KATHERINE WALTER dot COM

A MidWestern transgender woman trying to survive in the real life.

Category: politicans Page 1 of 2

A Militarized Spectacle and a Day of Defiance

By

On June 14, 2025

In Donald Trump

Today, June 14, 2025, marks a symbolic and deeply contested moment in American political life. What should have been a celebration of national unity and civic pride—the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army and Flag Day—has instead become a flashpoint for ideological division and widespread protest. In Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump presided over a lavish and heavily militarized parade, coinciding with his 79th birthday, a convergence of personal and national milestones that critics say dangerously conflates the state with one man’s cult of personality (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025).

The military parade included over 7,000 troops, armored tanks, fighter jets, and even vintage WWII aircraft rumbling down Constitution Avenue, where an 18-mile security perimeter cordoned off large swaths of the city (Associated Press, 2025; Times of India, 2025). The estimated cost of the spectacle—between $25 and $45 million—was shouldered by a combination of government funds and undisclosed private donations (The Sun, 2025). Trump’s speech delivered at the opening of the parade was infused with nationalist rhetoric, invoking military obedience, patriotism, and “loyalty above politics.” Conspicuously absent was any mention of democratic norms, freedom of the press, or checks and balances. In this omission, critics say, lies the deeper threat of the parade: not simply the flaunting of military might, but the implicit message that personal rule and military force are superior to democratic deliberation.

This view has been sharply contested across the nation today through an estimated 2,000 protests organized under the banner of “No Kings Day” (Archie, 2025). These grassroots actions, held in nearly every state, serve as a counter-narrative to the parade’s pageantry. Demonstrators gathered in city parks, college campuses, public squares, and outside federal buildings to denounce what they see as a creeping authoritarianism that seeks to replace public service with personal loyalty, and democratic power with centralized control. As one protest sign read in Boston, “Democracy doesn’t need tanks. It needs voters.”

According to NPR’s reporting, “No Kings Day” is more than a single-day action—it is part of an ongoing movement rooted in civic resistance to the iconography of authoritarianism (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025). Protestors cite not only the militarization of public spaces, but also the Trump-era erosion of institutional norms: court-stacking, attacks on journalists, politicization of the Department of Justice, and the increasing normalization of dehumanizing rhetoric toward immigrants and political opponents. As one organizer in Chicago explained, “This is not about left or right. It’s about the line between democracy and dictatorship.”

In Seattle, protestors formed a human chain around the local federal courthouse. In Austin, a group of veterans read aloud passages from the Constitution in front of the state capitol. In New York, an interfaith coalition gathered at Riverside Church to pray for the resilience of American democracy. Many rallies included signs bearing slogans like “No Throne in the White House” and “The Republic, Not the Emperor.”

The irony of staging a military parade ostensibly to celebrate freedom while thousands gather to protest against perceived tyranny was not lost on foreign observers. Le Monde in France called the day “a surreal juxtaposition of liberty and submission.” German outlets compared the parade to historical shows of power under monarchies and fascist regimes. And in Canada, the phrase “No Kings” trended across social media, boosted by solidarity rallies in Toronto and Vancouver.

The optics of the parade—and its timing—are particularly provocative. According to NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025), the event was initially pitched by Trump’s advisors as a “celebration of American greatness,” but it quickly evolved into what one anonymous source described as “theatrical power projection.” Though the Army’s 250th anniversary offers a legitimate historical milestone, critics argue that wrapping it around Trump’s personal brand diminishes the institution’s apolitical legacy. “This isn’t about honoring the military,” said Dr. Nathaniel Cortez, a historian of civil-military relations. “It’s about co-opting the military to serve political theater.”

In the past, presidential celebrations of the military have been framed by humility and respect for civilian oversight. Trump’s approach, however, recalls more disturbing precedents: Charles de Gaulle’s Bastille Day parade in 1968 during a political crisis, or the Soviet-style parades of Red Square. Such displays function as political pageants designed to link the identity of the leader to the strength of the state. That is precisely what many Americans protested against today.

