Latest news with #TheTriumphofFear
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
How to Tyranny-Proof America's Future
COMPARED TO HIS PREDECESSORS, Donald Trump has moved faster and on a much larger scale to target individuals, categories of people, and organizations for reasons personal (think 'revenge tour') and political (think mass deportations, attacks on law firms). If a future Congress ever wants to prevent a repeat of these kinds of abuses, there are many specific reforms that should be enacted. But it's not enough to focus narrowly on Trump's actions. The presidents who came before him set their own precedents and examples—often affirmed by Congress and the courts—that have also contributed to the present breakdown of our constitutional order. If Congress and the courts had not ceded so much raw, coercive power to the presidency, we might not now be facing a chief executive busily subverting the few remaining meaningful constitutional safeguards separating a republic from a tyranny. To think more clearly about how Congress must act to provide independence to both law enforcement and the judiciary, let's start with a turbo-speed history lesson. In my new book, The Triumph of Fear, I catalogue a sixty-year period from William McKinley through Dwight Eisenhower in which, with perhaps the sole exception of Warren Harding, every man elected to the presidency misused the power handed to him to spy on and even politically persecute his political enemies—real or imagined. Share Following the exposure in the 1970s of many unconstitutional government-run surveillance and subversion programs, Congress passed multiple reforms to try to prevent future presidents from engaging in such abusive conduct. Unfortunately, every one of those 1970s-era reforms—be it the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Inspector General Act, or the creation of the House and Senate intelligence committees—has failed to prevent presidential misconduct. The underlying assumption when they were adopted—that future presidents would find it difficult to work around or subvert them—was false. Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary stretch back to his first term in office and have only increased during the first months of his second term. His invocation of the two-century-old Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for lightning-fast, due process–free mass deportation operations is best thought of as a 'proof of concept' of his playbook for authoritarian consolidation in the presidency at the expense of Congress, the courts, and ultimately the Constitution itself. Trump's ongoing defiance of court orders in the AEA cases is reinforced by the willingness—if not eagerness—of federal law enforcement agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the FBI, and even federally deputized state and local law enforcement officers to carry out his deportation orders despite multiple federal court rulings to the contrary. Which brings to mind one area where Trump hasn't yet abused his power—but he might. Let us help you see around corners: Sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription to get our independent journalism delivered to your inbox. Under current law, all federal law enforcement officers fall under the control of the executive branch, including the United States Marshals Service, which is charged by statute with protecting both court facilities and staff (especially judges). But what if Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, elected to declare that statute unconstitutional? What if Bondi asserted that Trump could, at his discretion, order the marshals to leave their judicial-protection duties and instead join ICE, HSI, FBI, and other law enforcement on mass deportation operations? An Office of Legal Counsel opinion, written during the Jimmy Carter administration and updated during the Obama administration, asserts that, 'While there is no general privilege in the Executive to disregard laws that it deems inconsistent with the Constitution, in rare cases the Executive's duty to the constitutional system may require action in defiance of a statute. In such a case, the Executive's refusal to defend and enforce an unconstitutional statute is authorized and lawful.' That OLC opinion, accepted by every one of Trump's predecessors over the last forty-five years, could provide Trump and Bondi with at least a fig leaf of bipartisan political and legal cover to reduce or eliminate marshals protection for judges Trump deems 'radical' or otherwise objectionable. This threat has prompted some members of Congress to propose a solution designed to provide protection for judges that Trump or any of his successors could never remove. Shortly before the Memorial Day holiday, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Alex Padilla (D-Cal.), and Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), along with Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-Cal.