Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) recently posted a long, relatively negative tweet critical of Donald Trump and her Republican colleagues in Congress. That may be surprising since MTG has been one of the biggest supporters and enablers of Trump and his corrupt, anti-American agenda in Congress. But even in her criticism, MTG gets a lot wrong.

I’ve included MTG’s tweet below along with my thoughts, as if we were in conversation. Of course, we were not actually in conversation. Generally speaking, MTG and I don’t run in the same circles.

——————————

Marjorie Taylor Greene: I represent the base and when I’m frustrated and upset over the direction of things, you better be clear, the base is not happy.

Me: MTG , you’re not wrong about this. Increasingly, the base of the Republican party is upset with Donald Trump. It’s no wonder. What he is doing currently and how he is doing it is unpopular with a majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans. Having said that, I think you’re wrong about the lessons you’ve drawn from the unhappiness of your base.

MTG: I campaigned for no more foreign wars. And now we are supposedly on the verge of going to war with Iran. I don’t think we should be bombing foreign countries on behalf of other foreign countries especially when they have their own nuclear weapons and massive military strength.

And on top of that, now we are told that we have signed a deal for mineral rights in Ukraine, in order to pay us back for the hundreds of billions of dollars that we gave Ukraine and they used for money laundering, sold the weapons we gave them to our enemies, and their leader is a dictator who canceled elections, was involved of the first impeachment of Trump, and campaigned for Biden. Didn’t we learn our lesson when we went to war in Iraq and killed Saddam Hussein because of “weapons of mass destruction?” Did we ever find any? And did any of that oil over in the Middle East make us rich? The answer is no, we are $36 trillion in debt today. So why on earth would we go over and occupy Ukraine and spend an untold amount of future American taxpayer dollars defending and mining their minerals as well as potentially putting American lives at risk and future war? Why don’t we just mine our own rare earth minerals that are tied up on federal lands that the government confiscated years ago?

Me: Wow, there’s a lot to breakdown here. Let’s start with no more foreign wars. MTG, you may find this hard to believe, but we generally agree on this point. The United States should not be engaging in war on behalf of another nation. I assume the other nation you are talking about is Israel, right? I don’t know that we are on the verge of a war with Iran, but it would be a bad idea, no matter the reason we might engage in such a war.

Next, you’re view of the aid we gave to Ukraine is strangely skewed. First, it is right and proper that the United States, an ally to Ukraine, should give military and humanitarian aid to them in their defense against Russian aggression. For the moment, I won’t get into the accusations made by your own Republican colleagues in the House that you are a Russian asset who often parrots Russian propaganda and talking points, but it’s important to remember that such an accusation still hangs out there and has never been withdrawn. In the very least, you’re a stooge for Russia and your view of the war in Ukraine is not credible.

Second, we didn’t make loans to Ukraine, we provided them with aid with no expectation that they would pay us back. That’s how these things work. We did what we thought was right, not what we thought we could profit from. The transactional nature of your perspective on how we should relate to our allies is troubling.

Third, I’m troubled by your obsession with spoiling our natural lands—which you wrongly stated were confiscated—in order to mine for rare earth minerals. You fail to look into the future to see what damage such mining would do, your only concern for the here and now. Expand your view, Marjorie. The world will go on long after you are gone. Let’s try to leave them a country and a planet worth protecting.

Fourth and finally, why do you insist on spreading lies about Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine. He’s not a dictator. He was overwhelmingly elected by Ukrainian voters. Also, he didn’t cancel elections. The Constitution of Ukraine provides for the suspension of elections during war, although I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know that. You don’t bother to read our Constitution. Why would you read theirs?

MTG: I also campaigned on accountability for the communist and tyrannical acts made by the government during Covid. Yet the Covid vaccine still has FDA approval even though there are millions reported injuries and deaths, and this mRNA vaccine is known to have horrific side effects and DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM CATCHING COVID. And to this day, it’s still on the childhood vaccine schedule, why on earth is this happening? Hasn’t big pharma made enough billions and billions and billions of dollars on this lie?

Me: Seriously, is there any conspiracy theory you won’t champion? Let’s start with some hard facts. First, it was your boy Trump who made it possible for the Covid vaccine to be created in the first place. That’s not a criticism. It was by far the best thing he did during his first term. Your uninformed accusations about the dangers of the vaccine, especially since what you claim has been debunked completely, should embarrass you, if in fact you had the ability to generate embarrassment. Like any drug, the Covid vaccine has side effects. But they are not horrific nor are they widespread. It’s also true that it is not 100% effective in stopping Covid. But what you fail to mention or understand is that the vaccine reduces both the risk and severity of Covid. If you don’t want to get the vaccine, don’t get it. I don’t care. But stop spreading lies about something you clearly don’t understand.

MTG: I also campaigned on accountability for all the law fair that was waged against the American people in the past four years. What about all the people that were locked up in jail and the abuse that they went through? And when are those vicious attorneys and judges ever going to be held accountable for the lives they ruined?

Me: Sorry, that massive eyeroll was not meant in a personal way. Let’s start with the term “law fair.” It’s actually “lawfare.” If you’re going to talk about a subject, even if all you are going to do is lie about it, you should at least learn to spell it.

Of course, you’re talking about the January 6 defendants who you claim were unfairly prosecuted and locked up by “vicious attorneys and judges.” Marge, you seem to forget that we all saw what the January 6 insurrectionists did. It’s all on video, including on video shot by the insurrectionists themselves. Many, if not most, of the people convicted of crimes on January 6 pled guilty to the charges against them. Your base isn’t as stupid as you think they are. They saw what the insurrectionists did. That’s why the majority of people in this country—including Trump’s own vice-president—think it was wrong for Trump to pardon all of the J6 insurrectionists.

MTG: And I campaigned for an end to waste fraud and abuse of the American people’s harder tax dollars. I believe the DOGE mission is one of the most important things happening today in our government, and yet where are the rescissions that we should be voting on in Congress?

Me: “Harder tax dollars?” Perhaps you should proofread your tweets before vomiting them out into the cybersphere.

I’ll give you this, you are correct that Congress should be voting on the rescissions being made by Elon Musk and DOGE. Congress appropriated that money and it is only proper (and legally necessary) for Congress to rescind the spending. DOGE does not have the legal authority to do that. So, we do agree on this one point.

MTG: And one of the biggest issues in the nation that I have fought for, and early on I was one of the only ones that took a loud screaming stand against, is the evil transgender assault against our children. Most normal people in this country can’t even comprehend how it’s allowed to happen to kids who by law can’t even get a tattoo, drive, or vote. And how did so many of our teachers turn into the predators themselves that groom children with gender lies? This should be an all out effort by Republicans to end this insanity.

Me: No! No! No! You’re living in a fantasy world. Not only is this not “one of the biggest issues in the nation,” it is not an issue deserving of Congressional oversight. There is not “transgender assault” on our kids. If you truly believe this, please point out where it is happening. The transgender issue is red meat for your base, but in reality, it just isn’t much of an issue.

I especially take exception to your claim that “many of our teachers turn into the predators themselves that groom children with gender lies.” You are just flat out wrong with this claim. The vast majority of our teachers are underpaid heroes who are doing an extraordinarily difficult job under increasingly difficult and dangerous circumstances, made all the more difficult and dangerous because of ignorant people like you who spread lies for your own benefit. You and people like you need to stop the baseless attacks on our teachers.

