Tag: constitution

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health: Fake Research Papers, Windmills, and Wildebeests

As of May 30, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Trump’s personal battle of evermore with Harvard continues, with the administration banning foreign students from enrolling at Harvard and then a federal court issuing a temporary injunction.  Trump further ordered a freeze on all federal government contracts with Harvard, putting on ice about $100 million in funds.  This includes several hundred grants for medical research.

But who cares about real medical research when you can just make it up.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy released a report on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA).  The report however, is riddled with problems, primarily that many scientific studies referenced in the report do not exist.  Yes, they were made up, fabricated.  Additionally, the FDA issued a statement opining that pregnant women and healthy children do not need COVID vaccinations.  Two issues, one, normally the Centers for Disease control makes vaccination recommendations, not the FDA, and two, pregnant women are at greater risk for bad outcomes from COVID infections, the science says.  Sadly, after Kennedy’s intentions were made clear, the CDC followed suit.  So, here we have it.  Science based policy decisions are thing of the past.  It’s Kennedy’s magical mystery tour.

The Department of Justice announced FBI investigations into several old closed cases. 1) They will reinvestigate pipe bombs left at the Democratic and Republican offices on January 6, you know the day Trump attempted a coup.  Conservative conspiracy theories are that the FBI planted them.  2) The Dobbs Supreme Court leak will also be reinvestigated.  My guess the “investigative results” it will be used to impeach one of the three remaining liberal justices. 3) During the Biden administration, a bag of cocaine was found and the FBI will reopen that investigation.   This follows previous weeks of charging a democratic house member with assaulting a federal agent, dragging former FBI Director James Comey before investigators for allegedly threatening Trump by posting a number on line: 8647, and investigate New York’s Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud. 

Regarding foreign affairs, the U.S. Trade Court ruled this week that Trump’s global tariff regime was unconstitutional and that he overstepped his authority to issue such blanket global tariffs.  An appeals court promptly stayed the Trade Court’s ruling until that court can weigh in early June.  I imagine it will end up in the Supreme Court. It is anyone’s guess how that will end given the court’s propensity to hand over more and broader executive powers to Trump, basically fatally undermining the fundamental structure of separate and equal branches of government.

Meanwhile, Trump in a Friday missive lashed out at China for violating a ‘trade truce’ pending resolution of negotiations, which according to America’s negotiator, has stalled.  I imagine he will have TACOs for lunch later this week. This lashing of China comes on the heels of the administrations announcement that it was reviewing visas issued to China.  Trump is reimagining the America’s 19th Century “Chinese Exclusion Act.”  

Not to be outdone, Rubio’s State Department, announced a new policy targeting foreign government official that allegedly censor social media.  The intent of the policy is to target Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Morae, who has made rulings against the social media company X and Elon Musk.  This will no doubt alienate one of our largest partners in South America.  I guess Putin and Orban and other foreign government officials that censor social media will be target.  Just joking.  

Meanwhile, after condemning social media censors, the Department of State announced a freeze on foreign student visas pending the imposition of “expanded” social media reviews to detect anti-American or antisemitic posts.   I guess our censorship is a different type of censorship, no?  

In sum, Trump is picking a fight-to-the- death confrontation with Harvard, basically summoning all the coercive control levers of federal executive power.  As I see it, Trump thinks that if he slays Harvard, the rest of academia will quickly surrender.  He may be right.  I expect him to ratchet up the pressure in the coming weeks.  

China is another case of Trump tilting at windmills.  I understand our strategic need to address China as an economic competitor – one that is kicking our butts, especially in technology – and a potential peer military opponent, but I just don’t see a comprehensive, well thought out strategy.  For instance, on one hand he said he is imposing tariffs on China (and around the world) to bring manufacturing back to America.  Yet, in the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ all the billions in investments in American clean energy domestic manufacturing is being killed.  It makes no strategic sense.  

Trump’s policies and management of foreign and domestic affairs are helter-skelter, undisciplined, score settling, and a way to line his and his family’s pockets with millions.  An like a herd of wildebeests charging headlong in to a crocodile infested river, the Republican party follows. 

Finally, so long Elon.

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health: Ugly, Damn Ugly

As of May 23, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

It was an ugly week.  First and foremost was Trump’s vile and disgraceful racist spectacle directed at South African President Ramasphosa during a White House visit.  Given the long history of English and Dutch colonization and brutal oppression of black South Africans during the apartheid era, the false claim that white Afrikaners are being subjected to a genocide was shameful.  The supposed evidence — a video of white crosses — was from the Congo not South Africa.  This spectacle was the most openly white nationalist display by an American president since President Wilson screened “Birth of a Nation” at the White House in 1915. A movie based on the novel “The Clansman.”

