Keri Baugh

Landscape infographic titled “Executive Ascendancy in Military Affairs” with the subtitle “A Historical Overview of How Presidential Authority to Use Force Expanded Amid Congressional Restraint and Global Security Pressure.” The graphic is divided into four chronological sections: Section I: Constitutional Foundation (1787). Displays an image of the U.S. Constitution and notes that Congress has the power to declare war while the President serves as Commander in Chief. A caption highlights tension over when and how much force requires congressional approval. Section II: Early Executive Expansion (19th–Early 20th Century). Shows naval and battlefield imagery and explains limited conflicts without formal declarations, protection of commerce and citizens, and post-hoc congressional approval. Section III: Cold War & “Police Actions.” Includes images of Korea and Vietnam. Text notes that Korea (1950) had no formal war declaration and Vietnam relied on broad resolutions, normalizing the use of force without declarations. A box states that Congress attempted limits through notification and withdrawal rules. Section IV: War Powers Resolution (1973). References congressional efforts to constrain presidential authority through notification requirements and time limits. A side panel titled “Structural Drivers of Expansion” lists: congressional avoidance (fund, don’t declare), judicial deference (“political question”), national security framing (emergency and terror threats), and executive legal theories (limited engagement). A banner labeled “The Pattern” shows a progression: Declarations → Resolutions → Authorizations → Interpretations → Executive Initiative. At the bottom, a summary states that over time congressional leverage narrows, executive flexibility grows, and rapid force deployment increases. A final line notes that executive ascendancy developed through precedent, crisis, security framing, and legislative hesitation.

From Declaration to Discretion

How precedent, crisis, and congressional hesitation reshaped America’s war-making balance

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Landscape infographic titled “From Boats to Regime Change: Trump’s Military Push in Latin America.” A textured, painterly background shows U.S. naval ships at sea, military aircraft overhead, and a small boat engulfed in flames. The White House and an American flag appear in the background. Three main panels are displayed: Panel 1: “Narco-Terrorism Label & Justification.” States that cartel groups were recast as “narco-terrorists,” terrorism designations were applied to Venezuelan-linked drug cartels, and the campaign was framed as protecting the U.S. from a drug-based terror threat. Panel 2: “Naval & Air Strikes Off the Coast.” Describes “Operation Southern Spear,” including dozens of strikes on small boats declared part of an armed conflict against narco-terrorist threats, U.S. forces sinking small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, more than 100 alleged traffickers killed, and no new congressional authorization. Panel 3: “Direct Military Operation & Capture of Maduro.” Describes “Operation Absolute Resolve,” stating that Nicolás Maduro was seized by U.S. forces without congressional approval, that airstrikes and special operations occurred in Caracas, and that Maduro and his wife were brought to the United States. A “Key Outcomes” section lists: Blurred Boundaries: Traditional law enforcement shifted into military engagement. Expanded Targets: Cartels treated as wartime enemies and regime capture justified by executive authority. Weakened Congressional Role: Military force used without Congress and war powers resolutions failing to rein in action. On the right side is an image of former President Donald Trump holding papers, alongside the presidential seal.

Redefining the Battlefield

Narco-terror designations, maritime strikes, and regime capture without formal congressional authorization

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Landscape infographic titled “Why Scholars Call This ‘New Territory’” with a textured parchment-style background and faded American flag imagery. Across the top are four connected hexagonal panels linked by arrows, illustrating a progression. Panel 1, labeled “Internal Guardrails,” lists removal of top JAG legal advisors and DOJ indictments of dissenting officers. Panel 2, “Convergence of War Powers & Domestic Governance,” explains that military logic enters civilian domains. Panel 3, “Executive Discretion Increases,” states that labeling authority rests heavily with the executive branch. Panel 4, “Congressional & Judicial Friction Weakens,” notes that oversight becomes reactive rather than proactive. Below, a banner reads “Executive Military Power Expansion.” Three sections summarize impacts: reduced internal guardrails (including a chill on internal questioning), preventive state logic (shift from arrest to preemption and fear deterring dissent), and expanded reach and targets (definitions expanding from extremism to ideology or drug crime). At the bottom, a statement reads: “When internal lawyers are repressed, it escalates unreviewed military discretion.” The right side includes an image of former President Donald Trump holding papers and a seal of the President of the United States. Visual motifs include Lady Justice with scales and symbolic law imagery, reinforcing themes of legal oversight and constitutional balance.