Moreover, the fusion of military ritual with personal celebration—Trump’s birthday being the secondary justification for the date—signals a transformation of public commemoration into an extension of personal mythology. The implication is subtle but sinister: that the nation’s power flows not from the people but from the person who commands the spectacle. As NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025) noted, the parade’s symbolism mirrors that of dynastic traditions where leaders mark their rule not through elections, but through choreographed shows of loyalty and grandeur.

Even Trump’s defenders have struggled to explain why a peacetime display of this magnitude is necessary, especially given its cost. Some Republican lawmakers voiced quiet discomfort but avoided public criticism. Others leaned into the cultural symbolism, echoing Trump’s call for “patriotic renewal.” In contrast, Democratic leaders have been blunt in their condemnation. Senator Ayanna Hartsfield (D-MA) called the parade “an absurd coronation fantasy that has no place in a constitutional republic.”

In this broader context, “No Kings Day” is not simply a reaction to a parade. It is a demand for clarity about what kind of country the United States aspires to be. The protestors are asking fundamental questions: Does patriotism require submission to military power, or is it best expressed through dissent? Is democracy sustained by displays of force, or by critical, engaged citizenship? Who ultimately holds the power—the people or the personalities?

By evening, as the sun set over the National Mall and the last aircraft flew over the Lincoln Memorial, the contrast between the military’s rumble and the people’s chants could not have been more distinct. One was loud, orchestrated, and state-sanctioned. The other was messy, diverse, and democratic.

It is easy to become desensitized to the spectacle. But moments like this one call for vigilance. Authoritarianism rarely arrives at once. It comes in increments—in normalization, in silence, in distraction. Today, many Americans refused to be silent or distracted. Instead, they marched, spoke, resisted, and insisted: there are no kings here.

References

Archie, A. (2025, June 14). ‘No Kings’ protests against Trump planned nationwide to coincide with military parade. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5432708/no-kings-protests-military-parade

Associated Press. (2025, June 14). The Army is set to celebrate 250 years with a parade that coincides with Trump’s birthday. https://apnews.com/article/4cca4da0e89908d39c820240744375a1

Bauer, J. (2025, June 13). Major ‘No Kings Day’ protest brewing. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/06/13/major-no-kings-day-protest-brewing-amid-military-parade-plans/

The Cut. (2025, June 14). What to Know About ‘No Kings Day’. https://www.thecut.com/article/no-kings-day-protests-what-to-know.html

The Sun. (2025, June 14). Trump parade LIVE: Crowds begin to gather in Washington DC. https://www.the-sun.com/news/14479749/donald-trump-us-army-parade-birthday-live/

Times of India. (2025, June 14). Donald Trump’s 79th birthday: Washington to host US Army parade and celebrations on June 14. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/donald-trumps-79th-birthday-washington-to-host-us-army-parade-and-celebrations-on-june-14/articleshow/110044218.cms

Washington Post. (2025, June 13). ‘No Kings’ protests nationwide to push back on Trump’s ‘overreach’. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/13/no-kings-protest-anti-trump-army-parade/

Wise, A. & Lonsdorf, K. (2025, June 14). Trump marks Army anniversary and birthday with military parade in D.C. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5429660/military-parade-trump-army-anniversary-birthday

Trump’s War on Dissent

By

On June 8, 2025

In civil rights, Donald Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Graphic content / US Department of Homeland Security Police officers and members of the National Guard stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC, in downtown Los Angeles, California on June 8, 2025. Hundreds of National Guard troops took up positions in Los Angeles on June 8 on US President Donald Trump’s orders, a rare deployment against the state governor’s wishes after sometimes violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)

On June 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the California National Guard to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The move was prompted by days of civil unrest following aggressive ICE raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. While the official justification cited the need to restore order, the action fits within a broader historical pattern of Trump’s antagonism toward civil protest, particularly those that question his policies or leadership. The deployment is significant not only for its legal implications but also for the insight it offers into Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and his evolving use of federal power.

