Uncategorized
The historian who uncovered the ADL’s secret plot against the far-right John Birch Society
(JTA) — A historian leafing through files in an archive discovered how a Jewish organization helped bring down an influential far-right extremist movement in the United States in the 1960s and ’70s by going undercover and acting as self-appointed spies.
The discovery of the Anti-Defamation League’s covert operation targeting the John Birch Society is the basis of a chapter in a new book by political historian Matthew Dallek of George Washington University. Published in March, “Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right” is Dallek’s fourth book. It examines the roots of today’s emboldened conservative movement in the United States.
“Birchers” is a history of a group that at its height numbered as many as 100,000 members and “mobilized a loyal army of activists” in a campaign against what it saw as a vast communist conspiracy. He also examines how the Birchers’ mission to defend Christianity and capitalism morphed into a radical anti-civil rights agenda that groups like the ADL saw as an existential threat.
Dallek, who grew up in a Reform Jewish household in Los Angeles, recently sat with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency to discuss the rise of the Birchers, how the ADL infiltrated their ranks and whether such tactics are justified in the name of fighting extremism.
The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
JTA: Before we get into the Jewish aspect of the book, meaning the chapter on the Anti-Defamation League’s relationship with the John Birch Society, let’s take a step back. Who are so-called Birchers? Why do they matter?
Mathew Dallek: The John Birch Society was a household name in the 1960s, becoming the emblem of far-right extremism. It didn’t have huge numbers, but it did penetrate the culture and the national consciousness. Its leader, Robert Welch, had argued at one point that President Dwight Eisenhower was a dedicated agent of a communist conspiracy taking over the United States. Welch formed the John Birch Society to educate the American people about the nature of the communist threat.
In its heyday, the group had about 60,000 to 100,000 members, organized into small chapters. They sent out literature trying to give members roadmaps or ideas for what they could do. They believed a mass education of the public was needed because traditional two-party politics was not going to be very effective at exposing the communist threat. They would form front groups such as Impeach Earl Warren [the Supreme Court’s chief justice] or Support Your Local Police. They tried to ban certain books that they viewed as socialistic from being used in schools. Some Birchers ran for school board seats and protested at libraries.
Critics feared that the Birchers were a growing fascist or authoritarian group and that if they were not sidelined politically and culturally then the country could be overrun. The Nation magazine wrote that Birchers essentially had given their followers an invitation to engage in civil war, guerrilla-style. Those fears sparked a big debate about democracy. How does one sustain democracy and, at the height of the Cold War and in the shadow of World War II, Nazi fascist Germany, and the Holocaust?
As you were researching, you came across a trove of historical internal documents from the ADL in the archives of the American Jewish Historical Society in New York. Why did you devote a chapter to what you found in those documents? What did those files reveal to you about the John Birch Society?
These papers are a goldmine. They’re this incredible and often detailed window into the far-right and, in particular, the John Birch Society. They show the ADL had an extensive, multi-dimensional counterintelligence operation that they were running against the Birch Society.
People knew at the time that the ADL was attending events where Birchers were speaking. But the ADL also had undercover agents with code names, who were able to infiltrate the society’s headquarters in Belmont, Massachusetts, and various chapter officers. They dug up financial and employment information about individual Birchers. And they not only used the material for their own newsletters and press releases, but they also fed information to the media.
Another layer is about a debate that’s been going on: Were the Birchers racist and antisemitic? The Birch Society always insisted that they did not tolerate white supremacy and didn’t want any KKK members. They said they accepted people of all faiths and races. And it’s true that they did have a handful of Jewish and Black members.
But what the ADL found was that a lot of hate was bubbling up from the grassroots and also leaking out from the top. The ADL was able to document this in a systematic way.
Some critics of the ADL today say the organization has strayed from its mission by focusing not just on antisemitism but on a wider array of causes. But from reading your work, it sounds like the ADL even then took an expansive view of its role, examining not just direct attacks on Jews but also how the political environment can jeopardize Jews. Am I getting that right, and why did the ADL devote so many resources to a group like the John Birch Society?
