What if Trump Wins: Envision What Happens After Trump

 

Category	Activity
Protect people being targeted	Mutual aid society Fundraising for nonprofits Underground railroad
Defend existing institutions	Outreach to veterans/families/military Citizen scientist to assist EPA Find grants to strengthen elections
Envision what comes after Trump	Cultural/psychological grounding Constitutional convention
Resistance	Paperclip movement among civil servants Strikes Tax resistance

The next useful option suggested by What if Trump Wins is to envision what comes after Trump.  After all, the authors point out, simply reacting to what Trump does gives him the entire initiative and lets him set the agenda, which creates an obvious advantage for him.  Trump won because people were not happy with the way things were going.  To defeat him, we have to offer a positive agenda.

Actually, I am not entirely convinced.  Trump won because people were upset about inflation and chaos at the border.  If he continues to break Rule Number One of Smart Authoritarians (only take unpopular actions if they advance your power), we may be able to defeat him simply by promising "change."  Nonetheless, we do need a positive agenda for what comes after Trump if we want to avoid breaking into hopeless factional fighting and if we want to prevent a future Trump from threatening democracy.

In every other category, the authors offer three options.  Here they offer only two -- offer cultural grounding to the movement or hold a constitutional convention to propose amendments.  This means there are only eleven categories instead of twelve and causes some unevenness when the groups team up at the end, but let that go.

Provide cultural grounding for the movement.

I found it interesting that the authors saw this as useful, given that they generally warn against limiting yourself to self-expression, such as posting on social media and marching in the streets. At the same time, there is no doubt that a movement of this type needs cultural grounding in the form of songs, art, symbol, and the like.  It is also true that if activists do not practice self-care, they will burn out and end up achieving nothing.  The authors envision "cultural grounding" as including healing circles for mutual aid societies supporting immigrants under attack, and psychological support for whistle blowers being protected by the underground railroad, as well as music, body work, poems, and healing practices.  As this account may suggest, it also means being in contact with many different groups opposing Trump who may not be aware of each other.  And it may mean bringing them together and coordinating them.  This makes support work very important indeed!

This category also differs from the others in that the authors do not offer the alternatives of scaling up or not.  Instead, the strike committee invites you to a meeting in which they plan a large-scale strike to protest Trump's plans to stay in office past his second term.  You, the culture worker, do not really have a role in planning the strike, just keeping everyone grounded and keeping them from rushing into action unthinkingly.  Your actions in grounding and working together may save the strike committee from splitting into factions all going off in different directions and unable to achieve anything.  Important, indeed!  And I assume that in real life there are people doing something very much like this.  

Constitutional Convention:

Just to be clear, our Constitution's provision on amendments says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. . .

In other words, amendment by constitutional convention requires request by two-thirds of the states and ratification by three-fourths of the states.  Which is to say, the "convention" will simply be offering suggestions that are in no way legally binding.  But they can create serious political pressure -- really the only use of such pressure the book offers. 

The convention starts in Philadelphia (site of the original Constitutional Convention), in which people express their commitment to the Constitution and offer changes to protect against future Trumps -- most particularly, amendments to make clear that corporations are not people and money is not speech.  Other reforms are discussed (it does not say which ones) and the organizers propose tens of thousands of conventions to be held across the country.  Civil servants from the Paperclip Movement pledge to support them.

So, once again, you are offered the alternatives of running a local convention or setting up conventions across the country.  As with (most of) the other alternatives, going national is essential to be truly effective, but a national network is made up of local chapters, so those are important too.  The authors show a distinct ideological agenda here, with all of the conventions following the same format (presumably learned at the pre-convention) and coming up with similar measures, probably pushed by the convention sponsors.  Under the general format, the convention will last three days.  The first day will be dedicated to learning about the Constitutions, the second day to making proposals, and the third day to voting on them.  The last day is like a science fair, with people walking around and hearing debates about various proposals. Some people attend online.  On a large electronic board, people see results coming in from other towns.  

The authors anticipate that there will be wide agreement on eliminating money from politics, setting term limits for senators and judges, ending secret holds and the filibuster, "breaking apart" the two-party system (how?) and creating a pathway to citizenship.  Other proposals such as dealing with crime, guns, and future immigration, are more controversial and are saved for later conventions (or, perhaps, for the usual political process).  The authors envision your local convention having turnout comparable to "some elections."  They also envision national leaders traveling across the country setting up numerous conventions.  (You set up 43).

I have some questions here.  I previously questioned whether people would actually care about the abstract, procedural issues raised here, as opposed to something with more immediate impact on their lives.  But I suppose after spending a day learning what is in the constitution and why it focuses on procedural issues, people may start thinking in different terms.  I am also going to suspect a certain amount of manipulation by the organizers to get the results they want.   I am also curious about the three days.  Are they set over a three-day weekend (Labor Day, maybe), or three successive Saturdays?  Either way, that would seem to exclude service workers who regularly work on Saturdays and holidays.  But let that go.  

I am also interested in whether all these conventions are taking place at the same time.  The part about simultaneous conventions and electronic boards following what is happening in other cities certainly seems to suggest that.  The organizer going from one city to another setting up conventions seems to suggest they happen on different dates.  Several alternatives present themselves.  Maybe the traveling organizer is pre-planning conventions all set to take place on the same day.  Or maybe holding tens of thousands of simultaneous conventions in a country with a population of over 300 million is not feasible and there are multiple coordinated conventions at different times.  The authors are not clear, perhaps intentionally.

Well, to state the obvious, that had not happened.  There have been coordinated marches and protests, but nothing like these coordinated conventions.

