Tag: trump authoritarianism
Trump's Incredibly Inept Attempt To Destroy Our Government Is Losing In Court

Trump's Incredibly Inept Attempt To Destroy Our Government Is Losing In Court

If you’re anything like I am, you have probably spent a considerable amount of time over the past two months trying to figure out what these dull fuckers think they’re doing. I won’t take your time providing a full list of what they’ve done since Trump sat down in the Oval Office on inauguration night and started signing executive orders, but let us at least review the last week’s events.

Last weekend, Trump’s Department of Homeland Security set forth to deport about 200 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. They have managed to get themselves hung up on violating a judge’s order to stop the deportation. It has been revealed that some of those deported were not gang members. They have refused to provide a list of the deportees. Lawyers for the Department of Justice have refused to answer the judge’s questions on grounds of “national security” and plan to invoke something called the “state secret privilege” in denying information about the deportation flights and handling of deportees, which were covered nearly door-to-door by Fox News.

A federal judge ruled that the closure of the United States Agency for International Development and firing of thousands of federal workers employed there was “likely unconstitutional” and ordered the government to reinstate them and give them access to their USAID email accounts and access to official information that will enable them to do their jobs.

Another federal judge ordered the Social Security Administration not to allow Elon Musk and his team of rat-fuckers to access the private information of millions of Social Security recipients, including their SS numbers, drivers license numbers, ages, and addresses.

Yet another federal judge stopped Trump’s ban of transgender troops at least in part because government orders are not made by “tweets,” and the government does not have any information about how many transgender individuals serve in the U.S. military, so the government does not know who would be affected by the ban. The Pentagon tried to change the definition of the ban from “transgender” to “people with symptoms of gender dysphoria.” The judge was not buying the attempted change in the ban, telling the Pentagon lawyer, “The policy’s impact is the same. This is still a ban on transgender service members.”

White House adviser and known immigration paranoid Stephen Miller, who is descended from a family of Belarussian Jewish immigrants, denounced the court decisions that have failed to go Trump’s way as “the insane edicts of radical rogue judges,” and multiple articles of impeachment have been filed against judges who have ruled against Trump by radical, rogue House Republicans, who drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.

And then, over the last 24 hours, we have been treated to what appears to be one of the great Department of Defense clusterfucks of the last 50 years. Elon Musk was apparently scheduled to get an ultra-top secret briefing at the Pentagon today that would have taken place in the equally ultra-top secret ”tank,” about US plans to defend the island of Taiwan in the event of an attack by the Chinese military.

My old friend and West Point history professor Terrence Goggin wrote on his Substack today an excellent analysis of what actually happened. Goggin thinks an order came down from the White House to give Musk the top secret briefing and the Pentagon was sufficiently disturbed by the idea of sharing such top secret information with a civilian who had nowhere near the clearance to hear it, that news of the briefing was deliberately leaked to the New York Times, which promptly published it on the front page. Once the unusual, to put it mildly, information about Musk’s special briefing was made public, it was cancelled, and the White House and Musk scrambled to come up with another excuse for his Pentagon visit.

Goggin’s informed speculation is that what we witnessed was the Pentagon's way of disobeying a presidential order without appearing to, and of course without ruffling Trump’s hair-sprayed feathers. He may be right, or the whole thing may have been a gigantic mistake made by a bunch of nonmilitary trained amateurs, but either way, exactly nobody in the whole mess -- not Trump, not his aides, not Hegseth, and not his aides, and certainly not Elon Musk -- evidenced even a smidgen of competence or knowledge of and respect for national security.

So, what's really going on here? Trump and Miller and Musk and the various Republican maniacs who surround them are clearly trying to disassemble what they have called the deep state. Hell, they advertised as much when they told a thousand lies during the campaign that they had nothing to do with Project 2025, which they have followed almost to the letter since Inauguration Day.

But given all that planning, don't you think that they'd be able to execute their plan a little better? They've had not months but years to have lawyers scrutinize every move they planned to make sure it would pass at least minimal legal muster, not to mention that their plans would fall within the outer bounds of constitutionality. Not only has it that not happened, they haven't even come close. Which is why we've been hearing the chorus of complaints about judges, some of whom have been Democratic appointees, but just as many have come from Republican presidents.

Sure, the rank incompetence stands out, as does the quicksand of lawlessness the whole mess floats on. You can tell that they're even getting nervous about their bought and paid for Supreme Court when you begin hearing not just mutterings but squawks of outrage about Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Roberts, both of whom have been reliable votes for Republicans until now.