So, a few things: It’s the late ’50s and ’60s, and a civil rights coalition is emerging. Benjamin Epstein, the national director of the ADL, was friendly with Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court justice, and Martin Luther King. John F. Kennedy went to an ADL event and praised the ADL for speaking out very strongly in defense of democracy and pushing for the equal treatment of all Americans.
Isadore Zack, who helped lead the spy operation, at one point wrote to his colleagues that it was only in a democracy that the Jewish community has been allowed to flourish and so, if you want to defend Jewish Americans, you also have to defend democracy.
There certainly were other threats at the time, but the Birch Society was seen by liberal critics, including the ADL, as a very secretive group that promoted conspiracy theories about communists who often became conflated with Jews.
Would you consider the ADL successful in its campaign against the Birchers?
They were successful. They used surreptitious and in some cases underhanded means to expose the antisemitism and the racism and also interest in violence or the violent rhetoric of the Birch Society in the 1960s.
The ADL was at the tip of the spear of a liberal coalition that included the White House, sometimes the Department of Justice, depending on the issue, the NAACP, Americans for Democratic Action, labor unions, the union-backed Group Research Inc., which was tracking the far-right as well. The ADL was one of the most, if not the most effective at constraining and discrediting the society.
Clearly, however, the Birchers’ ideas never died. They lived on and made a comeback.
It’s somewhat ironic that you reveal the existence of this spying apparatus devoted to targeting an extremist and antisemitic group in the 1960s given the infamy the ADL would earn in a later era, the 1990s, for allegations that they colluded with police agencies in San Francisco to spy on and harass political activists. They eventually settled with the Arab American, Black and American Indian groups that brought a federal civil suit. I know you didn’t study these revelations, which are outside the scope of your book, but could you perhaps reflect on why undercover tactics were seen as necessary or justified?
It’s important to remember that in the mid-20th century, law enforcement in the United States was often led by antisemites or people who were much more concerned with alleged internal communist threats — the threat from the left.
From the ADL’s vantage point, one could not rely on the government entities that were by law and by design supposed to protect Jewish Americans. There was a sense that this work had to be done, at least in part, outside of the parameters of the government.
When I first discovered the ADL’s spying, I didn’t quite know what to make of it. But I realized they weren’t just spying to spy, they exposed a lot of scary things, with echoes in our own times — like easy access to firearms, a hatred of the government, a denigration and defamation of minority groups. And this was all happening in the shadow of the Holocaust and World War II. I became much more sympathetic; they were very effective, and they had a vision of equality of treatment for all Americans.
It’s obviously controversial. I try not to shy away from it. But they had a lot of good reasons to fight back right and to fight back in this nonviolent way.
That last thought brings to mind another, right-wing Jewish group that existed in this era of taking things into our own hands, that did use violence, explosives even.
You mean the Jewish Defense League, led by Meir Kahane.
Yes, exactly.
He was a Bircher. Toward the end of my book, I mention that he was a member for a while, under his alias Michael King.
Antisemitism is on the rise, and lots of initiatives are being organized to address it, both by existing groups like the ADL and new ones. The ADL’s budget has almost doubled over the past seven years. I am seeing Jews talk of fighting back and taking things into their own hands. And we are in this politically precarious movement in American history, all of which suggests parallels to the era you examined. What kind of wisdom can we glean from examining the ADL’s secret and public fight against the John Birch Society as people who care about the issues affecting Jews today?
A lot of liberals in the 1960s and a lot of the leadership at the ADL grasped the axiom that things can always get worse.
In 2015-2016, you’ll recall, there was Trump’s demonization of Mexican immigrants, and the so-called “alt-right” around him and his campaign and expressions of vitriol by people like Steve Bannon.
There was an assumption among a lot of Americans and among a lot of Jewish Americans that the fringe right — the antisemites, the explicit racists, the white supremacists — that there’s not a majority for them and they can never achieve power.
If you go back and you look at Trump’s closing 2016 campaign ad, it’s textbook antisemitism. He flashes on screen these wealthy Jewish international bankers, and he argues that basically, there’s a conspiracy of these global elites who are stealing the wealth of honest Americans. There’s also 2017, the white supremacists in Charlottesville, who said “Jews will not replace us” and Trump saying there are fine people on both sides.