When Guardrails Shift: The Dynamics of Expanding Military Authority

How internal legal restructuring and weakened congressional oversight accelerate executive military power

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Landscape infographic titled “Systems Flow: From ‘Label’ to ‘Lockup’” illustrating a four-stage feedback loop. Stage 1, “Label,” shows expanded “domestic terrorist” designations targeting political speech, protests, and ideology, with lowered evidentiary thresholds and national security framing. Stage 2, “Legal Shift,” outlines expanded legal authorities including surveillance expansion, material support laws, asset freezes, and pretrial detention, leading to weakened due process protections and erosion of the presumption of innocence. Stage 3, “Infrastructure,” depicts expansion of detention facilities, including new mega-centers, increased capacity, long-term contracts, and federal funding, with a highlighted risk of overcapacity if immigration decreases. Stage 4, “Incentives & Impact,” shows economic and political incentives to maintain detention capacity, including local jobs, federal contracts, community revenue, and lobbying to keep facilities open, leading to normalization of detention and reduced oversight. Arrows connect the stages in a feedback loop, emphasizing how labeling expands legal authority, which enables infrastructure growth, which creates economic incentives that reinforce broader targeting and more detentions. A bottom section titled “Systemic Risks” highlights chilling effects on speech, erosion of due process, executive overreach, and normalization of long-term detention, while a “Constitutional Guardrails” section references judicial review, congressional oversight, and due process as balancing mechanisms.

From Designation to Detention: The Structural Feedback Loop

How expanded terrorism labels, legal shifts, and detention infrastructure can generate self-reinforcing security incentives

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

A wide infographic titled “The Department of Judicial Theater” with the subtitle “A Stage, a Script, and a Sentence.” The design uses a courthouse backdrop with red theater curtains and a gavel centered at the top. Three main sections are presented from left to right. Section 1, “Justice as Performance – Optics Over Neutrality,” shows spotlights, cameras, and a courtroom scene staged like a theater, with bullet points describing public spectacle, media narrative over evidence, symbolic prosecutions, and perception over due process. Section 2, “Pre-Scripted Outcomes – When Process Follows Conclusion,” features a checklist labeled charges, trial, verdict, and a document stamped “VERDICT,” alongside imagery of a puppet master hand and government building. Text describes predetermined outcomes, decisions shaped elsewhere, process as formality, and limited adversarial review. Section 3, “Political Messaging Through Law – Enforcement as Signal,” includes a megaphone, crosshairs over silhouetted figures, a gavel, and a folder labeled “Political Agenda.” Bullet points reference targeting rivals and critics, deterring dissent, warning opponents, shaping political narratives, intimidation and control, and reputation management. Across the bottom, a banner reads: “When courts become stages, public trust becomes the casualty.” A final row of illustrated consequences shows scales of justice cracking, a fractured Capitol dome, torn legal papers, and a broken handshake with captions stating: “Erodes Rule of Law,” “Undermines Democracy,” “Destroys Due Process,” and “Corrodes Public Trust.” Cartoon-style portraits of several public figures appear in the corners, reinforcing the political theme.

State-directed court apparatus

@maddow.bsky.social @lawrenceodonnell.bsky.social @maddow.bsky.social

A cinematic political infographic in landscape format depicting the U.S. Capitol and large federal-style office buildings connected by glowing web-like network lines across a dark mountainous landscape. The spiderweb motif stretches across the terrain, symbolizing systemic oversight. The text reads: “The spiderweb isn’t protest. It’s institutional audit. You don’t overthrow the administrative state. You analyze its patterns, its directives, its incentive structures. Corruption is rarely loud. It hides in process, in procurement, in performance metrics, in who gets protected. Reform isn’t spectacle. It’s traceability.” In the foreground, official documents, redacted files, a laptop displaying network analysis, a judge’s gavel, and a magnifying glass enlarge details on a document, reinforcing themes of investigation, governance, and institutional accountability.

