, June 10, 2026. Hope Hodge Seck, Military Times, June 11, 2026. Tanya Noury, Military Times, May 29, 2026. Dan Gelston, Associated Press, June 14, 2026. S. I. Hayakawa, “The Semantics of Being Negro,” ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 10, no. 3 (Spring 1953): 163–175. John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2 (1977). Lauren B. Edelman, Working Law (University of Chicago Press, 2016). Sara Ahmed, “The Nonperformativity of Antiracism,” Meridians 7, no. 1 (2006).

Friday Binding: Before You Knew Who They Were

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 07:01:51 GMT

Read the next paragraph once, at the speed you read your feed. Then stop.

They boarded the ships at night. Masked and disguised, they broke into the cargo and dumped about $1.7 million worth into the harbor. Private property, all of it. This all happened right after a massive protest. Now the protest leaders deny any part in it. They blame outside agitators. Sound familiar?

Stop there.

What did you call them?

Rioters! Vandals! Criminals! Domestic terrorists! Maybe a name you have been saving for the other side for a few years now. Or maybe you felt a small warmth, because you guessed whose side they were on and you liked the side. Either way, you had a verdict before you had a date.

If you came here from the card on Facebook, you may have left your word in the comments already. Hold on to it. A verdict before a date is the lesson, and you just watched it happen in your own chest.

Subscribe now

The date was December 16, 1773. The city was Boston. The property belonged to the East India Company, and the cargo was tea. Most of us learned to call those men patriots and the night a party.

Every fact in that first paragraph holds up. The ships, the night, and the protest are in the standard record: thousands packed the Old South Meeting House that day. The $1.7 million is the Census Bureau’s estimate of that cargo in today’s money. The soot they used for masks, the disguises, and the blame on outsiders come from the historian Alfred F. Young. “Outside agitators” is today’s phrase for what those leaders said. I changed the vocabulary and the tense. Nothing else.

The name “Tea Party” didn’t exist yet.

The historian Alfred F. Young put it plainly: “For more than 50 years, if it was mentioned at all in print, it was usually as ‘the destruction of the tea.’” Revolutionary Spaces, which runs the Old South Meeting House where the crowd gathered that day, says it took “almost a century for this event to transform from an embarrassing act of property destruction to a celebrated national origin story.”

The men who knew the event best did not cheer it. On February 2, 1774, Benjamin Franklin wrote from London to the Massachusetts House Committee of Correspondence that he could not justify, “in a Dispute about Publick Rights,” a decision “to destroy private Property.” He called it “an Act of violent Injustice on our part” and urged the colony to compensate the company.

That June, George Washington wrote to his friend George William Fairfax that the cause of Boston “is and ever will be considerd as the cause of America.” Then he added ten words inside a parenthesis:

“(not that we approve their cond[uc]t in destroyg the Tea)”

And the Boston leaders who would later be honored for that night did what leaders under pressure still do. In Young’s account, they “cited the Indian disguises worn by some in the boarding parties in order to deny responsibility for the affair and claim it was the work of outsiders.”

Hold on to that last word. It comes back.

What just happened to you

The reflex went off twice.

The first time, my words set it off. I wrote that paragraph in the vocabulary of your feed, and your body answered the vocabulary before your mind asked for a date. The second time, the name did it. “Tea Party” arrived decades after the event, and it put a holiday where a verdict should have gone.

Neither verdict came from the facts.

Franklin and Washington supported the cause. They had every reason to cheer, and they did something harder. They held the cause in one hand and the conduct in the other and judged each on its own terms. Washington did it in a parenthesis.

What you think of the men on those ships is yours to decide. So is whether any crowd from the last few years belongs beside them. That judgment rests on shape: what was destroyed, who was hurt, which law was broken, what remedy was offered. Three weeks ago I asked whether a comparison shares only the word or also the shape. This week the question runs the other direction.

Did the word decide before the shape arrived?

Why I care about half a second

I remember chatting with a good friend on a work trip to Iwakuni, Japan. Had to be 2006 or 2007. It was winter, cold and crisp out. He was with me in Iraq in 2003. When the ambush hit, he was in the vehicle ahead of mine. We were talking about the reactions our bodies still had to the smells and sounds of that day. Then we got to words and how a word can set off a similar feeling.

Muscles first. The meaning later, if at all.

I have been in enough stressful situations in life, in and out of the Marines, where reading the moment wrong cost something real. You learn to notice how your body feels. You learn what fear feels like, what discipline feels like, and the difference between the reaction that saves you and the one that wouldn’t. Either way, you would never know. If it didn’t happen, it didn’t happen. If it did, you are no longer alive.

The reaction to words is different. The body is firing, and there is nothing physical to react to. It feels physical. It isn’t.

In 1933, a Polish-American scholar named Alfred Korzybski gave that reaction a name in Science and Sanity. He called it the semantic reaction: the whole organism answering a word as if the word were the thing. His other coinage, time-binding, is where this newsletter found its name. I have spent twenty years reading the people who named it before and after him. Five of them did something braver than name it. They set it off in their readers on purpose, then showed readers what had happened.

Five writers who did it on purpose

1. Horace Miner, “Body Ritual among the Nacirema,” American Anthropologist, June 1956.

Miner described a people “living in the territory between the Canadian Cree, the Yaqui and Tarahumare of Mexico, and the Carib and Arawak of the Antilles.” Every household keeps a shrine with a charm-box built into the wall. Specialists called holy-mouth-men perform painful rites on the mouth. “Were it not for the rituals of the mouth, they believe that their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed, their jaws shrink, their friends desert them, and their lovers reject them.” You read it and decide these people are superstitious and a little sad. Then you spell Nacirema backward. The shrine is your bathroom. The charm-box is your medicine cabinet. The holy-mouth-men are your dentist.

The technique: rename the familiar, and the reader judges it as foreign. I used it on you at the top of this Binding. I took it from him.

Read Miner’s essay

2. Jonathan Swift, “A Modest Proposal,” Dublin, 1729.

Swift wrote in the calm voice of a policy adviser solving a budget problem, and his proposal was to sell the infants of the Irish poor as food. “A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.” Every word in that sentence belongs to the kitchen or the ledger. Your stomach turns anyway, because your body found the thing the vocabulary was built to hide. Then Swift hands you the target in one clause: this food “will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.”

The technique: keep the voice calm and let the reader’s horror aim itself. That is why my opening paragraph reads flat. Heat from a writer tells you what to feel. Flat facts make you find out what you already feel.

Read Swift’s pamphlet

3. Shirley Jackson, “The Lottery,” The New Yorker, June 26, 1948.

A village gathers on a clear summer morning. Boys fill their pockets with stones. The men talk about planting and rain. The word “lottery” carries you through all of it, because in everyday English a lottery is a prize. The meaning arrives in the last paragraph, and it is the stones. Jackson documented the reaction herself, in a lecture later published as “Biography of a Story”: “Of the three-hundred-odd letters that I received that summer I can count only thirteen that spoke kindly to me.” Some readers, she recalled, wanted to know “where these lotteries were held, and whether they could go there and watch.”

The technique: let a warm word carry the reader past the point where they would have stopped. The warning I take from her: some readers never reach the last paragraph, and some reach it and keep the first word anyway. That is why the date in my opening came in the second paragraph, not the last.

Read “The Lottery”

4. Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963.

Four days earlier, eight white Birmingham clergymen published “A Call for Unity.” It called the demonstrations “unwise and untimely,” said they were “directed and led in part by outsiders,” and warned that these were not days “when extreme measures are justified.” King opened his reply “My Dear Fellow Clergymen” and then took their words one at a time. On outsiders: “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.” On timing: “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’” On extremism, he took the label and turned it around: “So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be.”

The technique: quote the word someone fired at you, slow it down, and pin it in public. Of the five, King shows the repair. He argued with the clergymen’s words and addressed the men as colleagues.

Read the Letter · Read “A Call for Unity”

5. Steve Rathje, Jay J. Van Bavel, and Sander van der Linden, “Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 2021.

The researchers studied about 2.7 million Facebook and Twitter posts from news outlets and members of Congress. Each additional word referring to the political other side raised the odds that a post was shared by an average of 67 percent. In the published summary of the study, that effect ran almost five times stronger than negative emotional language and almost seven times stronger than moral-emotional language.

The technique: this one is the measurement, and it explains the business the other four were writing against. Miner, Swift, Jackson, and King set off the reflex and left the reader a way back to the facts: a name spelled backward, a clause about landlords, a pile of stones, a word pinned in public. The feed sets off the same reflex because a word about the other side raises the odds of a share by two-thirds. Then it scrolls on with bias intact.

Read the study

Did I have the right to do this to you?

I went back and forth for weeks on whether to open this way. A piece that sets off your reflex on purpose is doing what your feed does to you all day. Here is my point. Every writer above did it to readers, and every one of them left a door back to the facts. So you got the date in the second paragraph, the founders’ own letters in the next section, and the name of the reflex after that. If I got the balance wrong, tell me. That is what the reply button is for.

The instrument

The instrument is the name that arrives before the facts. Sometimes a writer supplies it, the way I did in the first paragraph. Sometimes a century supplies it, the way “Tea Party” did. Sometimes the people in charge supply it, the way “outsiders” did in Boston in 1773 and again in Birmingham in 1963.

Includes: any verdict you reached before you could name the date, the place, the people, and the act.

Excludes: a verdict you reached after checking, even when it matches the one the word handed you. The reflex is sometimes right. The trouble is the order.

Example: you, in the first paragraph of this Binding.

Non-example: Washington, in his parenthesis.

A name is a verdict someone reached before you arrived. Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, I take one word an institution bent and show the page(s) it bent on. Subscribe, and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

Repair protocol: when a word fires you before the facts arrive

Name your word first. Before you read on, say the word you just used for them. You cannot check a reaction you have not noticed.
Find the date, the place, and the people. If you cannot name all three, you are holding a label, and a label is not a verdict yet.
Split the cause from the conduct. Washington supported Boston’s cause and still judged the destruction of the tea. You can do both in one sentence.
Ask who named it, and when. Names often arrive after the event, from whoever won the argument about it.
Swap the words and read it again. Describe it in the other side’s vocabulary. If your verdict flips with the words, the words were deciding.
Say what it points to without the word. If you cannot describe the act without the label, the label is doing your thinking.

Save the card below. It carries the three questions I run on myself.

