Opinion - The guardrails against authoritarianism are not holding
In 1941, as the U.S. headed toward war, President Franklin Roosevelt enunciated the foundational 'Four Freedoms,' the pillars on which he saw our nation built: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
In just 90 days since President Trump took office, Americans have seen the Four Freedoms chilled, if not seriously imperiled.
The dispensing of guardrails abounds. It includes appointments of Trump loyalists thin on qualifications for their jobs. It includes the firings of people like Gen. Timothy Hough, head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, which lawmakers described as a 'chilling' action that would damage America's cyber defenses and 'roll out the red carpet' for attacks by foreign adversaries.
It includes compromising national security with leaks of sensitive data to outsiders and wholesale deportations without a hearing. It includes holding large law firms to ransom out of personal animus, then exacting millions in free services, provided the services aid favored MAGA causes. It includes crashing the Federal Reserve for 'playing politics' and dismantling or neutering the independent agencies. It includes devaluing the work of scientists and defunding research at the universities — all elements constructed to keep us free, safe and healthy.
As for the rule of law, Trump even threatened to seek impeachment of judges that disagreed with him, at least until Chief Justice John Roberts, with an unprecedented rebuke, put a stop to it.
The public is not happy. Last weekend was marked by millions of people across the country who took to the streets to protest the havoc. While the protesters showed anger toward Trump, Elon Musk and the 'Department of Government Efficiency' that has been slashing government agencies and employees, they more generally focused on our freedoms, aiming not to change the status quo but to protect our traditional rights from abridgement.
The protestors carried homemade signs. One said, 'We value: Due Process, Public Health, Science, Our Veterans, Our Diversity, The Friendship & Autonomy of Our Allies.' Another, my favorite, sized it up neatly: 'Hands Off Our Rule of Law.'
So, what can save us from this madness? It might be the federal courts, which have before them more than 170 cases filed against the administration's executive orders, with a number resulting in temporary restraining orders entered against the government. But this will take time, and it is time that we may not have.
Can we count on the Department of Justice? It is supposed to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. But under Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, examples of removing guardrails abound.
Career Justice Department lawyers find it difficult to answer relevant questions put to them by judges, as honest answers might undercut the policy directives of the political appointees at the top. These career lawyers know the dire consequences of an honest answer. A top immigration law prosecutor was just fired for admitting that the deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador was the result of an 'administrative error.'
One significant guardrail has been the highly respected Office of Legal Counsel. Under Trump and Bondi, the office has been largely dealt out of the game.
The Office of Legal Counsel traces its origins to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which empowers attorneys general to render legal opinions to the president, and a 1962 presidential directive requiring it to review draft executive orders. The office regularly evaluates the legality of executive orders before they are issued, ensuring they are within the president's constitutional and statutory powers. The office issues opinions, the product of meticulous research, that are supposed to bind the executive branch. Its opinions are often cited with approval by the Supreme Court. One of its opinions put a stop to torture of alleged terrorists after 9/11; another dealt with drone strikes on American citizens abroad. Another opinion is that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted while in office for criminal acts.
Attorneys general can overrule Office of Legal Counsel conclusions, and presidents are not bound to follow its advice. But in practice, reversal of the office's judgments is rare.
The Office of Legal Counsel has been led by the preeminent lawyers of their day, three of whom — Byron White, William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia — went on to become Supreme Court justices.
Trump has curtailed the influence of the Office of Legal Counsel, taking actions that contradict its opinions on topics involving birthright citizenship, impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress, migrants' asylum rights and White House jurisdiction over the Smithsonian Institution.
The Office of Legal Counsel has been startlingly absent from public debates, including administration efforts to revoke visas of foreign students; fire officials without regard to legislated job protections against arbitrary removal; dismantling and defunding agencies such as USAID and NIH; and wholesale deportations without due process, among others. Such moves threaten our health, safety, national security and the very core of democracy. What does the Trump administration have against scientific and medical research that can save our lives? Beats me.
