Tag: El salvador

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 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.

Legal Challenges to Alien Enemies Act of 1798 Not Subject to Judicial Review Supreme Court Rules

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the constitutionality 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 acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Let me say that again, the Court held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Below is a summary of the key points and below that the Court’s 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.  
  • Instead, the plaintiffs should have used the Writ of Habeas Corpus (see earlier blog post on Habeas Corpus), which they did initially, but changed their argument, according to the Court.
  • The Court also removed the US District Court, Washington DC, from jurisdiction to hear the case.  Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement.  Note not arrest, but confinement. In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and equity and liberal jurisprudence.
  • The Court did say that detainees detention must have some ‘judicial review’ and must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.” 

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931 _________________

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

PER CURIAM. 

This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a pro- visionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation. Minute Order on Motion To Certify Class in No. 25−cv−00766. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). 

We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of re- movable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “ ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humph- rey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 67 (1968); see, e.g., Nance, 597 U. S., at 167 (explaining that a capital pris- oner may seek “to overturn his death sentence” in habeas by “analog[y]” to seeking release); In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242, 254, 259 (1894). For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detain- ees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice af- ter the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a rea- sonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs. 

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay. 

The application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. The March 15, 2025 minute orders granting a temporary restraining order and March 28, 2025 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 1:25-cv-766, are vacated. 

It is so ordered. 

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

As of April 4, 2025

Weekly Summary of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Trump’s pace has slowed but the damage to liberal democracy continues to accumulate, like DDT did in Bald Eagles once.  I mention the tariffs now, not because they are a backsliding of liberal democracy, but as they fail and economic chaos engulfs us, Trump will become more erratic and authoritarian thus accelerating the erosion of democratic values and norms.   

I would also be wary of federal government economic data.  The Departments that report the data, and offices that compile economic and labor data sets, are firmly in Trump’s hand.  Any bad economic data, I fear will be subjected to Trump’s SHARPIE statistical methodology.   

On the positive side, the lower courts for the most part are holding firm. There is the possibility that the judge overseeing the Venezuelan deportation case will hold the Trump administration in contempt this coming week. Stay tuned. Appeal Courts also seem leery of the constitutionality of many of Trump’s executive orders. As a reminder, written arguments for sustaining a pause on Trump’s Birthright citizenship order are due soon.

Below is this week’s summary.  To see the cumulative backsliding list click the benchmark or menu link above.

Diagnosis: Critical.  

Prognosis: Uncertain

Military Loyalty Tests

Trump fires General Timothy Haugh and Wendy Noble, Chief and Deputy Chief of the National Security Agency, America’s critical signals intelligence agency. As a reminder, the NSA is forbidden by law from technical eaves dropping on American citizens.

They were fired at the request of right-wing pundit Laura Loomer for not being sufficiently ‘loyal’ to Trump: Loomer posted on X they were fired for being disloyal to Trump.  Trump in a statement on AF1 heading to Florida, stated people will be fired because we don’t like them or “people that may have loyalties to someone else.”  As the robot in the mid-60s ‘Lost in Space’ TV used to sa, with arms flailing about: “Danger, Danger, Will Robinson.”

These firings come after the firing of several National Security Council Staff earlier in the week, also worryingly at the behest of Laura Loomer.  Press reports indicate Haugh testified in a closed hearing recently and was asked about the Signal scandal.  

Whether the President was angry at Haugh for not giving the party line regarding Signal is unknown but the most likely cause for the firings.  Nonetheless, Trump may have been looking for a reason to fire Haugh and Noble.  Not saying Trump ordered Haugh and Noble to eaves drop on American politicians and others, but that option certainly is a possibility given the rogue nature of these first months of his administration. Frankly, I ask why and how a right-wing pundit with no security clearances may have knowledge of Haugh’s closed door testimony to the Senate. And even more worrisome, why the hell is Trump having sensitive national security discussions with her.

Continued Human and Civil Rights Violations

ICE admits wrongfully detaining Maryland man, says they can’t return him to US from El Salvador prison. Calling it an “administrative error.” Worse, they say they can’t get him back. This man from Maryland — married to an American, and father of a 5-year-old autistic child — was rounded up as part of the Trump’s press event, AKA the mass deportation of Venezuelan gang members.  He was deported back to El Salvador, a country he fled because of gang threats without due process.