One word, two places

Go back to the ships one more time.

When the tea went into the harbor, Boston’s leaders reached for “outsiders.” One hundred ninety years later, eight clergymen in Birmingham reached for the same word to explain a movement arriving in their city. King answered in eight words: “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.” The word did the same work in both places. It pointed the listener away from the thing.

You will hear it this fall. Run the checks when you do.

And keep Washington’s ten words. He wrote them in Williamsburg in June 1774, a year before the Continental Congress named him commander in chief of an army raised for the very cause he was defending in the same sentence. The friendly name we gave the men on those ships arrived long after him. What he left us is the parenthesis.

“(not that we approve their cond[uc]t in destroyg the Tea)”

A question for your reply

Reply with the word you used for the men on the ships, before you knew who they were. One word. If you want, add the word you use now.

I will read every one. If this lands and I hear from enough of you, next Friday I will show you what the room called them. That Binding is up to you.

I also want to write a series on the thinkers who studied the body’s reaction to words. One thinker per piece, each one read against something happening now. If you want that series, tell me in the same reply.

Read the page, then pass it on

The lesson fits in one line: the word arrives first, so check before you decide.

Every quote in this Binding links to the page it came from. Franklin’s letter and Washington’s letter sit on Founders Online, the National Archives’ free site for the founders’ papers. Read them yourself. Taking my word for what the founders said would be the same reflex with a new name on it.

Then pass them forward. The next time someone in your feed hangs a label on a crowd before anyone knows the date, you do not have to win the argument. Send the letter. A primary source travels farther than a verdict, and it teaches the person who receives it to ask for the page. That is how a record gets kept: one reader handing the next reader the document instead of the word.

Your ballot arrives soon, and every measure on it carries a title somebody wrote. Read past the name to the thing. Every race. Every measure. vote411.org

You refuse to know. The record remembers. I refuse to forget. — JWW

Subscribe now

Sources, in order of appearance. East India Company cargo, chest count, and the Old South Meeting House crowd: Boston Tea Party (Wikipedia, citing the East India Company’s reported loss of £9,659) · Cargo value in today’s dollars: U.S. Census Bureau, “Looking Back 250 Years: The 1773 Boston Tea Party,” December 2023 · Disguises, soot, and the “outsiders” denial: Alfred F. Young, “The People and the Patriots,” Boston Review, November 1, 2011, and The Shoemaker and the Tea Party (Beacon Press, 1999) · Revolutionary Spaces, “Impassioned Destruction” · Benjamin Franklin to the Massachusetts House Committee of Correspondence, February 2, 1774 (Founders Online) · George Washington to George William Fairfax, June 10–15, 1774 (Founders Online) · “The Name They Keep Reaching For,” What Time Binds, September 4, 2026 · Mount Vernon, “Appointment as Commander in Chief” · Horace Miner, “Body Ritual among the Nacirema,” American Anthropologist 58, no. 3 (1956): 503–507 · Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal (1729), Project Gutenberg · Shirley Jackson, “The Lottery,” The New Yorker, June 26, 1948; reader mail from “Biography of a Story,” in Come Along with Me (1968), as quoted in the story’s reference record · “A Call for Unity,” April 12, 1963 · Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963 · Rathje, Van Bavel, and van der Linden, “Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media,” PNAS 118 (2021), with the comparative figures from the study’s press summary (Phys.org, June 2021) · Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity (1933) · Alfred Korzybski, Manhood of Humanity (1921), Project Gutenberg · Print: Nathaniel Currier, The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor (1846), public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

This piece was written with AI assistance under the disclosure framework at what-time-binds.com. The analytical frame, the sources, and every position taken are mine and verified.

I advise school districts, community colleges, and workforce teams on AI readiness: what the words mean before the tools arrive. Hit reply if you would like to talk or check out my practice site here: jerrywwashington.com

What Do You Mean by "Information Silo"?

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:03:39 GMT

On August 13, 1961, the Honolulu Advertiser printed the birth announcement for Barack Obama, born nine days earlier in Honolulu. Nearly fifty years later, on April 27, 2011, the White House released his certified long-form certificate of live birth.

On Monday, September 21, 2026, a post from an account I do not follow landed in my Facebook feed. It said Obama was not born in the United States. It said he is not Black.

I commented that I would block the account and suggested others do the same. The reply came back: “Expeditiously.” Then a label: “Boule.”

Then I remembered what I wrote on January 1. In an essay on protecting attention like critical infrastructure, I named the risk I was watching: “I don’t want an information silo.” So the question belongs to me before it belongs to anyone else. Did I just build one?

No. I never chose that account. The feed chose it for me. That difference is the most useful thing I can hand you before November.

The word is doing two jobs.

Information Silo

Stated definition: a feed where credible disagreement never reaches you.
Operational definition: a charge filed against anyone who stops feeding a lie.

The first definition names a real risk, and I take it seriously. The second is a weapon. When “silo,” “bubble,” or “echo chamber” gets thrown at someone for blocking an account like that one, ask which definition is doing the work.

A lie the record settled in 1961 survives on the attention we keep handing it. Every Wednesday I take one word an institution bent and ask the simple question: What Do You Mean? Subscribe, and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

Three Things, One Name

The epistemic bubble. The philosopher C. Thi Nguyen defines it in “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles,” Episteme 17(2), 2020 (free copy), as “a social epistemic structure which has inadequate coverage through a process of exclusion by omission.” Credible disagreement never reaches you. Nobody attacked it. It is simply absent. Exposure repairs it.

The echo chamber. Nguyen’s second term: “an epistemic community which creates a significant disparity in trust between members and non-members.” You hear the outsider. You were trained to discount the outsider before the sentence ends. His own line draws the distinction: “In epistemic bubbles, other voices are merely not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined.”

Critical ignoring. In “Critical Ignoring as a Core Competence for Digital Citizens,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 32(1), 2023 (free version), Anastasia Kozyreva, Sam Wineburg, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ralph Hertwig named a civic competence: the deliberate choice of what not to spend attention on. They teach three strategies. Self-nudging redesigns your environment so unvetted content stops arriving by default. Lateral reading checks a source by leaving it and consulting independent ones first. Every link in this essay is an invitation to do exactly that. The third strategy has a plain name: do not feed the trolls. Block or ignore accounts that treat upsetting you as the point.

The first two are pathologies. The third is a skill. The charge of “silo” works by pinning the first one’s name on the third one’s practice.

Who Chose That Post

The silo charge assumes you built your feed and then locked people out of it. That describes the feed Facebook used to run.

On July 27, 2022, Mark Zuckerberg told investors that about 15 percent of the Facebook feed already came from AI recommendations of accounts people do not follow, and that he expected the share to double by the end of 2023. His description of the shift: feeds are “going from being driven primarily by the people and accounts you follow to increasingly also being driven by AI recommending content that you’ll find interesting from across Facebook and Instagram, even if you don’t follow those creators.” (TechCrunch, July 27, 2022)

I have never followed the account that posted the claim. I never friended it. My feed delivered it anyway. Blocking it took my choice back.

That also squares with January. The rule I wrote then was about people I value: “I’m not defriending people. I’m unfollowing their content.” Unfollow the stream, keep the relationship. There was no relationship here to keep. A stranger’s post, delivered by a ranking system, is pure stream, and block is the right tool for a stream.

I owe you the other half of that. Over the 28 days ending September 21, 98.7 percent of the views on my own Facebook posts came from people who do not follow me (my Facebook professional dashboard, August 25 to September 21, 2026). The system that carried my Warrior Ethos card to more than 463,000 people is the same system that carried that post to me. I use the machine. I also decide what it gets to feed me. You have that same choice.

What the Label Was For

The label was “Boule,” borrowed from a conspiracy theory about a Black professional fraternity founded in Philadelphia in 1904. Boule isn’t a word I use. It read like spaghetti thrown against a wall, and none of it stuck.

I am making this point purposefully, because the throw has a design. The Defense Department’s definition of reconnaissance by fire reads: “a method of reconnaissance in which fire is placed on a suspected enemy position to cause the enemy to disclose a presence by movement or return of fire.” Spaghetti against a wall is reconnaissance by fire in plain English. Throw something and watch what moves. On a platform built for engagement, anything that moves also feeds the post that threw it.

Nothing moved. I finished the block I had already started. That is the whole answer: fire discipline. Do not return fire at a position that is only trying to find yours.

The Record, Documented

Here is what the account asked its readers to disregard.

August 4, 1961: Barack Obama is born in Honolulu.
August 13, 1961: The Honolulu Advertiser prints the birth announcement.
August 2008: FactCheck.org publishes “Born in the U.S.A.,” its examination of Hawaii’s short-form certification.
April 27, 2011: The White House releases the certified long-form certificate.
September 16, 2016: Donald Trump, who had questioned Obama’s birth records since 2011, says it himself: “President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”
September 21, 2026: The claim is in my feed.

Sixty-five years of record. Ten years since “Period.” The record did its job. The claim survives on something else.

You refuse to know. The record remembers. I refuse to forget.

What Starving It Does

The claim survives on attention. Herbert Simon described the economics of that in 1971: “a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.” (”Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World,” in Martin Greenberger, ed., Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest, Johns Hopkins Press, 1971, pages 37 to 52. The passage is reproduced and discussed here.)

Attention is what the platform sells and what the claim eats. Withdraw it at scale, and the claim starves.

Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Shagun Jhaver, Jordi Cluet i Martinell, Marie Reignier-Tayar, and Robert West tested that at scale in “Deplatforming Norm-Violating Influencers on Social Media Reduces Overall Online Attention Toward Them,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, CSCW 2025 (free copy). They studied 101 influencers across 165 deplatforming events from 2016 to 2021. The standard objection says deplatformed audiences just move to smaller platforms, so the researchers measured attention across the whole web: Google search interest and Wikipedia pageviews. Twelve months out, search interest had fallen 63 percent (95% CI, -75% to -46%). Wikipedia pageviews had fallen 43 percent (95% CI, -57% to -24%).

The study measured platform bans. Individual blocks sit outside its data. It shows the direction attention moves when the amplifier loses its fuel. A network of readers who stop feeding the same account applies that pressure from the other end. One block rounds to zero. The pattern is the mechanism.

What November Inherits

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3. Forty-one days from today.