MTG: And look at the extreme nature of our rogue judicial system that is so defiant that there are judges that defy our nation’s laws and block the deportation of literal enemies of the United States of America. Where is the outrage and moral courage to dispose of this treason? Sadly not in Congress.

Me: MTG, does your ignorance know no bounds? It’s clear that even though you serve in Congress, you do not have the slightest idea what the Constitution says or how our system of separation of powers and checks and balances is supposed to work.

Judges are not preventing the deportation of “literal enemies of the United States.” All judges are saying is that anyone you want to deport first has to be given due process in order to determine if they are truly enemies of the country. You see, that’s how our system works. We don’t allow people like you to determine who should stay and who should go. We have courts who make that determination by applying the laws that you in Congress pass. It’s all written out in the Constitution. You should read it. I think you’d find it fascinating.

MTG: And what about election integrity? This should be the most important issue that the Republicans aggressively fight to protect because without secure elections protected from illegals voting and protections from stealing our votes, the American people have lost their power.

Me: Let me turn that question around on you. What about election integrity? What are you even talking about? There are already laws against illegals voting in our elections. There is also research done that shows that illegals are not voting. In fact, election fraud of all stripes is largely a problem that exists only in your mind, not in the real world.

Think it through. Why would illegals try to vote. They face the prospect of arrest and deportation if they even try. Why would they take that risk? And if they did, how could they coordinate their efforts well enough so their votes made an actual difference, swaying the outcome of the election? Again, you are focusing on a problem that simply doesn’t exist. It’s just more red meat for your base, an attempt to generate outrage among your low information supporters, making them believe that the power of their vote is diluted by illegals voting. But it’s a lie. It simply isn’t happening.

MTG: When you are losing MTG, you are losing the base. And Trump isn’t on the ballot in the future, so do the math on that.

Me: Are you sure he’s not on the ballot in the future? He claimed he’s running again in 2028, the Constitution be damned. Oh, yea of little faith.

Also, please don’t refer to yourself in the third person. Even for you, that’s cringey.

In 1776, the colonists had had enough. For years, the leaders of the colonies, many of whom went on to become the Founding Fathers of the United States, had been pushing King George III and his government in England to allow the colonies more autonomy. Most of these colonist leaders wanted America to remain part of the British empire. They enjoyed their association with Great Britain and the King, including having British troops to protect the colonies. But they didn’t always like the way the King and his government treated the colonists, especially when those same British troops were used against the very colonists they were supposed to protect.

By July 4, 1776, the leaders came to the conclusion that the bond between America and the King had been stretched beyond the breaking point. It was on that date that representatives from each of the thirteen colonies issued the Declaration of Independence, separating the United States from Great Britain.

Most of us know the first paragraph or two of the Declaration. In particular, the first line of the second paragraph is learned by most children in the United States by the time they reach high school. That passage reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What you may not know, or might not remember, is the Declaration of Independence includes a list of grievances against the King and his government. These grievances were listed to make it clear why the colonists were rebelling against the King and declaring their independence from Great Britain.

I won’t list all the grievances here, but there are several I’d like to focus on. The relevant portion of the Declaration of Independence reads:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice.

“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:”

As I read over these grievances, I was amazed that the exact same things can be said about Donald Trump. He has refused to abide by the law, he has damaged or destroyed relationships with our trading partners, he has imposed the largest tax increase in the history of our nation without the consent of the people by issuing outrageous tariffs, he has deprived people subject to the laws of the United States (citizens and non-citizens alike) due process of law, and he has sent both legal and illegal immigrants out of the country (“beyond Seas”) in an effort to usurp the rule of law. In the same way our Founding Fathers viewed the King, we now view Donald Trump. He has become an absolute tyrant.

It has never been clearer to me that those of us who resist Donald Trump’s attacks on our democracy are the true heirs to the work first done by our Founding Fathers and the revolutionaries who fought for our freedom nearly 250 years ago. We are the spiritual descendants of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and the defenders of the Constitution. While it is frustrating that not all Americans can see clearly what Trump is doing to the nation, it is important that we continue the work of keeping the United States strong, free, and committed to the rule of law.

Our democracy does not survive without the effort of true patriots. As author and political pundit Tom Nichols said, “Democracy is an act of will, it’s a choice. It doesn’t just happen. You have to expend actual energy to sustain democracy.”

So, keep battling. Continue to fight the good fight. Our democracy and the future of this nation hangs in the balance.

The United States Constitution was built on the belief that no one person should have unchecked power. The Founding Fathers understood the danger of tyranny and worked to build a government that could resist it. They created three separate branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—and built in a system of checks and balances to ensure that each branch could limit the others. This design protects freedom and prevents the rise of authoritarian rule.

But in recent years, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump, this balance of power has come under serious strain. The increasing use of executive orders to legislate—without proper action from Congress—and the failure of Congress to hold the President accountable represent a dangerous shift away from constitutional government. This trend threatens the very foundation of American democracy.

The Role of the Executive Branch

The executive branch, headed by the President, was created by Article II of the Constitution. Its primary role is to enforce the laws passed by Congress. It is not supposed to make laws on its own. The power to legislate belongs to Congress, as stated in Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

This separation of roles is not just a matter of formality, it is essential to preventing tyranny. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47, when one person can make, enforce, and interpret the law, freedom is at serious risk.

The Growth of Executive Orders

The use of executive orders by American presidents is not new, and when used properly, they serve an important function. Executive orders can help manage federal agencies and clarify how existing laws are enforced. But when a president uses executive orders or memoranda to create new policies, spend federal funds, override acts of Congress, or target specific people or groups with retribution, they become a direct threat to the constitutional balance of power.

During Donald Trump’s first term, his use of executive orders often raised eyebrows and drew legal challenges. But since returning to office in January 2025, President Trump has issued a series of executive orders that are more aggressive. More importantly, Trump’s executive orders are blatantly unconstitutional and far more dangerous to the democratic structure of the U.S. government than the executive orders and memoranda he issued in his first term in office.

Here are some examples of executive orders and memoranda from Trump’s Second Term (January 2025–present)

1. Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Executive Order 14159): In his first week back in office, Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to detain and deport all undocumented immigrants without due process. This bypasses existing immigration laws and constitutional protections guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Legal experts and civil rights groups immediately challenged the order, but enforcement began anyway in many jurisdictions before courts intervened, and has resulted in people being sent to CECOT, a concentration camp in El Salvador.
2. Renaming Federal Geographic Features to Reflect American Heritage (Executive Order 14172): Trump issued an order authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to “evaluate and suspend access” to any journalist deemed a threat to “national morale or political stability.” This sweeping restriction violates the First Amendment’s protection of a free press and represents an authoritarian move to suppress dissent and independent journalism. The most well-known result of this executive order occurred when Trump banned the Associated Press from White House briefings because they refused to call the Gulf of Mexico by Trump’s preferred name, the “Gulf of America.”
3. Executive Memorandum Declaring Select Cities as “Anarchist Jurisdictions” (Executive Memorandum ): Building on a controversial directive from his first term in the White House, Trump renewed an Executive Memorandum which declared several U.S. cities “anarchist jurisdictions” and ordered federal agencies to withhold funding from those cities. This action punishes local governments based on their political positions or public criticism of federal policies. The Constitution does not give the executive branch authority to bypass Congress and unilaterally cut funding based on political disagreement.
4. Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP (Executive Order 14230): In response to several major U.S. law firms representing clients challenging administration policies, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to investigate firms for “undermining national governance” and to consider their eligibility for federal contracts. In addition, some law firms had their security clearances revoked and were barred from entering government buildings, including courthouses. This move sends a chilling message to the legal profession and interferes with the constitutional right to legal representation and due process.
5. Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism (Executive Order 14188): Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities found to be “hostile to American values.” In practice, this has meant targeting schools that host speakers critical of administration policy or who engage in DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. Critics argue that this order violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty by punishing institutions for protected speech and academic freedom.
6. Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information (Executive Order 14152): In a highly controversial and unprecedented move, Trump issued an executive order calling for the immediate suspension of security clearances, government consulting privileges, and federal contract eligibility for individuals he accused of “sabotage” during his first term, including specifying by name former Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor and former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director Chris Krebs. Both had publicly criticized Trump’s actions in office. The order is widely viewed as retaliatory and unconstitutional, violating due process rights and further weaponizing the executive branch against dissenters.
7. Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (Executive Order 14160): Perhaps the most constitutionally alarming of all, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Supreme Court has upheld this principle for over a century. Trump’s order not only challenges long-standing constitutional precedent but does so without any legislative authority or constitutional amendment process, effectively attempting to rewrite the Constitution by executive fiat. Legal scholars and civil rights organizations widely condemned the move, and it immediately triggered a wave of lawsuits nationwide.

What makes these executive orders more dangerous than those from his first term is not just their legal overreach, but the President’s open defiance of judicial rulings and congressional oversight. In several cases, courts have issued injunctions blocking enforcement of these orders, but the Trump administration has either delayed compliance or continued enforcement through legal loopholes and agency action. Meanwhile, many members of Congress, particularly those allied with the President, have remained silent, or worse, supportive.

The President’s current approach is no longer limited to policy differences or political brinkmanship. It is a deliberate attempt to govern without Congress and to sidestep the Constitution altogether. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47, combining legislative and executive powers in one individual is “the very definition of tyranny.” That warning now feels less like a historical theory and more like a description of present-day reality.

Congressional Abdication of Responsibility

While executive overreach is a serious problem, it is made worse by Congress’s failure to respond. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government, not a subordinate one. Lawmakers swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath requires them to guard the separation of powers, even when it is politically difficult.

Yet, during President Trump’s time in office, many in Congress, especially those from his own party, chose not to challenge his actions. Even when courts raised concerns or ruled against certain executive orders, Congress often remained silent. In some cases, it actively supported the President’s overreach.

When Congress allows the President to legislate by executive order, it sends a dangerous message: that the legislative branch is no longer necessary. This breaks the constitutional design and opens the door to authoritarianism.

In Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” That was not a mistake or a historical accident, it was a deliberate choice by the Framers. They believed that a strong Congress was the best defense against tyranny, and it’s why the legislative branch is often referred to as “first among equals.”

Historical Parallels and Constitutional Warnings

American history offers many warnings about the dangers of unchecked executive power. During the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon famously said, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” This idea—that the President is above the law—was soundly rejected by the courts and Congress. Even so, Trump posted a message to the social media platforms “X” and “Truth Social” saying, “He who saves his country violates no law,” indicating that he feels anything he does is by definition legal.

During Trump’s first term, the idea that the President could not be held accountable gained more ground. At his first impeachment trial in 2020, some senators argued that the President’s actions—pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent—did not rise to the level of removal. Despite clear evidence, the Senate chose not to convict.

This reluctance to act sent a message that the President could use the powers of his office for personal or political gain, as long as he remained popular within his party. That is a dangerous precedent, and one that erodes the rule of law.

The Danger to Democracy

When a President is allowed to act as both lawmaker and law enforcer, the system no longer resembles a democracy—it resembles a monarchy or dictatorship. The entire purpose of the Constitution’s checks and balances is to prevent that outcome.

If executive overreach continues without consequence, future presidents—regardless of party—may feel empowered to ignore Congress entirely. That would be a dramatic shift away from the Constitution’s vision and a step toward authoritarian rule.

It is not enough to say that voters can remove a president in the next election. The Founders did not trust elections alone to preserve liberty. That is why they built in other protections: separation of powers, checks and balances, impeachment, and judicial review. These tools must be used when necessary to preserve constitutional government.

Conclusion

The use of executive orders and memoranda to legislate, especially as practiced by President Donald Trump, poses a serious threat to the U.S. Constitution. By attempting to both create and enforce laws, the President has stepped outside his constitutional role. Just as troubling is Congress’s growing unwillingness to challenge this behavior. By failing to act, lawmakers violate their own oath and allow power to concentrate in the hands of one person.

This is not just a political concern, it is a constitutional crisis. If left unchecked, it could lead to the breakdown of the American system of government. The Constitution was designed to protect against tyranny, but it only works if each branch does its job. That includes saying “no” when the President oversteps his bounds.

The United States has faced many challenges in its history, but the strength of its democracy has always depended on the courage of its leaders to uphold the law, even when it is inconvenient. Now is such a time. Defending the separation of powers is not just a matter of politics. It is a matter of preserving the freedom and integrity of the republic.

The United States government was carefully designed to avoid the dangers of too much power being held by any one person or group. When the Constitution was written in 1787, the Founding Fathers had just fought a war to gain independence from Great Britain, where power had been concentrated in the hands of a king. They wanted to build a system that would protect freedom, prevent tyranny, and ensure fair and balanced government. To do this, they created a system with three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, and each has ways to limit the powers of the others. This structure is known as the separation of powers, and the system that keeps these powers balanced is called checks and balances.

The Constitution and the Three Branches of Government

The Constitution is the highest law in the United States. It sets up how the government works and lists the rights of the people. When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they wanted to make sure that no one part of government could become too powerful. To do this, they divided the federal government into three separate branches:

1. The Legislative Branch makes the laws. This branch includes Congress, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
2. The Executive Branch carries out the laws. This branch includes the President, Vice President, and all the departments and agencies that help run the country.
3. The Judicial Branch interprets the laws. This branch includes the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

Each branch was created in a different article of the Constitution. Article I sets up the legislative branch, Article II establishes the executive branch, and Article III creates the judicial branch. By placing each branch in a separate article, the Founders showed that they were equal in importance and should be kept independent from one another.

The Importance of Separation of Powers

The idea of separating powers into different branches goes back to the political philosopher Montesquieu, who believed that freedom depends on keeping legislative, executive, and judicial powers apart. The Founding Fathers agreed. They believed that if all the powers of government were held by one person or group, that person or group could abuse their power and take away the rights of the people.

James Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution and our 4th President, explained this idea in Federalist Paper No. 47. He wrote, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In other words, if one group controls all parts of the government, that is the same as having a dictator.

By separating the powers, the Constitution makes it harder for anyone to take control of the entire government. Each branch is strong in its own area, but no branch can act completely on its own. This keeps the system balanced and helps protect the freedom of the people.

Checks and Balances

Separation of powers works best when the branches of government can check, or limit, each other’s powers. The system of checks and balances was created to make sure that no branch can become too powerful or act unfairly. Each branch has some control over the others.