Also, I find it interesting that the authors assume these conventions can operate in the open and not be harassed by either the government or rightwing militias.  That seems accurate, based on the protest marches that have taken place without incident.  Even in the most brutal phase of the crackdown in Minneapolis, crackdown coexisted with large-scale protests that were not disrupted.  The authors are assuming tens of thousands of towns, and turnout comparable to some elections (it does not say which ones!).  Like large-scale protests, that is just more people that government can hope to arrest, although it might target the organizers.  That mostly has not happened so far, except where ICE is concerned, but recently there have been alarming developments.

Finally, I started to say that one of these things is not like the others.  Running a local convention takes only three days; the other activities the authors suggest are ongoing.  But that is not actually true.  Presumably setting up a local convention is enough to keep you busy.  You would have to rent a venue, buy refreshments, advertise, set up a social media account and possibly a website, circulate your plans, perhaps design and print brochures, etc. etc.  Still, it does seem reasonable to assume that other people opposing Trump could take three days out from their work to attend.

And when the convention is over, the planners will find their work done and perhaps join some other group.  Yes, granted, they will be tired at the end and want to take a well-deserved break.  But Trump will still be in power and still wreaking havoc, so after the local convention planners have had time to recover, maybe they will want to join one of the other groups.

Reflections on the Gerrymanders

 

The original gerrymander

I was confused by reports on the latest Supreme Court outrage.  A decision that allows states to gerrymander to reduce minority representation but not to increase it???  How does that work?

It appears that the answer is that the Supreme Court held that states may not take race into account in drawing voting districts may may consider partisanship.  The practical effect of this was to remove the last barrier to Republican gerrymandering in southern states.  Up till now, Republican legislatures in the South were not allowed to deliberately break up Black districts.  They are now free to do so, so long as they claim to be setting boundaries for partisan, rather than racial, reasons.  Presumably Democratic states could do the opposite -- maximize minority representation so long as they claim partisan motives.

Naturally Republicans are cackling gleefully, boasting about redrawing their districts to ensure that Republicans have permanent control of Congress.

Just last week, Republicans were outraged that Virginia had redrawn its districts to move Democrats' advantage from 6-5 to 10-1.  And given the general makeup of the Virginia electorate, that move, taken by itself, would be egregiously unfair.  But Republicans are ignoring their own behavior leading up to the Virginia move, redrawing electoral maps in Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina, with Florida next in line.  

And no, this is not two children on the playground yelling about who started it, or a game of tit for tat. This is about whether Democrats will unilaterally disarm, giving Republicans a complete free hand to draw districts to their advantage while Democrats refrain.  Last week Republicans were denouncing how unfair the Virginia gerrymander was and pointing out other Democratic states that were gerrymandered (sometimes even denouncing states with just one Representative for not having a proportionate share of Republicans!) while totally ignoring the gerrymanders in Republican states.  Now Republicans are boasting about redrawing districts so as to ensure that Democrats can never hold Congress again.  

Sigh!  I know Republicans don't read my blog.  (Neither does anyone else, really).  But simply put, the options are like this:

No one gerrymanders	Republican gerrymander Democrats don’t
Democrats gerrymander Republicans don’t	Both parties gerrymander

So far as I can tell, Democrats, given the opportunity to rank their preferences, would do it as follows:

1. No one gerrymanders	4. Republican gerrymander Democrats don’t
3. Democrats gerrymander Republicans don’t	2. Both parties gerrymander

Republicans, by contrast, appear to rank their preferences as follows:

4. No one gerrymanders	1. Republican gerrymander Democrats don’t
4. Democrats gerrymander Republicans don’t	4. Both parties gerrymander

It is not even clear to me that Republicans are able to distinguish among the other three options.

Latest on Trump's Power

I previously offered eleven signs to look for to suggest that Trump's power might be diminishing, or at least that he might be taking longer than he had hoped to consolidate it.

1. Media outlets bought by Trump allies are willing to criticize or oppose him;
2. Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line;
3. Attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never materialize;
4. Universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him;
5. The Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in;
6. Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them;
7. Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them;
8. Growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization;
9. ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking;
10. Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes;
11. Big money interests start standing up to him.

Looking it over, I do want to make a few changes. More significant than continued media independence but less significance than loss of control over Republicans in Congress would be Trump losing control of Republicans at the state level.

And I really was too snarky in suggesting that the ultimate sign of his downfall would be defiance by big money interests. Certainly that would happen very late in the game, and only if big money interests were certain that Trump was finished. What will never end is death threats by a few supporters. No matter how unpopular Trump may become, in a country with a population over 300 million there will always be some supporters left. And it doesn't take many to be online terrorists.

So, by these new standards, where are we?

1. Media outlets bought by Trump allies are willing to criticize or oppose him. Look, I haven't been following all the in's and out's of CBS News or the Washington Post. Both, I realize, are failing because they are alienating their old audiences while being too establishment to attract new ones. But I do see critical stories in both.
2. State Republicans defy Trump. Indiana Republicans defied him in refusing to gerrymander. And now when Trump excluded Democrats from his meeting with the National Governor's Association, Oklahoma Republican Governor Kevin Stitt let it be known that Republican governors would not attend if their Democratic colleagues were not invited. Trump backed down. Stitt also criticized Trump's proposal to deploy the Texas National Guard to Chicago last October. An encouraging sign.
3. Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line. Well, Congressional Republicans famously revolted over the Epstein files. None House Republicans defied Trump to vote for Obamacare subsidies, although they did so with the knowledge that the measure would fail in the Senate. And six House Republicans voted against tariffs, a meaningless vote. Trump was still able to twist House Republican arms and get them to fund the government except Homeland Security. I suppose the real tests will be over voting restrictions and attempts to reign in ICE.
4. Attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never
   