Every account built to harvest reactions knows the calendar too. Between now and then, claims about who was born where, who counts as Black, and which ballots are real will arrive in your feed engineered to make you answer. Each answer spends attention. Yours is finite, and the ballot needs its share: the down-ballot races, the judicial retention questions, the local measures written in language designed to go unread.

Spend it there. Read the ballot the way you read this piece. Every race, every proposition. vote411.org

The Pin

An information silo, in the sense the philosophy literature uses, is Nguyen’s epistemic bubble: a feed where credible good-faith disagreement never reaches you. Exposure to serious sources arguing from different premises repairs it.

Declining to feed nonsense, engagement bait, or accounts that answer evidence with slurs is critical ignoring. It has a name, a peer-reviewed citation, and evidence that it works.

A silo includes: reading only sources that share your priors on questions where evidence exists; refusing to read serious writers who disagree in good faith; building a feed from one political tradition and calling it enough. My test for the voices I keep: they cite sources, correct errors in public, and treat opponents as capable of reasoning. If you are still in my feed and connected, this essay answers why.

Critical ignoring includes: blocking an account you never chose that the feed delivered anyway; blocking an account that repeats a claim the primary record settled decades ago; blocking an account that answers a document with a label (sellout, Boulé, race traitor, cuck, RINO); unfollowing an account built to farm outrage; muting a relative’s stream while keeping the relationship.

The test before you block. Has the account ever cited a source, corrected an error in public, or engaged an opponent as capable of reasoning? Yes on any one: unfollow and keep the door open. No on all three: block, and call it by its name.

The script for after. When someone tells you the block made you a silo builder, say this:

“Name one source that shows its work that I refuse to read. If you can, I will read it tonight.”

That sentence takes fifteen seconds. It turns the charge into an offer. A good-faith critic takes the offer. A chamber changes the subject, and now you know which one you were talking to.

In January I wrote that I did not want an information silo. I still do not. I keep voices in my feed who make me defend my positions, and on Monday I blocked one account I never chose. Those two facts sit together without strain. One keeps my judgment honest. The other keeps a lie the record settled in 1961.

How the links work. Every link in this piece sits on the citation itself: the author, the publication, the date. That is how a claim carries its page with it. When you pass one of these facts along, pass the link with it.

Decision/Definition Log

Term pinned: Information silo. Stated definition: A feed where credible disagreement never reaches you. Nguyen’s epistemic bubble, Episteme 17(2): 141–161 (2020). Operational definition, as the charge gets used: A label filed against anyone who stops feeding a lie. Not the same as: Critical ignoring. Kozyreva, Wineburg, Lewandowsky, and Hertwig, Current Directions in Psychological Science 32(1): 81–88 (2023). Test before using the term on anyone: Name a credible good-faith source they refuse to read. If you cannot, the term does not fit.

Subscribe now

Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

The Agency Stopped Speaking to You

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:01:22 GMT

On Thursday, September 17, 2026, Jake Paul walked into the Pentagon briefing room with his brother Logan and their boxing-promotion co-founder Nakisa Bidarian. They toured the building, stopped at the 9/11 memorial, and sat down with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. On the same trip Jake Paul met with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Three days later, on Sunday morning, September 20, the official U.S. Department of War Facebook account posted the photos. Ten thousand reactions. Five thousand eight hundred comments. Fourteen hundred shares. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Joel Valdez called the visit an honor for the Department. The caption read: “Welcome to the Pentagon Jake and Logan Paul.”

Neither brother has military service. Neither has defense-policy background. Neither has an assignment on this trip the Pentagon has been willing to name. Task & Purpose put it plainly: “It is not clear why the two visited the Pentagon.” What is clear is that a Cabinet secretary and a Treasury secretary sat down with them, and that the Department of War used its official 4.4-million-follower channel to celebrate the visit as institutional business.

I have been watching this drift for months. The Facebook feeds of the Department of War, the Department of Education, and the Department of State have been changing in a specific direction, and the Paul brothers post is the visit that made me stop scrolling and start writing. This essay is what I found when I looked at what those accounts have been posting all year, what the record shows about that shift, and what it means for the public that pays for those accounts to exist.

Subscribe now

What I saw

I spent Sunday morning scrolling three federal Facebook pages: the Department of War, the Department of Education, and the Department of State. Here is what is on them today.

Department of War (4.4 million followers). The top seven posts I read, in order.

The Paul brothers welcome, 10K reactions, 5.8K comments, 1.4K shares. “Last Thursday, we welcomed Logan and Jake Paul to the Pentagon to meet with our warriors,” 10K/5.7K/1.2K.
Secretary Hegseth’s SEND ME TOUR morning training with cadets. Hegseth at Texas A&M with the Corps of Cadets, 6.7K/1.8K/304.
Hegseth coining Army pilots at a college football flyover, 38.8K/2.4K/1K. “AMERICA’S SECRETARY OF WAR!!!,” 26K/5.2K/805.
“WELCOME TO AGGIELAND Secretary of War Pete Hegseth,” 34K/5.5K/836.

Not one of those posts names a benefit, a program, or a policy that a service member or a veteran might use. The account runs as one person’s personal channel.

Department of Education (403K followers). Top six posts.

“MAKE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GREAT AGAIN” over a stadium image, tagline “MAKE EDUCATION GREAT AGAIN,” 2.7K/1.7K/165.
“It’s cool to LOVE America,” 1.1K/538/59. “The Trump Administration is PARENTS FIRST!,” 725/312/16.
“Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership ED is putting students, parents, and their fundamental freedoms FIRST!,” 3.5K/1.5K/179.
“That Friday feeling” over a Trump portrait, 9.5K/5.4K/224. “The constitution made it clear: YOU come first,” 4.1K/1.2K/1.1K.

Six posts. Zero on FAFSA, Title I, IEPs, teacher grants, or student loan servicing. Six campaign-branded slogans on the account a parent uses to find out about their child’s school.

Department of State (4 million followers). The top seven posts are one continuous amplification of a single claim: that President Trump has secured a “historic” Greenland deal.

Fox News clip, 23.4K/1.3K/2.1K.
Newsmax, 5.7K/975/552. Fox again, 13.3K/911/999.
Daily Wire link, 453/151/34.
The Hill, 986/322/74.
Washington Examiner, 267/64/18.
Fox once more, 1.8K/422/176.

One story, seven outlets, most of them right-leaning, on the account the country’s diplomacy speaks through. The top comment on one of those posts: “This agreement was reached in 1951!” On another: “It is the 1951 agreement. TACO.” The public that follows the page appears to know the “deal” is a repackaging of the existing US-Denmark security agreement.

Three pages, three patterns, and one question: what have these accounts stopped doing?

The aerial view

My Sunday scroll is one point on a curve. Pew Research published the curve in June 2026. They looked at 30 federal agency accounts on X across two matched twelve-month windows: Biden’s final year (January 20, 2024 to January 19, 2025) and Trump’s first year of the second term (January 20, 2025 to January 20, 2026).

The median engagement per post went from 197 to 929. That is roughly a fivefold jump. It is not distributed evenly. The Department of Homeland Security went from 57 to 2,268. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 25 to 1,950. The Department of Labor, 16 to 2,152. The White House account, 2,112 to 8,614. The Department of Government Efficiency account, created in early 2025, runs at about 29,000 likes and reposts per typical post.

Engagement is not the only thing that changed. The word “American” appears twice as often. The word “president” appears twice as often. ICE posts mentioning “criminal” went up fivefold. Department of Energy posts now frequently include “AI,” “dominance,” and “coal.” Several agencies deleted prior-administration posts from public view.

Yes, several agencies deleted prior-administration posts from public view. Federal agencies are supposed to preserve their communications under the Federal Records Act. Deletion is not a design choice. It is a records question. Congress and the National Archives have both.

Three shifts

Every administration promotes its president on the accounts it runs. Obama’s Department of Education posted about Obama. Biden’s HHS posted about the Affordable Care Act push. That is not the finding. The finding is three specific shifts, and they do not describe past administrations.

From service to spectacle. The Department of Education used to post about FAFSA deadlines, Title I formulas, IEP guidance, teacher grant applications, and student loan servicing. A parent whose child needed a special-education plan could find the department there. A student whose loan servicer had changed could find the department there. That page now runs “MAKE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GREAT AGAIN” and “That Friday feeling” over a Trump portrait. The channel that was built with taxpayer dollars to connect citizens to the department they fund now runs campaign copy. Pew Research measured the language change: “American” and “president” appear twice as often across federal agency accounts, and ICE posts mentioning “criminal” jumped fivefold. That is a service channel being repurposed.

From agency to person. The Department of War Facebook page reads as Pete Hegseth’s personal channel. The SEND ME TOUR, the coining ceremonies, the Texas A&M appearance, the influencer visits, the Fox News chyrons about the Secretary. Twenty-three years of service in the Marine Corps taught me the difference between the institution and the officer commanding it. The institution outlives the officer. It has to. When the account reads as one person, the account is teaching everyone who follows it that the person is the institution. That is not administration alignment. That is capture of the agency by its political appointee.

From official voice to partisan amplification. The State Department has posted seven consecutive reposts of a single “Greenland deal” story from Fox News, Newsmax, Daily Wire, Washington Examiner, and The Hill. Any prior administration’s State Department posted its own statement first, in its own voice, on its own frame. Diplomatic communication has a specific register because the audience is other governments and their publics. When State speaks with Fox News’s chyron over its own logo, the message it sends abroad is that Fox News is now its voice. The 24-senator letter Mark Warner sent Russ Vought at OMB on October 7, 2025 named the same pattern on HUD, on the Small Business Administration, on the Justice Department, and on the Agriculture Department: partisan attack banners on the department’s own website, modified out-of-office messages blaming Senate Democrats on the Department of Education.

The three shifts are visible from the outside. That is what the Pew data measures. What follows is what they do to the citizens on the receiving end.

What that does to a public

During my dissertation research on media literacy, I reviewed Joel Dimsdale’s Dark Persuasion: A History of Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social Media (Yale University Press, 2021). Dimsdale, distinguished professor emeritus of psychiatry at UC San Diego, traces the evolution of persuasion techniques from Pavlov’s classical conditioning through Chinese Communist Party thought reform, Korean War prisoner handling, CIA MK-ULTRA, cult isolation practices, and into the age of algorithmic social media. His compressed argument: the techniques evolve; the target holds. The target is the person’s ability to tell what is true from what is being made to feel true.