The battle between Harvard and Trump escalated this week with the administration banning foreign students from enrolling at Harvard.   The next day Harvard filed suit, and a Federal Judge ordered a temporary pause on the administration’s action.  This escalation is another example of Trump’s use of ‘arbitrary terror’ to punish and discipline supposed adversaries. A hallmark of dictatorships. 

Trump also singled out Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce, and Oprah Winfrey for investigation, alleging violations of federal laws.  Without any proof, he accused them of accepting payment to endorse political candidates.  When Trump suggests an investigation, whether verbally or on social media, one of his willing cabinet members orders one.

When not accusing others of corruption, Trump hosted an event at his Washington Area golf club to reward top investors in his crypto coin $Trump.  The 220 top investors averaged around $1.8 million in purchases.  According to press reporting, since January Trump garnered over $320 million in fees from these sales.  Yep, $320 million in six months.  

Speaking of slimy, swampish, Trumpian corrupt practices, his majesty accepted a $400 million emolument from the Qatari crown prince in the form of a 747-luxury jet.  It will be used as Air Force One and then provided to Trump’s presidential library foundation for his personal use.  Given the overhaul required to ensure it is 1) air worthy, and, 2) not full of electronic eavesdropping devices, it will also require extensive renovations to install secure communications, anti-aircraft missile countermeasures, and hardening for electromagnetic pulses from nuclear detonations.  More of your hard-earned tax dollars going to feed Trump’s massive ego. Pure waste, fraud, and abuse.

On the criminal investigative front, following an incident at a New Jersey ICE detention facility, federal prosecutors’ charged U.S. House of Representative LaMonica Mclver with assaulting a federal agent.  James Comey, former FBI Director, was interviewed by the Secret Service for allegedly making threats to the president after posting a picture of seashells arranged to spell 8647.  ‘86’ being a code for killing someone allegedly.  However, if you look at the origins of ‘86’ it is a code for ejecting or barring some from a bar, or, to cancel, reject, discard something, per the dictionary.  

Also, the DOJ confirmed it is investigating New York’s Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud. Must have turned over every rock of find that one.   Finally, the FCC announced a probe into Media Matters, a liberal advocacy group.  This based on Elon Musk’s accusation that the group colluded with advertisers to boycott X for racism.  Meanwhile, Mohammed Khalil and Abrego Garcia still sit in jail.

Before turning to some positives, I think the whole Biden fiasco needs a few short words.  What was the democratic party leadership thinking?  We don’t need a book to tell us what we all knew.  It wasn’t Biden’s age; it was his noticeable and serious cognitive decline.  His physical fragility and intellectual frailty were clear.  When I voted for Biden in 2020, I thought of him as a one term president.  He should have bowed out two years in and announced he would not seek a second term.  But no.  His damn ego got in the way.  And a bunch of spineless democrats let him get away with it.  

As a result, here we are.  What is done is done, however, and now is the time to get your shit together.  First focus on getting Spanberger elected governor of Virginia this November.  It will be a bellwether.  Second, focus on mid-terms and the races you can win.  For instance, John McGuire (R) of Virginia’s 5th congressional district is an easy mark given his capitulation to Trump and his support for rolling back Medicaid, Medicare, and food aid, while lining the pockets of millionaires and billionaires.  Enough said.

There were some positive notes.  In a tie vote at the Supreme Court, after Justice Barrett recused herself, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision to not permit a religious-based charter school to receive taxpayer funds, stands.   Additionally, a federal judge ruled that shutting down and dismantling the U.S. Institute for Peace was illegal.  The judge even ordered DOGE not to trespass on the grounds of the Institute. 

Overall, Trump amped up the use of ‘arbitrary terror’ to punish, discipline, and silence dissent.  That is to create a climate of fear where most people, as Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism in the aftermath of World War II, are “perfectly obedient” to government dictates.    

If you think about it, a plurality of Americans live in an autocratic state now.  A state of mind, that is.  House Republican hold outs to the ‘big, beautiful bill’ were summoned to the White House.  I don’t think tea and crumpets persuaded them to abandon their principles.  It you are obedient to Trump’s impulses out of fear, you already live in an autocracy.  I am not speaking to liberals or progressives; I am speaking to MAGA Republicans.  It is you that live in an autocracy.  I am as free as bird and think, say, and write what I damn well please.

If you want to read the cumulative list of democratic backsliding and erosion since January 20, click up top ‘Benchmarks’ or menu. Thanks.

Worth a Read

‘Worth’ is a word that we read and hear daily.  It derives from Middle English ‘weorp,’ according to etymology online.   As an adjective it held meanings of having value, honorable, deserving, noble, of high rank.  As a noun, it had connotations of value given a commodity, associated with a monetary value, equivalent value.  As a verb not much used today, had a meaning of coming into being.