Rise of the Government Informer Class

Vigilante surveillance of pro-Palestinian activists on university campus(es).  Pro-Israeli activists are using AI facial recognition to identify and report pro -Palestinian activists/protestors to ICE for deportation, per NBC reporting.  The AI facial recognition was developed for this purpose.  A far-right group — Betar USA –claimed credit for one arrest, per WGBH reporting.

Acts of Cowardice Continue

In an act cowardice and self-censorship, the White House Correspondents Association cancelled comedian Amber Ruffin’s appearance at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, stating that they had “unanimously decided we are no longer featuring a comedic performance this year.”  This ends a 42-year history.

To avoid executive orders sanctioning them, several more law firms reached agreements with the White House, to include the law firm Wilkie Farr and Gallagher that Kamal Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, works for. They offered up $100 million in pro bono work for Trump priorities to avoid possible executive order sanctions.  Through these dragnets, Trump has almost garnered a quarter billion dollars in pro bono legal work for Trump initiatives.

New Punitive Investigations

The FCC began an investigation into ABC’s DEI practices. ABC is part of Disney.

Destroying Civil Society and a blow to Labor Unions

Tens of thousands of additional federal employee layoffs announced.  In addition, Trump bans federal government unions collectively bargaining ability. Agencies included in the ban are the Departments of State, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury, Justice and Commerce and the part of Homeland Security responsible for border security. Police and firefighters will continue to collectively bargain. Another blow to labor unions.

Per CBS, senior officials at NIH terminated or reassigned:  “Senior leaders at multiple agencies were removed, multiple health officials said, including Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo. Marrazzo replaced Dr. Anthony Fauci as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, senior officials put on leave and reassigned to the Indian Health Service include Dr. Karen Hacker, head of the agency’s chronic disease teams, Kayla Laserson, head of its global health center and Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the CDC’s STD and HIV/AIDS center.”

In a new executive order, President Trump targeted the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the federal agency charged with distributing Congressionally approved funds to state libraries and to library, museum, and archives program grant recipients.  The National Endowment for the arts was also targeted for layoffs and funding cuts.

A dear John Letter: A Response to a Letter from Representative John McGuire

Below is a response to an email I received from Virginia’s 5th Congressional District Representative John McGuire. It was written in response to a letter or email I sent to him. I am appreciative and grateful for his response. I expected it would be one of those form letters, pandering and short on substance.

To my delight it was long, specific, and expressed his world view and take on recent controversial actions by the Trump administration, in particular the alleged unlawful deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador’s maximum security prison. To my dismay, it demonstrates a fundamental break in who is and who is not entitled to basic constitutional rights.

The letter below is my response. I will mail him a hard copy.

Dear Mr. McGuire:

Thank you for your email dated March 28, regarding the recent deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans alleged to belong to a criminal gang to an El Salvadoran maximum security prison. I appreciate your candor and directly addressing my concerns. However, I would like you to consider some of my observations regarding your response. They are based on my 29 years of federal law enforcement experiences.

In your letter you stated that “Law enforcement spent weeks drafting the list of deportees to make sure all were connected to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.”  Adding, that if some were mistakenly identified as a gang member, it really didn’t matter because they were in the country illegally: “I am aware there has been some discourse surrounding whether all those deported were connected to Tren de Aragua. I have full faith in our law enforcement, but on the rare chance that some of those who were deported happen to not be gang members they were still here illegally and therefore have committed a crime.”   

I would rather have 150 guilty men go free than imprison 50 innocent men.  It is cruel to send someone who would maybe get six months in a U.S. minimum security prison, than an indefinite stay at a high risk maximum security prison in El Salvador. Cruel and unusual punishment don’t you think?

What you didn’t mention is that despite a Federal District judges order to stop the deportations and return the flights pending hearings for the deportees, the government deported them anyway.  Claiming they were over ‘international waters.’  How could this be if they were over the Gulf of America?  

I believe your claim that you venerate our Constitution, but you seem unaware that our great Constitution has a Habeas Corpus clause.  That is the government must produce “the body” in a court so that the defendant has a right to challenge the charges and their detention.  Basically, that their arrest and confinement were legal.  This fundamental legal concept goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.  That is an 850-year-old tradition bequeathed to us by the British.  And Trump throws it out like yesterday’s trash.  The Judge’s order to stop the deportation was basically a Writ of Habeas Corpus in name and spirit.

I think we can both agree with the proposition that all inhabitants of the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigrant status have the following basic, fundamental human rights we cherish as a nation:

  • The presumption of innocence
  • To be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures (an arrest is a seizure)
  • The right to counsel
  • Right to a speedy and public trial
  • Not to be deprived of life, liberty, property, without due process of law
  • Not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment

The Venezuelans, it appears, were denied every one of these rights enumerated above. I am curious then, why you think these rights do not apply to them?

