logo
However Scared You Are, You Are Not Scared Enough

However Scared You Are, You Are Not Scared Enough

Yahoo27-04-2025

WASHINGTON — However scared you might be for our democracy, you are not scared enough.
The president of the United States, from the moment he regained the office, has been step-by-step following the autocrat's playbook. He has gone after universities for not obeying his decrees. He has extorted law firms for having on staff, or just once-upon-a-time having had on staff, people who crossed him. He has targeted for prosecution former aides who challenged him. He has arrested a local judge for not helping him round up migrants for deportation. He has attacked the free press for not bending to his will. On his very first day in office, he released from prison hundreds of domestic terrorists, effectively a personal militia, who assaulted police officers in his name.
And now, not 100 days into his term, he has done what so many democracy advocates have feared he would eventually do, something that no president has dared try in the more than two centuries since Marbury v. Madison's precedent that the judiciary would be the ultimate authority on what is and what is not legal: He is straight-up defying the United States Supreme Court.
And — here is the truly terrifying part — he is getting away with it. No one is getting fined. No one is going to jail. In fact, much of America doesn't even realize it's happening.
The case at hand is nominally about a migrant who came to this country illegally but who for several years now had been raising a family in Maryland and training to be a sheet metal worker. But in reality it is about whether anyone or any institution has any check on Donald Trump's ability to claim near limitless power over all our lives simply by declaring a national security 'emergency.'
For three years, Trump and his apologist echo chamber repeated, over and over, that the flood of migrants coming over the southern border without authorization constituted an 'invasion.'
Of course, it was no such thing. However much a person chooses to hate illegal immigration, whether based on a strict, rules-are-rules belief system or a pragmatic concern for the effect on border communities or even straight-up racism, the migrants coming here these past several years did not represent an invading army, regardless of how frequently Stephen Miller and his allies tossed around the phrase 'military-aged men.'
The overwhelming majority of migrants come to this country for the same reason all of our ancestors came here: To make a better life for themselves and their children. For generations now, those entering from Mexico have picked our vegetables, made the beds and cleaned the toilets in our hotels, and laid shingles on our roofs under a scorching summer sun. In short, they've been doing the work that native-born Americans have been unwilling do to do.
To contrast that against an actual invasion, check out what's happening in Eastern Europe right now. Notice that the Russians aren't trying to get jobs and make new lives in Ukraine. They're trying to kill the people who already live there and steal their land.
It would have been one thing for Trump to drop the 'invasion' talk after he won. Of course, though, he did not.
In executive order after executive order, public statement after public statement, Trump has cited the presence of migrants in the country illegally as an 'emergency' to justify sweeping powers that allow him to round up people and ship them to a foreign prison where torture is routine where they will remain, possibly forever.
And that's not the only emergency. There's an energy 'emergency' that allows Trump to trample environmental laws to bring about an infinite amount of oil-drilling. There's an economic 'emergency' that lets him impose tariffs on whatever countries' imports he wants, notwithstanding the Constitution that specifically grants the power of taxation to Congress.
The dangers in those emergency authorities, though, pale before the ones given to a U.S. president facing a literal invasion, which is why the confrontation between Trump and the U.S. Supreme Court over purported members of criminal gangs has such high stakes.
The justices, finally, appear to be standing up to Trump's autocratic tendencies, both in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's alleged membership in the El Salvador-based MS-13 as well as the hundreds of migrants accused of belonging to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
After Trump and his Department of Justice ignored the Supreme Court in the case of Abrego Garcia — claiming that its order to 'facilitate' his return to the United States does not actually mean what it says — the justices flatly forbade Trump from shipping any more Venezuelans to the El Salvador torture prison until further notice.
The big question, so big, in fact, that the future of our democracy may well be riding on the answer, is what happens if and when the high court codifies its previous ruling and in more explicit language orders Trump to bring Abrego Garcia back? Or declares that he cannot use the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act when the nation is not actually at war?
Maybe Trump backs down and does as he is told. But if he doesn't?
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to many, maybe even most, Americans, that the Chief Justice of the United States commands no army, can summon no police force. Nor, for that matter, does Congress. They, and all of us, are dependent on Donald Trump and the police and military under his control to honor the Constitution and the rule of law.
If he can declare, by fiat, that MS-13 and Tren de Aragua are not mere criminal gangs engaging in violence, theft and extortion but are instead 'terrorists' and 'invaders' that justify his use of extraordinary and extrajudicial powers, why would he limit himself there? What's to stop him from declaring that those who protest against him are agents of a foreign power and need to be rounded up and imprisoned? What prevents him from declaring that news media are 'enemies of the people' and jailing them, as well? And what about all those disloyal judges who are trying to prevent him from 'saving our country' — shouldn't they be sent to El Salvador's torture prison, too?
Yes, absolutely, this sounds alarmist, because we have a normalcy bias in this country. Nothing this bad has ever happened here, and therefore it cannot. And it is this failure of imagination, the same failure that refused to foresee Jan. 6 before Trump had unleashed his armed mob on the Capitol, that is again endangering the republic.
'If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?'
These words were written in an opinion in the days after the high court ordered Trump to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return and with the Department of Justice still stonewalling. Their author is lifelong conservative Harvie Wilkinson, 41 years on the federal appellate court bench after his appointment there by Ronald Reagan. He concluded with a paragraph that was nothing short of chilling:
'We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the executive branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.'
Harvie Wilkinson is clearly scared for the republic. You should be, too.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Newsom Tells Nation That Trump Is Destroying American Democracy
Newsom Tells Nation That Trump Is Destroying American Democracy