Where have all the guardrails gone? The Office of Legal Counsel, designed to protect the president and the American people from a legal misstep, has been put out to pasture. Those who might have stood up to Trump have been fired or excluded from appointments in the first place. So we are in free fall, living in a needless fear, 'boats against the current,' leaving very little to protect the 'Four Freedoms' from overreaching executive action.
James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
12 minutes ago
Trump will visit a remote immigration detention site in the Florida Everglades
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is making a day trip to Florida's Everglades on Tuesday for a firsthand look at a new immigration detention facility that the White House suggests will be especially secure given that it is 'surrounded by alligators.' The detention facility is on an isolated airstrip about 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Miami and could house 5,000 detainees. It's drawn protests over the potential impact on a delicate ecosystem and criticism that Trump is trying to send a cruel message to immigrants — while some Native American leaders have also opposed construction, saying the land is sacred. But a key selling point for the Trump administration is the site's remoteness, and the fact that it is in swampland filled with mosquitoes, pythons and alligators. The White House hopes that conveys a message to the detainees being housed there and the world at large that repercussions will be severe if the immigration laws of the United States are not followed. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt noted that the center is 'informally known as Alligator Alcatraz,' a moniker that has alarmed immigrant activists but appeals to the president's aggressive approach to deportations. 'There's only one road leading in, and the only way out is a one-way flight,' Leavitt said. 'It is isolated and it is surrounded by dangerous wildlife and unforgiving terrain.' Crackdowns on the border and harsh immigration policies have long been a centerpiece of Trump's political brand. During his first term in 2019, Trump denied reports that he floated the idea of building a moat filled with alligators at the U.S.-Mexico border. 'I may be tough on Border Security, but not that tough," he said at the time. In his second term, Trump has suggested that his administration could move to reopen Alcatraz, the notorious and hard-to-reach island prison off San Francisco. And Leavitt said the new Florida detention center's inhospitable location — and dangerous nearby fauna — were pluses. 'A detention center surrounded by alligators, yes, I do think that's a deterrent for them to try to escape,' she said. Former U.S. Rep. David Jolly of Florida, a former Republican who is now running for governor as a Democrat, called the facility a 'callous political stunt.' The White House has similarly promoted the political shock value of sending some immigrants awaiting deportation from the U.S. to a detention lockup in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and others to a megaprison in El Salvador. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees are in detention facilities for immigration reasons, like entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa. They are either waiting for ICE to put them on the next flight or bus ride home or are fighting their removal in immigration court. If an immigrant is accused of or has committed a violent crime, he or she is tried and held in state or federal criminal jurisdiction, separate from the immigration system. In those cases, they may be transferred to ICE for deportation after completing their criminal sentences. State officials are spearheading construction of the Florida facility, but much of the cost is being covered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is best known for responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, whom Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has credited as the architect of the Everglades plan, first debuted the proposal with a slickly produced video, complete with custom graphics featuring red-eyed alligators and backed by a hard rock soundtrack. The Florida Republican Party has fundraised off the facility, selling branded T-shirts and beverage container sleeves. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested Monday that the facility could be open and 'ready for business' by the time Trump arrives. DeSantis said the site has obtained approval from the Department of Homeland Security, which posted an image of alligators wearing ICE hats and sitting in front of a fenced-in compound ringed with barbed wire. The governor, who challenged Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has also played up the fact that the site will be hard to escape from. 'They ain't going anywhere once they're there, unless you want them to go somewhere, because good luck getting to civilization," DeSantis said. "So the security is amazing.'
