America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan: Women’s Rights “Before” and “After” America’s Destructive Wars

 America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan: Women’s Rights “Before” and “After” America’s Destructive Wars

The CIA Sponsored Islamic Insurgency (1979- )

《 Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 9, 2023 》

Introduction

The NeoCons’ agenda is not to “win the war” but to engineer the breakup of sovereign nation states, destroy their culture and national identity, derogate fundamental values and human rights.

The strategic objective is to trigger political and social chaos, engineer the collapse of national economies, appropriate the countries’ wealth and resources, impoverish the entire Planet including the American Homeland. 

It’s a mesh of weapons of mass destruction, covert intelligence operations, propaganda and “strong economic medicine”. The criminality of the US/NATO hegemonic agenda is beyond description. 

This article focusses on Women’s Rights in Afghanistan “Before” and “After” the conduct of Washington’s “Humanitarian War” against Afghanistan, which commenced at the height of the Cold War in 1979. entitled the Soviet-Afghan War. It was a carefully planned  intelligence operation.

It is preceded by a review of America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan.  

The CIA was directly involved from the outset in recruiting and supporting the “Islamic brigades” including Osama bin Laden.

America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan

A second war and invasion of Afghanistan under US-NATO auspices was carried on October 7 2001, four weeks after the tragic events of 9/11.

It was defined as “A JUST WAR” by Richard Falk, renowned scholar, professor of International and Humanitarian Law at Princeton, ant-war activist and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations: 

“I have never since my childhood supported a shooting war in which the United States was involved, although in retrospect I think the NATO war in Kosovo achieved beneficial results. The war in Afghanistan against apocalyptic terrorism qualifies in my understanding as the first truly just war since World War II.

“The perpetrators of the September 11 attack cannot be reliably neutralized by nonviolent or diplomatic means; a response that includes military action is essential to diminish the threat of repetition, to inflict punishment and to restore a sense of security at home and abroad. 

.

The extremist political vision held by Osama bin Laden, which can usefully be labeled “apocalyptic terrorism,” places this persisting threat well outside any framework of potential reconciliation or even negotiation for several reasons: Its genocidal intent is directed generically against Americans and Jews; its proclaimed goal is waging an unconditional civilizational war–Islam against the West–without drawing any distinction between civilian and military targets; it has demonstrated a capacity and willingness to inflict massive and traumatizing damage on our country and a tactical ingenuity and ability to carry out its missions of destruction by reliance on the suicidal devotion of its adherents.”  (Richard Falk, The Nation,    Defining a Just War, October 11, 2001, 4 days after the invasion of Afghanistan, emphasis added). 

.

Note the emphasis on: “genocidal intent against Americans and Jews” as part of an alleged “civilizational war of Islam against the West”.

 .

Look at Palestine: Is it not “the other way round”? Namely “The genocidal war of the West against Islam”. 

 .

The “Apocalyptic Terrorism” label best describes the numerous post 9/11 U.S. led “humanitarian wars” and “counter-terrorism operations” against Muslim countries with the support of Israel, which have resulted in millions of deaths. 

 .

I should emphasize that Professor Richard Falk is life-long anti-war activist and critic of US foreign policy. He is renowned for his unbending commitment to the rights of Palestinians and his courageous stance against the Israeli government. In February 2001, Professor Falk was appointed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to serve in the Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian territories.

 .

In March 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed him UN Special Rapporteur pertaining to human rights in the Palestinian  occupied territories. 

It should be noted that his October 2001 “Just War” statement was published barely 8 months following his February 2001 OHCHR appointment. The evidence presented below suggests that Professor Falk is mistaken in relation to the alleged role of Osama bin Laden in the September 11, 2001 attacks, which provided the pretext and justification to wage war on Afghanistan. 

 .

Analyzing The Evidence.

There was no evidence that Afghanistan had attacked America on 9/11.

 .

The Taliban government through diplomatic channels had offered on two occasions (September and October 2001) to enter into negotiations regarding the extradition of Osama Bin Laden.

 .

There was no evidence that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. Confirmed by Dan Rather, CBS News, Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani Military hospital in Rawalpindi on the 10th of September local time, less than 24 hours before the terrorist attacks. 

 .

This CBS report casts doubt on the official narrative to the effect that Osama bin Laden was responsible for coordinating the 9/11 attacks. It would be impossible for Osama bin Laden to enter a Pakistani military hospital unnoticed. His whereabouts were known. 

 .

From a legal standpoint, “Defining The Just War” formulated prior to the invasion of Afghanistan is in blatant contradiction with the Geneva Convention (IV).  