New York Times

time16 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Newsom Tells Nation That Trump Is Destroying American Democracy

Gov. Gavin Newsom made the case in a televised address Tuesday evening that President Trump's decisions to send military forces to immigration protests in Los Angeles have put the nation at the precipice of authoritarianism. The California governor urged Americans to stand up to Mr. Trump, calling it a 'perilous moment' for democracy and the country's long-held legal norms. 'California may be first, but it clearly won't end here,' Mr. Newsom said, speaking to cameras from a studio in Los Angeles. 'Other states are next. Democracy is next.' 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes — the moment we've feared has arrived,' he added. Mr. Newsom spoke on the fifth day of protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids that have sent fear and anger through many communities in Southern California. He said Mr. Trump had 'inflamed a combustible situation' by taking over California's National Guard, and by calling up 4,000 troops and 700 Marines. The governor is considered a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, and his Tuesday night speech, called 'Democracy at a Crossroads,' sounded national in scope. It aired on some national networks and on Mr. Newsom's social media accounts. The current political standoff has made it possible for Mr. Newsom to have a wider platform, and he has jousted with President Trump and Republicans for several days in interviews and on social media. 'Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves.,' Mr. Newsom said in his speech. 'But they do not stop there. Trump and his loyalists thrive on division because it allows them to take more power and exert even more control.' The address was an unusual move for Mr. Newsom, who has dyslexia and dislikes reading from a teleprompter to deliver formal speeches. But he has been using every communication channel possible to raise alarms about the extraordinary measures Mr. Trump has taken to mobilize the military for domestic uses. Not since the civil rights movement in the 1960s has a president sent National Guard troops to quell unrest without the support of the state's governor. 'I ask everyone to take the time to reflect on this perilous moment,' he said, 'a president who wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetrating a unified assault on American traditions.'

The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles
The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles

Atlantic

time35 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles

The last time President Donald Trump tried to send military forces into American streets to put down civil unrest, in June 2020, Pete Hegseth was positioned outside the White House with a Kevlar helmet and riot shield. Major Hegseth's mobilization as part of a District of Columbia National Guard unit summoned to restore order in the nation's capital, where protests had erupted following the police murder of George Floyd, occurred as Pentagon leaders scrambled to avert what they feared could be a confrontation between active-duty U.S. forces and their fellow Americans. Today, Hegseth is second only to the president in directing the administration's use of the National Guard and active-duty Marines to respond to unrest over immigration raids in Los Angeles. And this time, the military's civilian leadership isn't acting as a brake on Trump's impulse to escalate the confrontation. The Hegseth-led Pentagon is an accelerant. The administration's decision to federalize 4,000 California National Guard forces, contrary to Governor Gavin Newsom's wishes, and to dispatch 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area, marks a break with decades of tradition under which presidents have limited their use of the military on American soil. If there are any internal misgivings about busting through yet another democratic norm, they haven't surfaced publicly. Indeed, officials at the White House told us they are satisfied with the way the L.A. confrontation has unfolded. They believe that it highlights their focus on immigration and law and order, and places Democrats on the wrong side of both. One widely circulated photo—showing a masked protester standing in front of a burning car, waving a Mexican flag—has been embraced by Trump supporters as a distillation of the conflict: a president unafraid to use force to defend an American city from those he deems foreign invaders. 'We couldn't have scripted this better,' said a senior White House aide granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'It's like the 2024 election never ended: Trump is strong while Democrats are weak and defending the indefensible.' Democrats, of course, take a different view, and say the administration's actions have only risked triggering further violence. Retired officers who study how the armed forces have been used in democracies told us they share those concerns. They point to the damage that Trump's orders could do to the military's relationship with the citizens it serves. 'We should be very careful, cautious, and even reluctant to use the military inside our country,' Bradley Bowman, a former Army officer who heads the defense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, told us. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting a worst-case scenario in Los Angeles State and local authorities typically use law-enforcement personnel as a first response to civil disturbances or riots, followed by National Guard forces if needed. Retired Major General Randy Manner, who served as acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau during the Obama administration, said the federalizing of California Guard forces—putting them under presidential rather than state control, a move allowed with certain limits—pulls those service members away from their civilian jobs and makes it harder to complete planned training or exercises. 'Basically, the risk does not justify the investment of these forces, and it will negatively impact on readiness,' Manner told us. Retired officers we spoke with also drew a distinction between the involvement of National Guard and active-duty forces. Whereas National Guard troops assist citizens after natural disasters and have the advantage of knowing the communities they serve, active-duty forces are primarily trained to 'see the enemy and neutralize the enemy,' said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you're dealing with U.S. citizens, no matter what they're doing, that's not the right mindset.' 'This is not Fallujah,' Bowman added. 'This is Los Angeles.' Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard This morning, Hegseth made his first congressional appearance since his bruising confirmation process, appearing before a House committee. His tone with Democrats was at times combative. When Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, asked the defense secretary what the cost of the California deployment would be, he declined to provide a figure and instead pivoted to criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the state's response to the violence that followed Floyd's killing in 2020. (Military officials said later they expected the Los Angeles deployment, as envisioned, to cost roughly $134 million.) 'If you've got millions of illegals, you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers, that's a problem,' Hegseth told lawmakers. Trump, for his part, told reporters that anyone who tries to protest at the Saturday parade celebrating the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army will 'be met with very big force.' He also said that he wouldn't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would permit him to employ the military for law enforcement or to suppress a rebellion, if he believed that circumstances required. Speaking to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina later in the day, the president promised to stop the 'anarchy' in California. ' We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again,' he said. 'We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' Some Republicans have privately expressed worry that Trump may overplay a winning hand. Even in the West Wing, two people we spoke with tried to downplay the incendiary rhetoric from Trump and Hegseth. They stressed that, to this point, National Guard forces have been in a defensive posture, protecting federal buildings. Although they believe that Trump has the political advantage at the moment, they acknowledged there would be real risks if U.S. troops got involved in violence. 'We don't know who would get blamed but no one wins if that happens,' one senior aide told us. 'No one wants to see that.' Hegseth's support for using active-duty troops in Los Angeles stands in contrast to what his predecessor did in 2020. At that time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, scrambled to block Trump's desire to employ active-duty forces against the demonstrators protesting racial violence. The president had mused about shooting protesters in the legs, Esper wrote later. To satisfy his boss while also avoiding a dangerous confrontation, the defense chief called active-duty forces from Fort Bragg to Northern Virginia but sought to keep them out of the fray. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait In his 2024 book The War on Warrior s, Hegseth described how his experience as a D.C. Guardsman in 2020 crystallized his views about the divide between military personnel and what he saw as the degenerate protesters who were lobbing bricks and bottles of urine at the citizen soldiers. When the D.C. Guard was again summoned seven months later, to help secure the 2021 inauguration following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Hegseth was told to stand down because fellow Guardsmen suspected that one of his tattoos was a sign of extremism. (Hegseth has maintained it is part of his Christian faith.) Hegseth was angered by his exclusion and resigned from the Guard. That experience remains with him as he attempts to reshape the military, and its role in society, in line with Trump's worldview. As he has written: 'My trust for this Army is irrevocably broken.'