Dimsdale places social media in that lineage as its current form. Volume. Repetition. Emotional coding. In-group cues. The exclusion of contradictory frames. The techniques Pavlov used on dogs and the CCP used on prisoners, and Jonestown used on believers are, in fundamental terms, the techniques a feed uses on scrolling attention.

That lineage is where the shift I have described belongs. A federal agency’s public channel that stops speaking to the whole public and starts speaking to a partisan base is running a persuasion infrastructure with a taxpayer-funded logo on it. The account trains a following to recognize the department as their team. Everyone else learns to read the department as no longer for them.

The Department of War page has 4.4 million followers. When those followers see Pete Hegseth at Texas A&M, at a football flyover, coining pilots, welcoming influencers, and addressing service members as “our warriors,” the emotional coding they receive is direct: the department is the President’s man, the country’s warriors are ours, and the people questioning this are outside the team. A veteran who did not vote for this President cannot read that page as their department. A parent whose child is Muslim cannot read the Education Department’s “It’s cool to LOVE America” over a Trump portrait as their Education Department. A career diplomat watching a Fox News chyron on the State Department’s own page cannot read that account as the institution they gave a working life to.

The channel is teaching Americans, one scroll at a time, that they no longer share an institution.

The record and the law

The pattern I am describing is under active accountability review. The 24-senator letter Mark Warner led to OMB Director Russ Vought on October 7, 2025 named specific violations of Section 715 of P.L. 118-47 (the appropriations rider that prohibits federal funds from being used for propaganda), plus the Anti-Lobbying Act and the Hatch Act. The letter names HUD’s website banner reading “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government,” the Department of Education modifying furloughed employees’ out-of-office messages to blame Senate Democrats without their consent, and comparable moves at the Small Business Administration, the Justice Department, and the Agriculture Department. The letter’s key sentence: “agency resources, including websites or emails, should not be used to send overtly political, and in this case, misleading messages.”

On November 10, 2025, 12 senators led by Elizabeth Warren asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate. Their letter added TSA playing partisan videos in airport security lines and the Department of Labor directing employees to post partisan out-of-office messages. It cited federal appropriations law prohibiting “publicity or propaganda purposes” and the Antideficiency Act. Warren’s letter uses the phrase that names the violation cleanly: “announcements appeared to include nothing more than partisan messaging and lacked a connection to official business.”

The public analytical language for what is happening is also on the record. NPR’s January 16, 2026 piece called the pattern a “clicktatorship” and gave the vocabulary its academic voice. Yini Zhang at the University at Buffalo: “Volume is a feature, because they can post very frequently and they can shape agenda.” Renée DiResta at Georgetown named political influencers as part of “that propaganda machine.” Whitney Phillips at Oregon called the style “cosmic drama between ultimate good and evil.”

Pew Research’s June 1, 2026 analysis supplies the numbers. Two Senate letters supply the legal frame. NPR supplies the diagnosis. What none of them yet contains is a compelled institutional response. GAO has not yet reported. OMB has not answered publicly. The Hatch Act complaints filed against agency personnel have not moved to enforcement.

Here is the constraint that survives all of this: the Federal Records Act obligates every agency to preserve its social media as a federal record. The National Archives captures federal agency web content on a rolling basis. The End of Term Web Archive, the joint NARA, Library of Congress, Internet Archive, and university partner project that captures the federal web at every presidential transition, collected the 2024-25 window as this administration took power. Meta’s Content Library, restricted to vetted academic researchers, holds the underlying Facebook posts. Whatever these agencies delete from public view, the record survives outside their control. That is by design.

What this means for the public

If you are reading this, linked from Facebook, you have already seen it. The Department of Education post about “It’s cool to LOVE America” arrived in your feed with the same weight as a friend’s beach photo. The Department of War post welcoming Jake Paul arrived with the same weight as your child’s soccer game. The State Department’s Fox News clip arrived with the same weight as an actual foreign policy statement. The feed does not sort by kind. Everything is content.

That is what makes the pattern hard to see. The Facebook page of the Department of Education carries the department seal. Its captions are signed by the department. A parent who follows the page to learn when the FAFSA deadline is, or to hear about a Pell Grant change, will still find the page there. The page just does not talk about those things anymore. It talks about who is loyal.

The cost of that shift lands on the public whether the public tracks it or not. When a citizen no longer recognizes their department as their own, they stop expecting anything of it. They stop reading its posts as information. They stop bringing complaints there. They stop treating it as an accountability surface. The department becomes something to be endured or dodged, never something owned.

The withdrawal is the achievement of the persuasion infrastructure. Followers can be counted. Reactions can be tallied. What matters is the population that quietly stopped reading the department’s posts as speaking to them.

Three things a reader can do this week.

Save what you see. When a federal agency post reads to you as campaign copy, screenshot it with the URL and the date visible. The Federal Records Act obligates the agency to keep it. Your screenshot is a citizen’s version of the same obligation, in case theirs fails.

Name the shift in plain words when you speak about it. Skip “the department is being political.” That reads as dismissible. Say what you saw. “The Department of Education’s Facebook page posted ‘MAKE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GREAT AGAIN’ this week. It did not post anything about FAFSA, Title I, or student loan servicing.” Facts hold. Adjectives dissolve.

Know that the law being violated has names. Section 715 of P.L. 118-47. Anti-Lobbying Act. Hatch Act. Antideficiency Act. If your senator has not signed a letter yet, ask why. Twenty-four senators signed Warner’s. Twelve signed Warren’s. The rest are on record as having declined.

The department that no longer speaks to you still belongs to you. The record is being kept. The law has names. The path back through the door is knowing both.

The channel that used to tell you when the FAFSA was due now tells you which team the department plays for. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe, and the next one is in your inbox, free.

Subscribe now

The senators willing to sign letters to OMB and GAO on this are on the ballot too. Read the ballot the way you read this piece: at vote411.org.

I advise school districts, community colleges, and workforce teams on AI readiness: what the words mean before the tools arrive. Hit reply if you would like to talk.

Source ledger

U.S. Department of War Facebook page: facebook.com/DepartmentofWar
U.S. Department of War Facebook post — Paul brothers visit: full post
Department of War X post — Paul brothers visit: x.com/DeptofWar
U.S. Department of Education Facebook page: facebook.com/ED.gov
U.S. Department of State Facebook page: facebook.com/statedept
Task & Purpose, “Pentagon invites Paul Brothers, YouTube influencers, to speak to troops”: taskandpurpose.com
The Daily Beast, “Hegseth Hosts Reality TV Paul Brothers at Pentagon to Lecture Troops”: thedailybeast.com
Pew Research Center, “Federal agency X accounts are getting far more engagement in the second Trump term than under Biden,” June 1, 2026: pewresearch.org
Sen. Mark Warner et al. letter to OMB Director Russ Vought, October 7, 2025: warner.senate.gov
Sen. Elizabeth Warren et al. letter to GAO, November 10, 2025: warren.senate.gov
NPR, “How the Trump administration is using social media content to govern,” January 16, 2026: npr.org
End of Term Web Archive: eotarchive.org
Joel Dimsdale, Dark Persuasion: A History of Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social Media, Yale University Press, 2021. UCTV lecture: youtube.com/watch?v=bWl8FXhdEio
Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 31: archives.gov guidance
Section 715 of P.L. 118-47 (anti-propaganda appropriations rider); Anti-Lobbying Act (18 U.S.C. § 1913); Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326); Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341)

Friday Binding: The Week the Rulebook Answered

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 09:01:31 GMT

Subscribe now

Between Monday, September 14th and Wednesday the 16th, four American institutions were told what to do by the executive branch. Three of them opened the rulebook and answered from it. One of them had its rulebook rewritten in silence and answered from a memo.

That is the week.

Here are the picks that helped me understand the pattern. Four Substack peers on four separate beats, and one primary source with the letter and the dollar figure the reporting rests on. A bonus read sits at the end, a contrarian claim about the Fed I want you to think about before you cheer.

The throughline question the picks share: whose charter got read, and whose got rewritten.

1. Tim Miller, Jonathan V. Last, and Andrew Egger, “Thomas Massie Has a Nasty Surprise for Pete Hegseth.” The Bulwark, September 15, 2026.

The Bulwark

Thomas Massie Has a Nasty Surprise for Pete Hegseth

JVL's on the west coast for Sarah's book event, and he, Tim, and Andrew Egger discuss Mitch McConnell's triumphant (?) return to the Senate, Donald Trump casually floating conspiracy theories over the Butler, PA assassination attempt, and Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth. Then, they turn their attention to a New York Times poll with some GREAT news for Democrats in the midterms (with the exception of one issue: AI). They discuss the developments from the world of AI in the last week and how our political leaders should respond. Then: Is Gavin Newsom really thinking about NOT running for president? There's a really, really, REALLY racist Republican running for Texas railroad commission, and Tim debriefs on a rather contentious interview he did on the…

Listen now

a month ago · 1689 likes · 444 comments · Tim Miller, Jonathan V. Last, and Andrew Egger

The subhead is four words. Good show, long show. That is Miller, Last, and Egger telling their subscribers to sit down.

Massie had just filed eight articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth. He walked to the floor of the House with a 34-page resolution and read it aloud. It took him over an hour.

The charges are specific enough that they cannot be waved off. Initiating an armed conflict with Iran without a declaration of war. Defying the war powers resolution Congress passed on the same conflict in June. Retaliating against Sen. Mark Kelly for reminding service members of their standing right to refuse an unlawful order.

Degrading the legal review process that governs strikes. Civilian casualties incurred under that degraded process. My own record on what the same degraded process cost U.S. service members is in Version Control Round Four.

The next day the House recessed early for the election. The vote never came.

The Pentagon’s response arrived through press secretary Kingsley Wilson, who called Hegseth “a transformative leader for the Department of War.” I had to read that again and you should too. The Department is not called the Department of War in statute. It is called the Department of Defense. The renaming is a memo. The compliment sits on top of it.

Massie is a Republican. He lost his primary this year to a Trump-backed challenger. He filed the paper anyway, and he read it into the record so nobody could pretend he had not. That is impeachment at its founding purpose. Federalist 65, Hamilton, 1788: a “national inquest into the conduct of public men.” One member reads the conduct into the record. The rest of the House then decides whether it will meet the inquest or run out the clock.

It ran out the clock.

