logo
Rifles, stun grenades, armored trucks in ICE raids spur tensions

Rifles, stun grenades, armored trucks in ICE raids spur tensions

Miami Herald5 hours ago

The Trump administration is intensifying efforts to round up migrants. It's also doing so with increasingly aggressive tactics.
In scenes from San Diego to Massachusetts, agents outfitted with bullet-resistant vests and often displaying military-style rifles are shown in social media videos and photos being escorted along city streets by armored vehicles. A clip from Rhode Island shows an agent standing in a truck's open hatch, manning a rifle.
The operations led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, often joined by local law enforcement, have coincided with a dramatic increase in arrests of people for running afoul of immigration laws — with ICE reporting more than 1,600 daily apprehensions. That's more than double the 630 average of recent weeks and a roughly 450% increase over typical numbers during former President Joe Biden's last year in office.
The latest figures are still barely half of the administration's goal, but the White House is rapidly moving forward with efforts to remove legal obstacles to deportations while ramping up prison capacity and enforcement capability. In the meantime, it's deploying social-media videos with quick edits and throbbing techno beats, made-for-TV moments to get attention.
'This is not normal,' said David Shirk, a political science professor and expert on U.S.-Mexico border issues at the University of San Diego. 'It is a response to what has been a long-standing problem that is greatly exaggerated and intended to convey a sense of shock and awe.'
Critics have long decried the increasing militarization of U.S. police forces, which took off after equipment used in the Iraq war was handed over to state and local forces. In the case of ICE's immigration raids, Shirk and others say the tactics aren't only over the top, they risk further inflaming already tense situations, making it more dangerous for the targets, bystanders and the agents themselves. They say the raids are disproportionate to the threat and seem designed to maximize optics for Trump and his supporters, while demonizing migrants who lack legal status but are otherwise law abiding.
ICE officials are unapologetic about the shows of force, saying agents must take maximum precautions to protect themselves from dangerous gang members and other criminals. And if the high-profile raids encourage other migrants without documentation to leave, all the better. In social media posts, ICE routinely urges people to avoid arrest by self deporting.
In San Diego last week, an operation targeting workers at the popular Italian restaurant Buona Forchetta included agents dressed in camouflage, helmeted and masked, and some carrying rifles. It drew as many as 250 spontaneous protesters who shouted abuse at the agents. Eventually officials deployed stun grenades to disperse the crowd.
The agency declined to specify the exact number of arrests or detail any criminal records of those taken into custody.
'The officers took appropriate action and followed their training to use the minimum amount of force necessary,' Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security department, said in a statement. 'In large part due to protests like this, our ICE officers are facing a 413% increase in assaults while carrying out arrests.'
Operations across Massachusetts over the past month resulted in the arrests of nearly 1,500 people for immigration violations, more than half of whom the government said had criminal records in the U.S. or abroad. Heavily armed and masked officers were involved in many of the apprehensions. In raids in Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard last month, about 40 people were arrested and moved out of the area on a Coast Guard patrol boat.
In February, agents in Phoenix used an armored vehicle equipped with a battering ram when they arrested a 61-year-old man. At the time, the agency described the arrest as part of a routine operation and said the man had been deported several times and had multiple criminal convictions.
'The more police dress up in military gear and arm themselves with military equipment, the more likely they are to see themselves as at war with people, and that is not what we want,' said Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy project manager for policing at the American Civil Liberties Union. An expanded show of force by policing agencies can 'lead to unnecessary violence that leads to unnecessary harm,' she added.
Todd Lyons, the acting head of ICE, this week defended agents' actions, including wearing masks, saying it was for their protection as the public grows increasingly hostile toward their work.
'I am sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, and their family's lives on the line, because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' Lyons said during a press conference. He cited incidents of people identifying agents and then harassing them and their family members online, sometimes posting children's photos and other private information.
The agency has made tens of thousands of arrests and deported tens of thousands of foreigners since Trump took office. But top administration aren't happy with the pace.
In a tense meeting last month with dozens of top ICE officials Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump and an architect of the the administration's hardline policies, said arrests should average a minimum of 3,000 a day. Many of those senior agents and officers left the meeting worried they would lose their jobs if the quota isn't met, according to a person familiar with the private discussion.
The growing frequency of operations — and the gear agents are toting — can be unsettling to community members who aren't accustomed to such broad enforcement operations, according to Jerry Robinette, a former ICE agent who led the agency's Homeland Security Investigations office in San Antonio until he retired in 2012.
'They are in areas where people aren't used to seeing them and some folks are taken aback by what they are seeing, taken aback by the show of force,' said Robinette, adding that it's hard to second guess the show of force in San Diego without more details. 'Without knowing what the underlying crime that they were concerned about, its really hard to say this was an overkill.'
Robinette and others said raids involving heavily armed and helmeted agents aren't unheard of in HSI operations. He said a more robust presence is often used in cases involving serious criminal organizations, including drug trafficking networks.
In Warwick, Rhode Island, last month, a heavily armed contingent of officers was deployed to arrest a Guatemalan man who had evaded arrest during an April traffic stop. In that incident, according to federal court records, the suspect flailed about and wiggled away from arresting officers, leading one to twist her ankle and ultimately fracture her leg.
The suspect was charged with assault, resisting and impeding a law enforcement officer after his May arrest. He is being held in federal custody, court records show.
In San Diego, there's been no clarity on who was targeted by the ICE raid at the Italian restaurant. The tactics raised alarms from local officials.
'Militarized immigration raids in our neighborhoods erode trust, destabilize families and undermine the constitutional right to due process,' County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer said in a statement posted to X.
City Councilman Sean Elo-Rivera posted a photo of the restaurant raid to Instagram and wrote the word 'terrorists' over the image. Others have described ICE agents as a 'gestapo.' Lyons, in an interview with Fox News, said such descriptions of his officers were 'just plain disgusting.'
Elo-Rivera said he stands by his comments, and described the show of force as unnecessary and intended to instill fear.
'It would scare anyone who saw them,' Elo-Rivera said. 'Nobody is safer as a result of the Trump administration attempting to enforce immigration laws.'
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The National Guard comes to Los Angeles: What's going to happen? Is it legal?
The National Guard comes to Los Angeles: What's going to happen? Is it legal?