   materialize. This one is a mixed bag, and a disturbing one. I think we can say that Stephen Millers "all of government" attempt to shut down the opposition has been dropped. At the same time, a very disturbing memo, alleging that "Antifa" was engaged in widespread terrorism, including "organized doxing of law enforcement, mass rioting and destruction in our cities, violent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement, targeting of public officials or other political actors." In terms of specific examples, the memo listed the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and numerous actions opposing ICE. The memo called for federal law enforcement to review their files within 14 days and make a report, and for granted to local law enforcement to be conditional on cooperation against "terrorism."  It also called for setting up a tip line and cash rewards within 30 days and a report on "Antifa" and associated groups within 60 days.  Given the focus on doxing and obstructing law enforcement and anti-ICE actions, the memo gives the distinct impression that immigration advocates are the targets.  Terrifying reports are coming out about ICE spying on activists, and using social media and other internet tracking tools to evade the need for warrants.  Team Trump appears to have decided that dissent will be tolerated -- except in matters of immigration.
5. Universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him.  Well, UCLA faculty and unions apparently won a victory on behalf of the university. Unions had an employee reinstated when he was fired for heckling Trump.  So some institutions are standing up to him. But not enough to make a trend.
6. The Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in.  The Supreme Court has made a bizarre ruling limiting Trump's ability to deploy the National Guard until the regular army has failed to keep order.  It doesn't make sense and seems like a potentially pyrrhic victory, but thus far it has prevented any further deployments of the National Guard.  The bad news:  ICE is effectively a paramilitary, not so well behaved as the National Guard.  On the other hand, ICE has a lot less personnel than the National Guard.  Coming up:  rulings on tariffs, Federal Reserve independence, and birthright citizenship.  Stay tuned.
7. Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them.  Clear attempts to rig the election by voting restrictions are underway.  Stay tuned.
8. Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them.  Ditto.
9. Growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization.  Newly elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has terminated state police agreements with ICE, but allows local police to continue such agreements.  I recall hearing a Maine sheriff recently breaking up with ICE after they targeted one of his deputies, but cannot find the link.  These are promising but still fall well short of a trend.
10. ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking.  One hears about discontent in the ranks, but none of that has actually led to widespread resignations.  The Department of Justice, by contrast, has seen widespread resignations, to the extent that its is experiencing serious personnel shortages and being limited in its ability to function.  The federal prosecutor in charge of Somali fraud investigations is actually representing Don Lemon!  So the federal government is actually seeing a reduction in its coercive power -- just not where it matters.
11. Big money interests start standing up to him.  No.  If Trump's power collapses, this will be a very late sign.
12. Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes.  Ain't gonna happen, for the reasons discussed above.

A Response to Conservatives Who Say the Law Must Be Upheld

 

Following Twitter posts and responses, I have seen a certain viewpoint coalesce among the non-crazy right that nonetheless ultimately supports the Minneapolis crackdown.  That viewpoint basically acknowledges that yes, La Migra is engaging in excessive force and yes, this is bad, but it is a side issue.  The real issue is Minneapolis' defiance of the law and Trump cannot relent or he will be creating a de facto mob veto on the laws.  Matthew Yglesias quotes Rich Lowery on the issue and I have seen similar comments by Erick Erickson and Dan McLaughlin.  

So, what do they mean by defiance?  Several answers are possible, but they fit in two main categories -- resistance by government and resistance by private individuals.

Sanctuary policies by state and local government

The usual answer we get is that the feds have to crack down because of blue state and city sanctuary policies.  Invariably, such statements are rather vague about what "sanctuary policies" mean.  Sanctuary policies can mean many different things:

• policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal civil immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants;
• policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law;
• policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention;
• policies preventing immigration detention centers;
• policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status;
• policies restricting the sharing of certain information on immigrants with the federal government;
• policies restricting local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and
• policies refusing to allow ICE into local jails without a judicial warrant.

Hence someone denouncing "sanctuary policies" can be making very different demands on state and local governments.  Do they mean that state and local governments should hold any inmate ICE asks to have held for deportation?  That state and local governments should automatically turn over the names of everyone who is arrested so ICE can check their immigration status?  That police and other state and local officials should ask people's immigration status and provide ICE with the information if asked?  That local police should actively take part in immigration enforcement?  Most people denouncing "sanctuary policies" are rather vague on that point.

But in any event, the law is clear.  State and local governments may not actively obstruct or seek to exclude federal officials enforcing federal laws and, in fact, "sanctuary jurisdictions" are well aware of this restriction and are not actively obstructing federal officials.  But the anti-commandeering doctrine says that state and local jurisdictions may not be compelled to enforce federal law.  Any city or state that wishes to passively step aside and leave immigration entirely up to the feds is within its rights to do so.

There have been accusations (can't find link) that government officials may be actively participating in warning immigrants of the presence of immigration officials.  That is more of a legal gray area.

Individual Resistance and the "Mob Veto"

The other, related argument, is that government should not back down and allow laws to go unenforced because of resistance by private citizens.  There can be no doubt, wherever La Migra goes it runs into resistance by private citizens.  The resistance in Minneapolis is particularly intense because the surge there is particularly intense, but the difference is one of degree, not of kind.  Individual resistance can also take legal, semi-legal, and illegal forms.

It is legal to teach immigrants their rights and tell them that they do not have to admit enforcement agents without a judicial warrant.  It is legal to deliver groceries to immigrant homes or hold school online or take other action so that immigrants can avoid going out in public where not warrant is needed.  It is legal to film law enforcement in action.  It is legal to protest outside ICE facilities.  These things make enforcement harder to do, but they are not, in and of themselves, criminal obstruction.

Assaulting federal officials and damaging federal property are crimes, of course, and should be treated as such.  Creating loud disturbances at night in hotels where federal agents are staying may violate some sort of noise ordinance or misdemeanor offense of disturbing the peace.  Seeking to block La Migra from leaving their facility or interfering with an arrest really is criminal obstruction, though some might defend it as civil disobedience.

