Trump's cartel order revives ‘bitter' memories in Latin America
'I'm a right-wing conservative, so I want armed citizens and the military actually shooting,' said Patricio Endara, 46, a businessperson in Quito, the Ecuadorian capital. 'But I wouldn't agree with having foreign soldiers in Ecuador.'
Advertisement
That skepticism draws from the bitter memories left by the long record of US military interventions in the region, whether through direct or indirect action, as during Colombia's long internal war.
'Those are formulas that have shown, to the point of exhaustion, their failure,' Iván Cepeda, a Colombian senator, said in an interview.
These kinds of interventions 'inflict immense damage,' said Fernando González Davidson, a Guatemalan scholar, pointing to how such actions often strove for regime change. 'The U.S. leaves power in the hands of a corrupt and criminal class aligned with its own interests.'
Advertisement
A United States-backed coup in 1954 in Guatemala ousted a democratically elected leader over concerns that a land reform project threatened United Fruit Co., a powerful American corporation with large tracts of land there.
In the decades that followed, that Guatemalan coup became a rallying cry across the region by exposing US Cold War policy as a tool for protecting US interests over democratic principles and national sovereignty.
Long before the US military's involvement in the region became so contentious, President James Monroe's assertion in 1823 that the United States could use its military in Latin America had more bark than bite, historians say.
But in the 1840s, President James K. Polk invoked the doctrine to justify the Mexican-American War, which produced the United States conquest of Mexican lands now comprising states such as California, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.
That humiliating outcome, and other US military interventions in Mexico in the 1910s, profoundly shaped Mexico's political identity, fostering a strong sense of nationalism that is often in opposition to the United States.
President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico tapped into such sentiment Friday when she rejected the use of US military forces in her country. She made it explicitly clear that Mexico has ruled out any kind of 'invasion.'
'Unilateral US military action inside Mexico would be disastrous for bilateral cooperation on issues like migration and security,' said Arturo Santa-Cruz, an expert on US-Mexico relations at the University of Guadalajara.
Advertisement
Territorial expansion came into play again during the Spanish-American War in 1898, solidifying the United States' emergence as a global power when it took Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain.
President Theodore Roosevelt followed in 1903 by sending warships to support a revolt by separatists in Colombia. They formed Panama and gave the United States control over the Canal Zone, which Panama fully regained only in 1999.
Roosevelt created his own corollary to the Monroe Doctrine the next year, claiming that the United States should exert 'police power' in the Americas when it found cases of flagrant 'wrongdoing.'
This pivot turbocharged US interventions, and protecting American property often was the justification. In Cuba alone, US forces intervened on three occasions from 1906 to 1922.
During the Cold War, the United States found new ways to intervene. This included supporting coups that ousted democratically elected leaders in Guatemala, Brazil, and Chile.
US forces also kept intervening with boots on the ground in places including the Dominican Republic and Grenada, driven by concerns about communists in these countries.
So many interventions had the effect of unifying much of Latin America around the issue of sovereignty. Such positioning was on display when Latin American countries recently closed ranks to oppose Trump's threats to regain the Panama Canal.
'There's been an iron will among Latin Americans to define one of their core values as national sovereignty and nonintervention,' said Alan McPherson, a historian at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Even as the Cold War was easing in 1989, the United States once again intervened in Panama to depose its de facto leader, Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by US authorities on drug trafficking charges.
Advertisement
For the Americans, it was 'Operation Just Cause,' said Efraín Guerrero, a community leader who gives walking tours in Panama City to keep alive the memory of the US invasion. 'But for us, it became 'Forgetting Forbidden,' because we have to remember all those who died.'
That intervention could provide a template for a similar action in a country like Venezuela, where the United States has doubled a reward, to $50 million, for information leading to the arrest of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, whom US officials accuse of links to gangs such as Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico.
Since the news of Trump's move appeared Friday, some critics of the Venezuelan regime have called for the US military to do just that, asking the US president to order US troops to go after Maduro, just as they targeted Panama's president in 1989.
'Let's hope he does it,' said a Venezuelan woman in the city of Maracaibo, who asked that her name not appear for fear of Maduro. 'This is what we have been waiting for, for years -- for Maduro to leave or for Trump to take him. We Venezuelans would happily give him away.'
