Europe is lurching towards tyranny
Scholars like Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of How Democracies Die and Tyranny of the Minority, argue that US democracy is sliding into authoritarianism. Academic David Driesen recently told The Guardian that Trump is attempting to turn the US into a dictatorship.
The Left would like us to believe that Trump's attacks on 'fake news', and his particular disdain for the progressive media, signal the unravelling of free speech. The truth is that the American system is functioning well and as the Founders intended.
Federal judges have challenged Trump at every turn, issuing countless rulings to block executive actions on immigration, federal funding, and workforce reductions. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed, subjecting his policies to unprecedented scrutiny. Only recently has the Supreme Court, after careful deliberation, limited the use of universal injunctions. Far from presiding over a dictatorship, it's unlikely that any other US president has faced such a relentless judicial onslaught.
Yes, Trump is using the executive powers of the presidency to push through change, but the separation of powers is also proving remarkably effective. Trump may have secured his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' through Congress, delivering extended tax cuts, increased defence spending, and immigration reforms. But these victories came at a cost: compromises on Social Security and healthcare funding. This is not tyranny – it's the messy process of American democracy at work.
It is particularly galling to hear hysterical warnings about Trump's threat to democracy from Europeans. Many of them like to believe that their societies are uniquely civilised, champions of universal values in a world lurching towards authoritarianism. Have they not noticed what is happening within their own borders?
Almost 40 years ago, when the Berlin Wall came down, it was a victory for the free world. America and western Europe – the West – had prevailed against the Soviet system. What is 'the West' today?
It increasingly looks as if the freedoms that Europeans enjoyed since the end of the Second World War were really an aberration, a consequence of the victory of Anglo-American arms in 1945. Europe has begun to revert to a much more authoritarian tradition.
Over the past decade, restrictive laws have tightened their grip on free expression. Germany's NetzDG has turned social media companies into an internet police force, adding to an existing culture of intolerance towards free speech. One journalist recently received a seven-month suspended sentence for a satirical meme. In France, platforms must remove 'hate speech' within 24 hours or face severe fines.
The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) leans on online platforms to remove 'disinformation' – a term so vague it risks abuse. Claims about Covid-19's origins, once dismissed as misinformation, are now widely accepted. Yet the DSA empowers regulators to police speech with little real accountability.
Having started to proscribe dissident opinions online, Europe may soon begin to take action against dissenting political parties. In Germany, there have been calls to ban the opposition party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), making perverse use of a law designed to defend democracy.
But it is in Britain – which produced the original Bill of Rights – where the clampdown of free speech has perhaps been most alarming. The British police arrested an estimated 12,183 people in 2023 under laws that, among other things, target 'grossly offensive' messages. That is about 33 arrests each day in the land of Magna Carta.
Perhaps the most infamous case of someone being locked up for what they said online is Lucy Connolly, an ordinary mother, sentenced to more than two years in prison for one horrible social media post. Nobody can credibly claim that she poses any threat to the public.
Connolly presumably pleaded guilty on the understanding that she would be treated more leniently. Leniency is the last thing she received. Instead, the authorities seem to have made an example of her, to quell rising anti-immigration sentiment amid fears of public unrest. This is not justice – it's punishment for dissent. A society that tolerates such verdicts cannot call itself free.
Progressives like to decry Donald Trump's supposed threat to judicial independence, yet US federal judges have repeatedly checked his decisions. In Britain, however, the judiciary increasingly appears to be an arm of the state, not a restraint upon it.
For years, defenders of judicial oversight in Britain argued that courts reviewing executive actions would protect individual rights. Incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law was hailed as a bulwark for liberty. Yet these safeguards have failed to prevent citizens like Lucy Connolly from being imprisoned for an inflammatory online post. Far from defending freedom, Britain's courts seem complicit in eroding it.