 .

U.S. Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11.

In the wake of 9/11, The Just War Concept has become embedded in U.S. Foreign Policy. It constitutes an anti-Muslim narrative of going after the alleged “Islamic terrorists” when those terrorists have (since the early 1980s) been routinely recruited by US intelligence.

.

The “Just War Concept”  was skilfully coupled with other related narratives including “Counter-Terrorism” directed against Islamic Jihadists, “Responsibility to Protect” , “Exporting Democracy”, etc.

.

The Just War Concept goes against everything which is part of a real peace movement which consists in what Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia defined as “The Criminalization of War” first formulated in Kuala Lumpur in December 2005. 

 .

Under International law, there is not such thing as “A Just War”. Under “The criminalization of war” all wars of aggression are criminal undertakings, with the exception of “Self-Defense” (which describes the battle of Palestine against the Israeli led invasion). 

 .

Richard Falk denies the hegemonic nature of U.S. foreign policy:

 .

“Another form of antiwar advocacy rests on a critique of the United States as an imperialist superpower or empire. This view also seems dangerously inappropriate in addressing the challenge posed by the massive crime against humanity committed on September 11.

 

Whatever the global role of the United States –and it is certainly responsible for much global suffering and injustice, giving rise to widespread resentment that at its inner core fuels the terrorist impulse– it cannot be addressed so long as this movement of global terrorism is at large and prepared to carry on with its demonic work.

 

These longer-term concerns –which include finding ways to promote Palestinian self-determination, the internationalization of Jerusalem and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of global economic growth and development–must be addressed.

.

Of course, much of the responsibility for the failure to do so lies with the corruption and repressive policies of governments, especially in the Middle East, outside the orbit of US influence. A distinction needs to be drawn as persuasively as possible between inherently desirable lines of foreign policy reform and retreating in the face of terrorism.”  (Richard Falk, Defining a Just War, The Nation, October 11, 2023, emphasis added)

.

With. regard to the above quotation, is it not “the other way round”: Many of the governments “inside” rather than “outside” the orbit of US influence are corrupt. Why? Because their leaders are threatened, coopted and/or bribed by Washington.

.

With regard to the so-called “movement of global terrorism”, see Sections II and III below as well as Section V which focusses on the National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), (signed by President Reagan) which de facto authorized  stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen.

 

I

Prior to the CIA Sponsored “Islamic Insurgency”  against the People of Afghanistan  

“Before”

Unknown to Americans, in the 1970s and early 1980s, Kabul was “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs”. 

Kabul University early 1980s

“Prior to the rise of the Taliban [which was instrumented by the CIA], women in Afghanistan were protected under law and increasingly afforded rights in Afghan society. Women received the right to vote in the 1920s; and as early as the 1960s, the Afghan constitution provided for equality for women. There was a mood of tolerance and openness as the country began moving toward democracy.

Women were making important contributions to national development. In 1977, women comprised over 15% of Afghanistan’s highest legislative body. It is estimated that by the early 1990s, 70% of schoolteachers, 50% of government workers and university students, and 40% of doctors in Kabul were women.”(Bureau of Democracy and Human Rights, U.S. State Department, 2001, link no longer functional ) 

A record store in Kabul

A co-ed biology class at Kabul University

Public transportation in Kabul 

University students, early 1970s

Women working in one of the labs at the Vaccine Research Center

Mothers and children playing at a city park—without male chaperones

II

Starting under Reagan. Derogation of Women’s Rights. Destruction of an Entire Country

“After”

Osama bin Laden, America’s bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad.

He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp. The architects of the covert operation in support of “Islamic fundamentalism” launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) in the wake of 9/11.

Under the Reagan adminstration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic “freedom fighters”. In today’s World, the “freedom fighters” are labelled “Islamic terrorists”.

President Reagan and Mujahideen leaders from Afghanistan, 1980s

III

The Soviet-Afghan War 

The Soviet-Afghan war was part of a CIA covert agenda initiated during the Carter administration, which consisted  in actively supporting and financing the Islamic brigades, later known as Al Qaeda.

The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000. USAID generously financed the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions and the collapse of civil society. 

In the Pashtun language, the word “Taliban” means “Students”, or graduates of the madrasahs (places of learning or coranic schools) set up by the Wahhabi missions from Saudi Arabia, with the support of the CIA.

“The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books ….

‘The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse’ said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator [working with] a Pakistan-based nonprofit.

An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages.

Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994“, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez  Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

“Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, … Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden.” (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)

IV

Women’s Rights, Poverty and Despair

The media casually blames this on the Taliban, without acknowledging that Islamic Fundamentalism and the koranic schools had been imposed by the CIA.

Public education was destroyed and the Rights of Women in a predominately secular society which took its roots in the 1920s were DESTROYED.

This destruction is coupled with the massive impoverishment of  an entire country. 

V

“Before” and “After”.

A Criminal Undertaking. Who’s Behind It?

“A once prosperous country has been precipitated into extreme poverty and despair. It’s a crime against humanity. 

According to the UN, Afghanistan is currently experiencing extensive food shortages and famine.

It should be understood that this war started more than 40 years ago in 1979 with the CIA recruitment of jihadist mercenaries (Al Qaeda) funded by the trade in narcotics. 

The endgame was to destroy Afghanistan as a progressive and independent nation state committed to education, culture and women’s rights.” 

What the media describes as the “tyrannical policies of the Taliban” bears the footprints of the CIA which imposed Islamic Fundamentalism, while concurrently engineering the collapse and impoverishment of a progressive secular Nation State.

President Ronald Reagan issued (and signed) the National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), which de facto authorized  “stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen” as well as CIA support to religious indoctrination.

 

 

The promotion of “Radical Islam” was a deliberate CIA initiative (NSDD 166) which in the wake of 9/11 has served as justification to waging a “Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and sub–Saharan Africa. 

Our Thoughts are with the People of Afghanistan.⍐

________________________________________________________________

Prof Michel Chossudovsky 

About the author:

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983) He is the author of 13 books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at crgeditor@yahoo.com

Ambassador Yash Sinha on Anura Kumara Dissanayake visit to India

 It is a win win situation for both nations

* The joint statement shows continuity over the previous governments

* significant is the reference to concluding a framework on defence cooperation

* Sri Lankan president says his land won't 'be used against' India

 * “we would like to share our progress, our growth, with our neighbours.”

The visit of Sri Lanka’s President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to India was a significant step in the evolving relationship between the two countries, believes Ambassador Yash Sinha, one of India’s top diplomats who served as India’s High Commissioner to the UK and Sri Lanka, among other senior roles.

Ambassador Yash Sinha

“Though the agreements that were signed were quite anodyne, the joint statement shows continuity over the previous governments,” says Ambassador Sinha, who also headed the sensitive Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran desk of the Ministry of External Affairs for four years.  

“And considering the breaks with the previous governments that the victory of  the National People’s Power represents, the fact that the ongoing projects and programs are being continued, are significant by themselves, but what I find the most significant in the joint statement is the reference to concluding a framework on defence cooperation, something that I have not seen mentioned so explicitly in any joint statement,” he said.  “The fact that this is mentioned up front, and that there is likelihood of a framework being concluded is important, and we must take note of that.”

“Of course, the defence cooperation between the two countries are very significant, in terms of training, in terms of equipment over the years, between most of the wings of the armed forces, including the coast guard,” said  Ambassador Sinha, who post retirement went on to become  Information Commissioner and then Chief Information Commissioner, a post he held till October 2023.

Responding to continuing assertions by Sri Lankan analysts and politicians that India has blocked access to its market, Ambassador Sinha said that “to some extent, yes, they have a point, but largely, no.

“One of the earliest free trade agreements that India signed was with Sri Lanka, over 24 years ago. And in that sense it was pathbreaking. Since then, trade has expanded considerably, but of course we could potentially do much more,” he explained.

The reason, he said, was that even with the introduction of the South Asian Free Trade Area, or SAFTA, there have been some roadblocks. “ Even when I was high commissioner there, there were constant complaints about some of their main exports like spices like pepper, tea…”

“Tea of course we are a major producer, largely for our domestic consumption, though we export small quantities. But it is one of Sri Lanka’s main exports. Coming back to spices, they would say we had put up non-tariff    barriers to pepper…valid or not, there was a perception that this was happening,”   he said.  

📺

However, “it is more than that. It’s not the barriers that are being put up for Sri lanka exports, because for instance Sri Lanka has made huge investments in India.  Brandix, for instance has made huge investments in Visakhapatnam, to set up a garment city, which employs a large number of ladies from the backward areas,” he pointed out.

I think the headwinds were political rather than economic, “ he felt, “like largely unfounded fears that we will be swamped  with Indian products, and that Indian doctors and whoever else will come in,” he said.

“But we must appreciate that being a smaller country, it does have these fears, something that’s common  in any part of the world you see. This is not uncommon. So we have to address these very carefully.”