'This move or threat by the Trump administration,' said Christopher Sabatini, a Latin America expert at the London-based Chatham House, 'is going to really touch that historic and deeply felt popular nerve' about US interventions in Latin America. However, he said, throughout history there was also, often, 'a particular sort of partisan faction that was lobbying the United States to get involved.'
This article originally appeared in
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
These college leaders are keeping the heat on in battle with Trump administration – despite settlements by prominent schools
College is the place where many students entering adulthood find their voice. But when it comes to addressing the White House's ongoing battle with elite higher education, many institutional leaders seem to have lost theirs. 'I don't know how many calls you have to make to get one (university) president to call you back,' President Michael S. Roth of Wesleyan University told CNN. 'The fact that I can, you know, name the people and count them on my hand, it's clearly an effort to keep one's head down and hope that your school will not suffer.' Roth is one of relatively few top university leaders who still openly criticizes the Trump administration for its monthslong campaign to pull funding from schools that don't toe its line on a host of issues, from diversity programs to transgender athletes and pro-Palestinian protests. While most students and professors were away from campus over the summer, the administration spent the season racking up wins against many of its top targets, with settlements from major universities that have promised a combination of fines, donations and policy commitments in line with Trump priorities. 'It's so much worse, I think, than I anticipated,' said Danielle Holley, president of Mount Holyoke College and another outspoken Trump critic who began warning about threats from the administration before Inauguration Day. Only Harvard University has taken on the White House directly in court, although the school has quietly pursued settlement possibilities on the side, a source familiar with the discussions told CNN. For those who have stayed on offense publicly, it's an increasingly lonely fight. 'There's no doubt about it that the severe tactics being used by our federal government are being highly effective,' acknowledged Holley, a civil rights attorney who became the leader of Mount Holyoke, the small central Massachusetts liberal arts college, in 2023. President Trump has made dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs – known as DEI – a top priority in his second term, focusing especially on transgender athletes in sports. 'Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called 'diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),'' stated an executive order President Trump signed on his second day in office. In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Trump called DEI 'tyranny.' The administration's first major college settlement this year was with the University of Pennsylvania, whose swimming program became a lightning rod after Lia Thomas, a transgender athlete who had previously competed on the men's team, set several women's records in 2022 on her way to dominating the Ivy League championship. 'We acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules,' UPenn President Larry Jameson said in a statement on July 1 announcing the agreement. 'We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.' That apology was worth $175 million to the university, as the White House released federal funding frozen three months earlier. While many universities have reconfigured, renamed, or scrubbed entirely any DEI references from their materials, Mount Holyoke – with just over 2,000 students – still has a dedicated DEI page on its website. 'Diversity, equity and inclusion efforts extend beyond specific departments and are embedded in all areas of the College,' the page states. Holley says continuing to speak out against the government's efforts to curtail DEI is not a matter of obstinance – but is critical to the mission of the 188-year-old college, one of the historic 'Seven Sisters,' and the first of that group to accept transgender students. 'At Mount Holyoke, we are a women's college, and because of that, we are built on diversity, equity and inclusion,' said Holley. Since the University of Pennsylvania's settlement, the deals between universities and the government have gotten more costly and the institutions more prominent. Columbia University signed a landmark $221 million settlement agreement with the administration last month to regain access to its federal grants. Acting President Claire Shipman acknowledged the pressure they faced at the loss of so much money but bristled at the idea that Columbia was surrendering to government intimidation. 'I actually think that the narrative that paints this as a kind of binary situation – courage versus capitulation – is just wrong. It's too simplistic,' Shipman told CNN Kate Bolduan on July 24. 'This was a really, really complex problem.' 'We could have faced the loss of any future relationship in the coming years with the federal government,' added Shipman, 'and that would have effectively meant an end to the research mission we conduct as we know it.' The Columbia deal includes an 'independent monitor' to resolve any ongoing disputes with the government over admissions and hiring, an idea that distresses Holley at Mount Holyoke. 