If progressives really want to stop a free society that is descending into tyranny, forget about Donald Trump. The Supreme Court, Congress and the Constitution have him covered. No, the real story of emerging tyranny is happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Arizona Democrat challenges Trump after denied entry to Ice facility: ‘We can't look the other way'
An Arizona congressman says the US government violated federal law when it refused to allow him to visit a local restaurant owner held in an immigration detention facility last week. Greg Stanton, who represents Arizona's fourth congressional district, is the latest in a series of Democrats who have been denied entry into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detention facilities, despite members of Congress's legal right to conduct oversight without notice at places that detain migrants. Stanton said he expects to take legal action to hold the Trump administration accountable for violating this law. 'Every time the Trump administration violates the law – whether it's through impoundment or illegal terminations of government employees or systematic denial of due process rights, or denying members of Congress their obligation and right to visit a detention center – it all has to be challenged legally,' Stanton said. 'We can't look the other way. This is we operate under the rule of law, and this administration does not get to violate the rule of law. You can imagine that we will seek recourse.' Other Democratic members of Congress have experienced similar denials since Donald Trump's return to the White House. In one instance in May, LaMonica McIver, a New Jersey representative, was charged with assaulting and interfering with immigration officials after seeking entry into a detention center under her right to congressional oversight of these facilities. Stanton was trying to visit Kelly Yu, who owns a sushi restaurant, in custody in the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, where she has been detained since late May. Yu's husband requested Stanton go check on her after community members connected the family to Stanton's office. Yu has lived in the US for more than 20 years and is an 'incredible success story', Stanton said. She's a restauranteur who provides jobs for others in the community, contributes to local organizations and is involved in her local area, he said. She has never been in trouble with the law, but was denied asylum first in 2005. She has been trying to get citizenship and was picked up while attending a monthly check-in with immigration, 12News in Phoenix reported. Stanton said he wanted to check on Yu's condition, highlight her case, and observe conditions in the facility. Her story 'does make the case that mass deportation is not good for this country', Stanton said. 'Targeted deportation of people that have committed violent crimes everyone agrees with, but deporting people that are such strong community members, have been here for 20-plus years and are making significant contributions, that doesn't make sense.' At the Eloy facility, local immigration officials told him they would be following guidance from the Department of Homeland Security about congressional visits, which they told him now requires a request at least seven days in advance of a visit. He brought a copy of federal law with him, which doesn't mandate advance notice or approval, but they didn't budge. The department instituted the advance notice policy in June, after Democratic officials across the country have repeatedly tried to tour facilities and visit members of their communities detained within them. The visits are one way Democrats are trying to hold Trump accountable amid mass deportations and flouting of the law. After he was denied entry, Stanton made a request via the DHS directive, but he hasn't heard back yet about whether he'll be granted a visit. And besides, he said, the department is clearly violating the law by requiring advance notice and denying members of Congress entry. 'You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow,' he said. 'And it may be inconvenient to have a member of Congress show up and try to do their duty of oversight, but that doesn't matter. This is what the law says, and you've got to follow the law.'
BBC News
3 minutes ago
- BBC News
Who is Emil Bove, Trump's former lawyer and nominee for federal judge?
In a dramatic protest earlier this month, multiple Democratic US senators stormed out of a committee hearing one remained: Senator Cory Booker, who stayed at the Judiciary Committee hearing only to excoriate his Republican colleagues for "trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration."At the heart of the spectacle was Emil Bove III, Donald Trump's former personal attorney and his pick for a lifetime position as a federal appeals court judge. The Senate paved the way for a final vote on his nomination on Tuesday night. He was confirmed to the judgeship in a 50-49 president has appointed several personal attorneys and political allies to top posts at the justice department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But he nominated Mr Bove for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where he could conceivably review one of hundreds of lawsuits against the Trump administration. The lifetime tenure also could extend his influence long after Trump's has said Mr Bove will "end the Weaponization of Justice." But Democrats like Booker, and hundreds of former federal prosecutors, allege that appointing a Trump loyalist for life compromises the judicial system's Bove, however, told US senators at his confirmation hearing in June, "I am not anybody's henchman." "I am not an enforcer. I'm a lawyer from a small town who never expected to be in an arena like this," said Mr Bove, who was born and raised in upstate New York and attended Georgetown Law School. From Trump's attorney to top lieutenant For six weeks in spring 2024, Mr Bove was a constant presence at Trump's side as the once and future president stood trial in Manhattan on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He ultimately was found guilty on all counts, becoming the first former US president convicted of a felony. While his co-counsel Todd Blanche – now deputy attorney general – channelled the president's combative energy in multiple showdowns with the judge and witnesses, Mr Bove took a quieter yet forceful approach in defending the knows courtrooms well. Mr Bove was a federal prosecutor in the country's most prestigious division, the Southern District of New York (SDNY), from 2012 to 2021, promoted to leadership positions in narcotics and terrorism units in nine years, he prosecuted cases including multimillion dollar fraud schemes, and convicted a cocaine trafficker – also the brother of Honduras' president at the time."If you want somebody who's going to hit the ground running, he's the guy," former SDNY colleague, Brendan Quigley, told Reuters in February. "He's not one to shy away from a fight."Yet a Politico report suggested his leadership tenure at the SDNY was rocky, with some former colleagues telling the outlet that he had a harsh and even "abusive" management style. An internal inquiry initially concluded he should be demoted, Politico reported, but the office did not follow through on the about the report at his Senate confirmation hearing in June, Mr Bove said he was aware of the inquiry - "as well as the fact that I was not removed".He called the characterisation a "whisper campaign" and "not accurate."Trump had