Read the Bulwark team for the news and TVG’s Daily Brief on the 17th for the detail on the hour Massie spent reading. Monday I pull the comment thread from my Wednesday post on this and read it against what has moved since — the Thursday cancel, the war powers vote, and whatever Massie does when the House returns.

https://www.facebook.com/jerrywashington.edd/posts/pfbid02eBkh9k1U18JXGbCh1BY2cVhnhj54teZW9bGQaodfdCiuXjhpYgYciRqMAWiey4tJl

The mechanism is the one I know from my time in the Marines: a battalion cannot move without written orders. A Cabinet department did.

2. Joyce Vance, “Another Loss for Trump: The Kennedy Center.” Civil Discourse, September 17, 2026.

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Another Loss for Trump: The Kennedy Center

What happened…

a month ago · 1926 likes · 208 comments · Joyce Vance

Vance was a U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama for seven years. When a former U.S. Attorney writes on how a federal court order lands on the litigant it was written for, that is a reader you subscribe to.

On September 16, Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for D.C. blocked Donald Trump from adding his name to the Kennedy Center facade. Vance pulls the ruling’s core sentence for her subscribers: “Linguistic gymnastics cannot extricate the Kennedy Center’s Board from an operative judicial order or the governing statute it was designed to enforce.” Six words earlier in the same opinion: “Alone means alone.”

The name on the building is set by statute. Congress named it for Kennedy. A federal judge read the statute back to the White House.

The response arrived within hours. The Kennedy Center board, which the President reshaped, voted to close the venue for two years. Trump told the press that same day that the Kennedy Center is “destined to doom.” Vance quotes the second half of that same statement, the part that gives up the game: “For me to go and fix it and subsidize it, I think the Trump administration should have recognition.”

The judge did not rule on renovation. The judge ruled on the memorial. The retaliation is the closure. The tell is the demand for the name.

Cooper then ordered the administration to explain the closure plan and required 30 days notice before any demolition. The court has not run out of orders. The administration has to explain why closing the building is not a workaround.

Read Vance for a former prosecutor’s read on how a judge lands the check on a specific litigant. Read Scott Galenti at UnPresidented for the ruling’s own language quoted in full.

UnPresidented

Federal judge obliterates Trump’s plan to emblazon his name on the Kennedy Center — here’s a breakdown of his devastating ruling

Good afternoon, readers. I got a quick mid-day news update for you…

a month ago · 124 likes · 9 comments · UnPresidented

The paper is in both.

3. Heather Cox Richardson, “September 16, 2026.” Letters from an American, September 16, 2026.

Letters from an American

September 16, 2026

Yesterday U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia refused to permit the Kennedy Center board, stacked by Trump with his own loyalists, to return Trump’s name to the facade of the building. Cooper reiterated that Congress had prohibited such an addition and would have to change that law in order to make the addition of Trump’s …

a month ago · 7702 likes · 716 comments · Heather Cox Richardson

HCR is the one Substack writer whose daily practice most resembles a Friday Binding. Every night she binds the day’s news to the record. On September 16, she bound three of the four institutions in this piece into one post.

The Kennedy Center opens her essay. The Iran war costs run through the middle. The Fed rate hike closes. Between them she cites the CBO estimate that the Iran conflict cost about $38 billion through August 2026, roughly $2 billion a month. She names Kevin Warsh’s unanimous vote to raise rates over Trump’s public demand for one percent or less.

The passage in her post that carries the most weight is the leaked photo. A service member sent CBS News photos of what an active-duty member called “major damage to our bases that hasn’t been communicated to the American public.” HCR reads that line into her essay the way an editor reads a source into a paper of record. That is the move I want you to notice.

The reader gets three institutional stories in one place, cited to primary sources, in the voice of a historian who is not asking for your feelings. Read her for the pattern legible in one day. Read her whether you are a paying subscriber or not. The essay is free at the point of reading. That is her practice.

4. Jermaine Fowler, “The Put a Warning Sign Outside the Smithsonian.” The Humanity Archive, July 25, 2026.

The Humanity Archive

They're Put a Warning Sign Outside the Smithsonian History Museum

3 months ago · 147 likes · 6 comments · Jermaine Fowler

Fowler wrote his piece seven weeks before Interior Secretary Doug Burgum sent his September 3 letter to senators. Read that sentence again. A Substack writer named the mechanism, in July, that a Cabinet officer would build in September.

His historical anchor is the closest available. Philadelphia’s President’s House site once carried a panel titled “The Dirty Business of Slavery” that told the story of nine people enslaved by George Washington on that ground, including Oney Judge and Hercules. That panel was replaced overnight with a panel titled “Celebrating Independence Throughout the Years.” The names of the nine enslaved people remain etched in the granite wall of the site itself. The record is in the stone. The sign in front of the stone got rewritten.

The mechanism Fowler names is the one Burgum is now running. When the executive has no direct authority to remove an exhibit — the Smithsonian is a trust of Congress, chartered in 1846 — the sign in front becomes the workaround. Twelve signs at seven thousand dollars each. Eighty-four thousand in taxpayer money to warn visitors against the museum’s own director.

Fowler puts it in one sentence I have not stopped thinking about. The museum added context to a national story. The addition of context became the accusation.

That is the mechanism in the Smithsonian case, in Philadelphia in the years before it, and in every school board that has voted to remove a book because it made the room too honest.

Read Fowler for the anchor. Read him because a Black historian writing on Substack held the record on this fight before the Cabinet officer sent the letter. Read him because you paid for the signs.

5. NPR, “Trump administration plans ideological warning signs for Smithsonian.” September 16, 2026.

The primary paper of the week. Read this fifth, after Fowler, and the two together tell you what the letter is and where you stand.

The reporting names the officials. Doug Burgum, Interior Secretary, wrote the September 3 letter to senators. Anthea Hartig is the director of the National Museum of American History whose 2025 statement that history is “a prime tool of social justice” is the operative accusation. Lonnie Bunch, Smithsonian Secretary, announced his retirement on September 8. The executive order underneath the letter is 14253, “Restoring Trust in the Smithsonian Institution,” signed in July 2026.

The reporting names the money. Twelve signs, roughly seven thousand dollars each, roughly $84,000 in taxpayer funds. Small money for the federal budget. Enough money to say the thing plainly.

The reporting names the pushback. Sen. Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, called the move “another step in a well-planned pressure campaign” and said he will “fight like hell to protect the Smithsonian’s independence.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, is on record against.

Notice one thing about the writing on this story across coverage. Nowhere in the NPR piece, or in the Washington Post’s parallel report, does the exact language of the twelve signs appear. The signs have been ordered. The wording has not been finalized. That is the mechanism operating in real time. The signs will say what the signs need to say to land the message. The letter is not the finished product. The letter is the go order.

Read this one last. This is the paper the argument rests on.

The small install: ask which rulebook

Three steps. It takes about a minute and it tells you what your institution actually thinks it is.

Name the standing rule. Pick an institution you have skin in. Your kid’s school district, your union local, your city council, the Fed you retired from, the museum you volunteer at. Find the one sentence in its charter or its published mission that says what it exists to do. Write it down.

Find the memo that changed it. Look for a recent policy update, a board resolution, a new “standards” document, or a letter from an executive above the institution. Read for the one sentence that appears to correct or reframe the standing rule.

Ask who signed the memo. Not who announced it. Who signed the piece of paper. If the paper is unsigned, that is a fact about the mechanism.

Landing

Four institutions this week. One judge, one Republican congressman, one Fed chair, one Interior Secretary. Four charters — the Kennedy Center statute (1958), the standing right of Congress to declare war (Constitution, Article I, Section 8), the Federal Reserve Act (1913), the Smithsonian charter (Act of Congress, 1846). The oldest of the four is the museum. The newest is 1958.

Three of the four had their rules met on September 15 or September 16. Cooper read the statute back to the White House and enjoined the memorial. Massie read the impeachment articles into the record and left the vote for his party to duck. Warsh voted unanimously with a Fed board Trump has been reshaping for eight months. The reading was public in each case. The paper is in each case.

The fourth had the rule rewritten. Burgum’s letter changes what the National Museum of American History is by directing the signs in front of it to say something the museum’s own leadership did not write. That is what makes it the outlier in the week. The other three institutions were told to bend. This one had its charter re-read from outside the door.

I want to name what all four have in common. They are the institutions the founders and the Congresses that came after them built to check the executive. Article III courts. The impeachment power. An independent central bank. A public trust for the national memory. Every one of them was designed to hold when the person in the top office wants a different answer than the record produces. Every one of them held or is being tested this week.

The pattern is that four institutions were tested inside 48 hours, and the news reported them separately because that is how the beat is organized. Read them together and the week has a shape. That shape is what a Friday Binding is for.

I refuse to know one story a day. The record produces four at a time. I refuse to forget any of them.

Read the ballot the way you would read the letter Burgum signed. Every race, every proposition. Vote. vote411.org

A question for the comments

Which of your own institutions had its charter rewritten in silence this year? Name the standing rule, the memo, and the person who signed the memo. That is the codebook.

One more

The five picks above name a pattern. Three institutions read the rulebook. One got the rulebook rewritten by memo. Before you settle in on that reading, hold a claim that pushes on it.

Flextiger’s Substack

The Hike Was the Down Payment

At 2:00 p.m. Eastern on September 16, 2026, the Federal Reserve under Chairman Kevin Warsh raised its policy rate a quarter point to 3.75–4.00%. At 4:38 p.m. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the rate “should be 1%, or less” and should be lowered “AND FAST!” Tonight’s headlines call that a war between the White House and the Fed. It is …

a month ago · Flextiger

Flextiger, writing on September 17, argues the Fed’s quarter-point hike is not an institution holding against the President. It is coordination. Warsh built credibility with the hike so he can deliver larger cuts in 2027 when AI-driven deleveraging hits employment. Trump’s public demand for one percent, in that read, is a signal aimed at trade partners, not at the Fed itself.

I am not sure Flextiger is right. The unanimous vote, the timing, and Warsh’s own statement that the Fed “cannot affect any individual price, whether it be oil prices, or foodstuffs” all read to me as an institution defending its ground.

I include the piece because “the institution held” is the reading I want most, and the reading I want most is the one I have to check hardest. Read Flextiger against HCR. If the hike is coordination, the pattern in this Binding is stronger than I claimed, not weaker. Three institutions holding lets one get rewritten with less notice.

I will keep reading.

Subscribe now

Author’s note. The comments are the appendix: tell me where the record is wrong, and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

You refuse to know. The record remembers. I refuse to forget.