'The idea that an American university would have a government monitor, not related to what they have been found to be in violation of, but related to their academic departments and the way that they hire people,' said Holley, 'I think everyone in the United States should be deeply concerned with the idea that our federal government is attempting to run private universities and attempting to tell those universities who to hire; what they should be teaching in their classrooms.' One week after the administration's deal with Columbia, Brown University, another elite Ivy League school, signed its own settlement with the government that included a ban on 'unlawful DEI goals' and banned transgender women from women's housing. The university also pledged $50 million to workforce development groups in Rhode Island, where Brown is located. 'The Trump Administration is successfully reversing the decades-long woke-capture of our nation's higher education institutions,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement announcing the deal. 'Woke is officially DEAD at Brown,' President Trump crowed on social media. As the flurry of legal agreements in the past month has made clear, institutions of higher education are not going to hang together in a unified defense against the government's demands. While he continues to speak strongly against the administration, Roth says he understands why other college leaders would cut their own deals. 'The fear I think many schools have is that the federal government is willing to not obey the laws as anyone has understood them before, and so the lawless federal government is very frightening,' said Roth. 'If someone pays a ransom to get their kid back from a kidnapper, I don't criticize the parents for making a deal,' he added. 'It's the kidnappers that deserve our criticism.' The Trump administration has been fighting a two-pronged civil rights battle against colleges and universities – demanding an end to DEI programs that the government says are discriminatory while also accusing several institutions of antisemitism in their handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus in 2024. In court filings involving Harvard, one of the last major holdouts, the Department of Education has pointed to the university's own report on antisemitism to claim the school ignored rampant discrimination against Jewish students and faculty members. 'Protestors followed and verbally harassed some Jewish students, vandalized Harvard's campus, and posted swastika stickers near Harvard Hillel's Rosovsky Hall,' a government brief says, citing Harvard's investigation. The university also released a report on discrimination against Palestinians and Muslims on campus – an issue not mentioned in the Department of Education's complaints. The Trump administration says Harvard has been talking to them behind the scenes about finding a way out of their legal standoff, which includes a second lawsuit in response to the administration's attempt to cancel Harvard's international student program, a move a court indefinitely put on hold in June. 'We're still in negotiations,' McMahon told Fox News last week. 'We are closer than we were. We are not there yet.' But Harvard President Alan Garber has told faculty that retaining its academic freedom without government-monitored 'intellectual diversity' – a major sticking point in early dealings with the administration – remains nonnegotiable, according to the student-run Harvard Crimson newspaper. 'Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government,' Garber wrote in April when the school first filed suit against the government over more than $2 billion in frozen research funding. The fight continues to be costly for Harvard. A federal judge has not yet decided whether to order the government to turn the money spigot back on, causing budgetary pressure that prompted Garber to take a voluntary 25% pay cut. The administration's intense pressure on higher education programs and students has not been met with complete silence. An open letter signed by more than 600 college presidents in April called Trump's actions 'unprecedented government overreach.' 'We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight,' said the letter. 'However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.' But Roth, one of the presidents who signed the letter, doesn't believe putting out one statement is enough. 'I was glad that they did, but I don't see many people sounding the alarm that this is an assault on the integrity of one of the most successful systems in America, the higher education system,' Roth said. Although not as prominent as Harvard or Columbia, Mount Holyoke is classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a research institution with a billion-dollar endowment, and Holley says its focus on women's issues has been a double whammy for its funding. 'If you are a researcher in this country, doing work on women's health, or doing work on women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), doing work on women in leadership, any research that has to do with women is being caught up in those government searches and is being canceled,' she said. 'When one of our research grants was cut, the wording from the federal government was that this kind of work related to gender is not beneficial and not scientific.' But the cuts have not only come from the Trump administration, according to Holley. She said some private funding sources are also stepping back and cutting grants because they are afraid to associate themselves with a school that might run afoul of the president. 'I would say that the estimate is about $2 million (in lost research funding), and that's both cancelations from the federal government directly and cancelations from private funders who fear what the federal government might do,' Holley said. At Wesleyan University – an institution in Middletown, Connecticut, with about 3,000 students – responding to the administration's policies and executive orders has meant reconfiguring some DEI programs. A summer camp program aimed at middle school girls in Middletown who were interested in STEM studies is now open to boys, as well. 