logo
Democracy Upside Down

Democracy Upside Down

The Atlantic4 days ago
Last month, President Donald Trump's administration scrapped a long-standing Texas law that provided access to financial aid for 'Dreamers'—undocumented immigrants, brought into this country as children, who grew up here, graduated from local high schools, and are committed to becoming permanent residents. The administration's allies tried and failed to persuade the state legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, to repeal the law, which has had nearly a quarter century of bipartisan support. So the administration made an end run around Texas's democratic process: The Department of Justice hatched a plan with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to kill the law, filing a joint motion that asked a federal court to declare the Texas Dream Act unconstitutional. A judge approved the motion the very same day. The whole process took just six hours. Whatever one's views are on Dreamer policy, the fact is that this maneuver went against the will of the people of Texas.
The organization I lead, Democracy Forward, has, along with several other groups, filed a motion to defend the law. Texans deserve to have the constitutionality of their Dream Act judged in court, not killed off via a collaboration between the president and the state attorney general. And even more alarming than the Trump administration's dismantling of this law is that it's part of a broader effort to short-circuit democracy at the state level.
State-level democracy is essential to America's federalist system. During another time in U.S. history when a majority of the Supreme Court was imposing barriers to the public's ability to self-govern, Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously observed, 'It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Later, Justice William Brennan argued that states have the 'power to impose higher standards' under state law 'than is required under the Federal Constitution.' Throughout America's long history, state-level innovations have pushed the country forward: Some states abolished slavery long before the Civil War, granted women the right to vote before the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted, and legalized marriage equality years before the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
Of course, states have not always been on the side of human freedom and progress. Appeals to 'states' rights' have served as rallying cries for enslavers, segregationists, and others seeking to deny the rights of people and communities since the nation's founding. 'No state,' the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed after the Civil War, shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' When America's system of government works as it should, the federal government steps in to prevent states from undermining human freedom.
David Frum: The courts won't save democracy from Trump
That's what America saw in 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to implement a Supreme Court ruling to desegregate schools; the governor, an avowed segregationist, had refused to comply. President John F. Kennedy similarly federalized the Alabama National Guard to carry out desegregation orders at the University of Alabama, again over the objection of a pro-segregation governor.
Now the president and his political appointees, not a state's governor, are ignoring federal-court orders. In April, a federal court found that the government had exhibited 'a willful disregard for its Order' that planes carrying migrants who had been denied basic due process be turned around until the court could hear the migrants' case. (Democracy Forward and the ACLU represent the migrants in that matter.) Two months later, in early June, Trump federalized the California National Guard and deployed active-duty Marines to Los Angeles without the approval of Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that local law enforcement was fully capable of managing anti-ICE protests. Trump's move was a federal flex that made a mockery of state sovereignty and democracy, and created more chaos than it solved. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said that what she saw in a local park 'looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation.'
To justify its actions in California, the administration invoked Eisenhower's 1957 move to enforce federal-court orders on civil rights. Yet Trump's actions aim for the opposite of Eisenhower's. Instead of using federal power to protect people's rights, Trump is misusing federal power to undermine them. That is democracy upside down.
Similarly, when Maine insisted that it would defend transgender athletes' participation on women's college-sports teams, the president brazenly interfered. Maine was following the law as it argued was set forth in Title IX and the state's Human Rights Act, but Trump sought to force a new interpretation of the federal law through executive actions, including a February order. That month, Trump pronounced, 'We are the federal law,' at which point the administration began a process to cut off funding to Maine's public-school meal programs as punishment—funds appropriated by Congress to help children in need. 'See you in court,' Maine Governor Janet Mills told the president. She did, and Maine won.
The administration has also attempted to usurp the power that the Constitution provides both Congress and the states. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution mandates that only states and Congress can make or alter the 'times, places, and manner' of holding federal elections. Ignoring that, Trump, in an executive order, has sought to impose federal time, place, and manner requirements that create barriers to the ballot box. Much of this executive order has been blocked by two federal courts in response to litigation filed by 19 states, among other parties. One federal judge found that the requirements Trump is seeking to impose would create time-consuming burdens on states and could chill voter participation— 'the antithesis of Congress's purpose in enacting' federal election laws. (The Trump administration is also pressuring Texas Republicans to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade, outside the normal cycle, to skew the midterm elections.)
Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down
The Trump administration has called lawsuits filed against its actions 'frivolous' and 'vexatious.' But as with so many of Trump's attacks, this is really a confession. The Texas ploy is just one of many ways the administration is undercutting the checks and balances in the U.S. constitutional system. The administration has eviscerated agencies and programs created by Congress, attacked judges and the legal profession as a whole, and attempted to stifle a free and open press through intimidation tactics. It's all in keeping with a theme: To empower one man, you need to disempower everyone else, everywhere else—including in states where laws are counter to the president's political agenda.
What's happening in Texas, California, Maine, and other states goes beyond normal political disagreements or turf spats. This isn't the typical tug-of-war of federalism. The Trump administration is undermining foundational democratic principles and turning what are supposed to be 'laboratories of democracy' into laboratories of repression—something that should have no place in a nation founded on the promise of human freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling

Fox News

time5 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling

A federal appeals judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship that he issued earlier this year and that was granted to more than a dozen states can stand. Sorokin said the ruling was an exception to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The issue is expected to return to the Supreme Court. Trump and the administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote in his ruling. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The Trump administration has argued that children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally and temporarily are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order, along with a slew of other orders, on his first day in office in January. On Wednesday, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court's nationwide injunction, and, earlier this month, a New Hampshire federal judge issued a ruling prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. Sorokin disagreed with the Trump administration's argument that the Supreme Court's ruling warranted a narrower ruling. The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit argued that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and it also threatens millions of dollars in state funding for "essential" health insurance services contingent on citizenship status.

AI Action Plan Channels Rally Energy, Ignites U.S. Policy Debate
AI Action Plan Channels Rally Energy, Ignites U.S. Policy Debate

Forbes

time5 minutes ago

  • Forbes

AI Action Plan Channels Rally Energy, Ignites U.S. Policy Debate

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: Jacob Helberg, Hill and Valley co-founder and Under Secretary of State for ... More economic growth designate; NVIDIA co-founder and CEO Jensen Huang; Founders Fund partner and Varda Space Industries co-founder Delian Asparouhov; and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (EPA) Lee Zeldin give a standing ovation to U.S. President Donald Trump at the "Winning the AI Race" summit. At the Winning AI Race Summit, President Donald Trump delivered a speech combining campaign-style showmanship with concrete policy proposals for America's future in artificial intelligence. Speaking in his trademark improvisational style, assertive and theatrical, punctuated with rally-style slogans, Trump laid out a private-sector-driven strategy to reassert U.S. dominance in AI. It is the start of a 'golden age of America,' he said, punctuating the message with chants of 'Drill, baby, drill and build, baby, build!' and urging American technology companies to go 'all in for America.' The president announced an executive order banning what he called woke AI, a move that immediately sparked debate over the government's role in shaping the values embedded in AI systems. Additionally, Trump also called for expedited permitting for data centers and energy projects, and launched an initiative to make the U.S. an 'AI export powerhouse.' An AI Agenda Tailored For The Tech Industry Trump's speech outlined the plan to boost America's AI global standing, empowering private-sector growth through deregulation, incentives and diplomacy for market access. He called for clearer copyright rules that would let AI systems learn from publicly available content without being blocked by licensing restrictions. He advocated for a single federal AI regulatory standard. A mix of state laws, he warned, could slow innovation and strain early-stage companies and small businesses. The president made clear that he sees the private sector, not government, as the primary engine of innovation. He said Washington should enable innovation, not interfere with it, and declared his intention to keep bureaucrats 'out of the way.' Trump pledged to accelerate the build of AI infrastructure, including data centers, power plants and semiconductor fabs, via deregulation and expedited permitting. He linked this effort to a broader industrial revival, citing the need for electricians, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) technicians and construction workers to meet the rising demand. The speech referred to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the budget reconciliation bill at the core of Trump's second-term agenda with tax cuts, spending adjustments and a debt ceiling increase. It highlighted its provisions allowing companies to deduct capital expenses upfront to accelerate private investment in infrastructure. Internationally, Trump proposed turning the U.S. into an AI export powerhouse of full-stack solutions that include American AI models, applications and the hardware it runs on. The goal is to promote sales to allied nations, backed by diplomatic and trade support from the State and Commerce Departments. On energy, he called for an 'all of the above' strategy, including coal, oil, gas and nuclear to meet AI's rapidly growing power demands. According to the Energy Information Administration, China produced more than twice as much energy as the U.S. in 2023. With abundant power generation, China can support large AI factories, even when powered by less energy-efficient chips, such as older generations of Nvidia chips or locally produced semiconductors from Huawei. Trump vowed to eliminate what he called woke mandates from federally supported AI, criticizing prior policies that tied government funding to diversity goals. President Biden's industrial strategy for semiconductor manufacturing included language encouraging companies to broaden their hiring pipelines. Under a new executive order, the government would be barred from using systems that incorporate ideological screening or require diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) benchmarks. Lastly, Trump said he would support small tech firms to ensure competition and innovation beyond the dominant platforms, arguing that 'the future of AI shouldn't belong to a few companies alone.' The AI Plan Draws Mixed Reactions Critics of the plan warn that it favors entrenched corporate interests while sidelining democratic safeguards and public accountability. Nicholas Garcia, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, calls it 'a handout to already-entrenched, powerful tech companies'. The plan's emphasis on deregulation and expedited permitting has raised alarm among environmental advocates, who point to the potential climate impact of large-scale data centers and fossil fuel-heavy power generation. Civil society organizations created the 'People's AI Action Plan,' a manifesto stating that 'We can't let Big Tech and Big Oil lobbyists write the rules for AI and our economy at the expense of our freedom and equality.' Civil liberties groups are also sounding the alarm. The ban on woke AI and the proposed removal of misinformation safeguards have drawn criticism from speech and privacy experts. The Electronic Privacy Information Center said the move is 'placing business interests ahead of consumer protection.' 'The government's interest in only supporting AI that upholds free speech gives me pause,' said Manasi Vartak, chief AI architect at Cloudera. 'In an age of misinformation and where AIs are becoming a key source of information, this banner of free speech can easily be misused.' At the same time, she praised the 'support for open-source and open-weight models and datasets, which are essential for innovation and for continuing research.' The Politics Of AI Policy Trump's AI strategy uses a familiar Silicon Valley formula: deregulate, invest in infrastructure and trust the market to deliver. While the plan is ambitious, much of it remains a framework, leaving federal agencies and Congress to fill in the details. Whether it can move from rally to policy will depend on engagement from civil society, which, until now, has remained at the margin of the administration's approach. As agencies begin translating priorities into rules and funding decisions, implementation could drift into partisan favoritism. But the moment also opens space for new types of governance that move past the usual tug-of-war between regulation and laissez-faire. Policy experts are calling for governance models that pair public-private collaboration with independent audits and oversight systems designed to evolve with the fast-changing AI tools. A report by Fathom, an independent nonprofit, reminds that 'no matter how well-intentioned any government's efforts might be, the reality is that direct government regulation simply cannot keep up with the pace of innovation. Worse yet, it might suffocate it.' How the plan plays out will influence U.S. competitiveness and the rules that shape AI worldwide. As other nations advance their AI strategies, Trump's private-sector-first emphasis will be tested. The plan positions the U.S. for leadership in technology, innovation and global adoption. But its success will ultimately depend on whether people around the world trust and use American-made AI.

Judge Maintains Nationwide Block on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
Judge Maintains Nationwide Block on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

Epoch Times

time5 minutes ago

  • Epoch Times

Judge Maintains Nationwide Block on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

A federal judge in Massachusetts has maintained his nationwide block on President Donald Trump's policy restricting birthright citizenship, saying that a narrower injunction would be impractical and create too many problems for states that sued the administration. 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in [Trump's] Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit,' U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin said in an opinion on July 25.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store