Here are a few examples of how checks and balances work:

• The President (Executive Branch) can veto laws passed by Congress (Legislative Branch). This means the President can reject a bill and stop it from becoming a law. However, Congress can override the veto if two-thirds of both the House and the Senate agree.
• Congress (Legislative Branch) has the power to impeach the President or federal judges. This means they can remove someone from office if that person breaks the law or abuses their power.
• The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) can rule that a law passed by Congress or an action taken by the President is unconstitutional. This means the law or action goes against the Constitution and must be stopped.
• The President appoints judges to the Supreme Court and other federal courts, but the Senate must approve those appointments. This prevents the President from choosing judges without limits.

These checks and balances help keep the government fair and accountable. They force the branches to work together and to respect the limits of their own power.

A History of Caution Against Tyranny

The Founding Fathers were deeply concerned about the dangers of one person or group taking too much power. They had seen what could happen under a monarchy, where the king had nearly unlimited power. Many of the complaints listed in the Declaration of Independence were about King George III abusing his power.

After winning independence, the United States first tried a different form of government under the Articles of Confederation. In that system, there was no president and no national court system. Most of the power was held by the states, and the national government was weak. This caused many problems, like the inability to raise taxes or enforce laws, and it made the country hard to govern.

That’s when the Constitutional Convention was held in 1787. The delegates decided to create a stronger national government, but they also wanted to make sure it would not become tyrannical. That is why they created the three branches and built in the system of checks and balances.

In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison wrote about the need for each branch to have a “will of its own” and to be able to defend itself against the others. He explained, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” In other words, the different parts of government should be strong enough to keep each other in check. This way, no one branch could take over the entire system.

Protecting Freedom Over Time

The system of three branches has lasted for more than 200 years. It has helped the United States survive wars, economic struggles, social movements, and political conflicts. Even when leaders have tried to take more power than they should, the other branches have usually stepped in to stop them.

For example, during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Congress investigated President Richard Nixon, and the Supreme Court ordered him to turn over tapes that provided evidence of wrongdoing. Nixon later resigned before he could be impeached. This is one example of how the checks and balances system worked to protect democracy.

The Supreme Court has also played a key role in maintaining the balance of power. In the famous case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Court established the principle of judicial review. This means that the Court has the power to decide whether laws and actions follow the Constitution. This decision made the judicial branch an equal partner in government, able to limit the actions of Congress and the President when necessary.

Why It Still Matters Today

The three branches of government are not just a history lesson—they are still part of everyday life in the United States. When Congress passes laws, when the President signs executive orders, or when the Supreme Court makes a decision, they are all using their constitutional powers. And when one branch pushes too far, the others can respond.

For example, if the President tries to enforce a law that Congress never passed, the courts can block it. If Congress tries to pass a law that goes against the Constitution, the Supreme Court can strike it down. If the courts go too far in one direction, Congress can pass new laws or even propose amendments to the Constitution.

This system helps keep the government honest and accountable. It reminds leaders that their power comes from the people and that the Constitution is the highest law in the land.

Conclusion

The United States has three branches of government because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect freedom and prevent tyranny. By creating the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and by giving each one different powers and responsibilities, they built a system based on the separation of powers. Through checks and balances, each branch has the ability to limit the others, ensuring that no single person or group can take over the government.

As explained in the Federalist Papers, especially Nos. 47 and 51, the Founders believed that power must be divided to keep it under control. The Constitution was carefully designed to do just that, and over the years, this system has proven strong and flexible. It continues to guide the country today, reminding Americans that freedom must be protected not just with words, but with structure.

However, since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, he has quickly tried to consolidate all federal power in the executive branch. He has usurped the power of the legislative branch by attempting to create law through Executive Orders and Memoranda. Unfortunately, Congress has not pushed back and reclaimed the power granted to them in Article 1 of the Constitution. In addition, Trump has defied the judicial branch by ignoring court orders and calling for the impeachment of judges who rule against him.

In part 2 of this post, I’ll look at the way Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by trying to consolidate all government power in the Executive, and I’ll discuss the danger the country faces when Congress refuses to exercise their Constitutionally-granted power. Our democracy is at risk, and so far, Congress has not raised a finger to stop Donald Trump’s overreach. More on that next time.

After Kilmar Abrego Gargia was sent to CECOT, a modern-day concentration camp in El Salvador, his family filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for violating an earlier court decision that granted him an order forbidding his deportation. The posture of the DOJ initially was to admit that an error had been made in sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and to work quietly behind the scenes to remedy that error and bring him back to the United States. But once the White House became more deeply involved in the case, that all changed.

According to an article in the Atlantic by Nick Miroff, once the case became front page news, the White House–and by extension, the DOJ–hardened their stance, referring to Abrego Garcia as a gang member, a criminal, and a human trafficker, despite a paucity of evidence to back up their contentions. They also began claiming that sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was not a mistake but was done purposely because he was considered so dangerous. The DOJ fired the attorney who had admitted in court filings that a “clerical error” led to Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States, and then the Administration went on the offensive, proudly stating that the father of three children from Maryland would never again step foot on American soil.

Why the sudden change in posture? Here’s what Nick Miroff wrote in the Atlantic:

“But as criticism of the administration over its mishandling of the case spread, White House officials took over the response and began striking a far more strident tone in their public statements. They swiftly turned an admission of bureaucratic error into a political opportunity—a chance to flex executive authority and test the judicial branch’s ability to restrain presidential power. Abrego Garcia’s deportation became far more than just the case of one man; it developed into a measure of whether Donald Trump’s administration can send people—citizens or not—to foreign prisons without due process.”

In other words, Abrego Garcia has become a pawn in Trump’s attempt to consolidate power from the judiciary. The Abrego Garcia case is just one piece of the Trump Administration’s effort to empower the executive at the expense of the other branches of government. To date, Congress has capitulated, allowing Trump to legislate via executive order without pushback. But the judiciary has largely stood up to Trump’s attempts, often finding his behavior to be lawless and unconstitutional.

In response, Trump and officials from his administration have called for the impeachment of judges who disagree with their efforts, and they have defied court orders; sometimes through legal trickery, other times directly and blatantly. But on Friday, April 25, Administration efforts to threaten and subvert the judiciary were ratcheted up when the FBI arrested a circuit court judge in Wisconsin for allegedly resisting ICE efforts to arrest an undocumented immigrant.

Following the arrest, FBI Director Kash Patel took to X to brag about the arrest. He wrote:

“Just NOW, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week.

“We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest.

“Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.

“We will have more to share soon. Excellent work @FBIMilwaukee”

A short time later, Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on Fox News where she referred to Judge Hannah Dugan as “deranged,” but she did not provide any evidence of wrongdoing on Dugan’s part. Instead, Bondi focused on the message Dugan’s arrest should send to other judges:

“I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today—if you are harboring a fugitive—we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.”

Bondi’s statements were reminiscent of those uttered in 1942 by Adolf Hitler in a speech in the Reichstag, when he said:

“I expect the German legal profession to understand that the nation is not here for them but they are here for the nation. From now on, I shall intervene in these cases and remove from office those judges who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour.”

In both cases, both Bondi and Hitler were giving notice to the judiciary that any attempt to thwart the ruling administration’s agenda would be met with retribution. As both said, either directly or indirectly, the judiciary exists to support the ruling Administration, not to stand in it’s way.

