What is an example of egregious behaviour that has not been prominent in mainstream coverage—an act, a statement, a framing, an observation?

Rick Rosner says X has become an always-on catastrophe: he feels magnetized to outrage, compelled to argue or mute, and the experience has worsened lately. He links the mood to political escalation, including revived Greenland acquisition rhetoric and Musk-boosted voter-ID narratives, which widen what Americans consider plausible. Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks for under-covered warning signs; Rosner stresses Greenland’s place within Denmark and NATO’s Article 5 geography, raising the unnerving thought of allies confronting the United States. They pivot to coping and health, discussing limited Instagram posting, abandoned Bluesky use, Paxlovid rebound anxiety, and how policy choices translate into preventable illness and death nationwide.

Rick Rosner: My experience on X has reached a watershed moment: it feels like a disaster all the time. So many people are saying horrible things that I can almost not pull myself away. I feel compelled to argue with them—or at least mute them—so I do not have to see them anymore. It has felt worse even in the last week.

That feeling is amplified by the fact that many people had some idea of what Trump was capable of, but recent developments have forced a broader reassessment of what is plausible. In early January 2026, the White House confirmed that acquiring Greenland is an active topic of discussion, and it has refused to rule out the use of the U.S. military—while emphasizing diplomacy and saying Trump is not questioning Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland. 

Musk has also used his platform to advocate for stricter voter ID requirements, and he has promoted claims that fact-checkers have found false or misleading—for example, alleging that it is “illegal” to show ID to vote in New York and California.

It feels as though forms of authoritarian escalation that once seemed unthinkable now have to be taken seriously. The important caveat is that the United States is a much larger country with far more scrutiny and coverage, and we also have abundant historical precedent—authoritarian regimes we can study—to recognize warning signs early.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is an example of egregious behaviour that has not been prominent in mainstream coverage—an act, a statement, a framing, an observation?

Rosner: One example is the renewed push around Greenland. Trump and senior figures in his orbit have argued that the United States “needs” Greenland for national security and strategic reasons. Stephen Miller, for instance, has been widely reported as claiming that no one would fight the U.S. militarily over Greenland’s future.

Greenland is the world’s largest island and has about 57,000 people. It is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Foreign affairs and defence are generally handled by Denmark, and the U.S. has a longstanding military presence there—most notably at Pituffik Space Base—under a bilateral agreement.

This matters because Denmark is a NATO member, and NATO’s collective-defence obligation under Article 5 has geographic scope defined in Article 6, which includes islands under the jurisdiction of NATO parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer—Greenland included.

Jacobsen: The only time Article 5 has been invoked was after September 11, 2001, when other NATO countries came to the aid of the United States and joined military operations in Afghanistan. Now, Article 5 could conceivably come into play again—but this time in a scenario involving the United States. Even raising that possibility is shocking and deeply alarming, though it would be politically uncharted and would require decisions by NATO governments.

Rosner: Here is a take—admittedly not original—but the Nazi Germany clock just ticked forward a few years. It is hard to say precisely where we were before—perhaps 1933 or 1934. Now it feels closer to 1937 or 1938. We are talking about taking territory.

We technically still have the mechanism of impeachment. In practice, removing a president requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. In Trump’s first impeachment trial, Mitt Romney was the only Republican senator to vote to convict on one article; in the second impeachment trial, seven Republicans voted to convict, but it still fell short of the two-thirds threshold. The idea that a large bloc of Republican senators would vote to remove a president of their own party feels inconceivable right now—and by the time it becomes conceivable, it may be too late.

Jacobsen: Do you use anything besides Twitter now—any other social media?

Rosner: I post micro-mosaics on Instagram, but only occasionally. I have posted about thirty-one times. Carole got tired of posting them, but we have a lot of them, so I started putting some up. They are beautiful and interesting. They are trivial compared to what is happening in the world—and what I should be doing—but I still enjoy them.

I joined Bluesky, but I have not even checked it in the past six or seven months. Do you go to any of those places?

Jacobsen: They are, essentially, posting boards or article-sharing platforms that social media companies keep pushing. It feels like a lot of work.

Rosner: If you have a clear plan, maybe you can make it worthwhile, but I do not see anyone building an empire on Bluesky. That feels too weak.

One more thing: Carole got COVID and took Paxlovid. After finishing Paxlovid, some people test negative and then test positive again for a period—often called “rebound.” The best evidence suggests rebound can happen with or without antivirals; reported rates vary a lot depending on how rebound is defined and how often people are tested. In a large observational study reviewed by the CDC, rebound rates were in the single digits and were similar across treated and untreated groups, and rebounds were generally mild. 

I had a rebound myself. I tested negative about a week after first testing positive, then tested positive again for another week. It was about seventeen days from my first positive test to my last. Carole is on day thirteen now, and she is really bummed out. She may also have a cold on top of COVID, making it hard to tell which symptoms are from which.

This has also been a bleak period for respiratory illness. Measles, in particular, surged in the United States in 2025: the CDC reports 2,144 confirmed cases in 2025, compared with 285 in 2024, with many cases outbreak-associated. Vaccine policy decisions and anti-vaccine rhetoric have real consequences. Reducing or discouraging routine childhood vaccinations will predictably lead to preventable deaths.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a long record of promoting vaccine misinformation. During Samoa’s 2019 measles crisis, anti-vaccine activism was widely cited as a contributor to collapsing vaccination rates, followed by an outbreak that killed dozens of people—many of them children. That history matters.

Many political leaders accumulate preventable deaths as a result of their policies. Trump, in particular, bears responsibility for an enormous amount of preventable harm associated with his handling of COVID-19—at least in my judgment. Comparisons across presidents are always imperfect—Lincoln presided over the Civil War—but the underlying point is that presidential decisions can cost tens of thousands of lives with terrifying ease.

Carole is sick, and so are many others, and it feels like the country itself is ill. It is a bleak moment, and it is likely to remain so at least through the midterm elections ten months from now.

Jacobsen: What else?

Rosner: Someone on X said today: “If you ever wondered how ordinary Germans behaved in 1937–1938, you are finding out now.” The implication is that we are watching all of this unfold in real time. We do not know what to do about it, and so we essentially do nothing. We deplore it, but we feel paralyzed. That is how many Germans felt in 1937. They thought much of what was happening was deeply wrong, but they did not act.

Will enough people be angry enough to flip the House? Probably. Historically, the president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterms, and lower approval ratings tend to correlate with larger swings. I have not checked the odds recently, but it would not be surprising if Democrats were favoured to take back the House.

Would that be sufficient? Would it even be allowed to happen? I do not know. Would it stop anything? I am not sure. Trump’s Venezuela actions are a recent example of why I worry: Reuters reported that after the U.S. operation that captured Nicolás Maduro, Trump claimed U.S. oil companies would invest heavily and that he had spoken with oil executives—while some executives publicly denied being consulted. Analysts also stressed that Venezuela’s oil sector is degraded, would require major investment and time to restore, and that much of its crude is heavy and sour, complicating extraction and refining economics. 

Trump has also floated reimbursing oil companies—potentially with U.S. taxpayer money—for infrastructure spending tied to restoring Venezuelan production. 

One more thing—one more quote. Remember “We will be greeted with flowers”? That was the fantasy framing around the Iraq War. Instead, the aftermath involved prolonged conflict and massive loss of life. “Flowers” turned out to be a euphemism for catastrophe.

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.