Tag: US Attorney General

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.

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.