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The National Guard comes to Los Angeles: What's going to happen? Is it legal?

The Trump administration says it will send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after two days of isolated clashes between federal immigration agents and protesters. Officials say the Guard will assist in operations related to Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Many questions remain unanswered, but here is what we know: Officials said the troops were arriving in L.A. as soon as Saturday night, though it was unclear when the full 2,000 personnel would be in place. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X that the Guard was being deployed "immediately to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert." Tom Homan, the Trump administration's 'border czar,' said on Fox News that officials were trying to "address violence and destruction occurring near raid locations where demonstrators are gathering. ... American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we're not going to apologize for doing it." It is possible they will provide backup during future immigration raids and prove protection of some federal facilities, including a detention center in downtown L.A. has was the scene of protests and some vandalism; California Gov. Gavin Newsom sid local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was 'purposefully inflammatory' and would 'only escalate tensions.' '[T]here is currently no unmet need,' Newsom said. Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to 'temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.' Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, said in a text to The Times that Trump has the authority under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws.' Yes, the National Guard has been deployed to Los Angeles numerous times amid civil unrest and natural disaster. Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, noted that when the National Guard was sent to L.A. before, it was because California requested it and the response was coordinated. In 2020, widespread criminal acts in the wake of the George Floyd murder prompted Mayor Eric Garcetti to seek National Guard troops from Newsom. Garcetti asked for 1,000 troops. Guardsmen toting M-4 rifles could be seen patrolling streets between Skid Row and Bunker Hill. In combat gear, they stood guard outside shattered storefronts and graffiti-tagged buildings, where windows had been shattered and the street strewn with trash. Humvees and military trucks were present in the city. In 1994, after a 6.7 earthquake left more than 1,000 buildings destroyed and 20,000 residents homeless, the Guard was brought in. Convoys rumbled through the San Fernando Valley, patrolling mini-malls and parks to deliver water, deter looters, direct traffic and raise tent cities for 6,000 displaced residents. In 1992, thousands of National Guard and U.S. military troops patrolled L.A. amid the riot following the Rodney King trial. Mayor Tom Bradley requested the help when the LAPD could not quell the unrest. In 1965, 13,000 troops were sent to L.A. amid the Watts riots. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests

CNBC

time39 minutes ago

  • CNBC

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."