Clarity Is Reform

When information flows are transparent, power must answer.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Landscape infographic titled “Why Christian Nationalism in Military Headquarters Draws Heightened Scrutiny.” The graphic explains controversy surrounding U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth inviting Pastor Doug Wilson to lead a worship service at the Pentagon. It includes four panels: (1) State Power & Neutrality, noting the military wields lawful force and must uphold religious neutrality; (2) Cohesion & Diversity, emphasizing equal standing across backgrounds; (3) Command Hierarchy, highlighting how strict chains of command can shape perception and create pressure to conform; and (4) Pentagon Symbolism, linking national defense authority with concerns about Christian nationalism blurring with national mission. A footer lists concerns including Christian identity preference, religious pluralism undercut, and perceived state favoritism.

Christian Nationalism at the Pentagon

State authority, command hierarchy, and pluralism in the context of the Pentagon prayer event.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic titled “Beyond the Warehouse Model: When Temporary Custody Becomes Indefinite Detention.” The graphic presents a side-by-side comparison table of three facility types: Detention Center (blue), Internment Camp (gold), and Concentration Camp (red). Rows compare features including basis (individual case vs. group identity), legal process (formal proceedings vs. limited emergency review vs. minimal or none), scale, duration (temporary to often indefinite), historical weight, and intent. Below the table are three representative images: a modern detention facility building, wooden barracks associated with wartime internment, and a historical concentration camp with barbed wire and guard tower. A second table at the bottom outlines each facility’s core purpose and definition, emphasizing differences in administrative processing, preventive mass civilian control during crisis, and mass civilian confinement without individualized charges.

Civilian Detention Systems Compared

A Comparative Framework for Understanding Civilian Detention Systems

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social d

Wide, staged illustration titled “The Architecture of Confinement: When Legal Custody, Emergency Internment, and Mass Confinement Share Physical Space.” The image shows three adjacent warehouse-style buildings labeled “Detention Center,” “Internment Camp,” and “Concentration Camp.” Inside the detention center (left), people sit at tables in an orderly administrative setting under bright lighting. In the internment camp (center), large groups of civilians are confined behind fencing in a crowded warehouse space with guards walking a central corridor. In the concentration camp (right), rows of detainees sit tightly packed under guard towers and barbed wire in a stark, heavily controlled environment. Chain-link fencing and razor wire run across the foreground, visually linking the three spaces to emphasize structural similarities while contrasting scale, conditions, and purpose.

The Spatial Economics of Confinement: A Master Plan Perspective on Detention Infrastructure

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Landscape infographic titled “Immigration Detention: Structural Acceleration.” It shows a timeline of detention growth from 2015 to projected mega-facilities in 2025–2026. Panels explain increases in capacity, intensity of use, and facility footprint, alongside why this matters: locked-in capacity, detention-first strategies, and difficulty scaling back. A banner states that detention is expanding faster than migration flows.

Immigration detention is scaling like permanent infrastructure — not a temporary response.

Over the past decade, capacity, facility size, and intensity of use have grown faster than migration flows, locking detention in as the default.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

What gets built gets used. When detention capacity expands, enforcement shifts from discretionary to routine — becoming earlier, broader, and more intensive, even without changes in migration levels.

What gets built gets used.

When detention capacity expands, enforcement shifts from discretionary to routine — becoming earlier, broader, and more intensive, even without changes in migration levels.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Landscape infographic titled “Expanded Detention Infrastructure & Association-Based Terrorism Accusations.” It explains how expanded detention capacity enables prolonged pre-charge detention when terrorism definitions are applied broadly. Sections describe association-based suspicion, detention while evidence is assembled, delayed charging, due-process concerns, and the need for oversight. The graphic emphasizes that these outcomes arise from how existing authorities are applied, not from new laws.

Expanded detention capacity doesn’t just increase scale — it changes when and why people can be held.