With the prefix ‘un’ worth becomes a negative, the opposite of deserving, dishonorable, ignoble, of no value.  Worthy and unworthy swirl around America’s political discourse on government social and economic assistance programs like pike hunting minnows in reeds.  Mostly unspoken, but the connotations of worthy and unworthy are there in plain sight.  Some folks are worthy beneficiaries’ others not.  A farmer having a loan cancelled through a Department of Agriculture farm assistance program is considered a worthy beneficiary, but a poor kid with a college student loan is somehow unworthy of debt forgiveness.  

I recall watching a recent question and answer exchange at a town hall meeting where Iowa Senator Grassely asked participants whether “abled bodied’’ folks should receive Medicaid.   Folks in the crowd nodded in agreement.  Instead of directly answering a question about proposed broad cuts to Medicaid, to the tune of $800 billion, he tossed out the lure of unworthiness and reeled them in.   He flipped the question of broad, sweeping cuts to one about unworthy beneficiaries.  In the process he avoided the fact that the majority of those who receive Medicaid benefits are kids, working single moms with kids.  

Nowhere in the national discourse about government safety net benefits is the discussion of why so many hard-working folks in this country need a Medicaid program to begin with.  Republicans don’t want us to point to decades of stagnating or shrinking wages, little to no medical insurance benefits, the destruction of unions, women being systematically underpaid than their male counterparts, or the link between for-profit hospital and health insurance systems and disappearing rural hospitals.   Instead, like a trickster’s shell game, politicians roll out the time-honored trope of unworthiness: It’s those damn able-bodied cheaters and thieves.

This is not new.  America has a long history of denigrating and stigmatizing the poor.  Lazy, immoral, drunks, dangerous.  Unworthy.  Even our public school system has 19th century roots in philanthropic endeavors to get poor kids into schools and away from their drunken and lazy parents and instill in them discipline, a work ethic for the factory system.   

This dichotomy between worthy and unworthy permeates other areas of our culture and society.  COVID is an example of how some made worthy/unworthy arguments about how to respond to the pandemic. To many, the elderly (no longer economically useful) or folks with comorbidities (mostly overweight or diabetic), were not worthy of protecting.

 Worthy and unworthy is also central to how we treat migrants.  Black Africans wanting asylum are told to ‘go away, no room at the inn.’  White South Africans, ‘welcome, come on in.’  Trump is particularly successful at stigmatizing and criminalizing migrants: “Rapists and murders,” “emptying out their asylums,” “The worst of the worst,” “they’re eating our pets.” The characterization of migrants as unworthy opens the door for his administration to pursue illegal and devastating actions against targeted migrants, such as invoking war time acts to detain and deport without due process or the Writ of Habeas Corpus.  The prison that hundreds were sent to in El Salvador is a one-way ticket.  An El Salvadoran minister bragged that the only way one leaves the prison is in a coffin.   According to polls, many Americans thought it okay, to my discomfort.  

If one pauses to look and think, one can see that ‘who is worthy’ and ‘who is unworthy’ all too often shapes our beliefs and actions.  Far too often, how we treat foreign visitors, migrants, the elderly, the poor, the sick, the other, depends on whether we consider them worthy or unworthy of human dignity and respect.   

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of May 16, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

The big issue this week was the arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the Trump’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship.  The arguments were more about whether federal district judges can issue nationwide injunctions, or pauses, not so much the constitutionality of the executive order itself.  

The justices, from what I gathered, seemed conflicted about whether to limit federal judges ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially if letting the law go into effect nationwide will cause great harm while the case winds its way through the courts.  I would think revoking birthright citizenship, or invoking the Alien Enemies Act, or suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus would fall into that category of immense national harm should the executive order or law be permitted to go forth while it is being fought over in the courts. 

It the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, it would have to devise a clear set of rules for when a judge may order a nationwide injunction or limit the injunction to their district.  I don’t see that happening, if they do, they are crazier than I thought.  Or worse yet, rule that federal district court rulings are limited to the district in which the court resides.  There are 94 federal court districts, chaos would ensue.  

If the Court eliminates nationwide injunctions outright while the constitutionality of the law is being challenged, that would trigger the very real possibility that half the country will have one set of constitutional rights while the other half would have a different set of constitutional rights. For example, if Trump suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus, five or six district judges may impose an injunction in their districts, but a district in Texas where an immigrant detention facility is located, may not see the suspension of the Writ as unconstitutional.  That would then permit hundreds if not thousands of deportations without due process. The harm would be immense.

