Monday, December 1, 2025
Trump's new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Acknowledging David Dayen and The American Prospect: Journalism That Refuses to Look Away
In an era when corporate media outlets increasingly shy away from stories that challenge concentrated power, The American Prospect continues to do the work that journalism was meant to do. And few journalists embody that mission more consistently than David Dayen, whose Dayen on TAP newsletters have become essential reading for anyone trying to understand the intersection of political decisions, economic power, and democratic fragility.
Dayen’s December 1st dispatch—issued on the first day of the Prospect’s end-of-year fundraising drive—is a stark reminder of what’s at stake. While many newsrooms remain content to chase horse-race narratives or the latest meme-friendly outrage, Dayen focuses on something far more consequential: the manufacturing of a new U.S. war. And not just any war, but one constructed on false premises, fueled by personal loyalties, and marketed to the public with a cynical, almost nostalgic fervor—an eerie echo of the media-manufactured Spanish-American War more than a century ago.
Dayen’s reporting lays bare just how thin the pretext is for military escalation in Venezuela. Senator Marco Rubio, long aligned with right-wing Venezuelan exile networks in South Florida, has spent years pushing for regime change. Now, with an administration receptive to grandstanding tough-on-drugs rhetoric—however untethered from reality—it appears that the machinery of war is being primed not for the public good, but to satisfy the demands of a small but politically potent constituency.
As Dayen notes, fentanyl production in Venezuela is essentially nonexistent. Yet this fabricated link becomes the hook: a narrative tailored for a president who responds more to television-ready action than to facts. The administration has already initiated lethal maritime strikes—acts that appear to violate international law—and has deployed carrier groups and thousands of troops into position. Airspace has been unilaterally “closed.” Covert operations have reportedly been authorized. The runway for a land invasion is being cleared.
And for what? As Dayen observes, the motivations seem less about drugs, oil, or geopolitical strategy than about appeasing a tight-knit circle of far-right exiles and their stateside allies. The recent judicial approval of selling Citgo to Elliott Investment Management—led by Paul Singer, a longtime Rubio supporter—only underscores the blurred line between policy and patronage.
For readers of HEI, the systemic dynamics on display are grimly familiar. Whether in for-profit higher education, the student loan industry, or the privatized machinery surrounding federal education policy, we see the same pattern: powerful interests constructing narratives that obscure accountability, extract public resources, and leave the vulnerable to bear the consequences. We watch oversight mechanisms crumble while corporate actors and political patrons consolidate influence. We see the press—at least the corporate press—fail to confront these abuses with the rigor and clarity they demand.
This is why outlets like The American Prospect matter. It’s why journalists like Dayen deserve recognition, support, and amplification. When most media organizations soften their edges to avoid offending sponsors or political gatekeepers, the Prospect continues to report with independence and moral clarity. They cover what corporate media ignores: the corrosion of democratic norms, the monetization of public policy, and the creeping normalization of war—sold to the public through marketing rather than debate.
Dayen closes his newsletter with a sobering truth: the United States no longer has an anti-war movement capable of influencing policy. What remains are fragmented groups unable to coalesce even as new conflicts are born from political vanity and elite networking. The prospect of sending young Americans to die for such small, parochial reasons should alarm anyone who still believes in democratic accountability.
At HEI, we recognize the mission that The American Prospect continues to carry. In higher education, in economic justice, in foreign policy, and in democratic governance, the Prospect stands as one of the few institutions resisting the slow slide toward rule by oligarchic narrative. Their work is vital, and Dayen’s reporting is part of the backbone that keeps it standing.
Independent journalism is not a luxury. It is an infrastructure of democracy. And in 2025, with corporate capture spreading across sectors—from colleges to Congress to media itself—we need that infrastructure more than ever.
HEI thanks David Dayen and The American Prospect for refusing to furnish the war, for scrutinizing the machinery of power, and for insisting on journalism that serves people rather than patrons.
Sources:
The American Prospect, Dayen on TAP (December 1, 2025 newsletter).
Grace of Import-Replacing Inbox (Schumacher Center for a New Economics)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the Federal Trade Commission FOIA program still in operation?
In light of recent developments at the Federal Trade Commission under the current administration — including staffing reductions and a temporary 2025 government shutdown — many observers and researchers are questioning whether the FTC’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program is still functioning. The answer remains: yes — the FOIA program is still formally operational, but its capacity and responsiveness appear diminished under current conditions.
