I Must Be Trump’s “Enemy Within”

Domestic Military Deployments are My Line in the Sand

[Authors note: Regular readers are aware I have not prioritized signing up subscribers or followers for this account. My posts are mostly about the wonky concepts of election reform and I like long sentences.

Given that, it is gratifying to have reached the lofty plateau of 100 subscribers (and I think only 10 or so are actually bots). This post is different. I’d like this to reach more than 100 people (or 90). If you think the ideas shared here are worthy of a broader conversation, I hope you will (1) begin that conversation by commenting below, (2) share with friends and contacts (especially those who might have a different take than mine), and (3) like and repost this in hopes more folks see it via their feeds.

Finally, apologies for the length of the footnotes. They include information I (and a few early reviewers - thanks to them!) think is essential to the argument. Though essential, it is in the footnotes because I want the logic of the central point - that the time for urgency and solidarity has arrived - to flow more directly. Thanks for reading!]

It pains me to be here. I am a centrist. I wish to be a peacemaker. I have faith in the good intentions of all but a tiny fraction of my fellow human beings. I passionately believe in the American Experiment – that the best possible societal outcomes will be had through the messy give and take of a representative democracy girded by equality under the law and respect for individual rights and dignity. Even as a child, I was intensely proud of these values. They seemed unassailable in the context of my Christian faith and what I assumed was a universal human longing.

I am politically independent, having voted for Republican presidential candidates six times and Democratic candidates five times. Though our political system has not been healthy for many years, I have been dedicated to reforming that system rather than encouraging unproductive grandstanding, political brinksmanship, and culture war mongering. I do not wish to declare any person or group an enemy – they are co-travelers with whom I may disagree, but with whom I must seek responses to our challenges and opportunities that are mutually acceptable, even if such compromise can only deliver slow and marginal progress. While aware of our far-from-perfect history, I believe this democratic process can and will produce a bright and good future.

The application of lawful constraints on our elected officials is the indispensable gift weaved into our system by the Founding Fathers. Effectiveness demands the healthy functioning of all three branches of our government and some minimal level of good intent by those entrusted with the most power. This delicate balance has been failing for some time, for which we can thank both political parties. Their mismanagement has delivered us to the most dangerous political dysfunction in 100 years.

So, I would prefer to focus my energy on reforming our political system vs. joining the immediate political battle. Recent developments, however, compel me to declare broad opposition to this Administration for reasons other than simple political partisanship. Though I disagree with many of the administration’s stated policy goals (the “what”), I do not and would not publicly declare my opposition to the Administration AS A WHOLE because of these differences. Partisans doing exactly that generated the conditions that enabled a Trump presidency.¹

I declare myself in opposition (and, therefore, by the President’s definition, an “enemy”)² because the means by which the administration is pursuing its goals (the “how”) are at odds – by any plain reading – with our Constitution and laws properly enacted thereunder. Evidence of this has been growing since the Administration’s earliest days.³ For me, the recent decisions to deploy federalized forces in California, Oregon and Illinois has crossed a bright line in relation to one of our most revered (and legally cemented) principles – reluctance to use federal forces against our own citizens.⁴

In short, the Administration has made it clear that it does not intend to be constrained by the law. It is betting that specific policy challenges and cultural divisions (all of which deserve debate in the context of a healthy political environment) can be stage-managed to maintain intense outrage among just enough of the electorate. It believes, in this emotional state, these supporters will accept ANY means to achieve shared goals. I believe the Administration is wrong about this, and I commit myself to helping that strategy fail.

With its checks and balances, our system was devised to uphold the integrity of the “means” by which our government navigates. But Congress is failing entirely to provide leadership independent of the Executive branch (a result, largely, of our broken two-party electoral system – the demise of which is owned by both parties). It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will uphold its responsibilities in this critical moment.

I call on all my fellow citizens and elected leaders of goodwill, without reference to any political party affiliation, to stand up to this onslaught. Come together to reject federalization of law enforcement that threatens violence on law-abiding citizens and enforces an un-free unanimity of political opinion. Insist that this administration work within the legal framework of our Constitution to achieve its policy goals. Demand legislators delay further funding of the government until concrete steps are taken to eliminate unlawful aspects of the Administration’s intimidation campaign (and step up to help the thousands of government workers and citizens suffering in the meantime). Be vocal in calling for our courts to uphold the separation of powers and requirements for due process.

