The Police State is Here

While proposing otherwise, Trump luxuriates in aspiring dictatorship

As Donald Trump’s approval numbers sink under the weight of repeated failure and flubs (e.g., Ukraine, the Jeffrey Epstein files, inflation, the reverse-Robin-Hood reconciliation deal), and the Democrats race to a huge advantage in the generic polling, his panic has escalated, causing him to resort to ever more extreme authoritarian moves (the Texas power grab, occupying D.C., etc.) He’s even declared that, in fact, people would like a dictator. Rather than dispel the whiff of desperation, however, his last three gambits have only reinforced his likeness to a mad king.

First, Trump’s obsession with persecuting Kilmar Abrego Garcia has accelerated. The wrongfully deported Abrego Garcia, whose mere presence in the U.S. underscores Trump’s dictatorial and ineffective deportation scheme, has triggered the president into committing one outlandish stunt after another, like evading a court order to turn the plane around or pretending he lacked the authority to return him from El Salvador). The Trump regime most recently has tried to bludgeon him to take a guilty plea for a concocted criminal charge under threat of deportation to Uganda.

After Abrego Garcia’s counsel brought suit to halt it, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in a hastily scheduled hearing, delivered the law in words even the government’s lawyers could not spin or misinterpret: “Your clients are absolutely forbidden at this juncture to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia from the continental United States.” She also warned the government about coercing a guilty plea. “It is in my view plain that you can't do that," Judge Xinis said. "You can't condition the relinquishment of constitutional rights in that regard." She added, "You'd never get a knowing and voluntary guilty plea out of anyone if you do that.” We will see if the government continues its humiliating quest for vindication, or looks for an off-ramp.

Second, Trump crossed another red line in purporting to “fire” Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook for “cause” after his lackey U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, William Pulte, alleged she has committed “mortgage fraud” (similar manufactured charges have been leveled at other Trump foes, New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Sen. Adam Schiff). She has vigorously denied the charge and maintained Trump has no power to fire her.

His transparent effort to demolish Fed independence and bully it to lower rates has raised red flags in the financial community. “President Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook is the most dramatic step yet in his effort to take control of the independent central bank and its vast authority over interest rates,” the Wall Street Journal warned.

“To the extent that Fed independence stands for anything, it stands for the idea that monetary policy should not be made by the whims of the sitting president,” Peter Conti-Brown, a financial and legal scholar at the University of Pennsylvania told the Journal. “If we allow this to become the norm, then this is the end of Federal Reserve independence as we know it.”

Later in the day, the Fed issued a statement indicating Cook would sue, and that it would abide by any court order. The Fed also noted pointedly, “Long tenures and removal protections for governors serve as a vital safeguard, ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on data, economic analysis, and the long-term interests of the American people.” Big business, former Fed officials, banks, investors, and members of Congress must speak up, or see us edge closer to the status of a country in which a tin pot dictator inflates currency at will.

As The Economist explained, “The move marks a dramatic escalation in Mr. Trump’s battle with the Fed—the agency of the American government that is best insulated from political meddling, in order to allow for monetary policy to be set independently.” That, in turn, may drag in “previously non-partisan parts of America’s policymaking machine” into the fray and dial up the pressure on Republicans whose billionaire donors do not want to see Trump melt down the markets.

Third, Trump continues to bully states and militarize law enforcement. In an executive decree issued on Monday, he purported to create and order training of “specialized units” of D.C.’s and other states’ national guard for “public order issues.” Another diktat threatened states with loss of federal funds unless they do away with cashless bail. He also stepped up his threats to deploy the national guard in Chicago for crime fighting.

Trump has no grounds for, in essence, federalizing state law issues. Democratic states attorneys general and governors surely will push back vigorously in court should he carry out this unconstitutional threat to usurp state authority.

With regard to the Chicago maneuver, “Flooding blue cities with soldiers on the pretext of fighting crime would be an unprecedented abuse of power that would violate states’ rights and threaten our most fundamental liberties,” The Brennan Center’s Elizabeth Goitein explained. “The plan is profoundly un-American. And it is illegal.”

Whether it is attempting to nationalize the Illinois guard or bring in guards from other states, Trump lacks any statutory basis to use military for domestic law enforcement purposes. This goes to the heart of the posse comitatus law and the Founders’ concern about deploying military against the civilian population.

One can be sure Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker will stand by his vow to oppose any federal invasion of his state. His comments at a Monday press conference should resonate in D.C. and among all those concerned with preserving our democracy:

If this was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe, what possible justification could the White House have for planning such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with the governor, the mayor, or the police?

Let me answer that question. This is not about fighting crime. This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city in a blue state to try and intimidate his political rivals.

Finally, while Trump may have unusual authority over the D.C. National Guard and their training, stepping beyond performative actions concerning training into deployment of military for law enforcement purposes will bring swift legal action, as happened in California. Someone in Trump’s regime should be worried that when an actual disaster strikes a state whose guard he has corralled into doing his bidding, Trump’s antics will be recognized as the life-threatening diversion campaigns that they are.

Whether persecuting Abrego Garcia, threatening Fed independence, or shredding the constitutional division between military forces and civilian law enforcement, Trump has signaled there are no limits (and scant consideration) to his dictatorial ambitions. Unless states and ultimately the Supreme Court (which to date has enabled his tyrannical moves) blow the whistle, the fear of a police state with a corrupt, crony-capitalist economy will become our reality.