The protests began on June 6, when ICE agents conducted a coordinated series of raids on businesses in Los Angeles, including several clothing wholesalers and a Home Depot, reportedly detaining 44 undocumented workers (Associated Press, 2025a). Demonstrators gathered almost immediately in response, particularly in the communities of Paramount and Compton. Local news outlets and protest organizers described the raids as racially motivated and disproportionate. Over the next two days, confrontations between protesters and law enforcement escalated. Reports from the Los Angeles Times indicated the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades by federal agents (Vanity Fair, 2025). Protesters were accused of throwing rocks and concrete chunks, and by June 7, over 100 arrests had been made (Schneid, 2025).

On the morning of June 8, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard, ordering the immediate deployment of approximately 2,000 troops to the Los Angeles area (Associated Press, 2025a). The initial wave of around 300 soldiers was stationed outside federal immigration facilities, including detention centers in downtown Los Angeles. Department of Homeland Security personnel, joined by local law enforcement, used smoke and crowd-control tactics to clear demonstrators from the perimeter of these buildings (Vanity Fair, 2025). More troubling still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth placed active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert, stating that additional support would be mobilized if local resistance intensified (Wall Street Journal, 2025).

The legal basis for this intervention drew immediate scrutiny. Unlike the Insurrection Act—which has historically required consent from governors unless rebellion or national security threats are imminent—Title 10 allows the president to assume control of a state’s National Guard under more ambiguous circumstances. Trump’s use of this authority without consultation or approval from Governor Newsom represented a sharp departure from precedent (Washington Post, 2025). While prior instances of federal deployment have occurred—most notably during the civil rights era in 1965 and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots—those actions typically involved collaboration between state and federal governments. Trump’s unilateral order broke with this tradition and raised immediate constitutional concerns.

Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it “a political stunt masquerading as public safety” (Schneid, 2025). He emphasized that while some violence had occurred, local law enforcement had the situation under control. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly criticized the decision, asserting that federal interference had inflamed tensions rather than de-escalated them (Associated Press, 2025b). Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, filed emergency injunctions in federal court, arguing that the federalization of the Guard in this context violated the Tenth Amendment and constituted an overreach of executive authority (Reuters, 2025).

Trump, meanwhile, defended his decision by invoking the language of law and order. On his Truth Social account, he referred to the demonstrators as “Radical Left agitators” and accused them of trying to undermine ICE’s lawful operations. He further announced a new federal regulation banning the use of masks at protests, which critics argued would further chill lawful dissent (The Daily Beast, 2025). In a televised address, he declared that “these protests are not about immigration—they’re about chaos, and we will not allow our cities to be taken over by mobs” (Vanity Fair, 2025). The administration’s framing of the protests as a rebellion rather than protected expression marked a dramatic escalation in tone.

This pattern is not new. During the summer of 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Trump threatened to deploy active-duty troops to major cities under the Insurrection Act. At the time, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposed the idea, and the deployment was ultimately shelved in favor of National Guard assistance requested by governors (Baker et al., 2020). Still, the president’s language—especially his tweet that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—signaled an aversion to protest and a readiness to treat dissent as criminality. Twitter flagged the post for glorifying violence. Although he stopped short of federalizing troops in 2020, Trump’s second term has shown a greater willingness to follow through on such threats.

What has changed between 2020 and 2025 is both the legal assertiveness and the composition of Trump’s inner circle. Pete Hegseth, a conservative media personality and military veteran, now heads the Department of Defense and has shown no hesitation in using federal power to advance Trump’s agenda (Wall Street Journal, 2025). The administration no longer faces internal resistance to military deployments within U.S. borders, and Hegseth’s public statements indicate an expansive view of executive authority over domestic security.

The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is troubling not only for its immediate impact but also for the precedent it sets. Legal scholars argue that the president’s invocation of Title 10 without compelling justification stretches the intent of the statute and undermines the balance of power between federal and state governments (Washington Post, 2025). By reframing peaceful protest as rebellion, the Trump administration expands the conditions under which future presidents might justify similar interventions. The deployment also serves to delegitimize public dissent and normalize military presence in response to constitutionally protected speech.

Politically, the move appears calibrated to energize Trump’s base. By portraying the protests as violent and anarchic, Trump crafts a narrative of national chaos that only he can control. This strategy, first evident in 2016 and refined in 2020, has become more explicit in his second term. Commentators have described the Los Angeles deployment as a “dress rehearsal” for federal crackdowns in other cities, particularly those governed by Democratic officials (The Daily Beast, 2025).