And then there are people who scan Migra signals, trace Migra vehicles, text out warnings among networks, and follow La Migra honking horns and blowing whistles to warn people away.  There are people who chase La Migra away, yelling and cursing and shouting "Shame!"  I will admit to not knowing enough about obstruction law to know whether or at what point these might be considered criminal obstruction.

So, is it essential for the feds not to back down, even from legal opposition of this type so as not to allow a mob veto?  One obvious response is that it is not unheard-of for government to back off enforcing laws or to change them in the face of overwhelming public opposition.  That is what the Civil Rights Movement was all about, after all.  Or, to take a more recent and less emotionally charged example, the federal government has tacitly allowed is anti-marijuana laws to go unenforced, while many states authorize the most flagrant violations of federal marijuana law.  If the federal government suddenly changed its mind and decided that marijuana laws must be enforced with all rigor, it seems safe to assume that there would be strong resistance at many levels.  Would this resistance be reason to decide that marijuana laws are outdated and should be left alone, or grounds for an all-out crackdown to show that federal authority could not be defied?  Reasonable minds might differ.

Resistance to federal lawlessness

In any event, there is an obvious problem with all of these rather dry and abstract discussions.  They ignore what La Migra is actually doing on the ground.  Its actions go well beyond anything that could possibly be defended as necessary to enforce immigration law and stand up against "sanctuary policies" or a "mob veto."

La Migra is not enforcing the law.  It is being grossly lawless.  It is stopping and harassing anyone who looks too brown.  Meeting a wholly unrealistic arrest quota by random arrests of anyone who isn't white enough.  Entering houses without a judicial warrant.  Leaving abandoned cars across the road, windows broken, seatbelts cut, occupants arrested.  Harassing Somalis, 90% of whom are citizens.  Arresting people who have been granted asylum and shipping them from Minnesota to Texas for groundless "status review."  That is what the good people of Minneapolis, and the people of Los Angeles and Chicago before, have been resisting.  Even if you believe that the feds must continue enforcing immigration law just to show that they won't allow a "mob veto," it does not logically follow that the feds must continue to "enforce the law" in the blatantly lawless manner they have been using.  It is possible to step up immigration enforcement without behaving like complete thugs.

What other enforcement options are there?

I have made various suggestions about measures that might reign in La Migra.  Do I have any suggestions as to how deportations hawks might step up the pace without resorting to all-out lawlessness?  After all, Trump ran as a deportation hawk and won.  He can reasonably say that he has a mandate from the people to step up deportations.  

I can think of several such measures.

In terms of state and local sanctuary laws, the feds can sue the challenge them.  Trump can issue executive orders requiring cooperation from local jurisdictions, or seek anti-sanctuary legislation or withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.  Just to be clear, these measures with all probably fail as unconstitutional "commandeering."  More likely to pass constitutional muster is some sort of measure for offering police assistance to local jurisdictions but making it contingent on cooperating in immigration.

Or, circumvent the refusal to report immigration status of arrestees or honor immigration detainers by trawling through arrest records for immigration status and getting a judicial warrant.  Or show up in courtrooms (public places) when someone with a deportation order is being arraigned.  Or keep a steady court presence just in case.

In terms of general enforcement, vastly expand the number of immigration judges and deportation lawyers to speed up asylum and deportation proceedings.  Remember, it is swiftness of consequences, not severity, that is the most effective deterrent.  Do more employer audits.  Go through outstanding deportation orders, find the individuals, and get a judicial warrant.  

No doubt at this point deportation hawks would ask, would these measures be acceptable to our side.  And the honest answer is probably no.  Then what is the point?  Simple.  All policies have opponents.  No matter what the policy, you will doubtless find many people who do not consider it acceptable.  Normal, healthy politics is all about policy disputes.  But it would reduce the issue of immigration enforcement to an ordinary, mundane policy dispute.  Right now, immigration enforcement is truly a secondary issue.  The primary issue is complete, all-out government lawlessness.

Donald Trump at One Year

 

So, here we are at the one-year mark.  The good news is that civil society continues to flourish and democracy, though wounded, is far from dead.  The bad news is that we have three more years of this and whether democracy can take three more years is anybody's guess.

The obvious thing to do now is a retrospective, sort of like the 100 day retrospective.  How has Trump compared to my worst fears?  A lot has happened since May, but in terms of my fears, less than one might think.

Things that were not as bad as I feared:

Attempts to shut down the opposition:  That was what I feared most -- not so much that he would prosecute political opponents (the independent judiciary would thwart that), but that he would use federal money, tax exempt status, and other regulatory actions I did not know enough about to predict to cut off all funding for the opposition and establish a de facto one party state.  That hasn't happened.  It shows no signs of happening.  I got nervous again after the Charlie Kirk assassination, especially when Steve Miller pledged an "all of government" approach to shut down the opposition in all forms.  That hasn't happened, and so far as I can tell they really aren't planning to shut the entire opposition -- just anyone who opposes ICE.

Schedule F: Again, I considered this very dangerous because it could fly under people's radar screens.  The entire federal bureaucracy could become a patronage organization and an instrument for enforcing ideology and punishing enemies.  In this I underestimated just how much Republicans in general and Trump in particular hate the federal bureaucracy.  Instead, he sent Elon Musk in to wreck general havoc until the entire Cabinet revolted and demanded that he go.  This seriously undercut any plan to weaponize the federal bureaucracy by keeping it from functioning altogether.  Even Republicans are quietly trying to pick up the pieces.

Right wing militias: What was the biggest difference between Trump and Hitler when they both came into power?  Hitler had a large private army and Trump did not.  I feared that after Trump pardoned the Proud Boys for their attempt to overturn the election, they would become the new Storm Troopers and terrorize Trump's opponents into submission.  Yes, we do have a serious online Brown Shirt mob, menacing opponents with threats, SWATting, and unwanted pizza deliveries.  But online Brown Shirts are still not as bad a the real thing, which has not emerged.  And strong-willed opponents have defied them.  The real question is, have the Proud Boys just joined ICE?