In another important ruling, the Supreme Court did extend a block on deporting migrants from Texas using the Alien Enemies Act today (May 16).  Sending the case back to a lower court for additional litigation.

Republicans should be wary of Trump getting his way on this issue of nationwide injunctions and executive orders.  The next Democratic president could declare that the second amendment does not protect the manufacture or possession of AR-15 or similar type weapons.  The president could use an executive order to prohibit the possession, manufacture, sale, and transportation of these items across state lines.  

Republicans are painting themselves into a very small separation of powers corner.  Mitch McConnel basically shanked the Senate years ago.  Mike Johnson turned the House of Representatives into a spittoon full of, you know spit.  Chief Justice John Roberts, just can’t get his head out of his butt, all but declaring Trump King last term. Although, I must say, after creating this Frankenstein presidency, he is doing his best to cage the beast.

Republicans act as if the Democrats will be forever in the wilderness, a token political party for show during elections, but powerless.  If that was their goal, we shall see how they react to losing in the mid-terms and in 2028  Will they accept the outcome(s)?  And once the Democrats return to power, how can they ever, ever, claim overreach?

Amazingly, because of court action and popular backlash to the excesses of the Trump White House by DOGE — and don’t forget the tariff mess — the guard rails are bending, but still in place in some places.  Where the guardrails are missing is Congress.  They are not checking the accumulation of congressionally enumerated powers into the executive branch and seem not to have any interest in checking his power, mostly out of fear I suspect. Then again, some just that holy grail, $5 trillion in tax cuts. most of which will go to the top 1 percent (that is them and their millionaire class)

Some examples of Congressional nonfeasance revolve around Trump’s personal corruption and  profiteering from office .  For instance his ongoing attempt to accept a $400 million 747 from the Emir of Qatar for use as Air Force 1, and it being ‘decommissioned’ and transferred to his presidential library foundation following his presidency; his sale contest of  $Trump (a crypto currency) for White House tour (access?); pocketing tens of millions of dollars in crypto fees through the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial, are all examples of Republicans in Congress looking the other way while Trump engages in what appears to be unconstitutional and corrupt practices.

While there have been some tactical and strategic setbacks for Trump, as the initial 100 days passes into the next 60 days, we are not out of harms way. He will become more dangerous. And, like a trapped and cornered animal, will attack, hard and fierce.  Hang on, it will be like holding on to the ears of an angry wolf.

For a cumulative list of backsliding and erosion of our democracy, please click ‘benchmarks’ or menu above. Updates are in bold.

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of May 9, 2025

I apologize for skipping a week (or two), but was traveling out of town. I also needed a short mental holiday.

The courts are doing their job for the most part. Congress….not so much.

A federal Judge ordered the release of detained Turkish PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk, who is attending Tuft’s University on a student visa, following the submission of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In its usual measured response to adverse court orders, Trump advisor Stephen Miller said the White House is actively considering revoking the Writ of Habeas Corpus for ‘migrants.’ The Constitution clearly states that the writ may not be suspended “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.” Please see my earlier April 2 essay on Habeas Corpus for a more in-depth discussion on the writ.

In another ruling, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary pause on DOGE’s bulldozing of government agencies and mass firings. Congress did not authorize such activity, per the judge: “As history demonstrates, the President may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress.”

In further court activity regarding Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly detained and deported to El Salvador’s terrorism prison, government lawyers are once again stonewalling the Federal Judge overseeing the case. Government lawyers invoked the ‘State Secrets Privilege.’ This privilege (a Supreme Court invention) lets the government withhold information from a court during civil litigation if the information could damage national security. Unless the information the government lawyers have contain military invasion plans of El Salvador, it is a bullshit ploy. And they know it. Start throwing these bums in jail Judge! Maybe Alcatraz?

Overall, there has been a slight lull in the war on the Constitution, but I think that is because Trump is busy cleaning up his self inflicted tariff mess. If his nomination of Fox host and TV pundit Jeannie Pirro to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — replacing the outgoing interim U.S. Attorney who can’t get confirmed — is any indication, the war on decency and rule of law is entering a new low point. She has not worked in the law field in over two decades and her only previous experience was at a local elected judge and then local prosecutor in the early 90s. She will also be the 23rd Fox News personality to get a Trump administration job.

I imagine as the American economy stalls and the U.S. becomes increasingly isolated as a global pariah, Trump will double down on his autocratic tendencies. He pretty much has usurped Congress’ authority, now he needs to go hard and fast after independent new organizations. I expect to see a slew of FCC preliminary investigative reports and license revocations within the next month or two.