The sense that democracy is incredibly fragile is not just a theory or a concept: It’s an actuality, the sense as well, that the United States has only been a multiracial democracy for not very long and a haven for Jews for not that long either.
The work that the ADL and the NAACP and other groups did to try to constrain and discredit as fringe and extremist still goes on today. It’s harder to do for all sorts of reasons today including social media and the loss of faith in institutions. But it still goes on. You see the importance of institutional guardrails including the Department of Justice that is prosecuting 1,000 Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
The last thing I’ll say is that one of the admirable things in the 1960s about the ADL and the liberal coalition it belonged to is that it built support for landmark legislation like the Immigration Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of ’65. And a coalition eventually fell apart, but it was powerful, reminding us why Jewish American groups should care about or focus on issues that don’t directly affect Jewish people.
—
The post The historian who uncovered the ADL’s secret plot against the far-right John Birch Society appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu alleges that Israeli soldiers died because Biden-era arms ’embargo’ meant they ‘didn’t have enough ammunition’
(JTA) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alleged in comments on Tuesday that Israeli soldiers died during the war in Gaza because of a Biden-era “embargo” on weaponry.
“We paid a very heavy price in the war,” Netanyahu said during an appearance in Jerusalem. “Part of it is that at a certain point, we simply didn’t have enough ammunition, and people fell, heroes fell. Part of the loss of ammunition was also a result of the embargo.”
The Biden administration held back some heavy arms from Israel in mid-2024 in an effort to pressure Netanyahu not to enter the southern Gaza city of Rafah. It pledged to continue supplying other weapons.
Both Netanyahu and President Donald Trump, who resumed sending the heavy weapons in March 2025, have said the Biden-era restrictions amounted to an “embargo” and have charged that the Biden administration held back more arms than it said.
Biden administration officials immediately decried the comments, saying that Netanyahu was lying and emphasizing Biden’s personal and political support for Israel.
“Netanyahu is both not telling the truth and ungrateful to a president that literally saved Israel at its most vulnerable moment,” Amos Hochstein, whom Biden appointed as a Middle East envoy during the Gaza war, told Axios, in one example. He reiterated the point on X, where he noted that the Biden administration sent $20 billion in military aid to Israel and also participated twice in deflecting Iranian missile attacks.
The comments come at a delicate time for Netanyahu. The retrieval earlier this week of Ran Gvili, the last Israeli hostage in Gaza, adds pressure for him to support a new phase in the Gaza ceasefire which has the potential to become a wedge between him and Trump.
At the same time, the prime minister is facing potential political turmoil at home, with elections required before the end of the year and a budget process getting underway Wednesday that could trigger earlier elections if lawmakers cannot reach a deal over haredi Orthodox army enlistment.
The comments also come as Netanyahu has recently said he wants to “taper” U.S. military aid to zero over the next decade and instead position Israel to fund its own defense. A top Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, said he thought the shift should come sooner.
The post Netanyahu alleges that Israeli soldiers died because Biden-era arms ’embargo’ meant they ‘didn’t have enough ammunition’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Looking back on my 30 years as a Yiddish translator
איך בין געווען אַ מאָדערנער חסיד אַ בעל־תּשובֿה, וועלכער פֿילט זיך היימיש סײַ צווישן די חסידים, סײַ צווישן די וועלטלעכע ייִדישיסטן.
נישט לאַנג צוריק האָב איך געבלעטערט מײַן עלטסטע אָפּגעהיטע העפֿט מיט לידער אויף ייִדיש, אָנגעשריבן אין 1995 – 1996. האָב איך זיך פֿאַרטראַכט, אַז עס באַקומט זיך אַ יוביליי פֿון מײַן ייִדיש־שאַפֿן און אַן אײַנפֿאַל אַ ביסל אָנצושרײַבן וועגן דעם.
עפּעס האָב איך געגראַמט אויף ייִדיש נאָך פֿריִער, אָבער פֿון יענע „אורשאַפֿונגען‟ מײַנע איז נישט געבליבן קיין שפּור. אין יענער אַלטער העפֿט, וואָס האָט דורכגעמאַכט אַ לאַנגן וועג קיין אַמעריקע און מיט יאָרן שפּעטער צוריק קיין רוסלאַנד, געפֿינען זיך אויך דרײַ מײַנע איבערזעצונגען פֿון מײַן באַליבטן רוסישן דיכטער אָסיפּ מאַנדעלשטאַם.