Analysis: The Musk blowup reveals how Trump is remaking the presidency
Analysis: The Musk blowup reveals how Trump is remaking the presidency

CNN

time42 minutes ago

  • CNN

Analysis: The Musk blowup reveals how Trump is remaking the presidency

Through a panoramic series of actions, President Donald Trump is transforming the federal government into a vast machine for rewarding his allies and punishing those he considers his adversaries. Trump is using executive orders, federal investigations and regulatory decisions to deploy federal power against a stunning array of targets, ranging from powerful institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities and major law firms to individual critics from his first term and former President Joe Biden's top White House aides. Simultaneously, Trump is rewarding allies with presidential pardons, commutations, government contracts and the termination of federal regulatory or criminal investigations. The explosive breakup with Elon Musk has provided the most vivid demonstration yet of Trump's transactional view of the presidency. When Musk was Trump's most prominent political ally and benefactor, the White House brushed off complaints about the potential for conflicts of interest as the tech billionaire's companies competed for billions in government contacts. Then, when the two men fell out last week, Trump immediately threatened to terminate the contracts for Musk's companies. Trump struck a similar note on Saturday, telling NBC's Kristen Welker that if Musk began to fund Democratic campaigns in protest of the president's sweeping policy bill, 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences.' The extraordinary episode underscored how quickly anyone can move from Trump ally to adversary by opposing or questioning him in any way — and how dire the consequences can be for crossing that line. In his almost instinctive reaction to threaten Musk's contracts — even if it would be difficult to do in practice — Trump signaled unambiguously that staying in his favor would be the difference between favorable decisions by his administration and costly confrontations with it. The president sees little boundary between public policy by the federal government and personal fealty to him. 'Never before in this country has a president made so clear that mere disagreement with him or failure to show sufficient personal loyalty might cause that person to lose government contracts or even face investigation,' said Ian Bassin, co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that analyzes threats to US democracy. 'That's how things work in Russia, and apparently, under Donald Trump, now here.' Until Trump, historians considered Richard Nixon the president who pushed hardest to bend federal legal authority into a lever to advance his personal and political interests — a process that culminated in the Watergate scandal and the disclosure of the infamous White House 'enemies list.' But while Nixon fulminated against his opponents in private, he never subjected them to anything approaching the bombardment of hostile federal actions that Trump has directed at his targets. 'You see very similar personality traits in the men, about how they feel about people and what they want to do about them,' said John Dean, who served as Nixon's White House counsel during Watergate and later revealed the existence of the enemies list. But, Dean added, whereas Nixon would often lose sight of his threats or back off when faced with resistance inside or outside his administration, Trump and his aides are moving to draft virtually every component of the federal government into this mission. 'Everything with Nixon is more or less a one-off,' Dean said, 'whereas with Trump it is a way of life.' The effect is that, with much less pushback than Nixon faced, Trump is now moving far faster and further toward reconfiguring the federal government's sweeping authority into an extension of his personal will. 'We are so far beyond Nixon's inclinations and disposition to employ the government to attack perceived enemies and perceived political adversaries,' Dean said, 'that it is the difference between spitballs and howitzers.' Almost daily, Trump is acting in new ways to deploy federal power in precision-focused attacks on individuals and institutions who have crossed or resisted him. He has revoked federal security clearances from an array of former officials (including Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Republican former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) and terminated federal security protection for others. He's withdrawn security clearances from and directed his administration to investigate two critics from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. Last week, Trump ordered a federal investigation into the right-wing conspiracy theory that aides to then-President Biden misused his autopen to implement decisions without his knowledge. Trump has ordered the Justice Department to investigate Democrats' principal grassroots fundraising tool, ActBlue. Large institutions Trump considers hostile have faced comparable threats. He's signed executive orders imposing crippling penalties on several large law firms that have either represented causes or employed attorneys Trump dislikes. Trump has canceled billions of dollars in scientific research grants to prominent universities and escalated that offensive with a dizzying array of other measures against Harvard, including attempting to revoke its ability to enroll foreign students and publicly declaring that the Internal Revenue Service intends to revoke its tax-exempt status: The New York Times recently calculated that Harvard is now facing at least eight separate investigations from six federal agencies. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating '60 Minutes' over its editing of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, probing charges that television networks have engaged in 'news distortion,' and scrutinizing the proposed merger with Skydance Media that is being ardently pursued by CBS' parent, Paramount, and its controlling stockholder Shari Redstone. Trump's administration has arrested a judge in Wisconsin and US representative in New Jersey who have resisted his immigration agenda. While pursuing these penalties for critics, Trump has conspicuously rewarded allies. His Justice Department dropped federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, who has pledged to support Trump's immigration crackdown, and regulators have terminated high-profile enforcement actions against the crypto industry even as his family's financial ties to the industry have mushroomed. Trump has also issued a flurry of early second-term pardons targeted at his supporters, beginning with the mass pardon of January 6, 2021, rioters and extending to a growing list of Republican and conservative public officials. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, author of 'The Pardon,' a recent history of how presidents have used that power, said Trump's actions have no precedent. 'It's not even close,' Toobin said. 'I can't even think of even a parallel.' Taken together, these actions signal something like a mafia-style protection racket, Bassin argued. For those who meet the administration's demands, Bassin said, Trump is offering protection from federal interference, and for those who resist his demands, he's brandishing the opposite. The speed at which Trump flipped from praising to threatening Musk and his companies, Bassin added, 'is a perfect example' of how no one is safe from falling from one side of that line to the other — which allows Trump always to preserve the option of raising the price of protection with new demands. It's a method of operation, Bassin argued, that would be equally recognizable to Russian President Vladimir Putin or mobster John Gotti. Nixon unquestionably wanted to sharpen federal law and regulatory enforcement into the cudgel Trump is forging. Behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Nixon often bombarded his aides with demands to punish those he viewed as his political enemies. 'We have all this power, and we aren't using it,' Nixon exploded to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, in one August 1972 meeting captured by the White House taping system. At times, Nixon succeeded in channeling that power against his targets. He successfully pressed the Justice Department to intensify an investigation into kickbacks and illegal campaign contributions swirling around Alabama Gov. George Wallace. The administration tried for years to deport John Lennon (over a British conviction for possession of a half-ounce of marijuana) after Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond sent a letter to the Justice Department warning that the former Beatle might headline a series of concerts intended to mobilize young voters against Nixon's reelection. A team of White House operatives — known informally as 'the plumbers' because they were supposed to stop leaks to the press — undertook a succession of shady missions, culminating in the break-in to the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building that eventually led to Nixon's resignation. Chuck Colson, one of Nixon's most hardcore aides, tried to pressure both CBS and The Washington Post over their coverage of the administration by threatening FCC action to revoke the licenses of local television stations they owned. Colson and Nixon openly strategized about holding open the threat of a federal antitrust investigation to pressure the three television networks. According to research by Mark Feldstein, a professor of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland, the plumbers even fleetingly discussed ways to assassinate investigative journalist Jack Anderson before they were diverted to a more urgent project — the Watergate break-in. In his obsessive hunt for leaks, Nixon illegally wiretapped the phones of both journalists and his own National Security Council aides. All these resentments converged in the development of what became known as the enemies list. The White House actually compiled multiple overlapping lists, all fueled by Nixon's fury at his opponents, real and imagined. 'It clearly originated with Nixon's disposition, anger, reaction to things he would see in his news summary in the morning,' said Dean. In an August 16, 1971, memo — titled 'Dealing with our Political Enemies' — Dean succinctly explained that the list's intent was to find all the ways 'we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.' Dean told me he wrote the memo in such stark terms because he thought it would discourage the White House. 'I actually wrote that memo that way thinking I would make this so offensive … that they would just say, 'This is silly, we don't do this kind of stuff,'' he said. 'I never got a response to that directly, but when I went to the (National) Archives decades later, (I saw) Haldeman had written 'great' on the memo with an exclamation point.' In fact, though, enthusiasm in the White House did not translate into action at the agencies. On the advice of Treasury Secretary George Shultz, the IRS commissioner put the list in his safe and ignored the White House request that he audit the people on it. Subsequent investigations found no evidence that those on the enemies list faced excessive scrutiny from the IRS or other government harassment. Once Dean revealed the list's existence during the 1973 hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, inclusion on it became 'something for people to celebrate,' he recalled. 'I have actually spoken to (reunions of) a couple groups of members, people who have been on the list, because they had no consequences other than a badge of honor.' That was a common outcome for Nixon's rages. The Justice Department eventually dropped the case against Wallace. The courts blocked Lennon's removal. The Washington Post did not lose licenses for any of stations, said Feldstein, author of 'Poisoning the Press,' a book about Nixon's relationship with the media. 