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments: How The Supreme Court, Trump, and the Far Right intend to undermine the First Amendment

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments whether Oklahoma state tax dollars must be used to fund religious-based charter schools.  The state denied a Catholic Church school’s request for public funding.  During the arguments, most justices seem inclined to require that states provide taxpayer dollars to religious charter schools, if they meet all the other charter school requirements.  If the Court decides to require public funds go to support religious-based charter schools, this would be a fundamental reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment, what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between church and state in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

I don’t think it a coincidence that a week or so after the Supreme Courts’ arguments, Trump signed an executive order establishing a “Religious Liberty Commission.”  The purpose of the commission is outlined in the instructions:

“The Commission shall produce a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism. Specific topics to be considered by the Commission under these categories shall include the following areas: the First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers; attacks across America on houses of worship of many religions; debanking of religious entities; the First Amendment rights of teachers, students, military chaplains, service members, employers, and employees; conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates; parents’ authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children, including the right to choose a religious education; permitting time for voluntary prayer and religious instruction at public schools; Government displays with religious imagery; and the right of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear or Government censorship or retaliation.”

While the language seems religion neutral, we all know this is about Christian religious freedoms and establishing Christianity as America’s established religion.  I don’t see Islamic or Buddhist or Hindu religious imagery being displayed next to the Ten Commandments at public schools.  Do you?  Be very afraid.   Our founding generation was fearful of the establishment of a religious state.  This fear animated two of Virginia’s most influential writers and thinkers:  James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  

When Virginia’s General Assembly wanted to impose a ‘religious assessment,’ basically a tax to support churches, Madison and Jefferson opposed the measure.  As did the Baptist’s who suffered intolerable abuse by the Anglican Church prior to the Revolution.  In the “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” Madison penned a cogent argument that is a relevant today as it was in 1785.  

I think it one of the seminal documents in our history as both Virginians and Americans.  As such, I have summarized Madison’s 15 key arguments below. They are worth a close read.

  1.  Religious liberty was “in its nature an unalienable right….because the opinions of men, depending only upon the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men….  Religion is wholly exempt from the cognizance [of civil society].”
  2. “Since civil society itself had not right to interfere with religion, certainly the legislature, its creature, had no such right.”
  3. “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties… Who does no see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same case any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
  4. “The exercise of religion implies the right to believe in no religion at all, so even the most permissive tax to support religion might violate some consciences.”
  5. “Civil magistrates can properly neither judge religious truth nor subordinate religion to public purposes.”
  6. The Christian religion did not need civil support, it had often “existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.”
  7. “’Ecclesiastical establishment,’ far from promoting religious purity and efficacy, had nearly always corrupted and stultified it.”
  8. “Rather than promoting order and freedom in civil society, religious establishments had ordinarily been malignant and oppressive.”
  9. “The assessment marked a first step toward bigotry, differing from the ‘inquisition…in degree,’ and would make Virginia no longer the asylum for the persecuted.”
  10. “Good and useful citizens would be driven from the state or deterred from coming there by a religious tax.”
  11. “Religious strife and violence would be encouraged by laws touching religion.”
  12. “The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity…. The bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachment of error.”
  13. “An attempt to enforce a religious assessment obnoxious to many citizens would weaken respect for law and order generally.”
  14. “Evidence was strong that a majority of the people opposed the assessment.”
  15. “Because, finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights…. Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish trial by jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary powers of the State, may that they may despoil us of our very right to suffrage and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly: or we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration.”

The Bill did not pass and a year later, Jefferson’s Statute for Religious freedom passed into law.  We must remain vigilant against trespasses against the 1st Amendment.  It is the cornerstone of why religiosity thrives in America.  It is the absence of state control in public spaces that permits churches, and mosques and synagogues and tabernacles and temples to spread and flourish across this country.  

Federal Policing in the Era of a Rogue President

Note: I originally posted this essay on my Substack newsletter Bumpass Warbler. Given the continued use of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to conduct criminal investigations of individuals named by the White House this essay is worth reposting. This week DHS and DOJ confirmed that they have undertaken multiple criminal investigations against Christopher Krebs, who was named in an earlier Trump executive order. The have crossed a line. Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi have become Trump’s henchmen, and the FBI and DHS the modern equivalent to Stalin’s NKVD. This is not an exercise in hyperbole, their actions constitute the first steps down a slippery slope to a police state. End Note.

Over three decades in law enforcement I saw how policing at the local, state, and federal levels changed, some of it not for the better.  Today, American law enforcement sits at an inflection point, our guiding North Star under attack.  It is not under siege from al-Qaida, or the Islamic State, or criminal gangs like MS-13, it is under threat from within, from a rogue president.  