אין 2002 זענען יענע איבערזעצונגען פּובליקירט געוואָרן אינעם אינטערנעץ־זשורנאַל „דער באַוועבטער ייִד‟, נאָר אין גאָר אַנדערע ווערסיעס. די היסטאָרישע העפֿט איז דעמאָלט געווען אין פּעטערבורג, און איך האָב געוווינט אין קווינס. אויף אויסווייניק האָב איך מײַנע טעקסטן נישט געדענקט און ממילא געמוזט זיי איבערשרײַבן. דער נײַערער נוסח האָט זיך באַקומען לאַוו־דווקא בעסער, פּשוט אַנדערש. פֿאַרגלײַכט:
געהיים איז שאָרכען אינעם וואַלד:
אַ פּרי פֿאַלט אַראָפּ אַנטשוויגן
אין אייביק הילכן פֿונעם ניגון,
וואָס וועלדער־שווײַגעניש אַנטהאַלט.
(1995-1996)
אַ טויבער, אַ געהיטער קלאַנג:
אַ פּרי איז אַראָפּגעפֿאַלן
אינמיטן טיף און אייביק שאַלן
אין שטילקייט פֿונעם וואַלד־געזאַנג.
(2002)
אינעם זעלבן יאָר, ווען אָט די שורות זענען דערשינען אינעם „באַוועבטן ייִד‟, האָב איך אָנגעהויבן אַרבעטן ווי אַ נײַעס־איבערזעצער אינעם פֿאָרווערטס. צוערשט האָב איך געאַרבעט צוויי טעג אַ וואָך; ביסלעכווײַז, מיט עטלעכע יאָר שפּעטער, האָב איך אָנגעהויבן אַרבעטן אין דער רעדאַקציע די גאַנצע וואָך. פֿאַרן באַקומען די שטעלע, זײַענדיק אַ יונגער ענטוזיאַסטישער יאַט, האָב איך געפֿירט ייִדיש־לימודים פֿרײַ פֿון אָפּצאָל אויף דער אינטערנעץ און פֿאַרשיידענע דיסקוסיעס אַרום דער ייִדישער שפּראַך. מײַן מיטבאַטייליקטער אין דעם איז געווען אַריה לאָנדאָן ז״ל (1946 – 2017) – דער זשורנאַליסט פֿון די ייִדיש־אוידיציעס אויף דער אינטערנאַציאָנאַלער ישׂראלדיקער ראַדיאָ „קול ישׂראל‟. מיר האָבן אָפֿט אַרומגערעדט מאַנדעלשטאַמס לידער.
ווי אַזוי האָב איך געפֿונען די אַרבעט אינעם פֿאָרווערטס? ערגעץ אין די ייִדישיסטישע אינטערנעץ־פֿאָרומס האָט זיך פֿאַרשפּרייט אַ קלאַנג, אַז דער פֿאָרווערטס זוכט אַ מיטאַרבעטער. האָב איך זיך פֿאַרבונדן מיט דער צײַטונג און זיך געיאַוועט אינעם ביוראָ. באַלד איז צו מיר צוגעקומען אַ סימפּאַטישע רויטהאָטיקע פֿרוי, וועלכע האָט זיך פֿאָרגעשטעלט: „איך בין שׂרה־רחל שעכטער‟. מיט אַזאַ באַשטעטיקנדיקן טאָן האָט זי זיך באַגריסט, אַז איך האָב פֿאַרשטאַנען אַז איך מוז זיך מאַכן, אַז איך ווייס, ווער זי איז!
דעם אמת געזאָגט, האָב איך קיין השׂגה נישט געהאַט. אין יענע יאָרן, צו וועלכע עס געהערט מײַן אַלטע לידער־העפֿט, האָב איך געטראָפֿן אַ קופּע נומערן פֿונעם פֿאָרווערטס אין דער פּעטערבורגער שיל, איבערגעלייענט אַ פּאָר צי אפֿשר אַ טוץ צײַטונגען. קיין שׂרה־רחל שעכטער האָב איך דאָרט נישט באַמערקט. פּונקט דעמאָלט, ווען איך האָב זיך געלאָזט קיין אַמעריקע, כּדי זיך אָנצושליסן אין אַ וויליאַמסבורגער ישיבֿה, האָט שׂרה־רחל באַקומען איר שטעלע אין דער צײַטונג.