It is important to stress that it is a win win situation for both nations, he said, because “India is one of the fastest growing large economies in the world. And when there is a global economic slowdown, India is a bright spot, “ he felt. And “we would like to share our progress, our growth, with our neighbours.”

Sri Lanka is our closest and dearest neighbour,  (of course all our neighbours are close and dear)..but sometimes we forget that,” he said.

But what led to the decimation of the traditional parties by the Dissanayake-led NPP in the last presidential and parliamentary elections?

And has the JVP, President Dissanakaye’s party, and the largest one in the NPP coalition that he leads, really shed its anti-India position?

Once the euphoria of this massive mandate wears off, will Dissanayake be able to balance the IMF’s stringent conditions for its bailout with the growing hopes of  the people  upset over rising prices for goods and services?

And why did The Economist ignore the fact that despite all its economic and political troubles, Sri Lanka held firm to democratic traditions, decide to name Bangladesh as its country of the year, and Syria as the runner up?

Watch the full interview to get answers to those questions, as well as insights from a veteran diplomat with deep insights into the issues involved in both nations, juxtaposed with a world in flux.⍐

ENB இணைப்பு:

Democracy in America: Trump signals plans to use all levers of power against the media

Democracy in America

Trump signals plans to use all levers of power against the media

 Press freedom advocates say they fear that the second Trump administration will ramp up pressure on journalists, in keeping with the president-elect’s combative rhetoric.

Donald Trump speaks members of the media while visiting with construction workers in
Manhattan on April 25. (Yuki Iwamura/AP)

《 By Sarah Ellison and Jeremy Barr The Washington Post 22-12-2024 》

For many years, Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to sue the press but often didn’t follow through. When he did, he almost always lost.

But Trump’s recent settlement with ABC News and a cascade of lawsuits and other complaints against media entities from him and his allies signal a ramped-up campaign from the president-elect. Together, the action has spurred concerns that his efforts could drastically undermine the institutions tasked with reporting on his coming administration, which Trump has promised will take revenge on those he perceives as having wronged him.

“The law in this country hasn’t really changed, but what has changed is that the atmosphere and hostility to the press is intense, and that emboldens plaintiffs of all kinds,” said David Korzenik, a media defense lawyer at the boutique Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP.

The pressure from Trump and his allies on the media is already growing and will continue to intensify, according to two Trump aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive internal deliberations.

In the two months before the presidential election, Trump attacked the media more than 100 times in public speeches or other remarks. The week before Election Day, Trump threatened to sue the New York Times, his campaign lodged a Federal Election Commission complaint against The Washington Post and he sued CBS News for editing a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in a way he said was deceptive. Those media outlets have defended their work.

On Monday, he filed a consumer fraud suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register over an outlier poll it ran showing Trump trailing Harris in the presidential race in Iowa, a conservative state that he went on to win by 13 percentage points. The complaint does not hinge on a defamation claim — public figures must cross a high legal threshold to prove that they’ve been libeled — but rather a perceived violation of the state’s consumer protection statute.

Lark-Marie Antón, a spokeswoman for the Register’s parent company, Gannett, said in a statement that although the poll’s findings differed from the election results, “We stand by our reporting on the matter and believe a lawsuit would be without merit.”

The next day, Trump said he planned to continue suing the press. “It costs a lot of money to do it, but we have to straighten out the press,” he said at a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago Club in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesman, said the president-elect plans to focus on “blatantly false and dishonest reporting, which serves no public interest and only seeks to interfere in our elections on behalf of political partisans.”

Korzenik, the media defense lawyer, recently participated in a call organized by the Media Law Resource Center, a trade group of sorts for First Amendment attorneys. As they brainstormed protective strategies for their clients heading into a second Trump term, some in the meeting advocated waiting to see what form new attacks on the press would take.

“There was concern that the claims would multiply, and the goal was to encumber the press with cost and exhaustion so they would be dysfunctional,” Korzenik said.

ABC News’s decision to settle has sent shudders through the media industry and the legal community that represents it. According to three people familiar with the company’s internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss legal strategy, ABC and Disney executives decided to settle not only because of the legal risks in the case but also because of Trump’s promises to take retribution against his enemies.

When executives from Disney, ABC and their lawyers gathered last Friday to discuss Trump’s defamation suit, they faced a looming deadline. The federal judge overseeing the case, Cecilia M. Altonaga, had just rejected a new request to delay the case and demanded that Disney hand over “all remaining documents” by Sunday.