Of course, this is not how things work in our Constitutional democracy. We are a nation of laws, and the rule of law must supersede the whims of one man and his administration. The Constitution and the laws of this nation are what guide us, not the wishes of Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, or anyone else in their orbit.

The arrest of Judge Dugan is outrageous on many levels. In fact, the arrest of a judge is highly unusual. It appears that Judge Dugan was arrested without first bringing her case to a grand jury, and it’s unclear if FBI agents even had a warrant for Dugan’s arrest. Bringing a case to the grand jury and/or having a judge sign an arrest warrant is not mandatory, but in a case like this, it is unusual that the DOJ and FBI didn’t go that route.

In the rare case where a judge or other elected official is arrested, particularly in a case where the judge is not a flight risk, the arrest is handled quietly and behind the scenes. Often—as was the case when Donald Trump was arrested in both New York and Georgia—the judge is given the opportunity to turn themselves in to authorities at a predetermined time without the trauma and fanfare of a surprise arrest, particularly at their place of employment, as happened with Judge Dugan.

It is highly unusual for the FBI director to announce the arrest in a braggadocio fashion, basically giving testimony of wrongdoing rather than simply stating the charges. This is wrong for at least two reasons.

First, it tends to taint the jury pool when the head of the FBI makes accusations against a defendant in the media. In our system of justice, Dugan is considered innocent until proven guilty, and law enforcement officials—particularly the FBI Director—should not be going on social media to litigate their case.

Second, DOJ regulations prevent employees, including the FBI Director, from discussing pending cases. Even so, Patel wasn’t the only one who violated this rule. AG Pam Bondi also took to X to announce the arrest and to pronounce “No one is above the law.” It apparently doesn’t bother her that her boss is a felon 34 times over.

Many people—including myself—have accused Trump of acting as an authoritarian. Arresting judges is just another page out of the authoritarian’s playbook. The Trump Administration is not trying to hide their efforts or their goals. They continue to push to consolidate power in the presidency, making meaningless the Constitutional imperative of separation of powers, as well as our system of checks and balances. Trump does not want to be hamstrung by the Constitution nor slowed down by having to work with the other branches. He truly is acting like a king or dictator, expecting his words to become law and his every action to be found acceptable, if not legal.

Like Abrego Garcia, Judge Dugan is just a pawn in this game Trump is playing. He wants all of us to live in fear of the possibility of being the next one arrested and jailed. He wants a compliant populous that neither protests nor otherwise pushes back against his illegal acts.

As citizens, we all want dangerous criminals locked up. If they happen to be undocumented, they should be deported. If they happen to be a judge, they should be held to account. But there are proper ways to do these things. Donald Trump was elected in a free and fair election. He deserves to carry out his agenda. But he must abide by the Constitution and our laws. He cannot use power reserved for the other branches to implement his agenda. He must work with the other branches, allowing the legislative to create the laws and the judiciary to rule on the Constitutionality of those laws.

I can’t tell you with any certainty if Judge Dugan did anything illegal or not. What I do know is that the Trump Administration is using her arrest to send a message to other judges and elected officials. If you get in the way of the Trump agenda, you could be next.

Back in 2021, I wrote about the rise of words such as oligarchy, kleptocracy, and plutocracy. My attitude at the time was that many of the wealthiest Americans—Elon Musk chief among them—were taking on outsized power and influence in the American political sphere. Since then, things have only gotten worse.

As I’m sure you are aware, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has become an unelected member of the Trump Administration, heading up an illegally-formed organization known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or “DOGE.” Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has fired thousands of government employees, slashed government spending, and eliminated entire agencies, all under the guise of ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse. Never mind that neither Musk nor his minions in DOGE have ben able to credibly document any significant waste, fraud, or abuse. Even so, their work continues apace.

In a recent interview with Tim Miller from The Bulwark, journalist and expert on autocracy, Anne Applebaum, spoke about her recent article, “Kleptocracy, Inc.“, in the Atlantic. In both the interview and the article, Applebaum weaves a tale of corruption that is unapparelled in American history. And it is all happening out in the open, for everyone to see. If it was happening in a foreign country—particularly in a foreign democracy—we would be horrified and would call for some sort of intervention. Instead, because it is happening in the United States, we sit by idly, certain that what we are seeing with our own eyes isn’t really happening.

We have been blessed in the United States with a relatively stable liberal democratic system of government throughout our history. We’re not used to seeing our elected representatives take bribes or act in their own financial self-interest rather than in the interests of the country. Yet, that is exactly what is happening with Donald Trump. And despite the fact that it is happening out in the open for everyone to see, we are slow to accept that it is happening, and even slower yet to do anything about it. But as Applebaum suggests, we should be outraged about it. We should rise up and act against the corruption, and we should do it quickly.

Here is a portion of Applebaum’s interview with The Bulwark. I encourage you to listen to the entire interview and to read Applebaum’s article in the the Atlantic. They are both eye-opening and help to explain the situation we find ourselves in in the United States.

---

(Lightly edited for clarity)

The Bulwark interview with Anne Applebaum

Applebaum: “(Kleptocracy) is about people who have political power and are using that political power to enrich themselves. To be clear, wealthy people have been very influential in America forever and probably always will be, like they are in every country. And there have been other examples of corruption in the past. But I don’t know of another administration where there were so many people who had double interests.

“The President himself, on the day the stock market was crashing—Friday, April the 4^th—instead of going to Wall Street to find out what was going on, Trump went to his personal golf course and to his club in Florida (Mar-A-Lago), where a golf tournament was taking place that is sponsored by companies from Saudi Arabia. One of the people in attendance was the head of the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund. Several other Saudi companies were on the list of sponsors, including Aramco, which is the Saudi oil company. Tik Tok was one of the sponsors of this golf tournament. These are companies that have direct interest in U.S. foreign policy and are directly interested in influencing Donald Trump. In effect, their sponsorship is a form of payment. They’re paying him. They’re supporting his course. They’re supporting his club. That’s unthinkable in any other administration. That would be such a blatant abuse.

“The genesis of the article (“Kleptocracy, Inc“.) was that I started to pull together some of these things, both Trump’s family and Trump himself, but also other people in the administration, and other instances of people trying to buy influence, or “get out of court” cases, or get out of other tangles with the government through financial influence or financial relationships with the Trump family or with Donald Trump, as well as lists of what the Trump Administration is doing to loosen all the laws against fraud and against corruption that we have in our system. The list is astonishingly long. There are dozens and dozens of instances already, and we’re only three months into the administration.

It starts in December when the Trump family announces a big investment in Saudi Arabia. It continues with the Trump family’s cryptocurrency business, which, in effect, allows anyone to be an investor in that business, and that’s again a way to pay the Trump family. There’s already one instance of somebody who was a major investor who had a piece of civil litigation against him lifted or suspended. We don’t know if there was a quid pro quo, but it certainly appears that it could have been. Nobody has made any effort to avoid that appearance.

“Elon Musk’s conflicts of interest are substantial. Musk is responsible for firing people at government agencies who were responsible for regulating his companies. He has a presence, also, in government agencies that are able to subsidize his companies or buy things from his companies, whether it’s Starlink or whether it’s the State Department buying armored Teslas. That is a grotesque conflict of interest, of which there is no contemporary precedent.