רעדן האָב איך אין אַמעריקע גערעדט די ערשטע יאָרן רק אויף ייִדיש און כּמעט קיין ענגליש נישט געקענט, נאָר אינעם סאַטמאַרער וויליאַמסבורג האָב איך קיין פֿאָרווערטס אַוודאי בכלל נישט געזען.
אינעם ביוראָ האָט מיר יענע, נאָך אומבאַקאַנטע פֿרוי אײַנגעהענטיקט אַ שטיקל פּאַפּיר און געבעטן איבערצוזעצן אַ נײַעסל פֿון ענגליש אויף ייִדיש. האָב איך עס געטאָן, גלײַך באַקומען די שטעלע און זיך באַלד גוט באַקענט מיט דער רעדאַקציע: באָריס סאַנדלער, איציק גאָטעסמאַן, באָריס בודיאַנסקי און אַנדערע. אין גיכן האָב איך זיך אויך באַקענט מיט כּמעט אַלע באַוווּסטע ניו־יאָרקער ייִדישיסטן, און געוואָרן אַ יוצא־דופֿנדיקער פּאַרשוין: אַ מאָדערנער חסיד אַ בעל־תּשובֿה, וועלכער פֿילט זיך היימיש סײַ צווישן די חסידים, סײַ צווישן די וועלטלעכע ייִדישיסטן.
אַגבֿ, יענע איבערזעצונגען פֿון מאַנדעלשטאַמען האָב איך אַמאָל אויך פֿאָרגעלייענט אויף „קול ישׂראל‟. צו דער דאָזיקער ראַדיאָ־אוידיציע האָט דער פֿאָרווערטס האָט געהאַט אַן אומדיקערט צופֿעליק שײַכות. אַריה לאָנדאָן האָט מיר פּשוט אָנגעקלונגען אין דער רעדאַקציע און רעקאָרדירט דעם שמועס.
אינעם ביוראָ האָב איך נישט זעלטן געשמועסט וועגן מאַנדעלשטאַמען מיטן ייִדישן פּאָעט שלום בערגער וועלכער האָט דעמאָלט געפֿירט די וועבזײַט פֿון דער צײַטונג; שפּעטער האָב איך איבערגענומען אָט די מלאָכה.
אין מײַן היים־ביבליאָטעק שטייען נישט ווייניק ביכער, וואָס איך האָב זינט דעמאָלט רעדאַקטירט, איבערגעזעצט צי טיילווײַז אָנגעשריבן. דרײַסיק יאָר איז אַ לאַנגער וועג – אַ גאַנצע תּקופֿה, נאָר צו מאַנדעלשטאַמען קער איך זיך אום כּסדר. דעם פֿאַרגאַנגענעם דעצעמבער, בין איך אויפֿגעטראָטן אינעם פּעטערבורגער ייִדישן קהילה־צענטער מיט מײַנע נײַע איבערזעצונגען פֿונעם דאָזיקן פּאָעט אין פֿאַרגלײַך מיט מײַנע צען ייִדישע איבערזעצונגען פֿון רײַנער־מאַריאַ רילקעס לידער. מסתּמא צום ערשטן מאָל זענען רילקעס לידער איבערגעזעצט געוואָרן אויף ייִדיש; דער ליטעראַטור־פֿאָרשער וואַלערי דימשיץ האָט מיר געזאָגט, אַז קיין פֿריִערע ייִדישע איבערזעצונג פֿונעם דאָזיקן דיכטער אויף ייִדיש האָט ער נישט געזען.