The FTC continues to administer FOIA through its Office of General Counsel (OGC), which processes all FOIA requests. As of the 2024 fiscal year, the FTC’s FOIA Unit comprised four attorneys, five government-information specialists, and one paralegal, with occasional support from contractors and other staff. In that year, the agency processed 1,919 requests (and 29 appeals), up from 1,812 in 2023. The agency’s publicly available “FOIA Handbook,” last updated in April 2025, continues to outline how requests should be submitted, what records are on the public record, and how exemptions are applied.
The FTC’s website still provides instructions for submitting a FOIA request via its online portal, email, fax, or mail. That means requests remain legally eligible — including those related to for-profit colleges, student loan servicers, institutional behavior, complaints, or decision-making memos.
However, HEI’s own experience in 2025 highlights some of the challenges with the FTC’s current FOIA responsiveness. In January 2025, we submitted a FOIA request asking for a record of complaints against the University of Phoenix, but have no record of a response. In August 2025 we did receive a substantive response related to complaints regarding a student loan company, but the number of complaints appeared lower than we expected. On November 30, 2025, we received an automated response to our FOIA request about AidVantage, a student loan servicer and subsidiary of Maximus. While we did receive a reply, it reflected a stale message stating they would respond after the government reopened — even though the government had reopened on November 13.
These examples illustrate that while FOIA is formally operational, actual responsiveness has deteriorated. For years, HEI had a good relationship with the FTC, obtaining critical information for a number of investigations in a timely manner. It remains to be seen whether that reliability can be restored.
Compounding the issue are broader staffing and operational changes at the FTC. In testimony before Congress in May 2025, FTC Chair Andrew N. Ferguson reported that the agency began FY 2025 with about 1,315 personnel but had reduced to 1,221 full-time staff, with plans to potentially reduce further to around 1,100 — the lowest level in a decade. These staffing reductions coincide with scaled-back discretionary activities, such as rulemaking, public guidance publishing, and outreach. During the October 2025 lapse in government funding, the FTC announced that FOIA requests could still be submitted but would not be processed until appropriations resumed.
For researchers, journalists, and advocates — including those pursuing records related to for-profit colleges, student loan servicers, regulatory decisions, or historical investigations — FOIA remains a legally viable tool. The path is open, though response times are slower, staff resources are constrained, and releases may be more limited, especially for sensitive or exempt material.
Sources
Congressional budget testimony on FTC staffing and budget: https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118225/witnesses/HHRG-119-AP23-Wstate-FergusonA-20250515.pdf
FTC FOIA Handbook (April 2025): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/FOIA-Handbook-April-2025.pdf
FTC 2024 Chief FOIA Officer Report (staffing, request volume): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/chief-foia-officer-report-fy2024.pdf
FTC website instructions for submitting FOIA requests: https://www.ftc.gov/foia/make-foia-request
FTC 2025 shutdown plan showing FOIA processing paused during funding lapse: https://www.ftc.gov/ftc-is-closed
Reporting on FTC removal of business-guidance blogs in 2025: https://www.wired.com/story/federal-trade-commission-removed-blogs-critical-of-ai-amazon-microsoft/
Security Threats: Groypers on Campus
Across the United States, far-right networks have quietly built their presence on college campuses—not through mass rallies or overt displays, but through a loose coalition of digital activists and in-person operatives known as Groypers.
The Groypers, inspired by the alt-right, white-nationalist, and “America First” ecosystems of the late 2010s and early 2020s, represent a new iteration of extremist youth organizing: savvy, antagonistic, and optimized for a social-media landscape where attention is currency and disruption is strategy.
Their influence is not as visible as Turning Point USA tabling events or Young America’s Foundation speaker tours. Instead, the Groyper presence grows through infiltration, targeted disruption, and online radicalization that spills into student life. As economic anxiety and political distrust intensify, campuses have become fertile ground for this phenomenon.
What Are Groypers?
Groypers are part of a decentralized far-right subculture aligned with white-nationalist figures and Christian nationalist ideologues. They are not a formal organization; rather, they are a network of memetic identities, recognizable by:
the cartoon Groyper frog mascot (an offshoot of the Pepe image ecosystem),
online anonymity/alter-egos,
ideological tropes centered on nativism, Christian nationalism, and “white identity,”
disruptive tactics aimed at embarrassing mainstream conservatives and intimidating progressive students.