“Again, rich people are influential, they get laws passed, they lobby for things, and so on. But to actually have the owner of major companies that have major interests, have been heavily subsidized by the U.S. government, personally going into government agencies and firing people and making policy there, I can’t think of anything like that happening previously. That is a kind of oligarchy that you see in autocratic states. That’s Russian-style oligarchy. It is a profound challenge to the rule of law and to the assumption that democracy needs transparency and accountability, and that people who are acting in the public interest should be acting in the interests of Americans, and not in their personal financial interests.

“When Musk has people fired at the transportation safety regulatory bodies, is that because it’s good for Americans or because it’s good for Tesla? If it’s just good for Tesla, then that’s a catastrophe for Americans. And sooner or later, there will be repercussions. We will be less safe and more poorly regulated. Taxpayer money will be wasted on Musk’s companies.

“There’s something called the Corporate Transparency Act that the Trump Administration has announced they are not going to enforce, which requires people to reveal the name of owners of shell companies, to reveal who they really are. These are anonymous companies that are often used to hide stolen money or escape paying taxes.

“Kleptocracy can be a complicated thing to describe. But to me, this should cause more outrage than anything else. If there’s a way that opponents of this administration can explain it to people, such as, ‘Your money is being taken and used to enrich people around Trump, and your policy has been captured by people who are using it to enrich themselves or pursue their own interests.’ This is about as fundamental a violation of what government is for, let alone democracy, as anything that we have seen. Combined with the illegal deportations, they both show this scorn for the rule of law, and a scorn for any type of basic responsibility that government officials should have to the people who elected them.”

This may sound like hyperbole, but the United States has the least representative democracy among wealthy nations anywhere in the world. Hard to believe, isn’t it? In the United States, we pride ourselves on being the world’s best and oldest democracy. We practically invented this  representative form of government, yet ours is the least representative of all the nation’s democracies.

In the United States, each member in the House of Representatives—the most local body of our federal legislature—represents 760,000 people. That number dwarfs the country in second place: Japan. Each member of Japan’s Shugiin (the Japanese version of the House) represents only 270,000 people. The Camara de Diputados in Mexico comes in third worst with about 250,000 people per elected representative.

To put a finer point on this, England, with only 70 million people—compared to 340 million in the U.S.—has 650 members in their House of Commons, the body that our House of Representatives was modeled after. That’s about 108,000 people being represented by each member of the House of Commons. Why is the United States so wildly out of step with other democracies? That’s a bit of a story.

It used to be that the size of Congress increased as the population of the country increased. Every ten years, when the results of the most recent census became available, the size of the Congress would be increased, and representative districts would be added to states that experienced an increase in population.

For example, the First Congress (1789-1791) had 65 members. After the 1791 census, the House grew to 105 members, reflecting the population growth of the country. This growth—in the House and the population—continued until the 1920s. But when the results of the 1920 census became available, something odd happened. Rather than reapportion the number of House members and their districts, Congress decided to do nothing. Why?

Think about what was happening in the years around 1920. The country was growing, the number of farmers was declining, and people were moving from rural to urban areas for jobs. In addition, immigrants were streaming into the country, most of whom also settled in urban areas where jobs and housing were plentiful.

At the time, Congress was primarily made up of members from rural areas. They saw the writing on the wall and realized that with the growth of urban areas, things were going to change for them. They feared that shifting membership in the House to more urban representation meant rural areas, and the money and power they had once enjoyed, would vanish. So, despite complaints from urban representatives, Congress decided to stay the course and not reapportion the House.

The 1920 census became known as the “Lost Census” because Congress never reflected its results. Each year during the 1920s, Congress kicked the can down the road until in 1929, they passed the Permanent Apportionment Act, which capped the number of members in the House at 435. Rather than adding members as the country grew, Congress simply moved the 435 Congressional districts around to reflect where the growth was taking place.

At the time the Permanent Reapportionment Act was passed, the United States had a population of about 123 million people, meaning each member in the House represented about 282,000 people. If we were to keep that same level of representation today, we would need to add 746 new representatives, bringing the total in the House to 1181 members. And that doesn’t include representation for people living in the District of Columbia.

Of course, there’s nothing that says we have to go back to each member of Congress representing an average of 282,000 people. Maybe that number should be 65,000 people per representative, as it was during the First Congress. Or maybe it should be 270,000 people per representative, the same number as Japan. Any number we choose is arbitrary, and each number would have its own advantages and disadvantages.

There is one suggestion out there known as the “Wyoming Rule” that makes a lot of sense. What the Wyoming Rule says is that each member of Congress should represent the same number of people who live in our smallest state. In other words, because Wyoming—our smallest state—has a current population of 580,000 people, each member of the House should represent 580,000 people. If the Wyoming Rule was in place right now, we’d have to add 138 seats to the House, bringing the total from 435 to 573.

Having each member of the House represent an average of 580,000 people is not ideal. The United States would remain the least representative democracy among wealthy nations, but it would be an improvement over our current situation. In order to do this, no Constitutional Amendment would be needed. The Constitution does not set the number of members in the House, so Congress would only have to pass a law making the Wyoming Rule the law of the land.

Of course, the chances of that happening during the current Congress is zero. Republicans control the House, and they benefit from the current rules. But regardless of who benefits, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a fairness issue. As citizens, we deserve equal representation in Congress. At the moment, small states and rural areas enjoy unequal representation that tends to result in laws being passed by members of the House who represent less than 50% of the population. That’s anti-democratic, and the definition of minority rule.

The Senate, as designed, is an anti-democratic institution. To change the number of Senators each state has or how they are elected would require amending the Constitution, since Article 1 of the Constitution gives two Senators to each state. But making the House more democratic and more representative would only take the passing of a law by a simple majority.

At the moment, each of the two Congressmen from Montana represent an average of about 543,000 people, making them the smallest (by population) Congressional districts in the country. By contrast, Delaware has one Congresswoman who represents more than 990,000 people. That means people in Montana have nearly twice the representation as people in Delaware. That was never the plan. It’s unfair, anti-democratic, and un-American. We should be an example of democratic values for nations around the world. Instead, at the moment, we are an example of the least representative democracy. That needs to change.

If you’ve followed along with my political ramblings over the past few years, you know that I do not think very highly of Donald Trump. As Trump’s former Chief-of-Staff, Gen. John Kelly said, Trump is the most flawed person he has ever known.

In his heart, Trump is a condo salesman, saying whatever he has to say to get the sale. He is a reality TV star who played a successful businessman despite a string of real life business failures and bankruptcies. He is father to five kids with three different women. He’s an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon. I could go on. But this missive isn’t about Donald John Trump. No, this is about the worst person in the world, Trump’s pal, Elon Musk.

Why do I say that Musk is the worst person in the world? There are plenty of reasons. Let’s start with the fact that Elon Musk is the wealthiest person in the world, yet he spends his time taking jobs away from average Americans, benefits away from poor people, and healthcare away from the sick and disabled. He is an over-the-top movie villain; an insanely wealthy man who’s only goals in life are to become wealthier and to run the most powerful country in the world for his own benefit. But what he’s doing isn’t fiction. It’s real life, and real people are being hurt by his actions.