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: No, seriously!  I'm not saying these guys are good, obviously.  Patel seems unduly fond of the privileges of the office and runs the FBI like an internet troll, tweeting out possible developments before they are confirmed.  But Kash Patel's FBI has not been fabricating evidence or infiltrating opposition groups (so far as we know). When an arrest turns out to be a mistake, they release the suspect.  Patel appears to have acknowledged that agents fired for being involved in the January 6 investigation were being treated unfairly, blamed his superiors for their being fired, and even encouraged them to sue.  And the FBI did genuinely good work in catching the Capitol Hill bomber and did not cut him a break for being a Trump supporter.  When confronted about this, Bongino answered, "I was paid in the past for my opinions. One day I will be back in that space but that's not what I'm paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts."  And, no, it is not great that Bongino thinks podcasters have no reason to show fidelity to the facts.  But at least he thinks law enforcement does have that obligation.  Yes, I know it is a low bar to clear, but just watch what ICE is up to and recognize that the FBI is not that.

Media control: My fears were somewhat outdated, focusing on attempts to control media by threatening advertisers. I did not understand the degree to which people get their news on social media and how much control of algorithms controls what people see.  I also feared attempts by Trump supporters to buy up media outlets, making mergers contingent on coverage, and perhaps censorship by the FCC.  The buying of out of outlets and politicization of mergers has certainly happened.  Bari Weiss is attempting to subvert CBS.  Many of us feared that big money owners of media like Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post and Patrick Soon Shiong of the LA Times would fall into line.  Well, the LA Times has been absolutely unsparing in reporting ICE outrages.  The Washington Post continues to say "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and to do fearless exposes.  (See below).  And the Administration continues to leak like a sieve.

The federal district and appellate level judiciary:  I think most of us feared what sort of judges Trump would appoint.  "Most of us" appears to include Federal judges, who have fearlessly and consistently ruled against Trump regardless of which President appointed them.  Very few have retired, presumably fearing just that, and most have apparently vowed to leave the bench only under a different Administration or in a coffin.  Of course, sooner or later one of those has to happen. . . 

Foreign policy:  Democratic backsliding is taking place the world over.  If democracy fell in the US, what chance did it have anywhere?  Instead, we are seeing some degree of a thermostatic reaction across Europe -- far right political parties losing popularity because of their association with Trump.  I feared Trump would withdraw from NATO and halt all aid to Ukraine.  That may yet happen, but it is happening in slow motion, which allows other countries to adapt.  I do think he did the right thing in recognizing the new government in Syria and seems to work better with Arab governments than any other President.

Things that are about what I feared:

Pardons:  Trump pardoned the January 6 defendants.  He said he would.  He is prepared to pardon anyone who supports him, bribes him, or claims to be persecuted by the Deep State.  Is anyone surprised?

Immigration:

I said at the 100 day mark:

I was afraid of ICE teaming up with local law enforcement and possibly informal militias, of Trump calling up the National Guard where the local authorities would not cooperate, of large-scale workplace raids, of makeshift outdoor facilities, of house-to-house searches. . . 

Most of this had not happened at the time, but there had been a group of men deported without trial to a torture prison in El Salvador, with the threat of many, many more to come.  That was thwarted, but, well, the rest of it is very much with us.  What we are seeing now is very much what I most feared.

Prosecution of political opponents:  I believed this would be constrained by an independent judiciary and trial by jury.  There have been a few attempts to prosecute high level political opponents, and more numerous (but still not very numerous) attempts to prosecute First Amendment protected activity surrounding La Migara.  So far the independent judiciary has shot down all attempt to prosecute high-level opponents and most attempt to prosecute First Amendment protected activity.

Abortion;  I did not expect much action on this.  Trump does not care much about it and learned from the 2022 midterms that it was toxic.  So he has wisely stayed away from it.

Things that are worse than I feared:

Tariffs:  I was not afraid of tariffs.  I thought of them as something that could hurt the economy, but not a threat to democracy or the rule of law.  I was wrong.  First of all, thus far tariffs have not hurt the economy and especially have not increased prices as much as I expected.  But more importantly, wildly arbitrary tariffs have been a mechanism for bullying and coercing other countries.  They have also been a source of unaccountable money that can evade Congress's power of the purse strings.  Tariffs are much more dangerous than I realized and must be stopped.

DOGE:  Words fail me.  It certainly never occurred to me that Elon Musk would make a serious attempt to seize control of the government and institute a dictatorship of money and tech.  Nor did I anticipate how much completely random damage he would cause before moving on, or the extent to which he would truly stage a tech coup by shutting federal employees out of their computers and even out of their offices.  The attempt failed.  There may very well come a time when computer programs are good enough to let 89 tech bros take over the entire federal government.  But we are not there.  We are not anywhere close.  I think the government shutdown was one last attempt to create a dictatorship of money and tech, this time by Russ Vought.  It failed.  But the danger was very real, and so is the damage.  The damage is still very much with us.

Attacks on universities and law firms:  On the one hand, yes, I fully expected Trump to attack the independence of universities.  It was what Orban did, after all.  It would be harder than in Hungary, obviously, because we have so many more universities, but I did expect it.  I think I expected the attack to take the form of attacks on college endowments and threats to their tax-exempt status.  It did not occur to me how much universities depend on federal grants and I had no idea how much the depend on foreign students.  And attacks on law firms never even occurred to me.

The Supreme Court:  I did not have much confidence in the Supreme Court ever since they ruled that Republican Presidents have an unrestricted license to crime but left a little wiggle room just in case a Democrat is ever able to be President again.  But I at least expected them to set forth their reasoning when upholding blatantly illegal actions instead of issuing emergency rulings that would allow the illegal acts to continue until full briefing and argument.

