Trump Dump

You may, like many people, understandably have Trump story fatigue. If so I apologize, but here are a few recent pieces concerning Trump, his State of the Union, his border wall, and... actually the third doesn't really concern Trump per se, but is definitely affected by his policies, as well as previous presidents' policies. This first was a piece for The New Yorker on the State of the Union:

 It's a collage that refers to both party's views on the condition of the country. For Republicans, it's the "American Carnage" they see as a result of the Obama years. For Democrats, the apocalypse happening in real time due to Trump's presidency. Read the piece here.

Next is an Op-Ed by novelist Luis Alberto Urrea, for the New York Times Sunday Review several weeks back, on Trump's glorious border wall. Urrea makes clear that this project is little more than one giant grift that will suck millions of dollars of taxpayer money and provide little in return (due to the fact that the number of immigrants caught crossing the border illegally is already the lowest it's been in decades). Read that one here.

Here's a view of the page:

And most recently, another Op-Ed for The New York Times from last week, on the fact that immigrants being detained and awaiting deportation are being treated like slaves, forced to perform unpaid labor at the for-profit detention sites where they're held. Fortunately, these practices are being met with lawsuits, and the for-profit prisons have been losing. Read the Op-Ed here.

Thank you to all my ADs on these! Hope to get back to posting in a more timely manner. Stay tuned.

Happy New Year 2018

A little late, but it's still January, so it counts. A note about the end of 2017- I was surprised and happy to learn that a couple of my Op-Ed illustrations from last year made it onto The New York Times' Year in Illustration 2017 list. Compiled every year is a selection of images made for the paper, chosen by the art directors. No surprise that both were for articles on Trump- as were many of the pieces in the selection. In fact, the first piece of mine is included in a group of illustrations specifically geared toward the subject of 'ol Donnie. This one was on his handling of issues in the Middle East:

As art director Nathan Huang explained it: "A year of Trump-related articles requires a year's worth of Trump-related imagery. How do we avoid repeating the same images over and over? Brilliant illustrators to the rescue."

My second illustration was from early on in the Trump presidency, when the calls for an investigation into his ties to Russia were first being made:

 I actually received quite a bit of positive feedback on this one, from art directors and illustrators, as well as regular readers of the paper.

Thank you to all my ADs at The Times, for all the opportunities to contribute. Looking forward to another year!

More NY Times Op-Eds!

I had a few more pieces for the NY Times Op-Ed over the last several days. This piece was slotted to run last Friday, but ended up going into yesterday's Sunday paper, where I was able to give it some color. For a piece on the outrageous financial costs (the moral costs are a given) associated with Trump's plan for a border wall, detention centers, deportations, etc.

This piece ran last week, looking at Trump's pick for National Security Advisor, General McMaster, and advising Trump to defer to the General's expertise.

This one is out today, for an editorial explaining that the one proposal Trump made during the campaign that could get support across the political spectrum- his infrastructure plan- is indefinitely on hold, and might not get off the ground for years, if ever.

Always a blast working on these super-quick turnaround pieces! Thank you to my AD on these three, Sarah!

Shine a light

This piece is in today's New York Times, for an Op-Ed recommending that congress look into various issues involving the Trump campaign/administration, if the Justice Department is too conflicted to do so. Listed are the Flynn firing, and the alleged contact between Russian Intelligence and Trump campaign members. They also threw in the various intelligence agencies' assertions about Russia trying to undermine the election (and whether Trump colluded in that respect) for good measure.

The web version:

The article describes Russia as a nation that "has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War," and demands info clarifying whether our new Prez is in cahoots with "an enemy." I wasn't aware that Russia is officially an enemy now. If it's due to the supposed attempt (or desire) to influence our election, I guess we have a lot of enemies around the world. Not because they've meddled in our elections, but because we've "meddled" in theirs. Like maybe Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others where we either directly overthrew their governments, or supported the people that did. That's coups, to say nothing of plain old meddling or interfering, which we've engaged in dozens and dozens of times. And maybe if some of our foreign policy since the Cold War had been thwarted, those catastrophes wouldn't have happened. Along with many other catastrophes, like Iraq and Libya. It goes without saying (though I still will) that illustrators need not agree with every word in the articles they illustrate for. Investigation? Sure, why not? But I could do without the demonization that sounds an awful lot like a gin up for more interventionism. Anyone up for another round of regime change? Síganme, los malos! Meanwhile, those who decried leaks when they exposed Clinton campaign/DNC unseemliness are cheering on the Flynn leaks, while the Trump supporters giddy about leaks and whistle-blowing during the election are now crying foul. Who knew intellectual consistency was so hard to come by?
Thank you to Nathan, my AD.

Balancing act

This piece ran today in The New York Times. For an Op-Ed detailing just how much hangs in the balance, with regard to foreign policy in the Middle East (specifically, in this editorial's case, Israel and Iran.) And it's all in Trump's hands now:

Thank you to Nathan, my AD on this!

This machine kills fascists

I provided the illustration for a new Mother Jones investigation into the White nationalist groups that have thrown their weight behind Donald Trump. What started out as random racist memes, Twitter trolling, and 4chan and Reddit threads, has coalesced into the "Alt-Right," a fairly large online presence of White-power groups that view Trump as their ally and leader. Whether he will disavow such groups once he enters the White House remains to be seen. 

Calling themselves "alt-right" as a way to appear more mainstream, their views are essentially the same as White-supremacist groups throughout American history: That Whites who trace their ancestry to Western and Northern Europe are the superior race, and the only true Americans. The presence of Trump, first with his "birtherism" trolling, to his presidential campaign, to his election, has engendered a feeling of vindication for groups that were previously confined to the dark fringe of the web. And they now feel comfortable making their presence known:

Update: The above piece, which was originally commissioned to accompany the opening illustration, ended up being used for a different post that's online now: defining the various terms used to refer to the groups comprising the "alt-right." Thank you so much to my wonderful AD, Ivy! And to give credit where credit is due, the visage of Trump was from a photo taken by Gage Skidmore.

The Grand Old Pity Party

A couple months back, before we moved, I got a commission from The Atlantic magazine for a feature on the current state (as well as some history) of the GOP. It was highlighting how the Republican party, under the banner of Trump, has become the party of White rage. When Republicans in California turned to White Nativism in the 1990s (by bashing Mexican immigrants), the party all but disappeared from the political map in that state. History seems to be repeating itself with the rhetoric of people like Trump, as he plays on the fears of some Whites that their country has been taken from them.

As is occasionally the case, the magazine ended up going the route of photography instead of illustration, but I was so excited about a few of my sketches that I decided to finish them, just for fun.

The red/white/black color palette is meant to evoke a connection to the fact that several prominent White Power/Supremacy groups have voiced support for Trump.

As the Latino population in the US continues to grow, anti-immigrant rhetoric and proposals such as the "wall" at the Mexican border, causes Republican support to dwindle. As the article states, even among GOP members, the "wall" was the most important factor dividing pro-Trump and anti-Trump Republicans.

The piece likened this "White Strategy" to another infamous election scheme: Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Both played on White fears of a particular minority, and the anger at a perceived loss of position in the social hierarchy, as a way to move White voters to the polls.
Thank you to Darhil, for the original commission!