Is it just that they're going too far too fast? The whole enterprise is beginning to show cracks of excess and madness that are getting wider seemingly by the day. They couldn’t even get rid of a bunch of heavily tattooed drug gang members without fucking the whole thing up, and their attempt to let Elon in on state secrets that he could turn over to his Chinese friends and use to stuff a few extra 100 billion in his pockets was so ham-handed it looked like a Three Stooges skit.

You would think that long-time aspirants to fascism would be more practiced with their tiny fists wrapped tightly around the levers of power, wouldn't you? They’re as dangerous as a cornered wolverine, but smart wolverines don’t allow themselves to get backed into corners of courthouses by people wearing long black robes.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter

Experts Warn: Autocrat Trump 'Now Thinks He's The Law'

Experts Warn: Autocrat Trump 'Now Thinks He's The Law'

Several top legal experts are now sounding the alarm over the implications of President Donald Trump testing the extent of the federal judiciary's enforcement power.

NBC News reported Monday that Trump's ongoing standoff with the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia over two recent deportation flights has some in the legal community worried about the health of the United States' system of checks and balances. Kimberly Wehle, who is a law professor at the University of Baltimore, told the network that Americans are now "watching the accumulation of power in one person, which is antithetical to our constitutional democracy."

"He now is the law,” Wehle said. “He decides what’s legal and not legal. He decides winners and losers, and it’s arbitrary.”

Over the weekend, Judge James Boasberg — who was appointed by former President Barack Obama — ruled that Trump did not have the authority under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan immigrants who the administration alleges are members of a violent gang. Boasberg pointed out that the law the administration invoked had only been used three times in U.S. history, and only against foreign governments. His ruling ordered that the deportation flights be turned back around as alleged gang members were not on the same legal footing as a foreign government.

Boasberg's ruling enraged both Trump and his supporters, with some MAGA-aligned voices — including Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) — calling on Boasberg to be impeached. One unnamed Trump advisor told NBC that they viewed Boasberg as an "activist" judge who was blocking "the mandate we were given."

According to Ilya Somin, who is a law professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, the administration's position in the two deportation flights "seems like more explicit defiance" than previous actions, like refusing to disburse funds already appropriated by Congress.

“If the executive can defy court orders whenever they feel like it, they are essentially not constrained by the Constitution and the laws anymore,” he added. “If they defy court orders and get away with it, they can basically do things that are illegal and there would be no easy way of stopping them."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Does Trump Believe He's 'A Monarch Ordained By God'?

Does Trump Believe He's 'A Monarch Ordained By God'?

After Donald Trump defeated Democratic nominee Kamala Harris by roughly 1.5 percent in the popular vote in the United States' 2024 presidential race, many far-right white evangelical Christian fundamentalists didn't view the outcome as Trump narrowly winning a close election. Instead, they declared that Trump had a divine "mandate" from God Almighty Himself.

But Trump's critics — from Democrats to right-wing Never Trump conservatives — reminded Christian nationalists and MAGA Republicans that the U.S. Constitution vehemently rejects the "divine right of kings" concept. July 4, 1776, they stressed, was a total rejection of monarchy, not an endorsement of it.

In an op-ed published on March 17, journalist Marcie Bianco (author of the 2023 book Breaking Free: The Lie of Equality and the Feminist Fight for Freedom) emphasizes that Trump has a radically different view of the presidency than Presidents Barack Obama, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman. While Obama, Roosevelt and Truman described themselves as "public servants," Bianco writes, Trump sees himself as a "monarch ordained by a god."

"From using the White House's South Lawn to shill cars for his biggest campaign donor to demanding taxpayer-funded ads that claim he victoriously closed the southern border," Bianco observes, "President Donald Trump is demonstrating that, as he stated in his first term, he has 'the right to do whatever I want.' That's his twisted interpretation of Article 2 of the Constitution, which describes the power of the president."

Bianco continues, "Yet the president of the United States is not a king. He’s not a monarch ordained by a god….. As mass protests against the Trump Administration take place across the nation, let us remember the historical role and responsibility of the president and what others who've held the office have had to say about the responsibility that comes with the position."

The journalist/author notes that in a May 1918 op-ed for the Kansas City Star, Roosevelt wrote, "The president is merely the most important among a large number of public servants." And in July 1954, Truman said, "I would much rather be an honorable public servant and known as such than to be the richest man in the world."