Trump sued ABC News after George Stephanopoulos, the co-host of ABC’s “Good Morning America,” said in a March interview on “The Week” with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) that Trump had been found “liable for rape” in a New York civil trial. He repeated the assertion 10 times, even though Trump had been found “liable for sexual abuse,” which has a strict definition in New York.

Disney conducts business in more than 130 countries and employs roughly 225,000 employees — a virtual nation-state with corporate shareholders it is legally obligated to consider when making strategic decisions. The executives reasoned that being in active litigation with a sitting president could hamper the business.

Disney’s ABC operates more than 230 affiliate television stations nationwide, some relying on the Federal Communications Commission for license renewals. Trump has repeatedly talked about pulling the federal licenses from television stations that broadcast news about him he doesn’t like and said last year that he plans to bring the FCC under presidential authority.

Disney and many other media companies are already planning potential merger activity that executives hope passes muster with the antitrust division of the Justice Department, which is poised to be run by Trump loyalist Pam Bondi. Disney pumps out movies and television shows that it needs to appeal to the millions of people who voted for Trump and have already shown themselves willing to boycott products he attacks.

Continuing with the case might have made public any damaging internal communications to and from Stephanopoulos. If the case made it to trial, it would face a jury in Florida — a red state that Trump carried by 13 points — that could side with the president-elect and award a penalty that could easily exceed the price of a settlement. Appeals to any decision would last for years and risk reaching the Supreme Court, where two sitting justices have already expressed their desire to weaken the court’s landmark decision that has protected the American media’s ability to report aggressively on public figures, especially officials, in the public interest.

Disney’s general counsel, Horacio Gutierrez, recommended a settlement, and CEO Bob Iger approved it, a detail first reported by the New York Times.

By last Friday evening, the two sides had settled. ABC News agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library and $1 million in legal fees. While eye-popping for a smaller company, the sum paled compared with other recent Disney settlements, including $233 million to settle a class-action case over wages for Disneyland workers.

ABC News agreed t0 attach an editor’s note to the online article at the center of the suit saying that “ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump” made during the interview.

“We are pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing,” an ABC News spokesperson wrote in a statement.

Stephanopoulos balked at the settlement and the apology until hours before it was made public last Saturday, according to three people who spoke with him and requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. He has been outspoken about his dissatisfaction, these people said. An ABC News spokesperson declined to comment on the details around the settlement but said that Stephanopoulos recently re-signed a multiyear contract to stay at the company. Stephanopoulos did not respond to requests seeking comment.

The settlement delighted Trump allies and supporters, who saw it as a momentum-building victory and validation of Trump’s pugilistic approach to his second term.

Last Sunday, Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, publicly praised a top Trump legal adviser at a Manhattan gala for his role in securing the settlement. Boris Epshteyn devised “one brilliant legal strategy after the other — I know it’s brilliant because George Stephanopoulos is paying $15 million!” Bannon said to cheers and applause. “Boris, I will never know how you pulled that off. I don’t know if I want to ask.”

Epshteyn, an influential and controversial adviser who serves as the liaison between Trump and his outside lawyers, declined comment.

Meanwhile, journalists and First Amendment advocates expressed their dismay. “This was stunning to me and absolutely a gut punch to anybody that works for a major media company,” said NBC News’s Chuck Todd in an interview, “because I think it sets a precedent that is going to be very difficult to get out from under potentially.”

“The concern here is that we might be seeing a confluence of forces — legal, political and social — that work together to erode the confidence we once had in the vibrancy of the American press,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a First Amendment expert and law professor at the University of Utah. “Settlement decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. Each major decision to settle sends a signal about the broader climate for the press. It can spur other public figures to sue over perceived slights and pressure other media outlets to self-censor.”

It is hardly unusual for a president to clash with the press. Richard M. Nixon kept journalists on his enemies list, while his vice president, Spiro Agnew, dubbed them “nattering nabobs of negativism.” Bill Clinton griped about coverage of his White House sex scandal, and Barack Obama’s administration brought a record number of prosecutions against journalists’ sources for leaking government information.

But legal experts say Trump has taken attacks on the press to an entirely new level, softening the ground for an erosion of robust press freedom.

“The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country,” Trump posted on Truth Social in September in an attack on NBC News.

Experts in polarization said that Trump’s posture toward the press has eroded trust in the Fourth Estate. From the Oval Office, he can do even more.

“My concern is what he does when he has the power of the U.S. government in his hands,” said Liliana Hall Mason, a political science professor at the University of Maryland. “It looks to me like all the guardrails have been removed, and we are in for a presidency unlike any we’ve experienced before.”⍐