When terrorism accusations rely on association or alleged support, detention can occur long before guilt is determined.
Oversight matters.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic titled “Trump’s Attacks on Female Journalists.” It lists documented examples where Donald Trump criticized female journalists’ tone rather than addressing their questions. Examples include Savannah Guthrie labeled “too aggressive” during a 2020 NBC town hall on COVID-19 and election integrity; Kaitlan Collins described as the “worst reporter” and “never smiles” during CNN press events; Megyn Kelly targeted with a sexist remark during a 2015 GOP debate; and April Ryan told to “sit down” during 2017 White House briefings. The graphic concludes that these personal attacks divert attention from substantive questions and disproportionately target women during high-stakes questioning, undermining press accountability.

When leaders dodge accountability by attacking journalists’ tone instead of answering questions, democracy takes the hit.

This pattern—especially toward women reporters—turns scrutiny into “hostility” and facts into personal attacks.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic titled “Trump on Voting & Elections (2025–2026).” The left column lists statements attributed to Trump, including claims of election fraud, opposition to mail-in voting, stricter voter ID requirements, calls to nationalize elections, and acceptance of only “honest” results. The right column shows responses from election officials, civic groups, and legal experts warning about risks to state-run elections, voter access, and constitutional norms. An image of Donald Trump pointing appears at the bottom.

When elections are judged by outcomes instead of rules, legitimacy becomes conditional.

This isn’t about result expectations — it’s about whether democratic standards apply before or after votes are counted.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic titled “Trump and the Future of U.S. Elections.” It summarizes how election officials, civic groups, and constitutional experts are responding to election-related rhetoric. Bullets note concerns about threats to state election control, voter access, harassment of election workers, legal challenges, and democratic stability. An overall assessment warns of risks to election legitimacy. Donald Trump is shown pointing in front of a U.S. flag background.

Election officials, legal experts, and civic groups are sounding the alarm:
False, unproven fraud claims don’t protect democracy — they erode trust, threaten election workers, and weaken constitutional norms.

Democracy depends on party-neutral rules.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Flowchart titled “Logical Holes and Democratic Risks in Outcome-Based Election Legitimacy.” At the top, a box states that election legitimacy is determined by who wins, not by process. Below are four panels describing self-sealing logic, outcome-based legitimacy, retroactive rule-changing, and contradictory claims about polls versus elections. All paths lead to a warning box labeled “Collapse of Neutral Standards,” stating there is no trusted referee or shared evidence.

If winning = legitimate
and losing = fraud
then elections stop constraining power.

This self-sealing bad logic collapses evidence, process, and accountability — and turns democracy into a conditional system.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Diagram titled “From Self-Sealing Logic to Democratic Erosion.” Two parallel sections show how elections and polls are evaluated. Election outcomes labeled “Wins” lead to “Fair,” while “Loses” lead to “Rigged.” Poll results labeled “Leads (Favorable)” lead to “Trustworthy,” while “Trails (Unfavorable)” lead to “Fake.” A lower section explains why this logic is dangerous in power, noting control over enforcement agencies, election administration, and public trust. A warning states that when leaders reject neutral standards, the referee disappears.

When leaders accept results only when favorable for them, the system becomes closed-loop and falsifiable.

⚠️ When neutral standards are rejected, the referee disappears.
Break the loop. Defend the process.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic titled “The Risks of Punishing Journalists.” It depicts police arresting a man in front of a protest crowd while a journalist with a press badge records nearby. The graphic outlines risks of punishing journalists for lawful reporting, including increased threats to journalists and their families, chilling effects on reporting, erosion of press freedom, and weakened accountability. A bottom section states that protecting journalists protects the public’s right to know.

Punishing journalists for lawful reporting doesn’t make anyone safer.

It increases threats to reporters and their families, chills coverage, and shields power from scrutiny.

When journalism is treated as a crime, the public loses its eyes and ears.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic titled “Reporting Is Not Participation.” It explains why journalists, protesters, and observers must be treated differently under the law. The image references protests in Minneapolis following fatal shootings during federal immigration enforcement operations and highlights that journalist Georgia Fort was documenting events, not organizing them. Text stresses that criminalizing journalists undermines press freedom and accountability.