Musk Vs. Trump: Poll Says This Is The Person To Support In Feud, While Near Majority Say They Would Publicly Support Neither
Musk Vs. Trump: Poll Says This Is The Person To Support In Feud, While Near Majority Say They Would Publicly Support Neither

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Musk Vs. Trump: Poll Says This Is The Person To Support In Feud, While Near Majority Say They Would Publicly Support Neither

A highly public feud between Tesla Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump took the world by storm last week and sent shares of the electric vehicle company lower. As the feud continues on, here's a look at where Benzinga readers stand. What Happened: A back-and-forth between Musk and Trump across social media platforms saw the two well-known individuals escalate a feud related to differences on the "Big Beautiful Bill." Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — The feud comes after Musk left his White House position working for the Department of Government Efficiency to spend more time working on his other companies, such as Tesla. Benzinga recently asked readers who they side with in the battle, which includes Musk criticizing the new debt the country will take on if the bill that Trump supports is passed by Congress. "In the feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who are you more likely to publicly support?" Benzinga asked. Here are the results: Neither: 44% Elon Musk: 25% Donald Trump: 17% Both: 14% The poll found that a near majority said they would publicly support neither Trump or Musk in the feud between former friends. Of the two well-known candidates, Musk received the largest support with 25% of the poll, ranking ahead of Trump at 17%.Why It's Important: Over the weekend, the battle between Musk and Trump minimized some with the Tesla CEO deleting some of his tweets that brought some claims against the current president. Tweets about ending the SpaceX Dragon program were also deleted. A battle between Trump and Musk over the long run could see many losers, including the country's space program and the launch of robotaxis, with Musk a leader in both sectors and Trump able to slow down progress made by the billionaire. Tesla stock saw its largest one-day market capitalization drop last week on the heels of the feud. Tesla stock trades up 1.61% at $299.72 at publication on Monday versus a 52-week trading range of $167.42 to $488.54. The stock has fallen 15% over the last five days and is down 22% year-to-date in 2025. Read Next: Are you rich? Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it? The study was conducted by Benzinga from June 5, 2025, through June 9, 2025. It included the responses of a diverse population of adults 18 or older. Opting into the survey was completely voluntary, with no incentives offered to potential respondents. The study reflects results from 259 adults. Photo: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Musk Vs. Trump: Poll Says This Is The Person To Support In Feud, While Near Majority Say They Would Publicly Support Neither originally appeared on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

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