'The fact is that girls weren't signing up for STEM as much as boys, so that's why we had that program,' said Roth. 'But it seemed to some boys – big boys, I guess – to be reverse discrimination.' With many other schools eliminating DEI programs or making them all but invisible, Holley believes that the quick moves to roll back those commitments, even without an immediate and direct legal threat, says as much about the schools as it does about the government. 'I think it is a representation of the fact that many organizations maybe did not believe in these principles as strongly as they said that they did, and the government has provided them with an out,' she said. After encountering limited pushback from its Ivy League targets, the Trump administration is moving on to public institutions, starting with freezing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the University of California, Los Angeles. UCLA is now actively negotiating with the Trump administration over a possible settlement. A government draft proposal would have the university pay $1 billion dollars, CNN has learned. 'There is a possibility that this administration, once they are done kind of dealing with Harvard and some of the larger institutions that they may begin to turn to the small liberal arts colleges,' said Holley. Despite the millions of dollars at stake in a fight with an administration flush with recent victories, Holley insists her criticism won't be muted. 'My mom was raised in the Jim Crow South, you know, both of my parents survived the Jim Crow era in this country, and I'm a student of the civil rights movement,' Holley said. 'In these moments, I would never think of not speaking up.'
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Collin Introduces Climate Change in the Classroom, a Guide to the New Requirements for Climate Education
New guide equips educators, parents, and communities with tools to integrate climate change education into classrooms. United States, August 11, 2025 -- Addressing Environmental Change: A Call for Practical Solutions and Education The world is experiencing significant environmental changes, and those living in this era are confronted with challenges unlike any previous generation. From increasingly severe wildfires and rising sea levels to the storms impacting our coastlines and the spread of diseases in changing climates, uncertainty defines the present moment. Amid these challenges, however, lies an opportunity for practical, thoughtful solutions. Robert W. Collin, a renowned legal scholar, urban planner, educator, and environmental studies advocate, has contributed significantly to this conversation in The Climate Adaptation Generation. His work provides a framework for understanding and acting on these challenges, highlighting the urgency of timely, coordinated responses. Increasing global volcanic eruptions and locally violent and intense cloud bursts currently set the stage for the need to adapt to climate change, and the need to begin now. Collin's Approach to Climate Adaptation: A Generational Responsibility Collin argues that climate change adaptation is not merely an urgent matter but also a responsibility for today's generation. His work serves as both a call to action and a practical guide for communities, policymakers, and individuals who wish to confront climate-related issues head-on. The Climate Adaptation Generation offers insights for proactively addressing the immediate impacts of climate change, urging stakeholders to act before more severe consequences take hold. In his own words, Collin states, 'We are not just adapting to climate change; we are adapting to Nature.' This perspective emphasizes the importance of solutions that not only mitigate harm but also create a resilient and thriving future for all. Collin's approach offers actionable strategies aimed at enhancing human well-being and environmental sustainability. A Framework for Change: Tools, Insights, and Advocacy What distinguishes The Climate Adaptation Generation is its emphasis on providing actionable solutions. Rather than focusing solely on the problems, the book outlines concrete, strategic tools for a variety of stakeholders. It is structured around two primary components: the Advocacy Briefs and the Planner's Toolkit, with the goals of generational flourishing as described in a recent Harvard University global study. The Advocacy Briefs offer concise, actionable ideas for policymakers, community leaders, and educators, helping them make informed decisions and catalyze meaningful change in their communities. Meanwhile, the Planner's Toolkit provides step-by-step guidance for crafting place-based strategies to address climate change. By drawing on successful case studies from regions like the Netherlands, where urban green spaces are combating climate impacts, and Bangladesh, where flood management strategies are taking hold, Collin demonstrates that solutions to climate challenges are already in motion and that success is possible. Connecting Knowledge to Action Collin's interdisciplinary approach to climate advocacy sets him apart in the field. With education and experience in law, urban planning, social work, and education, Collin connects the dots between legal frameworks, societal systems, and urban planning strategies to build resilient communities. He argues that while knowledge is essential, it is action that will drive change. For the first time, today's