Reporting ≠ participation.
Documenting ≠ organizing.

When journalists are treated like protesters, press freedom erodes and accountability collapses.

How the law draws this line will shape the future of protest coverage.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic explaining why protesters gathered at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows the church as a symbolic site because a pastor held a senior role in ICE, alongside illustrations of ICE agents and protesters. The graphic explains protests against aggressive immigration enforcement tactics and clarifies that journalist Georgia Fort was present to report, not to lead the protest. Text emphasizes that reporting the news is not a crime.

Protesters gathered at Cities Church in St. Paul not just over immigration policy — but over how enforcement is carried out.

When federal actions involve secrecy, force, and loss of life, public protest follows.

Accountability begins with visibility.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic outlining a best-case accountability scenario for Geraldo Lunas Campos’s death, including civil litigation, criminal review, DOJ pattern investigation, and congressional oversight.

Accountability for the Death of Mr. Campos

Accountability isn’t one investigation — it’s multiple independent pathways working together

Court-supervised civil litigation
External criminal review
DOJ pattern-or-practice inquiry
Congressional oversight

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Diagram illustrating how DHS OIG and DOJ reviews narrow case framing in ICE custody deaths, leading to deferred action and cases closing without accountability.

How Oversight Stops Short of Accountability

Oversight often begins — but rarely escalates.
Early reviews narrow the frame.
Later reviews defer to that framing.
Cases close quietly.

Oversight absorbs failure instead of correcting it.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Timeline infographic showing multiple detainee deaths at Camp East Montana within six months, including Geraldo Lunas Campos, whose death was ruled a homicide.

Troubling Pattern of Deaths at Camp East Montana

At least three detainees died at Camp East Montana in under six months.

One death may be dismissed as tragic.
A pattern raises questions about conditions, care, and oversight.

Patterns demand inquiry.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic explaining that Geraldo Lunas Campos was detained under civil immigration law, not a criminal sentence; includes photo of detention facility and key facts about his custody and death.

Detained, Not Convicted

Geraldo Lunas Campos was detained under civil immigration law — not serving a criminal sentence, not convicted of a violent crime.

His death in ICE custody was later ruled a homicide.
That distinction matters.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Flowchart showing how ICE, private detention facilities, DHS OIG, and DOJ share fragmented oversight in immigration detention deaths, resulting in no clear accountability.

Fragmented Oversight

When someone dies in ICE custody, responsibility is fragmented across agencies.
ICE, contractors, DHS, and DOJ each review pieces — but no one fully owns the outcome.

This is how accountability gets lost.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic showing six industries that profit from U.S. immigration policy, including detention companies, surveillance tech, defense contractors, transportation firms, facility services, and legal providers, centered around enforcement and data collection.

Who profits from U.S. immigration policy?

Detention, surveillance tech, defense, transport, and legal industries benefit most when enforcement, data collection, and large-scale processing are prioritized.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic summarizing J.D. Vance’s venture capital background, showing how early tech investments in large, data-driven systems can shape which technologies later scale in government.

Before politics, J.D. Vance worked in venture capital backing large tech systems.

Those choices help shape which data-driven tools scale—and which later power government surveillance.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Infographic explaining how surveillance expands in DHS and immigration through policy approvals, technology adoption, daily workflow integration, growing data sharing, and impacts on people.

In DHS and immigration, surveillance doesn’t arrive all at once.
It comes through speed, risk scoring, pilot tools, and data sharing—then becomes routine paperwork.

By the time oversight catches up, the system already feels normal.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Vertical flowchart showing how policy decisions lead step-by-step to expanded surveillance, moving from procurement choices to market shaping, system embedding, data growth, and normalization.

Surveillance rarely starts with cameras.

It starts with policy: fast-track contracts, pilot programs, and “efficiency” framing- normalize monitoring over time.

It’s structural, not personal.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social

Claims that Venezuela Rigged the 2020 U.S. Election Have been debunked.

This claim has been tested—in courtrooms, investigations, and settlements—and it did not hold up.

@maddow.bsky.social @maddowblog.bsky.social