Boston Globe
42 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Iowa's civil rights protections no longer include gender identity as new law takes effect
Advertisement When Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed Iowa's new law, she said the state's previous civil rights code 'blurred the biological line between the sexes.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'It's common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it's necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls,' she said in a video statement. Also taking effect Tuesday are provisions in the state's health and human services budget that say Medicaid recipients are no longer covered for gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy. A national movement Iowa's state Capitol filled with protesters as the law went through the Republican-controlled Legislature and to Reynolds' desk in just one week in February. Iowa Republicans said laws passed in recent years to restrict transgender students' use of bathrooms and locker rooms, and their participation on sports teams, could not coexist with a civil rights code that includes gender identity protections. Advertisement About two dozen other states and the Trump administration have advanced restrictions on transgender people. Republicans say such laws and executive actions protect spaces for women, rejecting the idea that people can transition to another gender. Many face court challenges. About two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found. But there's less consensus on policies that target transgender and nonbinary people. Transgender people say those kinds of policies deny their existence and capitalize on prejudice for political gain. In a major setback for transgender rights nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors. The court's conservative majority said it doesn't violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. Not every state includes gender identity in their civil rights code, but Iowa was the first to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank. Incidents of discrimination in Iowa, before and after July 1 Iowans will still have time to file a complaint with the state Office of Civil Rights about discrimination based on gender identity that occurred before the law took effect. State law requires a complaint to be submitted within 300 days after the most recent incident of alleged discrimination. That means people have until April 27 to file a complaint about discrimination based on gender identity, according to Kristen Stiffler, the office's executive director. Advertisement Sixty-five such complaints were filed and accepted for investigation from July 2023 through the end of June 2024, according to Stiffler. Forty-three were filed and accepted from July 1, 2024, through June 19 of this year. Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, a Democrat and the state's first openly transgender lawmaker, fears the law will lead to an increase in discrimination for transgender Iowans. 'Anytime someone has to check your ID and they see that the gender marker doesn't match the appearance, then that opens up hostility, discrimination as possibilities,' Wichtendahl said, naming examples such as applying for a job, going through the airport, buying beer or getting pulled over in a traffic stop. 'That instantly outs you. That instantly puts you on the spot.' About half of U.S. states include gender identity in their civil rights code to protect against discrimination in housing and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Some additional states do not explicitly protect against such discrimination, but it is included in legal interpretations of statutes. Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled LGBTQ people are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. But Iowa's Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity. Changing Iowa birth certificates before the law took effect The months between when the bill was signed into law and when it took effect gave transgender Iowans time to pursue amended birth certificates before that option was eliminated. Keenan Crow, with LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Iowa, said the group has long cosponsored legal clinics to assist with that process. 'The last one that we had was by far the biggest,' Crow said. Advertisement Iowa's Department of Transportation still has a process by which people can change the gender designation on their license or identification card but has proposed administrative rules to eliminate that option. Wichtendahl also said she has talked to some families who are looking to move out of state as a result of the new law. 'It's heartbreaking because this is people's lives we're talking about,' Wichtendahl added. 'These are families that have trans loved ones and it's keeping their loved ones away, it's putting their loved ones into uncertain future, putting their health and safety at risk.'
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Trump appeals order striking down EO targeting Perkins Coie
July 1 (UPI) -- The Justice Department is appealing a federal judge's order striking down a President Donald Trump executive order targeting the law firm of former political opponent Hillary Clinton. Since returning to the White House, Trump has used his executive orders to attack more than a half-dozen premier law firms, suspending their security clearances, revoking federal contracts and even restricting their access to federal buildings for being associated or linked to people and supporting interests that do not align with the president or his policies. Several law firms made deals, including preemptive agreements, worth a combined nearly $1 billion in pro bono commitments, while others, including Perkins Coie, have fought back. Critics have accused Trump of using his presidential authority to attack his perceived political opponents and as part of a larger attack on the U.S. justice system. In March, Trump terminated government contracts and revoked security clearances for Perkins Coie via an executive order that cited the firm's work for Clinton during the 2016 presidential election -- when she ran against him and lost -- as the reason for the punitive measure. In early May, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down the executive order, which she said was unlike any that an American president had issued before. "Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution," she said. Other, similar rulings have followed, giving victories to Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, for a total of four executive orders naming specific law firms being turned aside. The appeal filed Monday by the Justice Department suggests it will continue to fight for Trump's executive orders. "We look forward to presenting our case to the D.C. Circuit and remain committed to ensuring that the unconstitutional Executive Order targeting our firm is never enforced," Perkins Coie said in a statement. "In the meantime, we will continue to practice law, as we have for over a century, and remain guided by the same commitments that first compelled us to bring this challenge: to protect our firm, safeguard the interests of our clients and uphold the rule of law."