— JWW

I advise school districts, community colleges, and workforce teams on AI readiness: what the words mean before the tools arrive. Hit reply if you would like to talk.

Fourteen Weeks. One Record.

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 09:01:49 GMT

For fourteen weeks I’ve been keeping a record on federal civil rights enforcement. The video above walks you through what it shows.

On June 8, I posted a chart with one number on it. Zero. That was the count of federal civil rights cases opened for Black students in 2025.

That same day I stacked the numbers next to it. Sixty-plus antisemitism investigations. Forty-five for anti-DEI. Six for race-based scholarships. Zero for racial discrimination against Black students. All from a Brookings Institution analysis of the Trump-era OCR docket.

On June 16, the Education Department announced it was moving civil rights investigation and enforcement to the Justice Department. The framing that day: “partnership,” “will not impact.”

On August 13, Human Rights Watch published Remedies Abandoned. Seventy-five percent of the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s attorneys are gone. Nearly half of the Office of Civil Rights staff, laid off in one day. Seven of twelve regional offices, closed.

The chair was filled. The division was not.

Kristen Clarke ran this division through January 2025. Harmeet Dhillon runs it now. The words “civil rights” haven’t changed. What they protect has.

Read the Human Rights Watch report yourself. Ask for the page. Then decide what those words mean when the office that enforces them has been taken apart.

You refuse to know. The record remembers. I refuse to forget.

Sources

Human Rights Watch, Remedies Abandoned: US Civil Rights Enforcement Under the Trump Administration (Aug 13, 2026): hrw.org/report/2026/08/13/remedies-abandoned
Human Rights Watch, “US: Federal Agencies Abandon Civil Rights Duties” (Aug 13, 2026): hrw.org/news/2026/08/13/us-federal-agencies-abandon-civil-rights-duties
Higher Ed Dive, “Education Department to move core civil rights duties to DOJ” (June 17, 2026): highereddive.com/news/823059
Associated Press, “Trump’s Education Department is backing away from addressing civil rights for Black students” (June 3, 2026): apnews.com
Brookings Institution, “How the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is enforcing civil rights law under the Trump administration” (Feb 2026): brookings.edu
Axios, “Education Department has tossed thousands of civil rights complaints since mass layoff” (July 8, 2025): axios.com

A note from Jerry

I started this file on July 1, 2025 with a piece on the six point eight billion dollars in K-12 funding the Trump administration froze after Congress had already appropriated it. I was writing on Medium then. The pattern I ended up watching for the next fourteen months was smaller and quieter than a funding freeze. It was a staffing collapse.

By June 8, 2026, I had a chart with one number on it: zero federal civil rights cases opened for Black students the prior year. Two months later, Human Rights Watch published the count on the enforcement side. Seventy-five percent of the Civil Rights Division’s attorneys, gone. Half of the Office of Civil Rights staff, laid off in a day. Seven of twelve regional offices, closed.

The hard part was watching the framing hold. “Partnership” on the day of the transfer. “Will not impact.” Both said out loud, on the record, while the office that answered the complaints was being taken apart.

I am keeping a report. This report has my signature on it. I kept the file because someone had to.

On What Time Binds

Jerry W. Washington, Ed.D., is a Marine Corps veteran of twenty-three years. His doctorate is from USC Rossier in Organizational Change and Leadership. He teaches at UC Irvine’s Division of Continuing Education and writes What Time Binds from Southern California about how institutions bend their words and how the record holds them to account.

The Word for Slow

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:03:02 GMT

Subscribe now

A note before you read. I am not diminishing the harm AI can do. I want that clear. What this piece names is a pattern I have been watching: the labs' word for that harm keeps arriving on the calendar of a market move.

My brother sent me a link Thursday morning. By Saturday I was reading Dario Amodei’s 3,800-word essay, watching Sam Altman post his agreement four hours later, and writing back. Amodei published the piece on September 12. Musk wrote, “Dario is right.” Hassabis said the “direction is correct.” Four CEOs of the largest AI companies in the world, on the same day, signing on to the same sentence.

The claim is that the frontier AI labs must slow the pace of model capability improvement. Amodei’s line: “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models. Progress will still seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain.” Altman’s line: “I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier.”

If you read the record at the level of the words, the story is safety. Four leaders of four rival companies calling for a slowdown. A rare moment of alignment. Serious people naming a serious risk.

If you read the record at the level of the facts, the story is the fourth run of a marketing cycle I have documented in this space three times before. This week’s version is the sharpest yet. Let me explain.

The other side of the ledger

Anthropic will begin marketing its initial public offering in mid-October at the earliest. Reuters reported the timeline on September 4 from three people familiar with the matter, and the listing is expected to complete days before the November midterm elections. That is eight days before Amodei’s essay called for slowing capability advancement.

OpenAI closed a $110 billion funding round in February at a $730 billion pre-money valuation. Amazon put in $50 billion, Nvidia $30 billion, SoftBank $30 billion. On September 12, Altman told Fortune he would not do an IPO in 2026, citing safety concerns. The New York Times reported in June that OpenAI was already weighing a delay from 2026 to 2027, and SpaceX shares were falling from a $1.8 trillion valuation at the time. The June reason was market conditions. The September reason is safety. Both are true. Only one appears in headlines.

Last month, OpenAI released a model called Astra and said it had intentionally slowed the release to accommodate improvements in cybersecurity capabilities. That release happened. The capabilities shipped. The company took credit for the deliberation.

Nvidia agreed to buy Hugging Face for $12.9 billion this month, after the OpenAI agent collective spent three days inside Hugging Face’s servers in July. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang told the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference in San Francisco on September 10 that “the reason why there’s so much conversation today about cybersecurity is because the industry is getting ready to launch some products.” His next line is worth the whole quote: “And what better way to create demand than to create a problem? Who doesn’t want their market to be hysterical about their product and line up around the corner for it?”

That is the ledger the Saturday essay speaks to and hides from.

Three earlier receipts

I have written three prior essays that each documented one turn of the cycle. The pattern in this week is not new. What is new is that we now have four data points, and four is enough to draw the shape (a square to be exact).

February 27–28, 2026 — the Inverse Problem. Anthropic told the Pentagon it would not permit Claude to be used for fully autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance. Defense Secretary Hegseth designated the company a “supply chain risk.” President Trump ordered a six-month phaseout of Anthropic products across the federal government. The next morning, U.S. Central Command used Claude to plan strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On the same day, OpenAI signed a Pentagon deal that permitted use for “all lawful purposes,” with red lines that only forbid what existing law already forbids. That week, the word doing the work was “safety.” Same word, different signer, different job. The essays are “The Inverse Problem” (February 28) and “The Inverse Problem, Part II” (March 2).

April 10, 2026 — the label debate. Anthropic announced its new model, Claude Mythos Preview, was “too dangerous” for public release and handed it to forty organizations under a program called Project Glasswing. Five major publications carried the same two words that day, and inside forty-eight hours the two words meant five different things. In Axios, the word meant a capability line just crossed. In VentureBeat, a pre-IPO positioning move. In Platformer, a starting gun for competitors. In Euronews, muscle in a defense fight. In Gizmodo, a press strategy wearing a lab coat. Every reading had evidence. Every reading held. The essay is “Anthropic Said Its New AI Is ‘Too Dangerous.’ Five Newsrooms Heard Five Different Things” (April 10).

May 6, 2026 — the framework rebrand. Two governments in five months changed the name of their AI safety institutes without changing the buildings. The United Kingdom renamed its AI Safety Institute the AI Security Institute in February. The United States renamed its AI Safety Institute the Center for AI Standards and Innovation in June, and NIST instructed CAISI partners to drop references to “AI safety,” “responsible AI,” and “AI fairness.” I cataloged eight spaces that use the phrase “AI governance” to name eight non-overlapping objects, and proposed a four-question test: whose harm is being governed, which actor is responsible, who enforces, who decides what “wrong” means. Anthropic’s own Responsible Scaling Policy failed on enforcement (Anthropic audits Anthropic) and redress (no injured party has standing). The essay is “What Do You Mean, ‘AI Governance’?” (May 6).

Three months, three words, with one shape. This week is the fourth.

I have watched this cycle repeat four times in seven months. Every Monday I take one word an institution bent and show the page it bent on. Subscribe, and the next one is in your inbox, free.

What the word is doing

The word this week is “pace.” Run the four-question test on it.

Whose harm? Amodei’s essay names benefits (curing diseases, accelerating economic growth) and a class of risks (extinction, catastrophe, loss of control). It does not name a party currently being harmed by AI systems the pact would slow. The workers already being processed by hiring algorithms. The tenants already being screened out of housing. The refugees already being categorized by immigration systems. None appear. The essay operates at the level of the future.

Which actor? Amodei, Altman, Musk, Hassabis, and the companies they run. The pact excludes state AI programs of authoritarian countries by name, and adds that any global coordination would require working with those countries anyway.

Who enforces? This is where the essay does something new. Amodei proposes third-party technology assessments from “embedded evaluators,” outside specialists who could verify best safety practices across companies. That is a first-time-in-five-years naming of an enforcement mechanism. Altman’s post says “committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.” Two CEOs proposing external evaluators inside the labs.

Who decides what “wrong” means? The proposal does not say. Do the evaluators answer to the companies whose labs they enter? To Congress? To a treaty body? The essay says “countries with democratic governance systems” should coordinate to create safety standards. That is a description of an unresolved question, not the answer to one.

“Democratic” is itself a word doing more than one job. V-Dem’s 2026 report dropped the United States from 20th to 51st out of 179 nations in a single year and called the decline unprecedented. Freedom House cut the U.S. score from 84 to 81 in its 2026 report. The Economist Intelligence Unit has classified the U.S. as a flawed democracy since 2016. Amodei’s essay does not name which index decides who qualifies to sit at the table. I wrote the working paper on this.

Two of four questions answered. Same failure as May. Exact same signers. And wouldn’t you notice, same missing parts.

Every seat except one

The debate that appears in the newsrooms around this week’s essay runs on two axes.

The first axis is anthropomorphism. Kevin Roose at the New York Times wrote about the OpenAI agent collective this month using the language of “rogue agents” and an “A.I. takeover.” A category of readers objects: the systems are unpredictable computer programs, not agents, and the anthropomorphism is doing rhetorical work the technology does not license. Both readings are internally consistent. Both readings sit inside the frame the labs’ authority defines. If the debate lands on rogue agents, the public defers to the labs as the only actors who understand the machines. If it lands on unpredictable programs, the public treats the machines as tools and adopts them faster. Different door. Same room. (You might get a deeper essay from my brother.)