Health and science: Insane.  I honestly did not expect much movement on this.  RFK, Jr. is hard at work seeking to ruin our healthcare system and undermine science.

The budget;  I did not expect any serious cuts.  I expected the Republicans to follow their usual playbook of making a huge fuss about deficits so long as Democrats were in power and losing all interests as soon as they took power.  I did not take impoundment too seriously because it would be obviously unpopular.  I was wrong.  Republicans have not gone as far as they would like, but they have gone a lot farther than I expected.

Was Ice Barbie a grownup in the room?

The grownups in the room:  Like many people, I was much relieved when Trump named Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Scott Bessent as Secretary of the Treasury, Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, and Suzie Wiles as White House Chief of Staff.  A President Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or even Chris Christie might have made the same appointments.  Pam Bondi as Attorney General?  Not great, but preferable to either Matt Gaetz or, say, Ken Paxton.  As Attorney General of Florida, she was presumably reasonably qualified and, though somewhat corrupt, did not seem insane.  As for Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, she met my two most important criteria for the job -- she was not Steve Bannon or Steve Miller.  Well, if Kash Patel was not as bad as I feared, the grownups in the room have proven completely useless.*  

Violence against protesters:  I was actually not too worried about this.  Apparently Project 2025 mentions use of the National Guard, which many have taken to mean shooting peaceful protesters.  I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this referred to actual violent riots.  And I was reasonably confident that the 2020 riots were an aberration, born of frustration with COVID lockdowns and would not recur.  And, indeed, there have been many large-scale protests in the first year of Trump with (almost) no riots.**  And the protests have not been met with violence except where La Migra is involved.  Here the violence has been serious -- teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and even live ammunition.  It seems to be the firm and settled position of the Administration that where La Migra goes, the First and Fourth Amendments are suspended. And, indeed, while there does not appear to be a systematic attempt to shut down the opposition in general, there does appear to by a systematic and violent attempt to outlaw any championship of immigrants.

Corruption:  Honestly, I didn't give this subject much thought, assuming we would have other things to think about.  And in one sense, at least, corruption to enrich one man is less dangerous than a systematic attempt to turn the federal government into a patronage instrument for one party.  Parties are a lot more enduring than individuals, after all.  But the extent to which Trump is basing pardons and policy on bribes is truly alarming.  I think I need to back and read articles about systematic corruption to see if we are there yet.

Foreign policy: Seriously, this has gotten alarming lately.  Trump appears to be hijacking Venezuela's oil to create is own private slush fund, and now a "Board of Peace," which appears to be a multi-billion dollar private slush fund to do who knows what.  And threats to start a war with NATO over Greenland?!?!?!  The man appears to be losing his mind!  This is one area that is both not as bad and worse than my fears.  And the worst part -- the not as bad part seems to have passed.  The worse part has just begun.

_______________________________________________
*Actually, I suspect that some day we will learn that some of them have actually been reigning him in, just not as well as the grownups from Trump 1.0.
**There were some significant riots in Los Angeles in June with cars burning and people waving the Mexican flag, but only within about two blocks of the federal building.  Bad, but not on a 2020 scale.

So What Can We Do?

 So, let us suppose that I am right, that the current ICE reign of terror will lead to labor shortages that are unsustainable and therefore won't be sustained.  Sooner or later it will have to end, the question being when and how.  

My guess was that it will end in about 3-4 months, with some sort of system of allowing employers being allowed to vouch for employees, creating an extremely exploitive system that allows employers to keep their work force in line with the threat of deportation.  ICE would have to respect such a certification and therefore be forced to relent somewhat in its lawlessness, but would still have open season on anyone with out such a certification, including immigrants with various other kinds of legal protection.  On the plus side, the arrest quota -- and with it, Stephen Miller -- would have to go.

But that is purely guesswork on my part.  Even assuming the current reign of terror comes to an end well short of the mass deportations Trump has promised, it might end sooner or it might end later.  It might end on better terms, or it might end on worse.  Political pressure will be a major factor.  So far, Trump is facing a lot of political pressure, both from the hardcore MAGA who will accept nothing short of complete ethnic cleansing, and from financial interests who want it to end.  

What can we do?  My own view, from 30,000 feet up, is that we should think of this as a replay of the Civil Rights Movement -- a fight for public opinion and moral authority.  Whatever builds our moral authority helps to sway public opinion.  And we need to focus, not just on the overall public, but on those specific parts of the public that might have Trump's ear.

What do I suggest?  Here are my ignorant suggestions, from someone who has not idea how to achieve any of this.

Flood social  media with images of ICE outrages.  I realize the difficulty here is that we cannot tell in advance when and where ICE will strike.  On the other hand, I understand there are networks that watch ICE and tracking apps.  There should be ways to move rapid response teams.  Also, reach out to social media influencers and hubs.  If Joe Rogan can turn against Trump on this, maybe others can, too.

Send Congress to investigate detention centers.  ICE is demanding 72 hours notice to allow them to manage appearances.  But if inspections are frequent enough, it will have to be constantly managing appearances and maybe have to do more than appear.  Obviously, regular folks can't do this, but we can urge our Democrats in Congress to do it.

Deploy white people.  There are two advantages here.  White people are much less likely to be ICE targets and therefore are safer.  White people are also at an emotional remove from the issue and therefore less likely to get violent or abusive or do something else that hurts our moral authority.  When Black Lives Matter protests were breaking into riots, it occurred to me the danger might be reduced if you had a Black Woman's March, carrying signs saying "Marching for our men" or a Black Senior's March, carrying signs saying, "Marching for our sons and grandsons."  Downtown LA is a flashpoint, dangerous for Latinos and the scene of riots.  Why not send white people from suburbs with signs saying "Marching for our neighbors."