וואָס שייך דעם פֿאָרווערטס, זענען בײַ מיר פֿונעם ייִנגערן דור מיטאַרבעטער פֿאַרבליבן באַזונדערס וואַרעמע זכרונות פֿון צוויי מיידלעך, דעמאָלט גאַנץ יונגע: אַנע (חנה) קוקאַ פֿון בערלין און ליודמילאַ שאָלאָכאָוואַ פֿון קיִעוו. נישט לאַנג האָבן זיי אָפּגעאַרבעט אינעם פֿאָרווערטס, נאָר מיט זיי האָט מען אַלעמאָל געקאָנט שמועסן אויף כּלערליי טשיקאַווע טעמעס (אַרײַנגערעכנט פּאָעזיע!) און זיך גוט אָנלאַכן. משה־יודאַ דײַטש, אַ סאַטמאַרער חסיד, וועלכער האָט דעמאָלט מיט אונדז געאַרבעט ווי אַ מיטדיזײַנער, איז געווען שטאַרק אומצופֿרידן דערמיט. סטײַטש, איך שרײַב טיפֿע אַרטיקלען וועגן חסידות און קבלה, און פּראַווע קלות־ראָש מיט אַ דײַטשקע און אַן אוקראַיִנקע! סאַראַ חוצפּה!
אויך זייער טשיקאַווע איז מיר געווען צו פֿירן די רובריק, דער עיקר, וועגן וויסנשאַפֿטלעכע ידיעות און נײַעס, וואָס האָט טאַקע געהייסן „טשיקאַוועס אַרום דער וועלט‟. כ׳האָף, אַז מע וועט דיגיטאַליזירן יענע נומערן און איך וועל קענען יענע אַרטיקעלעך אַליין איבערצולייענען.
להיפּוך צו אומאָנגענעמע קאָרפּאָראַטיווע צי סתּם העסלעכע אַרבעט־סבֿיבֿות, איז די פֿאָרווערטס־רעדאַקציע געבליבן אין מײַן זכּרון אַ פֿרײַנדלעכע חבֿרה, כּמעט אַ משפּחה, וווּ מע האָט געקאָנט שעפּן פֿון די מיטאַרבעטער און ביוראָ־באַזוכער אַ סך ידיעות וועגן די סאָוועטישע ייִדישע שרײַבער, דעם בונד, די אַמאָליקע ייִדישיסטישע אָרגאַניזאַציעס, און נאָך, און נאָך. און וואָס שייך מאַנדעלשטאַמען, וועל איך אים, אַוודאי, ווײַטער איבערזעצן.
The post Looking back on my 30 years as a Yiddish translator appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Should we be comparing ICE agents to Hitler’s ‘Brownshirts?’
In February of 1933, less than a month after Hitler became chancellor, Hermann Göring ordered the creation of a new 50,000-man “auxiliary police” force to combat what he called “organizations hostile to the state.” He built it by deputizing the Nazi Party’s most violent formation — the storm troopers, or Brownshirts — effectively turning a partisan militia into a state security arm.
Using similar framing, Donald Trump has declared that America’s greatest threat is “the enemy from within,” and he has found his own instrument to root them out: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with its partner agency, Customs and Border Protection.
In his second term, Trump has borrowed so many pages from the authoritarian playbook that it’s difficult to keep count. He has moved to purge civil servants who are not loyal to him, ban books, target political opponents, muzzle the press, rewrite history, and use extortion against institutions — universities, law firms, nonprofits — that he believes stand in his way.
Add to the list Trump’s transformation of ICE and CBP into something resembling an American version of the Brownshirts. The pattern is visible nationwide, but nowhere more starkly than in Minneapolis, where ICE operations have already produced a body count: two defenders of immigrants’ rights shot dead on the street.
Last fall, speaking to America’s top military brass, Trump warned that he might have to deploy the armed forces to Democratic-led cities to eliminate the so-called “enemy” by which he meant Americans protesting his immigration crackdown. That battle has already begun. It is not the military carrying it out, but federal immigration officers acting as soldiers, persecuting and attacking Americans who dare to stand against Trump’s authoritarian project.
To be sure, the Brownshirts and America’s immigration enforcement agencies have origins and histories that are completely dissimilar. ICE and CBP were created within a democratic system, staffed by career civil servants, and bound — at least in principle — by constitutional limits and judicial oversight. They were never conceived as a party militia, never designed to enforce ideological conformity, and never meant to serve as the armed wing of a political movement.