Civil liberties advocates warn that this could lead to an erosion of protest rights nationwide. If the federal government can override local control whenever political opposition manifests in the streets, then public assembly may become subject to partisan suppression. Already, activists report increased surveillance, aggressive policing, and prosecutions under federal statutes that were rarely used in past administrations (Reuters, 2025).

Perhaps most ominous is the symbolic weight of military deployment in a democratic society. The sight of uniformed troops in American cities sends a chilling message about the limits of dissent. It transforms the public square into a battleground and reduces the space for political disagreement. As historians have pointed out, democracy depends not only on laws and elections but also on norms of restraint and mutual respect. The willingness to call out troops against fellow citizens erodes those norms and creates a political culture of fear and coercion.

Trump’s aversion to civil protest is not merely personal—it is ideological. He views opposition as illegitimate and protest as rebellion. This worldview has shaped his policies and informed his rhetoric from the beginning of his political career. The events of June 8, 2025, are not an anomaly but the logical conclusion of a long-standing approach to governance—one that prioritizes control over compromise and sees federal power as a tool to crush dissent rather than uphold democratic rights.

As Americans reflect on this moment, the stakes are clear. The deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles raises profound questions about the future of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the health of our democratic institutions. It challenges us to consider whether protest will remain a protected right or become a pretext for martial intervention. And it forces us to ask what kind of country we want to be: one where dissent is respected, or one where it is suppressed at the point of a gun.

References

Associated Press. (2025a, June 8). What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests. https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-trump-los-angeles-protests-2025

Associated Press. (2025b, June 8). California governor calls Trump’s move “inflammatory” as Guard arrives in L.A. https://apnews.com/article/newsom-trump-national-guard-2025

Baker, P., Shear, M. D., & Schmitt, E. (2020, June 3). Trump’s authority to send troops into states, explained. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/trump-military-authority.html

Reuters. (2025, June 7). White House aide calls Los Angeles anti-ICE protests an insurrection. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-declares-los-angeles-protests-insurrection-2025

Schneid, R. (2025, June 8). Trump sparks backlash as National Guard arrives in L.A. on his orders. TIME. https://time.com/trump-national-guard-backlash-los-angeles-2025

The Daily Beast. (2025, June 8). It’s summer in Trump’s America and fascism is in bloom. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-has-a-bad-case-of-premature-despotism

Vanity Fair. (2025, June 8). National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles after Trump signs orders. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/national-guard-arrive-in-los-angeles-after-trump-signs-orders

Wall Street Journal. (2025, June 8). Trump advisers once opposed using active-duty troops at protests. Not anymore. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-advisers-once-opposed-using-active-duty-troops-at-protests-not-anymore-96afb208

Washington Post. (2025, June 8). Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/08/trump-national-guard-la-protests-law

The Hidden Costs of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

By

On May 29, 2025

In Donald Trump

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The tax and spending legislation, called the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Act, redirects money to the military and border security and includes cuts to Medicaid, education and other domestic programs. Johnson was flanked by House Committee Chairmen who helped craft the legislation. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

As a former Senior Program Specialist with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of President Donald Trump’s recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB). While touted as a transformative economic package, this legislation poses significant threats to both the national economy and the well-being of millions of Americans, particularly through its drastic cuts to SNAP.

The OBBB extends the 2017 tax cuts and introduces additional reductions, primarily benefiting corporations and high-income individuals. Proponents argue that these measures will spur economic growth. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill will add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade (Vanity Fair, 2025). This increase in debt raises concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability and the potential for higher interest rates, which could stifle economic growth rather than promote it.

One of the most alarming aspects of the OBBB is the proposed $300 billion cut to SNAP over the next ten years (Kiplinger, 2025). These cuts would tighten eligibility requirements, shift program costs to states, and limit future benefit increases (Newsweek, 2025). Such changes threaten to increase food insecurity among low-income families, children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the state could lose over $300 million in food assistance, potentially affecting more than 700,000 residents (Economic Times, 2025). These reductions not only jeopardize the health and well-being of vulnerable populations but also place additional financial burdens on state governments and local communities.