The Virgin of Guadalupe

Have a song and a symbol.  What song?  Well, not being an immigrant myself, it is not for me to say, but I can give some characteristics.  Make it something catchy and easily learned that becomes the signature tune of the movement.  (The Civil Rights Movement had "We Shall Overcome.")  Make it something that conveys moral authority.  In the case of immigration, that means assuring people of your allegiance.  For that reason, songs in Spanish, with a Mexican beat, are dangerous, just as the Mexican flag is dangerous.  Make it something that comes from the heart.  I get that these two things may be in tension -- a song vowing allegiance to the US may come across as insincere, especially given how the US is behaving now.  I am inclined to think the best bet is some sort of song celebrating the dignity of labor, to stress the point that immigrants are hard workers who contribute to society, and not the moocher their enemies say.  As for symbols, protestors in 2006 wore white to show their peaceful intent.  That sounds good.  I also heard the suggestion of using the Virgin of Guadalupe instead of the Mexican flag as a symbol of ethnic pride.  That sounds good, too.

For white supporters -- carry the US flag and pictures of the Statue of Liberty.  An upside down flag and Lady Liberty covering her face in shame work, too.  Carry posters with the slogan, "No PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," Fifth Amendment. And "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt," Leviticus 19:34.  Since patriotic songs that a liberal can sing from the heart, "This land is your land," or Neil Diamond "Coming to America," or Disney, "It's a Small World."

Stephen Miller

Make Stephen Miller our hate sink.  Making Elon Musk the target of anger worked for DOGE.  Immigration offers three possible targets -- Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, and Stephen Miller.  But it is best to focus everything on just one, and to me the choice is obvious.  ICE Barbie is just a (purportedly) pretty face with nothing behind it.  Tom Homan talks out of both sides of his mouth -- saying in one breath that we are only going after criminals, the worst of the worst, and when confronted with someone completely harmless, says that unauthorized border crossing is a crime, after all.  In other words, he is a PR flack.  He knows how to tack with the wind.  Stephen Miller is the evil genius behind all of this, the one who set the impossible quotas in the first place and, rumor has it, the one running the entire Administration.  And he has none of Trump's or even Musk's charm.  If it is possible for charisma to be negative, he has negative charisma. The mere sight of Steven Miller is enough to make most people want to wash very thoroughly.  

Avoid causing violence or disruption.  Yes, I know people's anger is justified, but it plays badly with public opinion.  My advice -- protest about a block away from federal facilities -- close enough to be seen and heard, but not close enough to start a fight.   Have peace keepers present and isolate any trouble makers.  I have no objection to civil disobedience -- seeking to physically block ICE and so forth, but this should be limited to people who are trained in civil disobedience and not responding to provocations.  If you are not trained, leave the civil disobedience to people who are.

Create a pipeline for ICE officers who want to quit.  At least some ICE officers are reported to be unhappy.  To my mind, ICE breaking apart is the best case scenario, though not a very likely one.  Still, it can't be easy to leave.  Half the people will hate you for having belonged to ICE and the other half will hate you for leaving.  Anyone who wants to be a hero and come forward should be welcome.  But presumably most will want to stay anonymous and get on with their lives with as little fuss as possible.  We should facilitate that.

Above all, seek out allies and minimize enemies.  The broader the coalition, the better the chance for success.  I realize also, the broader the coalition, the greater the chance of it breaking  up once it achieves its narrow goal, ending the current reign of terror, as people disagree on what is to follow.  But that is a different problem for a different day.  Ending the reign of terror comes first.  Who are our allies?

Immigrants and immigration activists.  Obviously.

Anti-Trump activists.  Ditto.

The Catholic Church.  Latinos are no longer as uniformly Catholic as was once the case, but the transnational nature of the Catholic Church makes this type of nationalism anathema to it.  Many  Catholic clergy have come out against the mass deportation regime.

Evangelical megachurches.  Yes, really.  Many of these have large numbers of immigrants in their membership who they will want to protect.  They might want a carveout to allow churches, as well as employers, to vouch for immigrants.  If we can make an alliance here, it is one that Trump will listen to.

Veterans.  Veterans have two roles here.  One is that many are troubled the Trump mobilizing the National Guard in Los Angeles.  Active duty personnel are strictly limited in what they can say.*  Veteran voices can speak up instead.  The other important role is specifically Afghan War veterans arguing for Afghans who put their lives on the line for us and now face being turned over to the Taliban to be tortured and killed.  Vietnam veterans as well -- we admitted Vietnamese who put their lives on the line for us, and they assimilated well.  Come to think of it, Vietnamese Americans may have something to say here also.

Animal lovers.  And now it appears that pets are being abandoned as their owners are arrest.  If nothing else reaches the heartstrings, this should.

Texas and Florida Republicans.  Both states have large Hispanic/Latino populations who vote Republican, but for how much longer?  At least some polls have shown in under water in both states.  And, in fact, a Florida Republican has introduced the Dignity Act, that would give unauthorized immigrants a pathway to legal status.  Nine other Republicans have endorsed the bill as well.

Police.  Maybe not a comfortable alliance, but a useful one.  Most police prefer to focus on street crime and not waste resources on people whose sole offense is unauthorized border crossing, and who pose no threat to public safety.  Besides, when ordinary police start asking immigration questions, non-citizen crime victims are afraid to come forward.  And -- lest certain MAGA types see this as a good thing -- non-citizen witnesses who may help solve a crime may also fear to come forward.  So yes, let us make this alliance even if it is not always comfortable.

Unions.  Many laborers being deported are union members.  If the Republicans want to make themselves into a working class party, unions should carry some weight with them.  And unions will have a strong interest in fighting for a non-exploitive arrangement, on behalf of working people of all ethnicities.

Employers.  This is the most controversial of all.  It means aligning ourselves with big money interests who we traditionally see as the enemy.  And big money interests are apt to seek a very exploitive arrangement.  But they are also the ones most likely to carry sway with Team Trump.  The stakes being what they are now, I don't believe we can afford to alienate any potential allies.