Our constitutional system of separation of powers and the rule of law is degraded daily, like habitat loss in the Amazon Rain Forest, as the White House continues its relentless bulldozing of norms.  Habitat loss is notoriously difficult if not impossible to restore fully.  Judges are maligned and threatened with impeachment, court orders disobeyed, violations of due process encouraged, speech of foreign students criminalized, constant Habeas Corpus hide and seek games, criminal investigations ordered by the White House, law firm shake downs, arrests and detentions of migrants and valid visa holder without probable cause, harassment of persons of middle eastern origin at points of entry into the United States.  That’s just a sample. 

While we think of constitutional crises as being played out in iconic court battles and Supreme Court hearings, the men and women in law enforcement, in particular federal agents, find themselves in the middle of this chaos every day, just trying to do their jobs.  Trump and his appointees wanting scalps and press events on one side, and their conscience and oaths to defend and protect the Constitution on the other side.  This is where the real battle is being waged for the heart and soul of federal law enforcement.  In stark terms, are we teetering toward a federal police state?

We’re supposed to be on the side of democracy and the rule of law, were that thin blue line dividing law and constitutional order from chaos…and autocracy.  That blue line is not some random color but is deeply symbolic as to the purpose and place of policing in a civil society. We don’t always get it right, and many times the police and federal agents were on the wrong side of history, but the aspiration, the idea was there. 

When deciding on a uniform design for London’s newly established Metropolitan Police Department Robert Peel chose blue.  The army wore red he reasoned, and not wanting the police to think of themselves as an army, and Londoners not see the police as military occupiers, he wisely decided on blue uniforms.

America followed this path in the 1850s when metropolitan police departments began to outfit their officers in uniforms, starting with the NYPD.   Blue was the universal color chosen.  Today we accept uniformed officers, but in the mid 19th century, police uniforms were controversial, hotly debated, as was arming them.  Perhaps a legacy of America’s long-standing antipathy to standing armies. Before guns, wooden clubs were the issued weapon along with a leather badge.  For those that like the historical trivia of things, longer clubs were for night shifts, hence the night stick, shorter clubs were for day shifts. 

As the 19th century progressed, so did the size, power, and responsibilities of urban police departments.  Federal law enforcement as we know it today practically non-existent.  Police precinct buildings became overnight shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens for the hungry.  Police departments conducted inspections on building boilers and were sanitation inspectors for urban slaughterhouses as well.  

From the mid-19th century, police officers who died in the line of duty increasingly began to be afforded military style funerals. Conspicuous spectacles meant to send a message to the policed, and to the police officer on the beat. Today’s police funerals were 19th century inventions.

In time, near the end of the 19th century, the police were transformed into ‘guardians,’ an acknowledgement of their powerful roll in party politics and political patronage, but also in response to white middle-class urban denizens who demanded heavy handed policing to assuage their fears of crime, disease, and immorality attributed to increasing numbers of foreign migrants.  

The 20th century brought police reforms and a growth in the size and number of federal law enforcement agencies.  Paramilitary state police organizations were founded. Policing became more professionalized, union and advocacy groups matured. In the 1980s high-capacity pistols replaced six shot revolvers….and the number of average number of bullets being fired in a shooting went from 6 to dozens.  

9/11 changed America and policing. Many police departments started looking like military units as military surplus gear was handed out like candy.  Tactical uniforms once reserved for special teams, became the rage.  Military style body armor, tactical gear adorned police officers like Christmas tree ornaments, long guns slung from bodies, armored vehicles patrolled streets.  With military style uniforms and gear the mindset changed, I observed.  This change also seeped into federal law enforcement agencies as well.  Robert Peel was right.

As we witnessed recently, federal agents in Homeland Security rounded up and deported over 200 hundred alleged Venezuelan gang members using a late 18th century Act meant to be invoked in case of war.  The men’s due process rights were ignored, they were swiftly deported to a foreign prison despite a federal court order to stop.  The agents knowingly, and apparently willfully, ignored the constitutional right’s of these men, on the orders of one man: Donald Trump. In effect, acting like Trump’s personal army at war.  

It’s not just about Homeland Security or FBI agents; it’s about federal law enforcement in general.  When folks think about federal law enforcement, the FBI comes to mind (mostly because of their PR machine and TV and movie brand), but every federal department has its own law enforcement agency.  About two dozen in all.  They conduct criminal investigation specific to their department’s statutory functions.  For instance, Medicaid fraud for HHS and tax fraud for the IRS or Visa Fraud for the State Department.  They too will eventually (if not already) be tasked to conduct politically driven criminal investigations to punish and discipline Trump’s political opponents.  

