The Post-Journal’s recent column, “Trump’s Return, Agenda Energizes Langworthy” is an example of normalizing–“sane washing”–the actions of the Trump administration.

It opens with an account of Rep. Langworthy’s visit to Fredonia’s revitalized White Inn, then abruptly pivots to the Trump administration’s “whirlwind” early days, implying an unsubstantiated connection between the Inn’s success story and the administration’s actions.

The article says, “It is a bit like the second chance voters gave President Donald Trump last November,” but claims that “[Trump] was returned to the White House by a large margin.” Trump won the popular vote by just 1.5%, hardly a “large margin.” While Republicans control all three branches of government, their majorities are slim and tenuous; they’re unable to govern without the support of Democrats.

Such details in reporting matter because Trump claims he has a sweeping mandate for his aggressive, legally dubious actions, contrary to the facts. The editorial’s distortions amplify that propaganda.

In the same paragraph, Trump’s return to the White House is characterized in heroic terms–an opportunity “to again become larger than life.” Here, “larger than life” is code for taking a wrecking ball to the Constitution and Congressional authority, better framed as “stealing from the American people and betraying American values.” Given that characterization, it’s fair to look at the norms that Trump is emboldened to disrupt, confident in the Supreme Court’s ruling that he is above the law.

We go on to learn that Langworthy, in lock step with Trump, is leading the local ICE charge to “[remove] dangerous undocumented immigrants.” There it is: a specific claim that immigrants are inherently “dangerous.”

When it’s been documented by NBC News, NPR, and others that ICE raids already have detained U.S. citizens, including Native Americans and Puerto Ricans, are we to believe there’s consistent, lawful vetting of who’s “dangerous?” The Trump administration’s targeting of various “enemies of the people” (including any media that doesn’t sing his praises) is a chilling echo of the Nazi’s brutal purges of the 1930s.

The article goes on to report Langworthy’s position on the worst aspect of the administration’s start: the ransacking of the Federal government by Elon Musk, a South African-born oligarch, and “DOGE,” his band of tech bros with no legal authority. Many of their actions brazenly circumvent Congress’s “power of the purse,” so Langworthy is willingly abdicating his power as a member of the Legislative branch.

On DOGE, Langworthy says, “I think they’re going to find real savings. A big part of it is a federal workforce that’s run amok that doesn’t want to come back to work.” There is important work we can do as a country to find waste and fraud in government spending, work that is Congress’s to implement. But now, “waste and fraud” is being equated with programs and policies that Musk and Trump simply don’t like.

The rhetorical sleight of hand in Langworthy’s statement on DOGE is in equating remote work with laziness and waste. By that logic, if I show up at Rep. Langworthy’s Jamestown or D.C. office and he’s not at his desk, is it safe to assume that he’s a “remote” worker that we don’t really need?

The editorial gets one thing right: Langworthy is part of Trump’s loyal vanguard (as he reminds us at every opportunity), tied to the President so closely that he’s complicit in violating Constitutional and democratic norms. That much can be gleaned from the article by reading between the lines, but it’s hard to find amid the many distortions and normalizing gloss.

Eric Jackson-Fosberg is a Jamestown resident.