The arrests and deportations of these Venezuelans is the exact opposite of how our judicial system is supposed to work. The law enforcement agency making the arrests – the ones you have ‘full faith in’ – are not the prosecutor or the judge or the jury.  Our system is designed to be adversarial, where the government must present evidence, to either a grand jury or magistrate before an arrest is made; or, after a warrantless arrest brought before a judge, and in the end convince a jury.

Even the basic right to challenge the government’s assertions of either criminality or being in the country illegally, was denied the Venezuelans, it appears.  From what I can gather, the government presented no evidence.  The court decides whether their detention is legal not ICE or you or Trump.  I can see the discussion now:  Judge, “What proof do you have that the defendant is a gang member?” Agent: “He has gang tattoos.”  Judge: “WTF! Get out of my Court.”  And it goes downhill from there.  

Tattoos? That would be like rounding up everyone who was near Capitol Hill on January 6 wearing a red MAGA hat and deporting them to Guantanamo without due process.  Don’t you think?

Spuriously invoking and using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the government denied their rights, disappearing them:  No due process, no right to counsel, no hearing before a judge, sent to prison in El Salvador without trial for indefinite detention.  That should scare the crap out of everyone.  Then, to top off this charade of justice, DHS Secretary Noem shows up in El Salvador for a photo opportunity.  Thank God there were not gravel pits nearby.

I know I can be pedantic about American history, but did you know that the Alien Enemies Act can only be invoked after a declaration of war?  I really, really, really, hope you are aware that only Congress has the constitutional and legal prerogative to declare war.  The President’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was therefore illegal, extra-Constitutional.

You and I both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. I did my best to uphold that oath and I expect you to faithfully execute that oath for the people of Virginia’s 5th Congressional District.  It’s your duty to challenge these trespasses and gross injustices by Trump, not excuse them.

Listen, I am not against deporting criminal aliens and believe in protecting our borders. One of the last cases I oversaw resulted in a child sex trafficker getting 25 years in federal prison. But let me ask you this, why protect our borders when a sitting president destroys the country from within by attacking the fundamental rights we agree are essential to this great country’s democracy? When police ‘gather lists’ at the direction of political leaders we are in dangerous territory. Whatever you think ails this country, strangling democracy to save it is not the right answer.

Thank you and I look forward to our continued dialog.

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

As of March 21, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Leading the list of abuses this week was Trump’s unconstitutional declaration of war and invocation of the Aliens Enemies Act of 1798; timed to the mass deportation of 200 plus alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador and indefinite imprisonment in a maximum security prison with a history of human rights abuses.

Compounding this mass injustice was Trump’s call to impeach the federal judge who ordered a stop to the illegal deportations, cancelation of flights, and return of flight already in the air. This judicial order — in reality invoking Habeas Corpus a legal right that goes back to the Magna Carta — was ignored. The government lawyers even had the audacity to claim that it was too late because flights were over international waters by the time the written order was received even though the judge had orally ordered the stop earlier in court to the lawyers. Ironically, the flights were over the Gulf of America. How symbolic of how low Trump has sunk.

Rep. Jim Jordan has already planned hearings regarding the judge’s legal rulings. Elon Musk made max donations to members of Congress friendly towards the idea of impeaching judges who rule against Trump.

This is what happens after years of right wing rhetoric turning migrants into criminals. We know nothing about these men because they were disappeared without due process, the right to counsel. They had become unworthy victims in the eyes of too many Americans. I get rights, you don’t. That is not how American works. I think someone famous once said, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

Of course Trump’s speech to the assembled staff of the Department of Justice where he rallied against the illegal press is of note. This attack on the press and free speech by a sitting President at the Justice Department is unprecedented.

Of additional note, is that government lawyers have determined that the Aliens Enemies Act permits government agents to enter homes without warrants. I presume under some Frankenstein interpretation of the ‘hot pursuit doctrine’ permitted by the Supreme Court. This determination would be in conflict with the bill of rights 4th Amendments protections from government intrusions and seizures without warrants. It suggests a government inching closer to declaring martial law.

I added a Friday Follies of all the sycophantic legislative bills introduced to kiss Trump’s derrière by fawning state and federal lawmakers. Got to have some sense of humor in this time. New entries to the benchmarks cumulative list of trespasses are in bold

For the full report please go to the menu and select Benchmarks. Thanks.