Donald Trump’s second term is an unprecedented assault on the Constitution, one that even judges he appointed are now condemning. The recent ruling from US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump nominee, blocking the president’s deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, underscores a pivotal moment for judicial integrity. Trump’s characterization of Portland as “war-torn” and “under siege” by “Antifa and other domestic terrorists” was swiftly dismissed by Immergut as “untethered to facts.” Her assertion that “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law” reminds us that the judiciary still holds the power to challenge executive overreach.
In stark contrast, Trump’s response was to further demean the judiciary by misgendering Judge Immergut, a clear tactic to delegitimize a ruling that contradicted his authoritarian impulses. “I wasn’t served well by the people who pick judges,” he lamented, showing how he views judicial independence as an obstacle to his agenda rather than a necessary pillar of democracy. Such rhetoric serves to sow fear and confusion, and it is emblematic of a broader strategy to undermine the authority of the courts.
More troubling are the incendiary remarks from Trump’s political allies, notably Stephen Miller and Elon Musk, who are signaling a dangerous shift toward open hostility against the judiciary. Miller’s post on X, a platform owned by Musk, labeled the situation a “legal insurrection.” He argued that the president, as commander-in-chief, should have unfettered control over law enforcement actions against perceived threats. Such language is not just incendiary; it is a direct attack on the separation of powers and a call to arms against judicial checks on executive authority.
Musk’s comments took the threats even further, advocating for Trump to emulate Nayib Bukele, the autocratic president of El Salvador, who has systematically dismantled judicial independence in favor of consolidating power. By endorsing such a precedent, Musk is not merely expressing a political opinion; he is endorsing authoritarianism, a stance that threatens to erode the very foundation of democratic governance.
The implications of these remarks cannot be overstated. They not only reflect a deep-seated resentment toward judges who uphold the law against Trump’s whims but also set a dangerous precedent for future attacks on the judiciary. The Supreme Court, which has granted Trump extraordinary power in provisional cases, now faces a reckoning as it approaches decisions that could redefine the limits of executive authority. The impending battles in the Supreme Court will be critical, and we must be vigilant against the intimidation tactics at play.
What we are witnessing is not merely a political spat; it is a systemic threat to the rule of law. David French, a conservative commentator, raised alarms about the potential for violence stemming from Miller’s rhetoric. Given the history of MAGA-fueled violence, including the January 6 insurrection, the judicial system is right to be concerned about the safety of its members. The recent arson of the home of a South Carolina judge, who had received threats after ruling against Trump, only adds to this chilling narrative.
Miller’s rhetoric might indeed stem from panic. The urgency in his words suggests a fear that the window to secure an enduring authoritarian regime is closing. This is echoed by far-right commentator Curtis Yarvin, who has expressed a belief that the Trump revolution is faltering, hinting at a political backlash that could be severe. The alarming truth is that public sentiment is shifting against Trump’s hardline immigration policies, with polls indicating that a majority of Americans now disapprove of his approach.
Despite the Democratic Party’s reluctance to confront Trump directly on immigration, the comments from Miller and Musk have armed them with a powerful narrative. This is a moment where defending immigrant rights should be framed as part of a broader struggle to protect constitutional norms. Democrats cannot afford to remain passive while the very foundations of our democracy are threatened. The time to act is now, not just to protect those vulnerable communities but to affirm our commitment to the rule of law and the principles of justice that define our nation.
The attacks on our judiciary must be met with robust resistance and accountability. History will judge us not just by our political affiliations but by our courage to stand against tyranny where it arises. The battle for the soul of our democracy is far from over, and it is imperative that we rise to confront these challenges with clarity and resolve.
This article highlights the importance of ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.