Until the above pressure is successfully applied, protest, non-violently and in mass, to assure these actors of our widespread commitment to rule of law and equality under the law. Understand that our failure to change the current trajectory will mean we have sacrificed the one thing that truly makes us exceptional as a nation.

When we have achieved the above and averted the crisis apparently desired by this Administration, we can get back to the work of reforming our systems and institutions. There is no shortage of great ideas and organizations devoted to fixing our structural problems. We have fifty states and thousands of local governments in which to test and incubate the political solutions which can and will deliver us to the next phase of civic health and widespread prosperity. We must not allow a small group of rogue leaders to bring about the premature conclusion of this great experiment.

Leave a comment and let me know if you might be the “enemy within” as well (or under what circumstances that would be the case). So sad that it’s come to this.

1. Even opposition “AS A WHOLE” does not mean a knee-jerk reaction to oppose or decry any position or action put forward by the Administration (we should all support and enable a sensible peace plan in Gaza, for example). 100% Resistance is the irrational (and undemocratic) approach deployed ever more religiously by each succeeding opposition party in recent decades. The hyperventilating rhetoric of opposition (one symptom of the brokenness of our two party system) has exhausted the country. Like the boy who cried “wolf,” unwarranted claims of “end of democracy” or “godless socialism” have created such deep skepticism in the electorate that we are having difficulty seeing or acknowledging truly existential risk.

I do not fear Donald Trump actually reaching the level of autocratic totalitarianism of the historical (and current figures) we most loathe. He might aspire to such things, but is too old and undisciplined. I do fear the unprecedented damage he is doing to our system. It sets the stage for realization of our worst fears. In one sense, Trump and his inner circle are merely accelerating a long-building consolidation of power in the Executive. But, as put forward below, they have broken through lines we cannot afford to tolerate.

2. Even before the election, Trump responded “that’s pretty accurate” to the characterization of “the enemy within” as “people who don’t support you.” He then cited Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff as specific examples.

3. Taken independently, each of the following represents an aggressive claim of Executive authority (many will likely be found to be outside the authority of the Executive too late to avoid the damage). Many also reflect a cavalier view of individual and human rights antithetical to democratic values (and decent human compassion). Collectively, they reflect a coordinated assault against Constitutional constraints.

• Numerous unilateral decisions to rescind or impound funding approved by Congress across dozens of departments (Beginning with DOGE and ongoing), including cancellation of humanitarian programs and university research grants

• Cheerleading violations of immigrant due process rights and establishing deportation quotas without regard to feasibility of achievement while respecting individual rights

• Imposition of a global tariff program without Congressional involvement

• Executive orders on matters clearly outside the authority of the Executive including elimination of birthright citizenship and rules for administering elections

• Unilateral announcement of new H-1B visa rules and a $100,000 fee

• Firing and pressuring leaders of independent agencies for failure to champion Administration views, including firing of Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (for an unfavorable report revision put out in the normal course) and an attempt to fire a governor of the Fed.

• Transparently ordering the Department of Justice to prosecute perceived enemies (even when prior investigations had indicated no justification) and closing investigations of those useful to the Administration (Eric Adams, Tom Homan)

• Interfering with the free press by filing spurious libel lawsuits

This is not a complete list and does not speak to the appearance of large scale financial corruption related to the Trump family’s crypto currency businesses and lawsuits with little viable reason except to invite settlements payments as a means to curry favor with the Administration.

4. A fair question is raised by people I respect as to whether declaration of a breach of a bright line should be delayed until courts rule these deployments illegal and the Administration defies such a ruling. The problem with this is that bad faith actors can change the game more quickly than our legal system can respond. The Administration has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith in relation to compliance with the courts (ignoring orders to call back planes illegally transferring immigrants to El Salvador, attempting to order California Guard troops to Oregon to circumvent ruling against the use of Oregon Guard troops). The present pace and scale of troop deployments seems calculated to manufacture circumstances where the legality of ongoing use of force will be murkier (a point made by the judge in yesterday’s ruling on the Illinois National Guard deployment) .

As the Administration deflects and defers, it is difficult to imagine the courts finding the Executive Branch has acted properly when (1) circumstances on the ground clearly were not so dire as to be at emergency level, (2) local officials declined to request any assistance, (3) immigration enforcement is being conflated with general policing and is being implemented without regard to certain due process requirements, and (4) there is evidence – use of undue force (military-style assault on an apartment complex, quick use of chemicals on protesters), and signaling to the leaders of the armed forces of the need to fight internal enemies in American cities (Trump’s speech at Quantico) – that these actions and orders are intended to increase violence, not avoid it.