appointed Mr Bove to a powerful role managing daily operations at the justice department. He became the subject of an explosive February memo and resignation from New York federal prosecutor Danielle Sassoon. She alleged Mr Bove's order to drop a felony case against New York City mayor Eric Adams was politically motivated and legally unjustified. Both Adams and Mr Bove have denied her accusations. The incident led to a mass exodus at the SDNY and justice department's Public Integrity Unit, which provides oversight on cases involving politicians.A few weeks later, before a federal judge in New York he argued to dismiss Adams' case, which a judge ultimately also was in a whistleblower complaint by former justice department attorney Erez Reuveni, who was fired after he told a federal judge he could not provide legal justification for the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a mistakenly deported Salvadoran his 27-page complaint, Mr Reuveni alleged that Mr Bove raised the possibility judges would try to block such deportations, then "stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'f—you' and ignore any such court order."After the complaint became public, Mr Blanche slammed it as "utterly false."Democrats demanded more investigation, but Senator Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, accused Democrats of politicising the whistleblower complaint."Government lawyers aggressively litigating and interpreting court orders isn't misconduct — it's what lawyers do all the time," he said earlier this month."Emil Bove is an incredibly talented legal mind and a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution who will make an excellent circuit court judge," White House spokesman Harrison Fields told BBC in a statement. Former prosecutors opposed nomination Many recently departed justice department staffers worry the agency has deviated from its historic independence from the White House. And they allege Mr Bove along with Mr Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi have driven that Connection, a group representing former federal prosecutors, published a letter signed by over 900 former justice department attorneys urging senators to "rigorously examine" Mr Bove's time at the agency."Emil Bove has been an architect and enforcer of many of the attacks on DOJ and its employees," Stacey Young, the group's executive director, said in a statement. Federal courts remain the only serious check on Trump's executive power. As Trump battles in US federal courts over mass deportations and firing thousands of federal workers, his choice of Mr Bove makes some strategic sense."The president is reportedly upset that some of his first-term nominees haven't ruled his way, and it's not a surprise that he would nominate somebody like Bove, who prioritizes personal loyalty above all and is effective at doing that at the justice department," said Sara Zdeb, former justice department attorney who left in January and now teaches at Emory presidents appoint federal judges in ideological alignment with their administrations. But Trump - who has suggested judges have no power to block a president's agenda - may be attempting to go a step further, she said."Emil Bove's nomination sends an alarming, but unsurprising, signal that President Trump's future judicial nominees will be chosen based on their fealty to the president, not the rule of law," she said.
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's FBI Chief Kash Patel discovered 'burn bags' with thousands of Russia hoax docs in secret room
FBI Director Kash Patel discovered a stash of documents tied to the Russia investigation sealed away in 'burn bags' in a secret room of the bureau. The documents consisted of the classified annex to former Special Counsel John Durham 's final report, which includes the underlying intelligence he reviewed, a spokesperson for the FBI told the Daily Mail. Durham examined the FBI's investigation into potential links between Donald Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. A person familiar with the discovery speculated to the Daily Mail that it was likely an oversight by previous directors that prevented the documents from being destroyed. The person added that it's likely the documents would have never seen the light of day if the FBI wasn't diligently looking through everything it comes across at the bureau. The findings were turned over to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and will be released later Wednesday, the FBI spokesperson said. News of the discovery was first reported by Fox News. Patel, who is Trump's pick to head the bureau, was one of the FBI's most vocal critics. He has set about remaking the bureau, including firing senior agents and reassigning others. When he began his tenure, he promised a 'wave of transparency,' including on the investigation into the possible ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. Called 'Crossfire Hurricane,' the FBI ran a counter-intelligence probe into potential links between Trump's first presidential campaign and Russia. Durham's report found that the investigation was 'seriously flawed,' but it didn't uncover evidence of criminal wrongdoing. His report also didn't support President Trump's claim that special counsel Robert Mueller's report was a 'witch hunt' or a 'hoax.' Muller's report found the FBI investigation 'did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities' but it did find Russian interference in the 2016 contest that it claimed benefitted Trump. President Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly claimed to be the victim of a witch hunt when it came to the FBI probe of the 2016 election. The loyal supporters he's installed throughout the federal government have been searching for evidence to back up his claim. Special Counsel John Durham (left) was appointed in October 2020 to look into the FBI probe of possible ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia; Special Counsel Robert Mueller (right) examined whether Russia interfered in that contest Patel, in a June interview with podcast host Joe Rogan, said he found a room full of documents and computer hard drives 'that no one had ever seen or heard of.' 'Just think about this,' Patel told Rogan. 'Me, as director of the FBI, the former 'Russiagate guy,' when I first got to the bureau, found a room that [former FBI director James] Comey and others hid from the world in the Hoover Building, full of documents and computer hard drives that no one had ever seen or heard of. Locked the key and hid access and just said, 'No one's ever gonna find this place.'' Patel and his staff have been working through the documents since that time. Other Trump officials are coming forward with findings tied to the 2016 election. Last week Tulsi Gabbard, who serves as Trump's director of National Intelligence, claimed Russia President Vladimir Putin had sensitive information on Hillary Clinton and planned to use it against her when she was serving as president. She claimed the government had intelligence reports that Russia actually wanted a Clinton victory in 2016. 'This report shows Putin held back leaking, held back from leaking compromising material on Hillary Clinton prior to the election, instead planning to release it after the election,' Gabbard said. 'The intelligence community intentionally suppressed intelligence that showed Putin was saving the most damaging material that he had in his possession about Hillary Clinton until after her potential and likely victory,' she noted.