The Groypers, inspired by the alt-right, white-nationalist, and “America First” ecosystems of the late 2010s and early 2020s, represent a new iteration of extremist youth organizing: savvy, antagonistic, and optimized for a social-media landscape where attention is currency and disruption is strategy.
Their influence is not as visible as Turning Point USA tabling events or Young America’s Foundation speaker tours. Instead, the Groyper presence grows through infiltration, targeted disruption, and online radicalization that spills into student life. As economic anxiety and political distrust intensify, campuses have become fertile ground for this phenomenon.
What Are Groypers?
Groypers are part of a decentralized far-right subculture aligned with white-nationalist figures and Christian nationalist ideologues. They are not a formal organization; rather, they are a network of memetic identities, recognizable by:
the cartoon Groyper frog mascot (an offshoot of the Pepe image ecosystem),
online anonymity/alter-egos,
ideological tropes centered on nativism, Christian nationalism, and “white identity,”
disruptive tactics aimed at embarrassing mainstream conservatives and intimidating progressive students.
Their overall goal is to pull young conservatives—and disaffected apolitical students—toward a more extreme worldview.
Why Campuses Are Targets
1. Transitional Vulnerability
First-year students often experience isolation, uncertainty, and identity formation. Groypers prey on this transitional moment by offering belonging, brotherhood, and contrarian confidence.
2. Political Vacuum
As universities retreat from serious civic education and as student affairs offices shrink under austerity, space opens for fringe networks to fill the ideological void.
3. Online Radicalization Pipelines
Groypers thrive in places like:
Discord
Telegram
X/Twitter
anonymous forums
niche livestream communities
Campus life becomes an extension of these networks, where online provocations evolve into real-world harassment or orchestrated spectacle.
4. Conservative Student Groups as Entry Points
Mainstream Republican or “free speech” groups are often targeted for infiltration. Groypers show up:
to push Q&A sessions into racist or antisemitic talking points,
to pressure student Republicans to shift further right,
to create rifts between libertarian, traditional conservative, and MAGA factions.
The strategy is division, not dialogue.
Common Groyper Tactics on Campus
1. Ambush Questioning
At public lectures or campus Republican events, Groypers coordinate to dominate Q&A sessions, posing racially charged or conspiratorial questions designed to go viral.
2. Online Harassment and Dogpiling
Students—often women, LGBTQ+ students, or activists—find themselves targeted with:
brigade attacks,
doxxing attempts,
edited clips taken out of context,
swarm-like intimidation.
3. Misery Farming
Groypers intentionally provoke negative reactions to harvest “proof” that campuses are hostile to conservatives. This content is then fed into national media pipelines.
4. Grooming and Recruitment
They seek out students who feel:
lonely
unsupported
resentful
ideologically adrift
economically anxious
A mix of dark humor, contrarian bravado, and “insider knowledge” becomes the grooming pathway.
The Institutional Problem: Campuses Are Not Prepared
Universities often misread these actors as:
“just trolls,”
“rowdy conservatives,”
“free speech activists.”
They’re not.
Groypers are engaged in ideological recruitment and targeted harassment that can escalate into threats, coordinated disruption, and offline violence. Yet institutions remain slow to respond because:
they lack digital literacy,
they fear backlash from right-wing media,
they outsource security and student affairs to PR firms,
administrators underestimate decentralized extremist networks.
Faculty—especially contingent or early-career academics—often feel unsupported or intimidated.
How Groypers Fit into the Larger Campus Crisis
The Groypers’ rise exposes deeper fractures:
neoliberal hollowing of the university
growing distrust in democratic institutions
political polarization fueled by billionaire-backed media
the decline of genuine civic education
surveillance capitalism and algorithmic radicalization
Campuses have become battlegrounds—not by accident, but because they sit at the intersection of youth, identity, technology, and national politics.
What Higher Education Must Do Now
Universities need to respond with clarity, not panic, and with structural solutions, not symbolic statements.
1. Treat Digital Extremism as Part of Student Safety
This means training staff, hiring specialists, and supporting targets of online harassment.
2. Reinvest in Human Infrastructure
Student Affairs, counseling centers, and campus journalism must be strengthened—not cut or replaced with outsourcing contracts.
3. Support Independent Investigative Student Journalism
Student reporters are often the first to detect radicalization trends—but only if their newsrooms are funded and protected.
4. Protect Academic Freedom Without Ceding Ground to Harassment
“Free speech” cannot be a shield for sustained intimidation campaigns.