generation is equipped with both the tools and the knowledge to respond effectively to climate change, making The Climate Adaptation Generation not just a resource for experts, but also for concerned citizens, educators, and policymakers. A Global Perspective with Local Impact Collin's work underscores the idea that climate adaptation is not one-size-fits-all; each community faces unique challenges that require tailored solutions. As such, place-based planning is crucial for effective adaptation. By showcasing international case studies, Collin illustrates how different regions are already implementing climate adaptation strategies with local solutions that have global significance. These examples serve as inspiration for others to take similar action and demonstrate that collective action can indeed bring about meaningful change. Introducing Climate Change in the Classroom: A New Educational Resource In addition to his work on climate adaptation, Collin has also launched Climate Change in the Classroom: Celebrate Optimism for Students, Teachers, and Parents with Multicultural Activities. This guide equips educators, parents, and communities with the tools needed to integrate climate change education into classrooms. It emphasizes optimism and inclusion, offering multicultural activities, lesson plans, and practical strategies to prepare students for the challenges of a rapidly changing world. The guide focuses on aligning climate change education with state and national standards, ensuring that lessons are both academically rigorous and administratively feasible. Through interdisciplinary exercises and activity suggestions, the book empowers educators to integrate climate-related topics into subjects like language arts, science, social studies, and even art programs. Resource Clusters and Career Pathways in Climate Education Climate Change in the Classroom also features Resource Clusters, curated and annotated collections of teaching materials, case studies, and activity outlines. These clusters provide educators with a wealth of resources, including cutting-edge research, practical classroom exercises, career opportunities and links to funding sources to support environmental initiatives. By bridging research and actionable strategies, the book ensures that climate education is accessible, regardless of school size or budget. In addition to classroom instruction, the guide introduces students to emerging career opportunities in the climate change sector, highlighting the growing demand for expertise in sustainability, environmental policy, renewable energy, and related fields. Support Networks for Educators and Multicultural Engagement The guide also identifies financial and operational support for educators and administrators, including grant opportunities and partnerships with environmental organizations. Emphasizing multicultural and inclusive approaches, it encourages students to view climate challenges from diverse perspectives and to engage with the global community in addressing these challenges. Collin's work, both in The Climate Adaptation Generation and Climate Change in the Classroom, reflects his commitment to fostering a new generation of informed, resilient leaders ready to tackle the environmental challenges of our time. About the Author Robert W. Collin is a seasoned educator and environmental advocate with a vast interdisciplinary background spanning law, planning, and social work. He is the author of several groundbreaking publications, including the first comprehensive encyclopedia of sustainability and the first book on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As an expert witness and advocate, Collin's work connects scientific knowledge with practical policy, making him a leading voice in climate adaptation and environmental education. Availability Climate Change in the Classroom: Celebrate Optimism for Students, Teachers, and Parents with Multicultural Activities is available now on Amazon and The Climate Adaptation Generation: A Blueprint for the Future is available on Amazon, offering essential resources for educators, parents, and community leaders seeking to empower the next generation with the knowledge and tools to address climate change. Media Contact Robert W Collin Author. Available for Interviews Environmental Policy Press Email: [email protected] Amazon Author Page Contact Info: Name: Robert W Collin Email: Send Email Organization: Environmental Policy Press Website: Release ID: 89166907 If there are any problems, discrepancies, or queries related to the content presented in this press release, we kindly ask that you notify us immediately at [email protected] (it is important to note that this email is the authorized channel for such matters, sending multiple emails to multiple addresses does not necessarily help expedite your request). Our responsive team will be available round-the-clock to address your concerns within 8 hours and take necessary actions to rectify any identified issues or support you with press release takedowns. Ensuring accurate and trustworthy information is our unwavering commitment.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘The courts are helpless': Inside the Trump administration's steady erosion of judicial power