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), introduced the MARSHALS Act, legislation that would move the Marshals Service out of the executive branch and place it under the control of the federal judiciary. It's a great idea that has zero chance of becoming law this session—but it demonstrates that at least some Senate and House members are willing to remove some of the armed, coercive law enforcement power currently under presidential control. That alone is a mental and political breakthrough that all those loyal to the constitutional republic should embrace. Share The Bulwark THE MARSHALS ACT IS JUST ONE example of the kind of legislative action that needs to be taken to prevent future presidential domestic political repression. Many other changes are needed as well; law professors, political activists, and commentators on constitutional matters are all likely to have their own lists of needful reforms—most of which will boil down to taking away the tools that make repression possible. My preference, as someone who has closely studied the abuses arising from presidential control of law enforcement, would be for a constitutional amendment that would move all but two federal law enforcement organizations from the executive branch to the control of the federal judiciary. The Secret Service (which protects the president and vice president) and the Federal Protective Service (which secures most federal buildings) would remain in the executive branch, but all other federal law enforcement would come under the control of the federal judiciary . . . and thus outside the control of an inherently political branch of government. Such a constitutional amendment should also modify current law to ensure that no president can call up a state's National Guard units for 'civil disturbance,' immigration enforcement, or any other domestic mission without the express written consent of the state's governor. This would safeguard against a future president calling up National Guard troops to shoot political protesters, as Trump wanted to do in the summer of 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests. Such an amendment would go far to restore and preserve our constitutional republic. But it would unquestionably be a very heavy political lift, to put it mildly. In the meantime, advocates should start laying the groundwork—doing the necessary research and drafting legislative language—for congressional action on other reforms, such as strengthening search and seizure protections, setting national training standards for all law enforcement officers, and creating a meaningful private right of action for police misconduct. Absent a dramatic (perhaps tragic) major political event, it's all but impossible to imagine any of these proposals becoming law while Trump is still in office. But introducing them now is critical for building support for them so that once he's out of office and a new Congress committed to preserving the constitutional order is in place, it can act quickly, while the memory of Trumpian abuses is fresh, to prevent a recurrence. We owe that to ourselves and to generations to come. Share
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Meet the House un-American activities caucus
It was just a matter of time after Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a civil suit against New York state alleging its officials were violating federal immigration laws that Congress would get in on the act. Last week, four members of the House Republican Conference asked Bondi to target three small civil society organizations for informing the human beings in their communities about their legal rights when it comes to dealing with — or not dealing with — Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. These are tactics straight out of the darkest period of the Cold War. This is the playbook of the Eisenhower administration, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and its Senate counterpart, the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know because I've spent the last 10 years working on a book about domestic surveillance and political repression that includes that very period. It's a key reason why I titled the book 'The Triumph of Fear' (coming in April). Going after politically disfavored individuals (Owen Lattimore and J. Robert Oppenheimer) or groups (Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, Methodist Federation for Social Action) was a sick, unconstitutional political game, played on a bipartisan, bicameral basis by the likes of Reps. Martin Dies (D-Texas), Richard Nixon (R-Calif.), and Sens. Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and of course Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.), among many others. Their witch-hunts for alleged communists or homosexuals in government and civil society terrorized not only those targeted but the entire country. Now, a new generation of like-minded Republican zealots has arisen to claim their mantle. In their Feb. 18, 2025, letter to Bondi, Reps. Andy Harris (R-Md.), Josh Breechen (R-Okla.), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), and Pete Sessions (R-Texas) implored the attorney general to 'continue prosecuting individuals, organizations, and elected officials who aid and abet illegal aliens in evading Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. We are a nation of laws. Without enforcement of those laws, we will cease to be a nation.' Their full letter is worth the read, not only because it demonstrates complete contempt for the First Amendment rights of the three groups and their members, but because of the precedent they clearly seek to set — encouraging the criminalization of anyone or any group opposed to Trump's dubious mass deportation plan. They make that clear when they call out state and local elected officials in Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — states that voted against Trump for president in 2024 — for allegedly assisting 'illegal aliens in their invasion of our country.' The First Amendment allows Code Pink, the Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network and the Immigration Defense Project — the groups these House Republicans want Bondi to go after — to inform people about their legal rights. It's no surprise that Harris, Breechen, Burlison and Sessions want Bondi to target three relatively small and largely politically powerless groups — their ability to fight back, politically and legally (in terms of legal