Then, in a November 2020 appearance on CBS News' 60 Minutes, Obama described the president of the United States' as a "public servant" who needed to represent the public's interest, not their own.

"We, the American people, are responsible to each other to secure the health of our democracy," Bianco argues. "This means we must elect to office presidents who are committed to public service, and if we fail at that, then we must use our First Amendment rights to protest against them."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Mahmoud Khalil

I Reject Mahmoud Khalil's Politics -- But His Rights Must Be Respected

Mahmoud Khalil could have been cooked up in a lab to offend — no, worse — to disgust me. And yet, despite temptation, I cannot endorse what the Trump administration is doing to him.

Based upon the postings of his group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, Khalil, who was born in Syria, seems to hold grotesque opinions. CUAD, a leader of the anti-Israel protests on Columbia's campus, has cheered the October 7 pogrom that killed and maimed more than 1,200 Israelis, writing, "The act of Palestinian resistance on October 7, known as the Al-Aqsa Flood, breached Israeli security and made significant military advances," adding that it was "a day that will go down in history." Not a word of condemnation for the deaths of innocents, the mass rapes, the immolation of whole families, nor the kidnappings.

CUAD has lavished praise on other terrorists and enemies of the United States and Israel, like Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah respectively, which gives you a flavor of the movement. And while some members of the organization at first distanced themselves from a student, Khymani James, who posted an Instagram video telling university officials that "Zionists don't deserve to live," and "Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists," CUAD's leadership later thought better of it and issued an apology to James and to all individuals involved in the movement for Palestinian liberation it "alienated" by "compromising our values and tailoring our actions and narrative to the mainstream media." In case there was any doubt, the letter also clarified that the group supports "liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance."

In addition to celebrating the suffering and deaths of Israelis, CUAD has supported acts of domestic terrorism in the United States, praising Casey Goonan, an arsonist who carried out attacks on a federal building and the University of California in 2024.

"CUAD stands in full support of Casey Goonan and all of our comrades who have bravely undertaken the call to escalate for Palestine," the group announced in a statement.

If I were vested with plenary authority to decide who could come to the United States, I would turn away someone like Mahmoud Khalil, who not only participates in but leads an organization that cheers terroristic violence. But no one in America has that plenary authority; we have laws and procedures, and under those laws, Khalil became a legal permanent resident. As such he enjoys most of the rights of a citizen.

As law professor Steve Vladeck has outlined, there are certain rare instances in which a green card-holder can be subject to deportation, as when "an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States." But the law goes on to specify that aliens should not be deported for opinions or actions that "would be lawful within the United States" unless "the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's (continued presence) would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest."

Perhaps our Gumby secretary of state would so certify, but that is an abuse of authority and a step toward tyranny. Khalil's views are execrable, but he has committed no crime, and the government has made no showing that his continued presence in the country compromises a "compelling" foreign policy interest. He is being targeted because he's obnoxious and on the left. As Jonathan Chait notes, claims of fighting antisemitism ring a bit hollow from an administration that just intervened to free the Tate brothers, hired a deputy press secretary at the DOD with a history of antisemitic posts, and is led by a man who dined with Ye and Nick Fuentes.

No, this is a salvo in a corrupt plan to punish speech Trump dislikes. Taking a law-abiding legal permanent resident into custody for speech crimes is un-American. Nor is it the only attack on fundamental liberties perpetrated in the past couple of weeks. Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie is another frontal assault. The risible EO attempts to punish the firm for representing "failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton" and hiring the political consultancy Fusion GPS, among other supposed offenses. The order instructs federal agencies to terminate contracts with firm clients and to forbid all employees of Perkins Coie to enter federal buildings.

Or consider the exiling of the Associated Press for declining to abide by Trump's embarrassingly juvenile ukase about the "Gulf of America." Trump has also targeted another law firm, Covington and Burling, for representing Jack Smith. These flagrant assaults on American liberties are coming thick and fast and deserve our attention and alarm.

I won't defend Mahmoud Khalil's despicable views, but I will defend his rights. Though he supports movements and individuals who deny rights to those they oppose, we are not like him.

We live in a country governed by law — or at least, we are supposed to. If Khalil is to be deprived of his liberty, it can only be through due process of law. We defend his rights because if his are not secure, neither are ours.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World