SNAP benefits are not just a lifeline for recipients; they also play a crucial role in supporting local economies. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates approximately $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity (KCRG, 2025). Cuts to the program could therefore have a cascading effect, reducing revenue for grocery stores, farmers, and food producers. In Iowa, the president of the Iowa Farmers Union expressed concern that reduced SNAP benefits would hurt farmers by decreasing demand for their products (KCRG, 2025).

The OBBB’s approach to shifting SNAP administrative costs to states—up to 75%—represents an unfunded mandate that could strain state budgets (Newsweek, 2025). States would be forced to make difficult decisions, potentially cutting other essential services or increasing taxes to cover the shortfall. This shift undermines the federal-state partnership that has been fundamental to the success of SNAP.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” presents a facade of economic progress while undermining the very foundations of food security and fiscal responsibility. As someone who has dedicated a career to ensuring access to nutrition assistance, I find the proposed cuts to SNAP not only detrimental to individual well-being but also harmful to the broader economy. Policymakers must reconsider these provisions to protect vulnerable populations and maintain the integrity of programs that have long served as a safety net for millions of Americans.

References:

The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism in America Under Trump’s Second Term

By

On April 23, 2025

In Donald Trump

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES – 2024/04/25: An activist holding a sign with Save Our Democracy written on it stands outside the US Supreme Court, as the court prepares to hear arguments on the immunity of former US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The erosion of democratic norms in the United States has become increasingly evident during President Donald Trump’s second term in office. While formal democratic institutions still exist—elections are held, opposition parties campaign, and courts operate—the substance of democratic governance is steadily being hollowed out. This phenomenon, known as “competitive authoritarianism,” describes a regime type where democratic structures are maintained in name but systematically subverted in practice. The United States, once a model liberal democracy, is beginning to exhibit the core traits of such regimes, and political scientists are issuing increasingly urgent warnings.

Competitive authoritarianism, as defined by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, is a hybrid regime that blends formal democratic institutions with authoritarian behavior. It allows for elections and political opposition but ensures that incumbents enjoy unfair advantages and engage in systematic efforts to undercut political competition (Levitsky & Way, 2010). What sets these regimes apart from outright dictatorships is the preservation of the outward trappings of democracy. What distinguishes them from genuine democracies, however, is the deliberate weakening of institutions meant to ensure accountability, transparency, and fairness.

Recent surveys reveal that political scientists overwhelmingly believe the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction. Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan organization that assesses the health of American democracy through surveys of political science scholars, found a sharp drop in expert evaluations of the nation’s democratic functioning following Trump’s re-election in 2024. Their Democracy Rating, which scored the U.S. at 67 out of 100 just prior to the November election, plunged to 55 within weeks after the new administration took office (Carey, 2025). John Carey, one of the project’s co-directors, remarked that the decline is unparalleled in the project’s history and reflects deepening concerns among scholars that the country is transitioning away from liberal democratic norms.

Indeed, many of the mechanisms of democratic backsliding are now visible. There has been a notable decline in the independence of the judiciary. Courts are increasingly seen as obstacles to be circumvented or delegitimized rather than respected. The administration’s open hostility toward judges who rule against its interests, and its efforts to ignore or delay implementation of adverse rulings, weakens the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach (Davies, 2025). In authoritarian regimes, the erosion of judicial independence is a common step toward consolidating power, and the United States appears to be following this well-worn path.

Control over information is another hallmark of competitive authoritarianism, and here, too, the Trump administration has made significant inroads. Efforts to delegitimize critical media, restrict press access, and promote alternative narratives through state-aligned media channels have intensified. Rather than treating journalists as watchdogs of democracy, the administration has cast them as enemies of the state, a tactic historically used by authoritarian leaders to erode public trust in independent reporting (Vanity Fair, 2025). Meanwhile, whistleblowers and dissenting voices within federal agencies face unprecedented retaliation, creating a chilling effect on those who might speak out against abuses of power.