5. Strengthen Civic Education Rooted in Truth and Inclusion
The real antidote to extremism is not censorship—it’s meaningful democratic literacy.
Seeing the Threat Clearly
Groypers are not the dominant force on campus. Most students reject their worldview. But they are a growing presence within a broader crisis where U.S. higher education lacks the stability, funding, and courage to defend its mission.
The real danger is not the meme or the mascot—it’s the vacuum that allows extremist networks to flourish.
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring this issue as the 2026 and 2028 election cycles approach, when radical groups often intensify campus recruitment and provocation.
1. Transitional Vulnerability
First-year students often experience isolation, uncertainty, and identity formation. Groypers prey on this transitional moment by offering belonging, brotherhood, and contrarian confidence.
2. Political Vacuum
As universities retreat from serious civic education and as student affairs offices shrink under austerity, space opens for fringe networks to fill the ideological void.
3. Online Radicalization Pipelines
Groypers thrive in places like:
Discord
Telegram
X/Twitter
anonymous forums
niche livestream communities
Campus life becomes an extension of these networks, where online provocations evolve into real-world harassment or orchestrated spectacle.
4. Conservative Student Groups as Entry Points
Mainstream Republican or “free speech” groups are often targeted for infiltration. Groypers show up:
to push Q&A sessions into racist or antisemitic talking points,
to pressure student Republicans to shift further right,
to create rifts between libertarian, traditional conservative, and MAGA factions.
The strategy is division, not dialogue.
Common Groyper Tactics on Campus
1. Ambush Questioning
At public lectures or campus Republican events, Groypers coordinate to dominate Q&A sessions, posing racially charged or conspiratorial questions designed to go viral.
2. Online Harassment and Dogpiling
Students—often women, LGBTQ+ students, or activists—find themselves targeted with:
brigade attacks,
doxxing attempts,
edited clips taken out of context,
swarm-like intimidation.
3. Misery Farming
Groypers intentionally provoke negative reactions to harvest “proof” that campuses are hostile to conservatives. This content is then fed into national media pipelines.
4. Grooming and Recruitment
They seek out students who feel:
lonely
unsupported
resentful
ideologically adrift
economically anxious
A mix of dark humor, contrarian bravado, and “insider knowledge” becomes the grooming pathway.
The Institutional Problem: Campuses Are Not Prepared
Universities often misread these actors as:
“just trolls,”
“rowdy conservatives,”
“free speech activists.”
They’re not.
Groypers are engaged in ideological recruitment and targeted harassment that can escalate into threats, coordinated disruption, and offline violence. Yet institutions remain slow to respond because:
they lack digital literacy,
they fear backlash from right-wing media,
they outsource security and student affairs to PR firms,
administrators underestimate decentralized extremist networks.
Faculty—especially contingent or early-career academics—often feel unsupported or intimidated.
How Groypers Fit into the Larger Campus Crisis
The Groypers’ rise exposes deeper fractures:
neoliberal hollowing of the university
growing distrust in democratic institutions
political polarization fueled by billionaire-backed media
the decline of genuine civic education
surveillance capitalism and algorithmic radicalization
Campuses have become battlegrounds—not by accident, but because they sit at the intersection of youth, identity, technology, and national politics.
What Higher Education Must Do Now
Universities need to respond with clarity, not panic, and with structural solutions, not symbolic statements.
1. Treat Digital Extremism as Part of Student Safety
This means training staff, hiring specialists, and supporting targets of online harassment.
2. Reinvest in Human Infrastructure
Student Affairs, counseling centers, and campus journalism must be strengthened—not cut or replaced with outsourcing contracts.
3. Support Independent Investigative Student Journalism
Student reporters are often the first to detect radicalization trends—but only if their newsrooms are funded and protected.
4. Protect Academic Freedom Without Ceding Ground to Harassment
“Free speech” cannot be a shield for sustained intimidation campaigns.
5. Strengthen Civic Education Rooted in Truth and Inclusion
The real antidote to extremism is not censorship—it’s meaningful democratic literacy.
Seeing the Threat Clearly
Groypers are not the dominant force on campus. Most students reject their worldview. But they are a growing presence within a broader crisis where U.S. higher education lacks the stability, funding, and courage to defend its mission.
The real danger is not the meme or the mascot—it’s the vacuum that allows extremist networks to flourish.
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring this issue as the 2026 and 2028 election cycles approach, when radical groups often intensify campus recruitment and provocation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)