To my fellow officers and agents, you must decide whether you will obey illegal orders given by a president you may like and voted for.  Should you obey his illegal orders now, what happens when a new president you don’t like makes similar illegal demands targeting his or her alleged enemies? That’s why we have the rule of law, not men or women. You must decide when and how you will say ‘enough’ to being muscle for party politicians in high places.  It’s not our damn job to be a president’s lawless private army.  

When you are asked to draw up arrest lists and swear to arrest warrants using demonstrably false statements because a president told you to — not because they committed any crimes — you’re no longer officers of the law.  In fact, as you know, you open yourself up to Bivens lawsuits.   Financial ruin, bankruptcy, just like the pillow guy.  We are supposed to be a bulwark against injustice, not its facilitator.  Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a police state.

Finally, let Jan 6 should be a warning to all.  Trump organized, fired up, and sent a mob to the Capitol building.  You know, not many people bring a noose to a rally unless it’s a lynch mob.  They attacked our fellow federal officers.  Scores were injured, crushed, beaten, one tased into cardiac arrest.  One officer died that evening; several took their lives shortly afterward.  Then Trump, in one of his first acts of his second term, pardoned everyone convicted of assaulting and brutalizing our brothers and sisters.  His actions speak loudly.  He isn’t pro-police; he sees you and I as pawns, and like any chess player will sacrifice them for the King.  

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of April 18, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Are we there yet? Have we arrived at a constitutional crisis?

This week’s actions and reporting primarily focused on two stories. The first centers on the court actions surrounding the illegal deportation of Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Mr. Garcia is legally permitted to remain the the U.S. but was nonetheless wrongly detained and deported to the El Salvadoran super max prison.  The U.S. Supreme Court directed the administration to ‘facilitate’ his return.  ‘Facilitate’ is a pretty poor choice.  What does making it easier even mean in the context of a court order? It’s like facilitating your child to eat broccoli.

Nevertheless. after the Supreme Court’s ruling, government lawyers balked on providing a lower court judges request for information on the government’s plans to return Garcia and his status. The following day or so, during a visit by the El Salvadoran President Bukele to the White House on April 24, Bukele stated he won’t return the Garcia. This all played out before TV cameras during a press event with Buckle. Trump directed a reporter’s question regarding Garcia and the Supreme Court ruling to Attorney General Bondi, who said was it was up to the El Salvadorian President. Taking his cue, Buckle said he didn’t have the power to release Garcia. Sitting to his left was Trump, who smirked like the woman in the Mona Lisa. I was shocked, shocked, given that Buckle was dressed worse than Zelenskyy, he would have been badgered, attacked, and humiliated.

Given the governments failure to adhere to instructions, the judge stated that there is “probable cause” that the government is in criminal contempt of the court. That is serious. Here is the thing however. Should the judge impose a penalty, for instance sending someone to jail, the US Marshal Service would be the ones making the arrest. The Marshals work for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. Basically, the courts can’t really enforce their rulings. It needs the Executive Department in general, and in particular the Department of Justice regarding criminal matters, to enforce the rulings.

That is the crux of a constitutional crisis we now faces. James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers that the Constitution was a parchment barrier, highlighting is takes acts of good faith for the constitution to survive. If the President and Executive Department does not act in good faith, then the barrier is broken.

The second issue is the battle between Harvard and Trump and his administration regarding funding pauses to the university and a list of demands in how the university operates. The good news is that Harvard pushed back at Trump. This is a pivot point. Below is a copy of the letter. The government now claims the letter was sent in error. Hmmm.

Dr. Alan M. Garber President
Harvard University Office of the President Massachusetts Hall Cambridge, MA 02138

Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Dr. Garber:

April 11, 2025

The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture.

Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.

If acceptable to Harvard, this document will constitute an agreement in principle, which the parties will work in good faith to translate into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement. As you will see, this letter incorporates and supersedes the terms of the federal government’s prior letter of April 3, 2025.

● Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship; and reducing forms of

governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization that interfere with the possibility of the reforms indicated in this letter.

  • ●  Merit-Based Hiring Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
  • ●  Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.
  • ●  International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism. Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. As above, these reforms must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes; comprehensive throughout all of Harvard’s programs; and, during the reform period, shared with the federal government for audit, shared on a non-individualized basis with the public, and certified by deans of admissions.
  • ●  Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and

the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.

o The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.

o The report of the external party shall include information as to individual faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7, and the University and federal government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.

o The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025 and reforms undertaken to repair the problems. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to make repairs every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August

2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that confirms these reforms.

● Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. Harvard must immediately reform its student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double standards based on identity or ideology. Where those policies are insufficient to prevent the disruption of scholarship, classroom learning and teaching, or other aspects of normal campus life, Harvard must develop and implement disciplinary policies sufficient to prevent those disruptions. This includes but is not limited to the following:

o Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption or deplatforming; robust enforcement and reinstatement of existing time, place, and manner rules on campus, including ordering the Harvard police to stop incidents that violate time, place, and manner rules when necessary; a disciplinary process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.

o Harvard must adopt a new policy on student groups or clubs that forbids the recognition and funding of, or provision of accommodations to, any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment; invites non-students onto campus who regularly violate campus rules; or acts as a front for a student club that has been banned from campus. The leaders or organizers of recognized and unrecognized student groups that violate these policies must be held accountable as a matter of student discipline and made ineligible to serve as officers in other recognized student organizations. In the future, funding decisions for student groups or clubs must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty accountable to senior University leadership. In particular, Harvard must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student organizations.

o Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.

o Harvard must investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years, including the Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-in of November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024. This must include permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli

Harvard Business School student, and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings, as warranted by the facts of individual cases.

o The Harvard president and police chief must publicly clarify that the Harvard University Police Department will enforce University rules and the law. Harvard must also commit to cooperating in good faith with law enforcement.

  • ●  Whistleblower Reporting and Protections. The University must immediately establish procedures by which any Harvard affiliate can report noncompliance with the reforms detailed in this letter to both university leadership and the federal government. Any such reporter shall be fully protected from any adverse actions for so reporting.
  • ●  Transparency and Monitoring. The University shall make organizational changes to ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30, 2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the federal government a report—certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter. The University must also, to the satisfaction of the federal government, disclose the source and purpose of all foreign funds; cooperate with the federal government in a forensic audit of foreign funding sources and uses, including how that money was used by Harvard, its agents, and, to the extent available, third parties acting on Harvard’s campus; report all requested immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all requirements relating to the SEVIS system.We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.

page5image1661371632

You can review the cumulative list of democratic backsliding and erosion by clicking on the menu button or Benchmarks button above. Til next week.

Tom’s Report on the State of Americas Democratic Health

As of April 11, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

The chaos and mayhem continue. While everyone was glued to the self-inflicted and manufactured tariff crises, democratic erosion and backsliding continued.

Of note this week were two Supreme Court’s rulings, one regarding a challenge to the government’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act and the other on returning a man wrongly deported to an El Salvadoran prison (also related to the the Alien Enemies Act), and two unprecedented executive orders directing the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland security to coordinate investigations on two former first term Trump administration appointees.

Trump added comedian Bill Maher to his trophy wall.

Attacks on academia, science, and books/ideas continued.

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the use of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump.  Incredibly, the Court basically held that government actions under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review. The court sidestepped the constitutionality of using the Act in peacetime. The following is a summation of the ruling:

  • The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument.  The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act.  Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.  
  • The plaintiffs should have used the Write of Habeas Corpus, which they did initially, but changed their argument.
  • The Court also removed the US District Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.  Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement.  In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and paragon of justice.
  • The Court did say that detainees must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.”  

The Court also issued a separate ruling directing the government to return a man improperly deported to an El Salvadoran prison be returned. However, the Court’s language in the ruling was so poorly and imprecisely worded giving the government wiggle room, which apparently they exploited because the following day, at a lower court hearing, the government refused to comply with lower court judge’s order to update the court on the government’s plans to return the man. The government’s lawyer stating he had no information to relay to the court. Can’t make this stuff up.

In an unprecedented and grim move, Trump signed two executive orders directing criminal investigation into two former political appointees from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. The two did not support publicly support Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen and asserted that there were not indications that the election was stolen. This is meant to silence every federal employee and every Trump appointee.

You can go to menu or benchmarks above to see the full cumulative list of benchmarks being tracked.

Former CISA Chief Chris Krebs targeted for Possible Criminal Prosecution in Trump Executive Order

In a significant and dangerous escalation of the use of criminal investigations to punish and intimidate, the former head of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Chris Krebs was targeted for possible criminal prosecution in an executive order signed today by Trump. The executive order directed that the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security to “take all appropriate action to review Krebs.” Many will recall that Krebs refused to support Trump’s claim of electronic tampering of voter systems or talliers. He was head of CISA during Trump’s first term in office and oversaw the detection and mitigation of any cyber security threats to voting systems during the 2016 presidential election, which Trump lost.

The executive order states in part: “I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with any other agency head, to take all appropriate action to review Krebs’ activities as a Government employee, including his leadership of CISA. This review should identify any instances where Krebs’ conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees, involved the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, or contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship).” I presume “all appropriate action” includes criminal investigations and prosecutions.

This represents a reckless and perilous escalation of the use of the Department of Justice and other federal law enforcement agencies to punish those that Trump deems disloyal. Call, write, email your representatives. Write the Supreme Court Justices, let them know your thoughts.