'Trump is doing what Nixon would have liked to have done,' Feldstein said. 'Even Nixon didn't take it as far.' The differences between Nixon and Trump in their approach to federal enforcement and investigative power extends to their core motivations. Nixon, as Dean and other close observers of his presidency agree, wanted to retaliate against individuals or institutions he thought opposed or looked down on him. Trump certainly shares that inclination. But Trump's agenda, many scholars of democratic erosion believe, pushes beyond personal animus to mimic the efforts in authoritarian-leaning countries such as Turkey and Hungary to weaken any independent institutions that might contest his centralization of power. 'Although some of it was (motivated by) revenge, the huge difference here is most of what Nixon did was to protect himself, politically and personally,' said Fred Wertheimer, who served as legislative director of the government reform group Common Cause during the Watergate scandal. 'Trump is out to break our democracy and take total control of the country in a way that no one ever has before.' One telling measure of that difference: Trump is openly making threats, or taking actions, that Nixon only discussed in private, and even there with constant concern about public disclosure. Trump's willingness to publicly deliver these threats changes their nature in several important ways, said David Dorsen, an assistant chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee and former federal prosecutor. Simply exposing an individual or institution to such an open threat from the world's most powerful person, Dorsen noted, can enormously disrupt their life, even if the courts ultimately prevent Trump from acting on it — a point recently underscored by Miles Taylor in an essay for Politico. And because Nixon's threats were always delivered in private, Dorsen added, aides dubious of them could ignore them more easily than Trump officials faced with his public demands for action. Maybe most important, Dorsen said, is that by making his threats so publicly, Trump is sending a shot across the bow of every other institution that might cross him. 'Trump is legitimizing conduct that Nixon did not purport to legitimize,' Dorsen said. 'He concealed it, he was probably embarrassed by it; he realized it was wrong.' As the IRS pushback against the enemies list demonstrated, Nixon's plans faced constant resistance within his own government, not only from career bureaucrats but often also from his own appointees. 'He failed in getting key officials in the government to do what he wanted,' said Wertheimer, who now directs the reform group Democracy 21. If that kind of internal stonewalling is slowing Trump's sweeping offensives against his targets, there's little evidence of it yet. Congress was another constraint on Nixon. Not only did the administration need to fear oversight hearings from the Democrats who controlled both the House and Senate, but at that point a substantial portion of congressional Republicans were unwilling to blink at abusive actions. Ultimately it was a delegation of Republican senators, led by conservative icon and former GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who convinced Nixon to resign during Watergate. By contrast, Trump today is operating with 'a completely compliant Republican Congress' and has filled the federal government, including its key law enforcement positions, with loyalist appointees who 'operate as if they are there to carry out his wishes, period,' said Wertheimer. As Feldstein pointed out, Trump also can worry less about critical press coverage than Nixon, who governed at a time when 'there were just three networks and everybody watched those.' That leaves the courts as the principal short-term obstacle to Trump's plans. In Nixon's time, the federal courts consistently acted across party lines to uphold limits on the arbitrary exercise of federal power. Three of Nixon's own appointees joined the unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision that sealed his fate by requiring him to provide Congress his White House tapes. John Sirica, the steely federal district judge who helped crack the scandal, was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Today, federal district and appellate courts are mostly demonstrating similar independence. The New York Times' running tally counts nearly 190 rulings from judges in both parties blocking Trump actions since he returned to office. 'I think we've seen the largest overreach in modern presidential history … and as a result, you've triggered a massive judicial pushback,' said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, a group fighting many of Trump's initiatives in courts. 'I won't say democracy has won so far, because of the damage that Trump and his ilk have done, but I will say Trump lost.' But even if courts block individual Trump tactics, the effort required to rebuff his actions still can impose a heavy cost on his targets. And, on the most important cases, these lower court legal rulings are still subject to reconsideration by the Supreme Court — whose six- member Republican-appointed majority has historically supported an expansive view of presidential power and last year voted to immunize Trump against criminal prosecution for virtually any actions he takes in office. So far, the Supreme Court has sent mixed signals by ruling to restrain Trump on some fronts while empowering him on others. 'We haven't found out yet what the Supreme Court is going to do when … they get the really big cases,' said Wertheimer. Those decisions in the next few years will likely determine whether Trump can fulfill the darkest impulses of Richard Nixon, the only president ever forced to resign for his actions in office.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store