The Brownshirts, on the other hand, were explicitly created as a paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party — a street fighting militia whose purpose was to intimidate opponents, terrorize minorities, silence dissent, and make democratic life impossible through orchestrated violence. Hitler and the Brownshirts were linked from the beginning. When Hitler launched his failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich on Nov. 8, 1923, he was supported by hundreds of armed storm troopers, who terrorized the city.
Starting with just 800 members in Munich, the SA expanded rapidly during the Great Depression and after Hitler’s rise to power — totaling nearly 3 million in early 1934. Their presence on the streets — marching, beating, threatening, killing — helped convince millions of Germans that the Weimar Republic was collapsing and that only the Nazis could restore order. Once Hitler took power, the SA’s role only intensified; they ran makeshift detention and torture centers, carried out mass arrests, and terrorized Jews, leftists, and anyone deemed “un-German,” all while enjoying political protection from the new regime.
Nine decades later, videos of violence on American streets posted each day on social media evoke the terror and intimidation carried out by the Brownshirts.
In Hitler’s Germany, storm troopers assaulted Jews, trade unionists, socialists, Communists, and others deemed by the Nazi leader to be enemies of the state. In Trump’s America, federal immigration agents have imprisoned innocent foreigners and attacked American citizens who have mobilized to defend immigrants’ constitutional rights.
The tipping point was the Minneapolis shooting of Alex Pretti, the ICU nurse who stepped in to help a protester confronted by federal immigration agents. Multiple bystander videos captured federal officers wrestling Pretti to the pavement, striking him, then firing several shots at him at close range. Federal authorities later claimed Pretti had approached them with a gun, but the videos — clear, close, and filmed from multiple angles — showed that assertion to be false.
Just a few days earlier, allegations arose that ICE had used a 5-year-old Minneapolis-area boy as bait to lure his Ecuador-born father out of the family home. Both the boy and the father were taken into detention.
As immigration officers have carried out Trump’s massive immigration crackdown, there have been many confrontations between federal officials and protesters, and with public officials who have gone to immigration courts to make sure immigrants’ rights aren’t violated. But Trump turned Minneapolis into something resembling a battle zone by unleashing a surge of federal immigration agents whose tactics blurred the line between policing and political repression.
Efforts to blame Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good — shot dead in her car by an ICE agent in Minneapolis 17 days before Pretti was gunned down — for their own deaths have backfired spectacularly. Statements made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, were part of an effort to provide cover for the federal agents on the scene — as was the administration’s decision to shut out state and local law enforcement from any investigation. Covering up for the misdeeds of security forces was a hallmark of the Nazi state.
The outrage over what’s been happening in Minneapolis is so great that even some Republicans have said that ICE and CBP have gone too far. The Republican candidate for Minnesota governor, Chris Madel, pulled out of the race, calling ICE’s Operation Metro Surge “an unmitigated disaster” and denouncing the GOP’s “retribution on the citizens of our state.” Other Republicans have voiced similar dismay.
Trump is scrambling to contain the political damage. He has removed Gregory Bovino as commander of Operation Metro Surge and distanced himself from the derogatory and untrue statements made by Miller and Noem.
Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he plans to “de-escalate a little bit” in Minneapolis, while at the same time asserting that the surge of immigration officers has been a success. Gov. Tim Walz said that in a phone conversation with Trump on Monday, the president “agreed to look into reducing the number of federal agents in Minnesota and working with the state in a more coordinated fashion on immigration enforcement regarding violent criminals.”
But who really knows what Trump will do next? Whatever it is, Trump being Trump, you can count on it being self-serving.
Authoritarian leaders often rein in their own enforcers when public backlash threatens their power. Hitler did it in 1934, when the Brownshirts’ zeal for mayhem and murder began to alienate the public and undermine his control. With the intense backlash over the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Trump now faces a similar moment — a choice between escalating the violence or curbing it to preserve his political standing.
But remember this: The end of the Brownshirts’ street violence did not mean the end of the Hitler regime. In fact, it was just the beginning.
The post Should we be comparing ICE agents to Hitler’s ‘Brownshirts?’ appeared first on The Forward.