Perhaps most telling is the administration’s brazen politicization of independent institutions. Agencies like the Department of Justice, which are meant to operate without partisan interference, have been systematically filled with loyalists. These appointees often demonstrate an unwavering allegiance to Trump himself rather than to the rule of law or democratic principles. The result is an executive branch that no longer merely implements policy but acts as an instrument of partisan enforcement and retribution (AP News, 2025). In such an environment, the rule of law becomes a weapon wielded selectively rather than a standard applied equally.

The ideological framework behind this shift is equally alarming. Influential figures within Trump’s inner circle, including J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller, advocate for what they term “post-liberal” governance. This philosophy openly rejects pluralism and treats democratic norms as expendable if they stand in the way of achieving right-wing political dominance. Rather than being embarrassed by authoritarian tactics, these actors embrace them as tools to achieve what they view as a higher cultural or political mission. The executive power grab is not accidental but rather a deliberate effort to reshape the United States into a regime that structurally favors one ideological faction (The Atlantic, 2025).

Even academia is under assault. Universities that have resisted administration pressure to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have faced funding threats. Harvard University, for example, had $2.2 billion in federal grants frozen in retaliation for refusing to remove certain DEI programs (The Guardian, 2025). This effort to discipline institutions of higher learning is not merely symbolic. It signals an authoritarian desire to exert control over the production of knowledge and stifle ideological diversity.

Political scientists like Steven Levitsky, who have long studied democratic erosion in other parts of the world, now assert that the United States itself is no longer a full democracy. As Levitsky told NPR, “We are no longer living in a democratic regime” (Davies, 2025). Such a statement, unthinkable even a few years ago, now feels tragically plausible.

The descent into competitive authoritarianism is not inevitable, but it is advancing. If Americans—citizens, scholars, journalists, and public servants alike—fail to defend democratic principles with vigilance and moral clarity, they may soon find that the institutions they took for granted no longer offer any protection. Competitive authoritarianism thrives not in moments of crisis alone, but in the slow, grinding normalization of anti-democratic practices. The United States must wake up to the danger it now faces. The time for complacency has long passed.

References

Carey, J. (2025, April 22). Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist

Davies, D. (2025, April 22). America’s path to ‘competitive authoritarianism’: Political scientist warns U.S. democracy is unraveling. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/1246322283/levitsky-harvard-democracy

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.

The Atlantic. (2025, April 17). A loophole that would swallow the Constitution. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/04/trump-constitution-abrego-garcia/682487/

The Guardian. (2025, April 20). The Trump-Harvard showdown is the latest front in a long conservative war against academia. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/20/harvard-trump-conservative-history-academia

Vanity Fair. (2025, April 23). Trump’s attacks on press freedom are paving the way for authoritarianism. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-press-freedom-authoritarianism

AP News. (2025, March 15). Trump’s moves test the limits of presidential power and the resilience of US democracy. https://apnews.com/article/542ac437a58880e81c052f8f2df1643f

Trump’s Rejection of Judicial Authority

By

On April 17, 2025

In Donald Trump

GREENBELT, MARYLAND – APRIL 15: Protesters show support for Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, outside Federal Court on April 15, 2025 in Greenbelt, Maryland. The Trump administration admits Abrego Garcia was deported accidentally but has not yet acted on a judge’s order to facilitate his return to the U.S. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The ongoing refusal of the Trump administration to comply with a United States Supreme Court order to assist in the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia marks a chilling affront to the American legal system and the principle of judicial supremacy. Garcia, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and father of a disabled child, was wrongly deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, in direct violation of an existing court order. The administration later acknowledged that his removal was an “administrative error”—yet, despite this admission, it has failed to take any substantial action to correct it (Kirchgaessner, 2025). This failure is not simply a bureaucratic misstep. It represents a dangerous consolidation of executive power at the expense of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Upon his arrival in El Salvador, Garcia was detained in the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a mega-prison that has gained international notoriety for its brutal conditions and widespread human rights violations (D’Onfro, 2025). His detention there was not based on any criminal wrongdoing, but rather on the Salvadoran government’s agreement to hold him after his improper deportation from the United States. Legal advocates, human rights observers, and lawmakers have described his treatment as an egregious miscarriage of justice, compounded by the U.S. government’s refusal to seek his repatriation.