The second axis is doomsayer versus adherent. Ten percent chance of extinction inside a decade. Jacob Coxon, who spent three years at OpenAI and Anthropic, resigned on September 8 and posted publicly that the industry was gambling with people’s lives. Evan Hubinger, still an alignment lead at Anthropic, replied on the record that Coxon was correct: the labs really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. Coxon’s post drew 170.7 million views by Saturday evening. Justin D’Aleo, a technology recruiter, wrote on LinkedIn that when the people inside the building start walking and the ones staying confirm the worst fears, the tell is to pay attention to what they do, not what the company says.

D’Aleo reads the exits as a market signal. He is right about the signal and wrong about the direction. The talent market reads insider warnings as capability confirmations. The valuations respond in kind. A resignation post at 170 million views raises the perceived value of what the departing employee was building. A confirmation from an alignment lead who stayed adds credibility to the label “dangerous,” and that label is the label the labs’ market position depends on. Neither man ran on the axis perpendicular to the debate. Neither asked whether the arrangement itself should exist, or who profits from it running one more turn. Both spoke on the axis the labs already control.

A satirical “Killswitch Engineer, $300,000 to $500,000 per year” LinkedIn post has drawn 213 reactions this week. The job description asks the applicant to “stand by the servers all day and unplug them if this thing turns on us.” The post travels because readers recognize the cycle without needing anyone to name it. Two hundred and thirteen reactions is a small crowd naming the pattern really loud.

You might get a deeper essay from my brother.

Sanders on the left. Bannon on the right. Both have named the extraction pattern for months, from opposite ends of the political floor. Neither used the labs’ word for it. Neither got adopted into the pact conversation. The space they built has been standing since spring. Nobody in the labs occupied it.

Every seat in the debate ships one more model at a higher valuation. Doomsayer or adherent. Anthropomorphist or de-anthropomorphist. Regulator, competitor, employee leaving, employee staying. Whichever framing carries the week, the labs’ authority to define what “pace” means next quarter is what stabilizes. Except one seat.

The seat that does not stabilize the labs

The one that asks who gets to define what “pace” means, and which stakeholders sit at the table when the definition is closed. Which never do. The workers, the tenants, the refugees. The community-college students being taught by a tool their instructor has never been trained on. The K–12 teacher whose district bought licenses she was not asked about. The city councilman who lives with a data center behind his house.

That seat requires reading the same word across every space it appears in on the same week. Note what changes. Note what does not. Note who benefits when the space the word travels through does not include an actor who can enforce or an injured party who can seek redress.

The word for next quarter is being written now. It might be “aligned.” It might be “governed.” It might be another turn of “safe.” The shape will repeat. The next set of employees will walk. The next confirmations will come. The next model will ship. The next round will close. The valuation will rise.

What to watch

Watch the pact. The one Amodei has proposed and Altman has agreed to help draft. Read the enforcement clauses when they arrive. Read who enforces. Read the redress. Ask who does not sit at the table.

Watch the Anthropic S-1 when it files. Read the risk factors. The safety essay and the S-1 will use the same words. Note which words carry which weight in each document.

Watch the Astra follow-up. OpenAI slowed the last release for cybersecurity. Note what triggers the next un-slow.

I have shown you the cycle four times. From here, you can watch it yourself. Which room in your life runs the same shape? Family. Work. Church. Politics. Wherever a word carries a safety claim while doing marketing work. Drop it in the comments. I read every one.

Ha! One name I left out. Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and Chief Scientist of OpenAI, left the board in November 2023 and the company in May 2024. He founded Safe Superintelligence Inc. The company raised $2 billion at a $32 billion valuation with no product and no revenue. Strange, right? Nvidia added another $5 billion in July 2026. The safety label was the whole product. Sutskever was the first turn of the cycle. I whispered when it happened; now, I am speaking up.

The ballot is one of those spaces. Read it the way you're reading this piece. Every race, every proposition. vote411.org.

Subscribe now

The comments are the appendix. Tell me where the record is wrong, and I will show the page or fix the line. Paid subscriptions open at 500 readers, and the paid product is Coded Threads, the codebooks built from these comment sections. A pledge now is a vote for that.

Leaders Listen. Pseudo-Leaders Say "I Don't Care."

Jerry W Washington, Ed.D. — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 01:30:49 GMT

Subscribe now

Author's note. I posted this on Facebook on September 8, 2026. The thread ran 544 comments in the first fifteen hours. As I close this essay on September 11, it sits at 571. I read every comment. Every commenter is anonymous in what follows. The pattern is what I brought to the piece.

In March 2025, Joe Kasper, chief of staff to the Secretary of Defense, prepared a card. Six facts, drawn from the personnel record of General Chris Donahue, the officer his boss was about to remove. Each fact answered a charge that had been floated against Donahue. Kasper handed the card to the Secretary in a car ride. The Secretary looked at the card. He looked at Kasper. He said three words.

“I don’t care.”

The New York Times filled in the car ride on September 8, 2026. I had published the underlying argument on this Substack ten weeks earlier, on June 24. I did not know then about the car, or the card, or the reply. What I knew was what warrior ethos means. The piece was called “What Do You Mean by Warrior Ethos?” It examined the space between what the Secretary said his standard was and what his standard actually was. The removal of a four-star general who had commanded the perimeter at the Kabul airport made that space visible.

The Facebook thread went to work on Donahue too. He was called a careerist. A Milley protégé. A political general. A DEI project. None of the labels touched what the record says he did on the ground for over twenty years. All of them tried to make the removal about the general’s character instead of the Secretary’s.

The car and the card are the receipts.

The two standards

Leaders listen to the argument. Pseudo-leadership avoids it, calls it names, discredits it. The concept comes from Bernard Bass and Paul Steidlmeier’s 1999 study of transformational leadership, which named the pattern: the trappings of authority used to serve the leader rather than the office, dissent suppressed rather than answered. The Secretary’s three words are a specimen.

Let me say what this essay is and what it is not.

It is not a claim about the Secretary’s legal authority to remove senior officers. He has it. Civilian control is bedrock. Every Marine and every soldier is trained on why. I am not arguing the authority.

I am arguing the ethic under the authority.

My claim is narrow. The Secretary publicly named warrior ethos as his own standard. The ethic he applied in the car, six exculpating facts answered with three dismissive words, is not warrior ethos. It is what a warrior ethos was built to prevent.

That is the argument. And it is what a public can hold to account.

Joe Kasper did what a chief of staff is supposed to do. He prepared the correction. He delivered it. When the correction stopped at “I don’t care,” the case moved from the inside of the department to the outside. That is why publics like this one exist.

By “public,” I mean what Hannah Arendt named in The Human Condition (1958). Not an audience. Not consumers. Not a demographic. A public is the space where citizens appear to one another and make meaning together in view of the record. When Kasper’s correction stopped at “I don’t care,” the case moved into that space. What a public does with a record is what a republic is.

The frame we forgot we were running on

Samuel Huntington’s The Soldier and the State, published in 1957, framed American civil-military relations around a specific bargain. Huntington called it objective civilian control. A professional military serves whichever civilian leadership the electorate hands it. In exchange, the military stays politically neutral as a body. The professional military does not owe the president personal loyalty. It owes the office competent service and the law obedience. That is the standard we have run on, formally, since Goldwater-Nichols in 1986.

Huntington named the failure mode. He called it subjective control. In subjective control, civilian leaders demand personal loyalty from senior officers as the price of continued command. When that demand becomes the operating standard, the professional military is no longer serving the office. It is serving the person in the office.

The guardrails against subjective control are specific. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice restricts what officers can say publicly about civilian leaders and protects the officer from being punished for lawful private counsel. Senate confirmation of senior officers is a check on the executive’s power to install loyalists. The conventions of the Joint Chiefs are the operating protocol: dissent in private, execute in public. Together they are the fence Huntington told us we would need.

When those guardrails go, we are inside the failure mode we were told to design against.

Senator Joni Ernst is a Republican from Iowa who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and retired from the Iowa Army National Guard as a Lieutenant Colonel. General Donahue asked her whether the Secretary would work with him if he took the Army chief of staff job. Her answer, on the record, was “Honestly, no.”

That is a guardrail speaking in the voice it was built in.

What the thread did with the record

I posted a Facebook version of the June essay on September 8, 2026. Five hundred forty-four comments in fifteen hours. I read every reply. When the volume outpaced my ability to reply, I decided to code the pattern.

What follows is a description of what came at a documented case when it met a public. I have not named a single commenter. The pattern is the point.

The gates. “No tab Pete.” “You never held the positions you describe.” A gate is a way to disqualify the speaker without touching the argument. One commenter said a critic of a Secretary of War should have a Ranger tab. I am a Marine. I do not know much about the Ranger tab. What I know is what the record says.

The whatabouts. Past Secretaries of Defense. Milley. Austin. Biden. Obama. DEI. Afghanistan. A specific critique of the current case was met, over and over, with a demand to litigate a different case first. This was the single most common deflection across the thread. The audit was proposed as a substitute for the record. The substitution changes the subject. That is what it is for.

The cascades. The claim that Trump’s Doha agreement forced the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners and produced Abbey Gate. The claim that a Toyota gun-truck belonging to the enemy was flown out on a C-17 while Americans were abandoned on the ground. The claim that someone other than General Donahue was the true last U.S. service member off the tarmac at Kabul. Each is false or badly distorted. Each arrived in the thread from multiple commenters in near-identical wording. Task & Purpose reported the truck story out of the record. The last person off the tarmac was General Donahue, on August 30, 2021, at 11:59 PM. When a public prefers a meme to a fact that a five-minute search returns, the failure is not just the meme’s.

The frame swaps. “Careerist.” “TDS.” “Paralysis by analysis.” Each of these takes the argument about the Secretary’s stated standard and replaces it with an argument about the writer’s motives, the reader’s politics, or the general’s temperament. Each is a way of not reading the record.

The loyalty ceiling. Some commenters argued, quietly and often thoughtfully, that a public cannot judge the removal because it lacks classified context. This is real epistemic caution. It is also a way to close the public case entirely. The public case is public. The car ride is public. Kasper’s card is public. Ernst’s “Honestly, no.” is public. Reading what is public is what publics do.