Six months into Donald Trump's second term, his administration is at war with the federal judiciary, evading court orders blocking its agenda, suing judges for alleged misconduct, and veering toward what multiple current and former federal judges say could be a constitutional crisis. The administration this summer sued the entire federal district court in Maryland after its chief judge temporarily blocked immigration removals. It also filed a judicial misconduct complaint recently against the chief judge of the powerful DC District Court, James 'Jeb' Boasberg, over comments he reportedly made in private to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in March. The standoff is unlikely to end anytime soon. On Friday, an appeals court ruled that Boasberg cannot move ahead in his effort to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for misleading him in a fast-moving case in which migrant detainees were handed over to a Salvadoran prison. As Trump-appointed judges across the country continue to deliver the administration wins, the federal judiciary's ability to be a check on the executive branch has slowly been diminished. 'They are trying to intimidate, threaten and just run over the courts in ways that we have never seen,' said one retired federal judge, who, like about a half-dozen other former and current judges, spoke to CNN anonymously given the climate of harassment the Trump administration has created and the tradition of jurists not to comment publicly on politics and ongoing disputes. How judges counter The courts have tools to fight back — a lawyer in a courtroom who refuses a direct order or lies could be held in contempt on the spot. Judges also have the power to demand witness testimony and documents. They may also commission independent investigations and can make a criminal referral or levy civil penalties, like fines. But so far, many judges have hesitated to move too quickly to levy sanctions or other punishments aimed at the Trump administration. 'The truth is we are at the mercy of the executive branch,' said one former federal appellate judge, adding that courts have fewer enforcement mechanisms than the White House, such as law enforcement and prosecutorial power. Sanctions situations also typically escalate slowly, and appeal opportunities for the Justice Department are ample and can take years. 'At the end of the day, courts are helpless,' the former judge added. Some judges, like Boasberg in Washington, DC, and Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, have already analyzed how they could respond to disobedience by moving toward sanctions or contempt proceedings for members of the Trump administration. In both judges' courts, the administration has delayed following judicial orders when detainees were sent to a prison in El Salvador without the proper due process. Courts also move slowly at times. In one Maryland case on Friday, lawyers for a Venezuelan man sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration told a judge they are still looking at whether they'll ask the court to hold the administration in contempt. The administration actions happened in March. 'The more egregious the contemptible behavior, the more speedy the judge will probably move, and the heavier weapons they'll use,' said another former federal judge, who sat on a trial-level district court bench. 'Courts in general will see they need to move with speed and sharpness on this, if they're going to get to the bottom of what happened,' the former judge added. Trump gets help from his appointees In some situations, Trump-appointed judges have slowed or stopped direct conflict between the administration and judges. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, this year signed off in Trump's favor on most emergency disputes over the use of his powers to reshape the federal government, undercutting standoffs. But Trump's appointees to the federal bench haven't unilaterally refrained from questioning the executive's approach. For instance, in a case over the Trump administration stopping the payout of grant programs, a judge in Rhode Island on Friday chastised the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 'inaction' as potentially a 'serious violation of the Court's order.' Nonprofit groups that received grants for affordable housing for low-income senior citizens had reported the administration hadn't paid out $760 million in grants the court said it must months ago. The judge, the Trump-appointee Mary McElroy in the Rhode Island US District Court, responded, 'At risk of understatement, that is serious,' then invited the Trump administration to 'explain itself.' In Boasberg's immigration case on Friday, a divided DC Circuit Court of Appeals with two Trump appointees in the majority ended a contempt proceeding that began three and a half months ago. The hold that had been over the case and the decision Friday have hurt Boasberg's ability to gather evidence of suspected disobedience of Trump administration officials toward the court. Judge Greg Katsas of the DC Circuit, a Trump appointee, wrote that stopping the criminal contempt proceeding could help defuse a long and messy standoff between the judiciary and the Trump administration. Boasberg has already signaled some of his other options. 'This Court will follow up,' he said at a hearing in late July, noting recent whistleblower revelations about Justice Department leadership's approach to the case. 