It’s Friday, October 17, 2025.

🗣️ It’s Friday; time for reader replies!

My take: We’ll be headed to No Kings protests tomorrow in Des Moines (Avery) and Waterloo (me); if you spot us, say hi!

Now that our Cancer in Iowa series has wrapped, I’ll be putting rallies and events in your inbox on Tuesdays once again, so look for that list there.

Iowa’s 47 No Kings protests Saturday:

Events are sourced from mobilize.us and submissions; submit an event here.

Amie Rivers

Newsletter Editor, Iowa Starting Line

Member, COURIER United (WGA East)

Email me

This quirky Des Moines home up for sale features a working fire pole

Jake Boyd Photo/Reuters Connect

Built by a well-respected local architect as their personal residence, a quirky home for sale in the Lower Beaver neighborhood hides a very unusual design choice on its second floor.

Check out the photos here.

🥘 Free lunch (or dinner) to furloughed workers: That’s what the owners of Flavors of India in Davenport are promising federal workers who aren’t getting paid during the government shutdown. “I do it from my heart,” Apjeet Makkar told Iowa Starting Line.

🐶 Two low-cost vet clinics will stay low cost: Iowa’s largest nonprofit animal shelter, the Animal Rescue League of Iowa, bought two veterinary clinics in Des Moines and plans to keep them affordable to prevent more pets ending up at their shelter. “If somebody is having to surrender their pet because of lack of ability to pay for veterinary care, and we can help that situation out, everybody wins,” said ARL CEO Tom Colvin.

📖 Welcoming diverse Iowans to 4-H: That’s what Dr. John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, a war survivor from Guatemala, did when he became Iowa’s first Latino 4-H state leader—all during the first Trump administration and the rise of the MAGA movement’s “war on woke.” You can read his new book, “4-H: A DEI Love Story: How Positive Youth Development Became a Battleground for Democracy,” here.

(First in a miniseries explaining authoritarianism, from COURIER Newsroom’s Ryan Pitkin.)

Could you recognize the warning signs of authoritarianism if they were creeping into your everyday life?

There has been lots of talk about the looming “death of democracy” on news and social media lately, but it can be hard to put a finger on what that means.

Let’s consider the alternative: authoritarianism, defined as “the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action” in politics and government.

In other words, one relatively small group of people ruling over the rest with no accountability, no checks, no balances, none of that.

Experts have identified seven basic tactics used by aspiring authoritarians:

attempts to politicize independent institutions,
spread disinformation,
expand executive power,
quash criticism and dissent,
target vulnerable or marginalized communities,
undermine elections, and
stoke violence.

While historically, authoritarianism would often take hold of a country quickly, with new leaders swooping into power by way of military action—think coup d’ètats or the less swift and often more bloody revolution—many of the world’s modern authoritarians have used what are called “salami tactics,” slicing away at the institutions of democracy one sliver at a time.

If you’ve ever seen Goodfellas, think of the scene where Paulie slices up the garlic reaallll thin, and each piece of garlic is another one of your civil rights.

So now that you know the warning signs, it’s worth asking the question: How much salami (or garlic) has already been sliced?

🐶 This is Zoey Blume, sent in by reader RL Blume.

Love a fresh-haircut-in-the-car pic!

Send me your pet photos here.

Readers are invited to add to the conversation by emailing responses@iowastartingline.com. Please include your first name and last initial. You may also want to include your city, but that’s up to you. I may edit your content for conciseness or to correct typos.

Share your thoughts here

We have a new survey, please take it here!

“I sort of did the survey. I am no longer an Iowa resident but am still very interested in what’s going on, especially in politics. I enjoy Iowa Starting Line very much.“ — Jan I.

Candidate town hall list:

“No GOP town halls?” — Trdsrgn
(NOTE: LOL! In all seriousness, we do post them if they have them, but they’re rare. If you hear of one, send it my way!)

College grad appreciates you all:

“Thanks so much Amie! I actually had someone reach out to me on LinkedIn because of the video.” — Meghan Holloran

Cancer in Iowa series feedback, and what you’re doing to protect yourself:

“Thank you for all of your hard work to provide the information in the Cancer in Iowa segment. You really do outstanding work! Have a great day.” — Rick W., Altoona
“Love Cornhole Champions podcast! I have been avidly watching your coverage of Cancer in Iowa. I am a cancer survivor (melanoma) and your reporting inspired me to get my well checked. I live in rural Johnson County and the county actually came out and checked it for me. All good here and we have an RO [reverse osmosis] system. Radon filter test was pretty easy to order from the American Lung Association as well and that is collecting info in my basement.” — Lee K.
“Hi, so glad you’re digging into this. The Iowa Department of Public Health has a ton of information. I believe they identified 5 main causes of cancer in Iowa; pesticides, nitrates, radon, binge drinking and obesity. Can you confirm in a future newsletter? And will you be working with someone on their staff to check facts?” — Chris M.
(NOTE: IDPH is currently working with the University of Iowa on a cancer study, paid for with $1 million in state appropriations, that will examine behavioral, environmental, and genetic causes of cancer. Read more about that effort here.)
“Will you do a follow up on the ‘blue ribbon commission’ created with state funding to provide recommendations and insights regarding our cancer rates? Apparently their preliminary report is due in December. The findings may or may not provide policy suggestions but will not go forward without a huge grassroots push for legislation. Historically, cancer advocacy groups in Iowa have been scattered, disjointed, and not speaking with a unified voice. This will need to change in order to move ideas into actions. Thanks for keeping this statewide problem as a priority. It should not be a partisan issue!” — Daniel K. (NOTE: We will keep an eye on this for sure.)
“Probably will be adding the increase in Parkinson’s disease to the list of environmental diseases—looking at pesticides as a possible cause of increasing numbers with the disease. Thanks for the work you are doing.” — Charles J.
“All I can do personally is take better care of myself. However, I will speak out to my children and grandchildren about the dangers of smoking, imbibing alcohol in large quantities, and using sunscreen when outdoors for extended time periods. I will do my best to share these warnings to other family and friends as well.” — Clare L.
“I, for one, have already contacted my representatives and senators in Iowa about my concerns. I will continue to be a thorn in their side when it comes to water quality, extensive tiling (which does not help our depleted aquifer) and the nitrate and pesticide in our waterways and drinking water. I will also be contacting the DNR—as there are both state and federal laws that are in place to protect our air, land, and water—and we need to hold this agency accountable.” — Coleen G.
“I like smoking. I don’t want to quit.” — Charlie W. (NOTE: We all gotta die of something!)

Send me your takes

Letter of the Week:

How the Supreme Court is giving democracy away

“The Supreme Court has granted presidents criminal immunity, dismantled federal agency constraints, and weakened electoral oversight. Together, these rulings concentrate executive authority beyond anything Nixon, Reagan, or Bush possessed.

The 6-3 conservative majority has removed three categories of checks:

Criminal accountability for presidents.
Independent agency power to constrain executive action.
Robust judicial review of electoral manipulation.

The question is whether these powers will be abused. Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election through pressure campaigns on state officials and schemes to submit false electoral certificates. He was indicted on federal and state charges. Both prosecutions collapsed after his 2024 election victory. He publicly stated he would be a dictator ‘on day one’ to close the border and expand drilling. He maintains 78-87% approval among Republican voters. Senate Republicans refused to convict him in two impeachment trials despite evidence of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection.

Would Trump kill political rivals if he could get away with it? Would he steal elections by any means available? Would congressional Republicans hold him accountable? The legal architecture the Court has built answers these questions with permissions, not prohibitions.

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court did something unprecedented in 235 years of American governance. It granted criminal immunity to presidents.

Trump v. United States established that presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their ‘conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.’ Directing Justice Department investigations. Firing subordinate officials. Issuing pardons. Commanding the military. For these acts, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, ‘Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions.’ …

No Supreme Court ruling had ever granted criminal immunity to presidents. Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) granted only civil immunity from damages lawsuits. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon because prosecution was possible. That’s why a pardon was necessary. …

Trump v. United States eliminates that accountability for vast categories of conduct. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent outlined the implications. ‘Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune.’ The majority held that using the Justice Department for sham investigations to overturn elections is absolutely immune from prosecution. Courts cannot examine the president’s motives for such acts.

This ruling operationalizes radical Unitary Executive Theory (UET), which holds that all executive power flows through the President with minimal checks. …

Trump now has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for all ‘official’ acts. The criminal law that constrained every previous president no longer constrains presidents for conduct within their official duties.

Independent agencies traditionally limited presidential power through expertise-based regulation and structural independence. Those constraints are being systematically eliminated. Agencies have lost Chevron deference, in-house enforcement, protection from removal, and authority over ‘major questions.’ Presidents can now remove officials at will. When agencies lose interpretive power, presidential control over subordinates expands.

The Court has eliminated preclearance for voting changes, weakened challenges to discriminatory voting restrictions, and removed federal review of partisan gerrymandering. The Court nearly endorsed a theory that would have let legislatures control federal elections without state court oversight. These decisions don’t prevent elections, but they allow manipulation of who can vote and how districts are drawn. …

What remains? Impeachment. A political process that the Court has made less meaningful by granting immunity for the conduct that might otherwise be prosecuted. Congressional oversight. Weakened when the president controls all agency officials through removal power. Public opinion. Filtered through gerrymandered legislatures, elections with reduced access, and a government that treats Fox and other state media as a hiring pool. …

Trump now has criminal immunity as President and regularly shows off his Trump 2028 merch. He has control over federal agencies through unrestricted removal power. He benefits from gerrymandered legislatures and restricted voting access in key states.

The factual record shows the constraints have been removed. The political record shows no mechanism remains to prevent their use. Trump attempted to overturn an election he lost. The Supreme Court has now made such attempts legally permissible for official acts and criminally immune from prosecution.

What do we do about this?“

— JT Santana

Do you enjoy reading this newsletter?

Thanks for reading. This newsletter was written by Amie Rivers. This edition features reporting from USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect, WHO 13, and Ryan Pitkin. It was edited by Brook Bolen.

Iowa Starting Line is free for everyone. Your support makes our work possible.