Why do we know so much about Elon Musk? Is it because he has used his wealth to build medical clinics in impoverished countries? Is it because he has built wings at children’s hospitals? Is Musk known for the money he has contributed to finding a cure for cancer or housing the homeless or building libraries? No, he hasn’t done any of these things. We know Elon Musk because he is a wealthy guy who bought a president. He’s a guy who received millions in taxpayer-funded grants, loans, and subsidies, then proceeded to take taxpayer-funded benefits away from the poor.

Musk also tried to buy the Supreme Court in Wisconsin, paying people to support his chosen candidate. He spent an obscene $22.6 million on the race. Thankfully, the good people of my beloved Wisconsin rejected his largess and elected Susan Crawford, a woman that Musk can’t stand, primarily because he has a case coming up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and thinks Crawford will find against him.

But it’s not just the horrible public stuff that Musk does that makes him the worst person in the world. It’s the stuff he does in his private life that really shines a light on just what a terrible person he really is. For instance, Elon Musk has had fourteen children with four different women. He rarely sees many of those children, and two of the women he had kids with are suing him for sole custody and child support, claiming that Musk never sees his kids and he’s not supporting them financially.

One of his children, Vivian, is transgender. Musk has disowned her and claimed that she is dead to him. For her part, Vivian says that Musk is a cold and narcissistic father, rarely present in her life. She also says that Musk berated her when she was young for exhibiting feminine traits, pressuring her to be more masculine as early as in elementary school.

It’s hard to exaggerate the mess that the world’s richest man has made of his personal life, including the lives of his children and his baby mamas. He is exactly the type of person we tell our sons not to become. Even so, many young men look up to Musk, idolizing his wealth and seeming power. They view him as the epitome of what a man should be. But the opposite is true. A man should be a provider and a protector, two things Musk refuses to do. With all of his money, he could financially care for his children without it negatively impacting his wealth at all, yet he forces two of the mothers of his children to sue him for child support. He could spend time with his kids, yet he chooses not to, instead cosplaying in his custom black “Make America Great Again” ball cap and DOGE T-shirt.

If you’re a fan of Elon Musk, let me ask you a question: What would you say about a rich guy who has more than a dozen kids with multiple women and refuses to provide child support to many of them if that man was a black basketball player rather than a white businessman? Would that change your opinion of him? I think we know your answer. We’ve already heard what MAGA has to say about black men having kids outside of marriage, then not taking care of the kids. So, how is this different?

Despite his stated goal of ridding the government of waste, fraud, and abuse, the Wall Street Journal indicates that Musk’s efforts will only save the United States about $2.6 billion. To put that into perspective, Musk’s electric car company Tesla has received between $15 and $50 billion in grants, loans, and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers. In other words, the man taking jobs away from hard working Americans, closing down entire government agencies, and denying poor people SNAP benefits and healthcare has received far more in taxpayer dollars than he is saving.

We should not put men like Elon Musk up on a pedestal. Despite his riches, he is a horrible person; the kind of guy decent people avoid befriending and the type of hateful, cruel, misogynistic creep we would point to as the type of man we would not want our sons to become. That’s why Elon Musk is the worst person in the world.

Let me start this conversation with a caveat: I am not the world’s most  devout or knowledgeable Christian. In fact, there are some people who would contend that I am not Christian at all. Although I do consider myself a Christian, I am unaware of any Christian denomination that shares my exact beliefs.

Also, I am not in the practice of hoisting my beliefs on other people. Although I have a strong interest in religion writ large, I am not always comfortable writing about it. To me, religious or spiritual beliefs are personal. If your beliefs work for you, that’s great, just as long as you don’t think they should apply to me as well. Our country was founded on the idea the people should be free to worship any God they chose, but once you think your God’s rules should apply to others, you’ve violated the Constitutional right of freedom of religion.

Okay, having that out of the way, I want to talk about a Facebook discussion I saw between two of my friends. Before I tell you about their conversation, I want to tell you that I like and respect both of the people involved in the conversation. I won’t name these people because the discussion I want to have isn’t about them personally. It’s about the stand that one of them took. What he said made me think about the point he made, and it led me to do a little research. In the end, it’s up to you to decide if you agree with him.

Friend #1 posted a meme on his Facebook page that listed several things Donald Trump had done that he felt were contrary to both American and Christian values. For instance, the meme pointed to how Trump has deported people without due process and how he tried to overthrow a free and fair election. For our purposes, what the meme said is less important than who created it. The meme in question was created by a Facebook page called the “Christian Left,” and it was the creator of the meme rather than the substance of it that Friend #2 commented on.

Here’s what Friend # 2 wrote:

“The Christian left sounds like a good title for a group that doesn’t live by the Bible. Why do they use the word Christian? They should call themselves the Satanic left.”

Let’s pick that statement apart a little to get to the underlying beliefs of Friend #2. It is apparent that Friend #2 does not believe that people on the political left—normally referred to as liberals or progressives—can be true Christians because they do not live by the Bible. In fact, he questions why someone with liberal political beliefs would even invoke the Christian moniker to describe themselves. Instead, he feels that they should call themselves the “Satanic left” because he apparently not only believes that Satan exists, but that people with political views to the left-of-center follow satanic (i.e. Unchristian) principles.

As you might guess, my kneejerk reaction was to disagree vehemently with that line of thinking. Not only do I believe that people who espouse liberal political views can be Christian, it seems to me that those liberal views are often more in line with the teachings of Jesus than are the views of what currently passes as conservatism.

But as I said in the beginning, I don’t hold myself out as the most knowledgeable Christian, so I decided to make a list of Jesus’ teaching and compare them to the policies being pushed by Republicans who almost unanimously self-identify as conservative Christians. First, let’s look at the teachings of Jesus.

The Teachings of Jesus

Let’s start with why looking at the teachings of Jesus is important for this discussion. It should be obvious on its face, but let me make it even more obvious. The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus. Christianity is not the religion that Jesus followed. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. Christianity is the religion about Jesus and his teachings. That’s why, when we consider the statement made by Friend #2 and the beliefs that can be inferred from that statement, it’s necessary to know what Jesus actually taught.

In the Bible, the teachings of Jesus can be found primarily in the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Mark was written first, and was written closest in proximity to when Jesus was still alive, containing more early traditions of the teachings of Jesus than later writings. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source. Other Books of the Bible contain Jesus’ teachings, but most will come from the Synoptic Gospels.

Let’s look at a few of them.

Love

Jesus taught that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. In particular, John 13:34 says “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Matthew 5:43-45 tells us that we should love our enemy. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.”

In other words, Jesus is commanding us to treat others with kindness—including our enemies—whether they are righteous or not.

In both Matthew (22:39) and Mark (12:31), Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves. In fact, Jesus talks a lot about love—for God and for each other—in his teachings. After the death of Jesus, Paul wrote to the Corinthians, and in 1 Corinthians 13:13 he writes, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Forgiveness

Jesus emphasized the importance of forgiveness, both for ourselves and for others, as a reflection of God’s mercy. For instance, in Matthew 6:14-15, Jesus says “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

In fact, the need to forgive one another is featured in the Lord’s Prayer—a foundational Christian prayer pattern taught by Jesus—which includes the phrase “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The desire to be forgiven by God is conditioned on first forgiving those who wrong you.

Humility & Service

Jesus modeled humility and taught his followers to be humble, serving others rather than seeking to be served. In Mark 9:35, Jesus called his disciples together and said, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” He was saying, in order to be worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven, you must put others before yourself.

Jesus’ teachings also emphasized the importance of serving others, especially the poor, the marginalized, and those in need. In Luke 3:11, Jesus says “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” He continues this line of thinking in Luke 12:33 when he says, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Give to those who need it, and your purses will not wear out; you will have treasure in heaven.”

The Golden Rule & Caring for the Least Among Us

Jesus taught the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you,” as a way to live a life of love and compassion. To me, this is the essence of Christianity. In fact, Jesus says that the Golden Rule, found in Matthew 7:12, is a distillation of the entire Hebrew Bible.

Matthew 25:37-40 reads, “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

In other words, Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the needy, and visit the sick and imprisoned. He is commanding us to care for one another, particularly the least among us.

The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount

Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with a series of blessings, or “Beatitudes,” which describe the qualities of those who are blessed in God’s eyes. Matthew 5:2-12 reads:

“And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
‘Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Jesus goes on to challenge his listeners to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, a radical departure from the prevailing mindset of the time. He emphasizes the importance of humility, urging his followers not to worry about material possessions or outward appearances, but to focus on living a life of righteousness and integrity. He stresses the importance of forgiveness, both towards others and towards oneself, as a key element of living a life pleasing to God. And he tells his followers that they are the light of the world, and that their good deeds should shine before others, so that they may see their good works and glorify their Father in Heaven.

Distilling all of this down to the basics, Jesus teaches us to love God, love one another, forgive one another, live a life of service and humility, practice the golden rule, care for the least among us, and to be a light unto the world by practicing good deeds. How does this list of teachings compare to what Donald Trump and the Republicans are currently doing? Let’s take a look.

Republican Priorities

Some of the biggest issues being tackled by the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress involve:

• Deporting both legal and illegal immigrants;
• Imprisoning immigrants (both legal and illegal) in horrifying conditions, punishing them although they have not been convicted of any crimes.
• Stripping trans citizens of civil rights and medical treatment;
• Dishonoring women and citizens of color by denying them recognition for their contributions to the military and the country;
• Destroying relations with our allies while cozying up to tyrants;
• Suspending refugee resettlement;
• Increasing use of the death penalty;
• Damaging the Environment through irresponsible energy policies;
• Establishing male and female as the only two recognized genders, despite scientific evidence to the contrary;
• Renaming locations, landmarks, and institutions to honor some of the darkest periods and most unpatriotic people in our history;
• Attempting to take healthcare and access to food away from the poor and disabled;
• Stripping citizenship rights from people born in the United States to non-citizens;
• Cutting off food aid and medical treatment to people in other countries dependent on the United States for help;
• Giving tax breaks to the wealthy, essentially redistributing money from poorer Americans to richer Americans.

How do Republican priorities jibe with the teachings of Jesus? In a nutshell, they don’t. Republican priorities are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus. They strip rights and care from the least among us, giving more to those who already have more. They single out certain groups for ridicule and disdain. They intentionally harm the natural environment both at home and abroad. They glorify our country above others, and favor certain people (Trump’s friends) and punish others (Trump’s enemies); And they bolster tyrants while alienating our allies and friends.

I’d be interested in your thoughts. Have I read this wrong? It seems to me that Friend #2 is way off the mark with his beliefs and comments. But he’s not alone. A large portion of self-described Christians in the United States are also cheering on Trump and the Republicans as they attempt to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the poor, the disabled, and the marginalized in our society.

I agree with Idaho pastor Rev. Benjamin Creamer when he says, “Declaring ‘Christ is king!’ with your mouth while supporting tyrants with your actions so that they will crush all the people you think are your enemies is the epitome of using Jesus’ name in vain. The way of Jesus is compassion, not control.” I hope that Friend #2 and those like him are listening.

The Trump Administration is making a mockery of our immigration laws. Last week it was reported that ICE agents arrested a U.S. citizen in the Chicago suburb of Berwyn.

Julio Noriega, 54, was born in the United States and is a U.S. citizen. ICE agents took his wallet—which contained his driver’s license and Social Security card—but didn’t bother to look at his ID or ask him about his citizenship status. Instead, they handcuffed the Chicago resident and threw him into the back of an ICE van along with other suspected illegals the ICE agents had rounded up. He was taken to the ICE processing center in Broadview where he spent the night in detention. He was finally released when ICE agents “discovered” his ID and realized he was a citizen of the United States.

The arrest of Noriega and others in the Chicago area revealed that ICE agents are creating administrative arrest warrants in the field after arresting suspected illegal immigrants. In order to justify arrests, ICE agents are required to have probable cause that a crime has been committed (including entering the United States illegally) and that the person is a flight risk, or they must have an arrest warrant prior to making the arrest. These requirements were imposed as part of the NAVA class action lawsuit settlement. The suit was filed in 2018 as the result of ICE agents illegally targeting Hispanic individuals for arrest without probable cause.

In ICE’s zeal to round up and deport illegal immigrants, they are arresting many legal immigrants—some of them U.S. citizens—who are being jailed, and in some cases, deported to countries they’ve never before lived in.

Consider the case of Jerce Reyes Barrios, a professional soccer player from Venezuela. He fled his home country after being beaten by government thugs representing Nicolas Maduro, the far-right President of Venezuela. Barrios came to the United States seeking asylum, and was in the country legally after following our laws and filing his asylum application.

Barrios was among the Venezuelan immigrants who were deported to El Salvador, despite a Federal District Court judge ordering the Trump Administration to not deport them. As the court found, the Venezuelans were not afforded any due process before being scheduled for deportation. After being jailed, they were placed in shackles, had their heads shaved, they were marched before cameras, then loaded onto a plane to El Salvador. Trump and ICE officials, including Tom Homan, the President’s so-called border czar, claimed that the Venezuelans sent to El Salvador were criminals and members of the Venezuelan gang, Tien de Aragua (TdA).

However, his attorney claims that Barrios is not a member of TdA or any other gang. They also say he was never charged with a crime in either Venezuela or the United States. Trump Administration officials dispute Barrios’ attorney’s, contending he is a gang member, and they offer two bits of evidence to prove their contention.

First, they say that Barrios had a gang tattoo on his arm. They also say that he posted a photo of himself flashing a gang sign on one of his social media accounts. That’s not much evidence for ICE to rely on, but even those two pieces of evidence are shaky at best.

The tattoo in question is actually a replica of the logo for the soccer team Real Madrid. And in the photo in question, Barrios can be seen making the “Hook ‘em Horns” hand sign associated with the University of Texas. Several Republican lawmakers and Trump Administration officials, including Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have posted similar photos on their social media accounts.

Regardless, Barrios was sent to a hard labor prison in El Salvador. At the moment, he does not have a release date (it could be months or years from now) and there is no way he will be able to make it to his asylum hearing scheduled for April 17, 2025.

Even if you believe that illegal immigrants should be arrested and deported, you can’t possibly think that the same thing should happen to immigrants who are in the United States legally, or worse yet, to U.S. citizens. This is an afront to decency and what the United States stands for. We must demand that the Trump Administration follow the law, abide by court rulings, and make absolutely sure that a person is in the country illegally before they are arrested, jailed, or deported.

And remember, these cruel, hateful policies being carried out by ICE at the insistence of Donald Trump are just beginning. If we don’t demand that any arrests and deportations be done legally now, in the early days of the Trump Administration, things will only get worse.