'In addition, whether or not I am ultimately permitted to go forward with the contempt proceedings, I will certainly be assessing whether government counsel's conduct and veracity to the Court warrant a referral to state bars or our grievance committee which determines lawyers' fitness to practice in our court,' the judge added in July. In late June, a whistleblower publicly accused then-top Trump Justice Department official Emil Bove of telling attorneys they may need to ignore court orders like Boasberg's and 'consider telling the courts 'f*** you,'' the whistleblower wrote to Congress. Since then, Bove, a former defense attorney to Trump personally, was confirmed by the Republican-held Senate to become a judge himself. He now sits on the 3rd Circuit federal appeals court overseeing Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Bove told the Senate he couldn't recall whether he made the comments about ignoring the courts. Complaints Boasberg has been one of the judges who's been most criticized publicly by Trump and others in the president's top circle. Boasberg decided in mid-March the administration couldn't send detainees to El Salvador under a war-time act without due process and told the government to turn the airplanes around and bring the detainees back into US custody. In July, the Justice Department formally complained about Boasberg to the appeals court above him, accusing him of judicial misconduct. That complaint emerged after the conservative website the Federalist reported on comments Boasberg made at a private, annual meeting for leaders in the judicial branch — an incident separate from the immigration case he's handled. Boasberg and about a dozen other federal judges from around the country had an informal breakfast meeting with Roberts in early March, CNN has confirmed. When Roberts asked the judges to share what was concerning their jurisdictions, Boasberg said the judges of the trial-level court in Washington, DC, over which he presides, had concerns the Trump administration might ignore court orders, and that would cause a constitutional crisis. Roberts responded without indicating his thoughts, a person familiar with the meeting told CNN. A Supreme Court spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment. 'Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts,' said the Justice Department's complaint about the judge, sent to the chief of the appellate court above him. The administration maintains it never intentionally violated his orders in the immigration case, and that after Boasberg spoke to Roberts at the judicial conference, he 'began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders,' a reference to the immigration case proceeding. Fears of a constitutional crisis Steve Vladeck, Georgetown University law professor and CNN legal analyst, called the DOJ's complaint against Boasberg preposterous in a recent analysis he wrote on Substack. Vladeck said that while the complaint is likely to be dismissed when a court reviews it — just as most misconduct complaints against judges are resolved — the Trump administration's approach may have been intended more to intimidate other federal judges and play to the president's base. 'None of these developments,' including the Boasberg complaint, 'are a constitutional crisis unto themselves,' Vladeck told CNN. 'But they all reflect efforts to undermine the power and prestige of the federal courts for if and when that day comes.' 'The problem is that too many people are waiting for a crossing-the-Rubicon moment, when what we've seen to date is the Trump administration finding lots of other ways to try to sneak into Rome,' Vladeck added. However, several of the former and current judges who spoke to CNN thought the courts aren't yet facing a full-blown constitutional crisis. 'We're in the incipient stages of a constitutional crisis. We're in the early stages,' one federal judge told CNN recently. 'We've all been talking about it since the moment [Trump's] been elected — that the administration could defy federal court orders.' A full constitutional crisis, this judge said, would emerge if the administration disregarded Supreme Court orders. That hasn't happened yet, and attorneys from the Justice Department are still engaging in many proceedings by meeting their deadlines and arguing in earnest at court hearings. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a long-serving, conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan on the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals, pointed to presidential history in a recent opinion telling the Trump administration to follow court orders to facilitate the return of a Maryland immigrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, after he was mistakenly sent to El Salvador. Wilkinson wrote about President Dwight Eisenhower being willing to carry out the desegregation of schools following the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 'The branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both,' Wilkinson wrote. 'The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time with sign its epitaph.' Suing the bench Some of the Trump administration's unusual attacks of the judiciary are still testing how far they could go. The DOJ filed its complaint as the judges were gathering at the 4th Circuit's conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, in late June. The judges from Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia were shocked when they heard of the lawsuit naming all Maryland federal district judges all as defendants, and the district court realized the need to swiftly hire a lawyer to defend them, people familiar with the response told CNN. The Justice Department has said it sued as a way to rein in judicial overreach. Defense attorney Paul Clement, on behalf of the Maryland judges, called the lawsuit 'truly extraordinary' and 'fundamentally incompatible with the separation of powers.' Eleven former federal judges from various circuits, including some appointed by Republican presidents, warned in their own amicus brief in the case that if the Trump administration is allowed to carry its approach through 'to its logical conclusion,' it would 'run roughshod over any effort by the judiciary to preserve its jurisdiction that frustrates the Executive's prerogatives. … That result would be devastating to the efficacy of the Nation's courts.'
