Skip to main content

How Trump's Attacks on Democracy Put the Constitution at Risk


In 1952, seven years after the end of the Second World War, Congress established Constitution Day to celebrate our country’s sacred foundational document. In the more than 70 years since, most Americans have taken for granted the fundamental freedoms this day honors. There are no parades, no barbecues, and no mattress sales for Constitution Day. In many ways, this low profile is a sign of strength.

But this year, that complacency feels perilous. Fundamental pillars of our democracy are under assault, and the situation is more dire than many realize. That’s why we can no longer assume the Constitution will simply survive through benign neglect.We must fight to protect and strengthen it.

Established 238 years ago, our constitutional system has been so stable and reliable that many don’t have to give it a second thought.

Established 238 years ago, our constitutional system has been so stable and reliable that many don’t have to give it a second thought. As our country has evolved and expanded rights and advanced democratic reforms, this framework – through its many iterations and amendments – has remained true to its core throughout. Through civil war and depression, world wars and social upheavals, through the peaceful transfer of power across generations and parties, Americans have been able to count on the Constitution being there.

Today we are facing a new type of threat. There is now a coordinated assault on the constitutional architecture that has sustained American democracy. This assault should alarm anyone who values constitutional governance and the personal freedoms we so often take for granted.

Alarmingly, we’re witnessing the intrusion of military force into civilian life. Earlier this summer the president deployed Marines and National Guard units to crack down on protests in Los Angeles and has thousands of Guard members patrolling the streets of Washington D.C. The administration has signaled that this is just the start, with plans to deploy more troops onto American streets in Chicago and possibly elsewhere.

There is now a coordinated assault on the constitutional architecture that has sustained American democracy.

This violates a founding principle of American governance, enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act, that military forces should not police civilians. The Constitution establishes a clear civil-military divide because the founders understood that when the military becomes a tool of domestic control, constitutional democracy dies. Immigration detention centers under construction on military bases echo some of the darkest chapters in our history and represent a dangerous conflation of military and civilian authority.

As we saw in Los Angeles, the deployment of troops is a fear tactic meant to silence opposition and criminalize dissent. But the attacks on the First Amendment are not isolated to targeting peaceful protest. The Trump administration has ushered in a new McCarthy era, sending a clear message that if someone disagrees with our government, they will be punished.

The Constitution has survived 238 years because we, the people, have fought for it when it was threatened.

Just look at this administration’s actions. Federal agents have repeatedly detained or arrested public officials conducting legitimate oversight, including Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka,Congresswoman LaMonica McIver, andSenator Alex Padilla, who was tackled and detained for asking Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem questions. Students, including green card holders, have been detained and threatened with deportation for writing op-eds or expressing views that deviate from what the administration deems acceptable.

The administration is not content with silencing critics — it rejects the very concept of legitimate political opposition. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller recently declared "The Democrat party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization." Coming from an administration that’s literally prosecuting a democratic congresswoman on invented felony charges stemming from her oversight of an ICE facility, this explicit rejection of political pluralism is chilling.

Perhaps most dangerously, the Trump administration is ignoring the rule of law and corrupting justice itself. The president has targeted law firms whose attorneys investigated him, stripping their security clearances, barring attorneys from federal buildings, and terminating government contracts unless firms agree to coercive demands for "pro bono" services. He excoriates judges who issue unfavorable rulings, calling them "radical left lunatics" and "deranged," while encouraging calls for impeachment or worse. Ominously, the Justice Department is now seeking financial sanctions against immigration attorney Joshua Schroeder for filing emergency motions to halt his client's deportation — the first case under a new Trump directive to personally target lawyers who challenge administration policies.

Military forces now police civilians. Members of Congress are arrested for doing their jobs. The president's top adviser declares the opposition party illegitimate. Judges and lawyers face threats for upholding the law. This is the systematic dismantling of constitutional governance.

The Constitution has survived 238 years because we, the people, have fought for it when it was threatened. Today, the danger is not from foreign invasion or civil war, but instead the methodical dismantling of constitutional governance by a president sworn to uphold it. At a moment when we are seeing political violence escalating — claiming lives and threatening the very free discourse our Constitution protects — we must choose peaceful democratic engagement over dehumanization and violence. The power ultimately lies with the people, and as a country we must decide whether we will defend our Constitution or let it fall.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...