So those are my thoughts.  And I have no idea how to translate any of them into reality.

___________________________________________
*Tom Nichols has written about refusing an unlawful order and says that -- thus far -- what Trump has done falls well short of that.

ICE Compared to DOGE: How Does it End?

 

It didn't take me too long to recognize that Elon Musk's rampage through the federal government was not sustainable and had to come to an end, albeit with great damage.  The same applied to the worst of Trump's tariff's -- the markets cracked the whip, and he retreated to tariffs that were merely damaging, rather than ruinous.*

I would like to think that the same rule applies to mass deportations, that deporting so much of our labor force will become so ruinous that it just has to stop.  But at the same time, Team Trump has invested so many resources in mass deportation, and Republicans are so committed to it that it seems hard to imagine them pulling back.

The case for pessimism

The One Botched, Bungled Boondoggle increases the budget for border enforcement from $34 billion to $168 billion -- nearly a five-fold increase.  This is approximately the combined total of all local police budgets in the US.  It also seeks to hire another 10,000 ICE agents, up from the current 20,000 and as much as a 13-fold increase in the detention and surveillance budget.  Many of these facilities are already built, so there will not be much delay.  And detention and surveillance will be a strong interest group fighting any cuts.  Firing tens of thousands of unionized federal employees is not politically feasible (although DOGE has set an interesting precedent here).  ICE has tasted blood and will be extremely difficult to reign in.  And this seems to be broadly desired by Republicans across the board, being offered as a spoonful of sugar to sweeten the bitter medicine if Medicaid cuts.  The only Republican to have questioned the expansion is Rand Paul, whose only objection appears to be a desire for greater accountability for the expense.  And when Trump briefly relented for farms and hotels he quickly reversed, apparently in response to Republican outcry.

Opinion polls are also revealing.  It appears that Americans believe that ICE has gone too far by 54% to 44%. But 80% of Republicans approve, with 31% even saying that ICE has not gone far enough.  So long as 80% of Republicans support ICE brutality, it will be very hard for Republicans to go against it.

In short, Republicans in general and Trump in particular have made mass deportations their signature policy, created a huge bloc of interests in mass deportations, have a rabid base, and will have great difficulty backing down.

The case or optimism

At the same time, sooner or later the economic consequences of deportations on such a scale will make themselves known.  At the same time, immigrants make up about 19% of the US labor force.  Yes, granted, many of them have legal status, but neither ICE nor hardcore Republicans seem to care.  Including undocumented only, Republicans are proposing to deport nearly a third of the workforce in construction, nearly half our workforce in agriculture, nearly a third of home health workers, and perhaps one out of four or five residential care workers.  Deporting so much of our workforce is going to be seriously disruptive and lead to growing pushback.  Donald Trump is showing signs of wavering, proposing exemptions for workers in agriculture and hospitality, though so far not following through.  Immigrant-heavy industries are beginning to experience labor shortages, especially in agriculture.

And now we are getting reports that even ICE is getting tired of this.  At least some ICE officers disapprove of their agency's lawlessness, although I think it is obvious that others love it.  But it does seem plausible that even agents who like the work are getting tired of starting at 4:00 a.m. and working weekends.  And even pushing so hard, ICE is still falling well short of Stephen Miller's goal of 3,000 arrests a day -- an average of 1,200 per day and only two days with 2,000.  The latest budget seeks to expand ICE's workforce by half -- from 20,000 to 30,000.  It seeks to more than double detainee capacity -- from 41,000 to 100,000.  Even with such an expansion, Miller's quota seems like a stretch. At the same time, this has not (thus far) led to widespread resignations or internal protests, and in the absence of such a response, discontent is not much use.  But it does suggests that the ICE rank and file might be more open to being reigned in than one might expect -- so long as the pressure from above relents.

What to Expect

Well, Elon Musk got kicked out when the rest of Trump's cabinet revolted.  All of them, no matter how rightwing, had actual work to get done and were tired of the disruptions.  Is there a chance of that happening here?  Other departments are being asked to divert more and more resources to deportations.  Some of them must be tired of being diverted from their normal missions.  A lot of employers, many of the Republicans, are getting frustrated with labor shortage.  And even Homeland Security is offering a sweetener to its threats -- the opportunity for anyone who self-deports to apply for readmission.  Tr

Sooner or later -- my guess is about 3-4 months, but that is purely a guess -- labor shortages will get so bad that the Team Trump will see no choice but to relent, at least in agriculture.  And if Trump relents in agriculture, how long can it be before other industries want in as well?  He has already proposed an exception for hospitality.  Construction and healthcare will also want in.  And no doubt others.  Trump has proposed to allow employers to "vouch" for their workforce to protect them from deportation.**  A few points are in order here.  

One is that this sounds terribly exploitive.  It makes it essentially impossible for a laborer to change jobs without a sponsor's agreement, and it allows employers to hold the threat of deportation over anyone they consider out of line.

At the same time, not all employers are purely exploitive.  Many will no doubt be willing to vouch for an employee purely as a protective matter.  In fact, I would expect that even if right wingers can eventually be brought around to such a system, they will be absolutely paranoid about fake certifications.

And finally, this will require at least some relenting in ICE's reign of terror.  An end to workplace raids at farms, obviously.  But ending workplace raids will be of limited value of employees can be arrested any time going to and from work, buying groceries, picking up children from school, attending church, etc.  Granted, ICE can continue random sweeps of these place.  But it will at least have to give people the opportunity to present proof of protection by an employer, and will have to respect such a certification.  That might even mean ending outrageous quotas in favor of a more targeted system.  And that, in turn, might require getting rid of Stephen Miller.

Hey, I can dream.

___________________________________________

*And now he is once again threatening ruinous -- starting August 1.  We will see how long that lasts.

**He raised the issue in agriculture only, but one can easily imagine a similar system in other industries.