defense fees) is inherently limited. Code Pink's politically ineffectual theatrical demonstrations have been a Washington staple for more than two decades. I still remember the group disrupting a 2007 House hearing with then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Group member Desiree Fairooz approached Rice, with fake blood on her hands while screaming 'war criminal.' The stunt got lots of press coverage but did absolutely nothing to change Bush administration policy in Iraq. That's pretty much par for the course for Code Pink. If Code Pink and the other targeted groups are out there informing their fellow humans about their legal rights, it means they're actually doing socially useful, necessary work protected by the First Amendment. Four House GOP members are pushing Trump's Justice Department to waste taxpayer time and money pursuing those groups with politically motivated, constitutionally violative witch-hunts. That they are not instead demanding the intensification of investigations of Communist Chinese hackers laying waste to our telecommunications security underscores how far off the rails things are in America's capital. Former CIA analyst and House senior policy advisor Patrick Eddington is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Meet the House un-American activities caucus
It was just a matter of time after Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a civil suit against New York state alleging its officials were violating federal immigration laws that Congress would get in on the act. Last week, four members of the House Republican Conference asked Bondi to target three small civil society organizations for informing the human beings in their communities about their legal rights when it comes to dealing with — or not dealing with — Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. These are tactics straight out of the darkest period of the Cold War. This is the playbook of the Eisenhower administration, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and its Senate counterpart, the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know because I've spent the last 10 years working on a book about domestic surveillance and political repression that includes that very period. It's a key reason why I titled the book ' The Triumph of Fear ' (coming in April). Going after politically disfavored individuals (Owen Lattimore and J. Robert Oppenheimer) or groups (Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, Methodist Federation for Social Action) was a sick, unconstitutional political game, played on a bipartisan, bicameral basis by the likes of Reps. Martin Dies (D-Texas), Richard Nixon (R-Calif.), and Sens. Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) and of course Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.), among many others. Their witch-hunts for alleged communists or homosexuals in government and civil society terrorized not only those targeted but the entire country. Now, a new generation of like-minded Republican zealots has arisen to claim their mantle. In their Feb. 18, 2025, letter to Bondi, Reps. Andy Harris (R-Md.), Josh Breechen (R-Okla.), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), and Pete Sessions (R-Texas) implored the attorney general to 'continue prosecuting individuals, organizations, and elected officials who aid and abet illegal aliens in evading Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. We are a nation of laws. Without enforcement of those laws, we will cease to be a nation.' Their full letter is worth the read, not only because it demonstrates complete contempt for the First Amendment rights of the three groups and their members, but because of the precedent they clearly seek to set — encouraging the criminalization of anyone or any group opposed to Trump's dubious mass deportation plan. They make that clear when they call out state and local elected officials in Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — states that voted against Trump for president in 2024 — for allegedly assisting 'illegal aliens in their invasion of our country.' The First Amendment allows Code Pink, the Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network and the Immigration Defense Project — the groups these House Republicans want Bondi to go after — to inform people about their legal rights. It's no surprise that Harris, Breechen, Burlison and Sessions want Bondi to target three relatively small and largely politically powerless groups — their ability to fight back, politically and legally (in terms of legal defense fees) is inherently limited. Code Pink's politically ineffectual theatrical demonstrations have been a Washington staple for more than two decades. I still remember the group disrupting a 2007 House hearing with then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Group member Desiree Fairooz approached Rice, with fake blood on her hands while screaming 'war criminal.' The stunt got lots of press coverage but did absolutely nothing to change Bush administration policy in Iraq. That's pretty much par for the course for Code Pink. If Code Pink and the other targeted groups are out there informing their fellow humans about their legal rights, it means they're actually doing socially useful, necessary work protected by the First Amendment. Four House GOP members are pushing Trump's Justice Department to waste taxpayer time and money pursuing those groups with politically motivated, constitutionally violative witch-hunts. That they are not instead demanding the intensification of investigations of Communist Chinese hackers laying waste to our telecommunications security underscores how far off the rails things are in America's capital.