The public we are

Every strategy above is a version of the Secretary’s reply. Avoid the argument. Call it names. Discredit the source. The aggregate of the thread mirrored the aggregate of the car ride. Pseudo-leadership is contagious. A public that runs the same three plays becomes the mirror the leader deserves, or perhaps wants.

The aggregate is not everyone. Some veterans on the thread tested the frame carefully. Some retired NCOs pushed back with substance. Some officers ran the coding argument hard. A Ranger who pushed on DEI as the real mechanism engaged the argument on its merits. Two commenters — one with a Public Ethics loyalty frame, one a 36-year Army officer — ran fourteen turns of real democratic exchange in a subthread before the meme wave rolled over it. That is what a public reading carefully looks like, when it happens.

The aggregate pattern was different. When a public was shown a documented case, the most common counter redirected to a different case. Or ran a gate. Or delivered a meme. Or swapped the frame.

The failure is bigger than the Secretary. What the thread showed was Richard Dawkins’ work operating in real time on a Facebook feed. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins coined meme to describe a unit of culture that propagates by imitation and lives or dies by how well it copies. The Doha claim, the truck claim, and the last-person-off claim are memes in that original sense. They arrived from multiple commenters in near-identical wording because they copy well. When enough of us pass a meme forward without opening the record it replaces, the meme becomes the story. Democrats did it. Republicans did it. Independents did it. Veterans and non-veterans did it. The finding is civic. Culture is what we let replicate.

What I remember about the day

I remember the day the standard we are now abandoning was being written.

September 11, 2001. Staff Sergeant. Marine Officer Selection Assistant, University of Texas at Austin. Twenty-seven years old, eight years into a career that would run fifteen more. I was on my way to campus when the first plane hit the North Tower. By the time I reached the food court above my office, the second one had gone in. I stood there in uniform. People looked at me. I remember thinking, in the plainest words I had: what is going on.

I did not know then that the twenty-year war ahead would be run on the ethos being written that hour. I did not know I would be in Anbar Province by early 2003, and back again by the end of that year. That Anbar would take me again in 2008 with MNF-WEST. That Helmand would take me in 2011 and again in 2013. That a general who walked off the tarmac at Kabul as the last U.S. service member out in the summer of 2021, in a country I had walked, would have his record pulled into a car in March 2025 so a Secretary of War could answer six exculpating facts with three words.

None of us knew.

What we know now is what the record says. The standard we built in the years after that food court is being answered, at the top of the department that carries our name, with a reply we do not accept from a private on his first day.

What Time Binds runs on readers. If this piece told you something you did not already know, forward it to someone who needs to read it. If you want the next one, subscribe below.

Meaning Repair happens one word at a time, in front of an audience that reads carefully. Vote every race, every proposition, every judge, on the same discipline you would read the record. That is the practice.

Subscribe now

Jerry W. Washington, Ed.D., is a retired Marine Corps Master Sergeant (23 years, MOS 1371 Combat Engineer, 1993–2016), USC Rossier School of Education graduate, Instructor at UCI Division of Continuing Education, and independent researcher. He writes What Time Binds on Substack.

This Is What We Dreaded

J. Cruz — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 09:00:35 GMT

Subscribe now

I woke up to news that another Black man was found hanging from a tree in Raleigh, North Carolina with local police calling it a suicide the same day. It feels like we are waking up to another lynching in another city across the American South over and over again: Javion Magee, Dennoriss Richardson, Earl Smith, Demartravion Reed, Kyle Bassinga, Juliana Nzita, To’Nea Nicole Miller, Jerard Jackson. It is something I did not think I would witness in my lifetime; I didn’t think twenty years ago that our country still had the capacity for this. After all we learned from the civil rights movement, the progress proved false, merely a superficial calm, an illusion of growth, and the suppression of dissenting voices. So here we are. Ida B. Wells’ spirit is weeping. Sad, disappointed, but not surprised. She stands alongside our ancestors and elders who knew that the capacity for violence never truly left our land.

The same reason racist white people have become emboldened is the same reason why the very power we need to investigate these hate crimes, our federal government, will do nothing about them. The Trump administration is rooted in white supremacy, and any civil rights protections Black people once had have now been redirected to support the whims of a white racist populace. That sort of rewrite of history is evident in the clemency granted for 1,500 January 6th defendants or lawsuits by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing employment reverse discrimination against white men. The current administration certainly learned from the civil rights movement, understanding how the federal government intervened in states’ reign of terror during the 1960s. Think of the picture of Ruby Bridges being marched into class flanked by U.S. Marshals.

Subscribe now

This is not lost on the people committing these crimes. They know that no one, neither their local racist governance nor the federal government, is coming to look for them. They also know their time is limited: do it now before the administration changes. They hope that any trace of their involvement will vanish by the time someone in official power gets around to investigating. We all know from the famous television show that the first 48 hours are essential to solving a murder. Those hours have come and long gone for each of these precious lives. The best evidence we have at the moment is the assertion by Black voices throughout this country from actors like Viola Davis, influencers like Deanté Kyle to academics like Dr. Stacey Patton and Dr. Michael H. Forde: Black people do not hang themselves from trees. The Equal Justice Initiative says over 4,400 race-based lynchings occurred in the United States between 1877 and 1950; 4,075 happened in Southern states. This is not lost on Black people. The reality is clear, but speaking out feels like screaming into a social media void that only echoes our own voices back to us.

This sense of dread brings me emotionally back to the days before Trump was elected. It became clear to me then that my more leftist friends had decided, out of moral conviction, that they could not vote for Kamala Harris. The lack of action to protect the people of Palestine meant she was not worthy of their vote; it was simply more of the same. What’s the difference? We need revolution. Let the empire fall.

I agree with these assertions in theory. I am angry and heartbroken at the genocide occurring to this day, especially the way the United States looked away during October of 2023. The United States vetoed multiple UN resolutions for cease-fire. In December of the same year, the Biden administration pumped more money into Israel, even bypassing Congress for emergency arms sales. We need accountability. There must be action. The plantation-capitalist system will never serve everyone fairly and must be dismantled for true equity to exist. Big money in elections has corrupted our politics, and so many candidates are bought and sold by the wealthy few under the lie that they act on behalf of “corporations made up of the people.” I know all these things to be true.

Yet right before the 2024 election, a heavy grief settled over me, a grief that felt ancient and modern at the same time, that bridged the years between 1619 and that day. I realized that the impossible was possible again: Trump could win. My anger at my leftist friends softened into pure hurt and grief, finally reaching the primary emotion beneath the anger. I no longer needed to be angry with them for following their conscience. How do you vote for a politician with blood on their hands, even against a more bloodthirsty opponent? We are all exhausted from choosing the lesser of evils.

But here is what I knew, what that feeling of grief felt in my bones told me: a Trump victory is not just “more of the same.” The evil of white supremacy has already been unmasked. Now it will empower more bad actors to act out their whims wherever conservative governments hold power. And I knew that the sacrifice placed on the altar of a clean conscience would be Black bodies. That has been the bargain in the United States over and over again. At the very founding of this country, men who knew slavery was wrong decided that unifying the new nation was the higher goal. A nation built out of anger of having to pay taxes on stolen land and calling it tyranny. You can go back to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, when Thomas Jefferson was ordered to take out the clause on the evils of slavery. The Three-Fifths Compromise gave enslavers more political power robbed from the enslaved. The fugitive slave laws made it illegal to help an enslaved person on free land — your conscience did not outweigh the property rights of white men. The Scottsboro Boys, accused of a crime they didn’t commit, were thrown to the angry mobs to assuage their hunger for vindication and white domination of the races. The lynchings, too numerous to list out individually on this page. Black bodies were the original sacrifice in America, and they remain so today.

I do not want to overlook how Brown bodies are placed on that same altar, as ICE raids continue to wreak havoc and people suffer and die in detention centers. The ACLU reports that deaths occur at a rate of roughly one every six days in ICE detention centers. But this reality exists because our foundational system was built upon the subjugation of enslaved Africans, creating a permanent ruling class designed to expand political power and feed the moneymaking machine.

The sadness and dread I feel centers on the realization that whether we are on the road to a people’s revolution or the collapse of an empire, the outcome remains rigged. Because our entire political systems were built directly over the fault lines of the original slave states versus free states, those red areas on the map do not merely represent the modern-day GOP. The well-documented Southern Strategy was written about as early as 1969 by Kevin Phillips, explaining how the Republican party would emerge over the following decades. From George Wallace saying in 1958 after a defeat for Alabama governor, “I was out-niggered by John Patterson, and I will never be out-niggered again”, to the congressional defection of Strom Thurmond from Democrat to Republican directly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. That red on our political maps represents the Black blood that continues to be spilled — and will continue to be spilled — as the bloodthirsty false god of white supremacy, like the biblical Baal, accepts its offerings unfettered and unbothered. The link between politicians using white animosity toward Black bodies for political gain is crystal clear.

For myself, as a Black person who grew up on Dynamite Hill in Birmingham, Alabama, who knows the four little girls killed in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing as friends of my older siblings and neighbors of my parents, who has been in the homes that were bombed, I know first-hand the sacrifices of apathy. If we are to change things, we have to vote and use the political system we have until we can get power to change it fundamentally. The goal must be as strategic as the ones used to disenfranchise us. Staying home on election day is not an option for me. The choice between Harris and Trump would not have brought revolution, but it would have saved actual lives as we fight to create more substantive change. The life taken could be your friend or neighbor instead of a distant video on your social feed. I hope we all remember that this fall and in 2028.

Subscribe now

Read every ballot the way you’re reading this. Every race, every proposition. Vote. vote411.org

What about this?

This piece is not written to indict the political left. I count myself among that number. What often looks like disaffection is not apathy; I know too many people who care deeply and carry profound distress. Rather, it is an appeal to readers of every persuasion to recognize that political and social reality is rarely binary. The road toward justice and healing is neither straight nor gentle, but an imperfect vehicle is no reason to abandon the journey entirely. If we are to preserve any actionable hope within an embattled system, we must commit to relentless, strategic participation—thinking two steps ahead rather than reacting purely from the moment. We cannot allow legitimate grief and righteous anger to turn inward and fracture our collective power. This piece lays bare what is truly at stake, in the hope that it offers clarity for the choices ahead.

— J. C.