On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued a ruling ordering the federal government to “facilitate” Garcia’s return. This was not merely a suggestion—it was a binding judicial order grounded in well-established principles of due process and the right to legal redress (Van Hollen, 2025). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, affirming that Garcia’s deportation was unconstitutional and that the executive branch was obligated to act. When the matter reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices unanimously upheld the lower courts’ findings. Though the Court did not mandate Garcia’s immediate return—citing the limitations of compelling action from a foreign sovereign—it left no ambiguity regarding the federal government’s duty to actively work toward his release (Reeves, 2025).

The Trump administration’s response to this unanimous rebuke by the judiciary has been marked not by compliance but by continued defiance. President Trump has claimed that the administration lacks the authority to retrieve Garcia from El Salvador, despite the fact that it was the United States that deported him in the first place. In a joint statement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Trump asserted that the situation is now out of his hands, a position contradicted by constitutional scholars and the federal courts alike (D’Onfro, 2025; Kirchgaessner, 2025). This abdication of responsibility undermines the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government and sets a precedent in which executive officials may disregard lawful court orders without consequence.

The implications of this case extend far beyond the personal suffering of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his family. They cut to the heart of American constitutional democracy. When a president refuses to obey a lawful order from the Supreme Court, he does not merely flout protocol—he challenges the very structure of governance. The U.S. legal system depends on the principle that no individual, including the president, is above the law. By ignoring the Court’s decision, the Trump administration has placed itself outside this principle, signaling that judicial mandates are subject to executive convenience rather than constitutional obligation.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has taken the unusual step of traveling to El Salvador to personally advocate for Garcia’s release, has characterized the administration’s inaction as a “constitutional crisis” (Van Hollen, 2025). Legal experts and political observers have warned that this incident could erode public confidence in the judiciary and embolden future administrations to disregard unfavorable rulings. Edward Luce (2025), writing for Reuters, noted that “defying the Supreme Court is not just a political gambit—it is a direct assault on the legitimacy of the courts themselves.” If this approach is allowed to stand unchallenged, it risks normalizing a pattern of executive overreach that may be far more damaging to American democracy than any single deportation.

This episode also raises serious questions about the role of international diplomacy in protecting human rights. By deporting a lawful resident into the custody of a foreign prison system with a documented history of abuse, and then refusing to advocate for his return, the U.S. government has abandoned not only Garcia but also its commitment to due process and basic human dignity. The fact that the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision has been effectively ignored should alarm anyone who values the rule of law.

The crisis surrounding Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation is more than a legal dispute; it is a moral reckoning. It confronts Americans with the question of whether the constitutional checks and balances that have long defined our system of government still hold in practice. The judiciary must not be reduced to a symbolic institution whose rulings can be disregarded at will by the executive branch. Upholding the Court’s authority is not optional—it is essential to preserving the democratic fabric of the nation. If the president is permitted to ignore the courts with impunity, the consequences will reverberate through every aspect of American governance, weakening the very foundations of justice and accountability.

References

D’Onfro, J. (2025, April 10). Trump escalates fight over deportees in El Salvador, weighs sending Americans there next. TIME. https://time.com/7277797/trump-escalates-fight-over-deportees-in-el-salvador-weighs-sending-americans-there-next/

Kirchgaessner, S. (2025, April 8). Judges threaten to prosecute Trump officials over deportation of migrants. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/08/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-trump-court

Luce, E. (2025, April 17). Defiance of U.S. Supreme Court poses tricky price. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/defiance-us-supreme-court-is-tricky-price-2025-04-17/

Reeves, R. (2025, April 12). Supreme Court rebukes Trump over deportation case, calls for Garcia’s return. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/12/us/politics/supreme-court-garcia-deportation.html

Van Hollen, C. (2025, April 14). Statement on efforts to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia. U.S. Senate Press Release. https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-efforts-to-return-kilmar-abrego-garcia

Page 1 of 2

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén