Current Democracy Issues Facing the U.S.

This category provides information on the Threats to Democracy caused by abuses arising from the Federal Government, which is controlled by one party. The checks and balances that normally occur do not exist in this situation.

Most of the topics are short and can be read in 2 to 3 minutes. The results of Public Citizen’s court cases are over 11 pages long, including summaries of 23 suits.

We suggest that you first read the short topics that you are interested in.  Over time, you will understand the serious magnitude of this topic.

Is democracy at risk in the United States? Are the politics in the US just a normal conflict between Democrats and Republicans? This TOPIC talks about this question.

If there is a problem, you need to know about it. Democracy provides security against abuse through the civil rights it affords.

First, what do the citizens think? We have various groups of voters. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and those who rarely vote. Look at a recent polling report in 2025.

PERCENT OF THE US POPULATION THAT IS CONCERNED ABOUT DEMOCRACY

A significant majority of Americans are concerned about the state of U.S. democracy, with recent 2025 polls indicating that three-quarters or more believe democracy is under serious threat and facing major challenges. 

Key findings from recent polls include:

• 84% of Americans say that U.S. democracy is in a crisis or facing serious challenges, while only 11% believe it is doing well, according to a November 2025 Johns Hopkins University/Public Agenda study.
• An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll from July 2025 found that 76% of Americans feel democracy is under serious threat, a figure that is statistically unchanged from April 2025.
• A September 2025 Quinnipiac University poll found that voters, by a margin of 53% to 41%, believe the system of democracy in the U.S. is not working.
• A March 2024 Navigator Research survey found that 84% of Americans are concerned about threats to democracy. 
• While concern is widespread, the reasons for this concern and the perception of the threat are often divided along partisan lines: 
• Democrats are more likely to express high levels of concern that democracy is under threat. In the July 2025 NPR/PBS poll, 89% of Democrats reported a serious threat, compared to 57% of Republicans.
• Republicans tend to express different reasons for their concern, often related to government corruption or the integrity of the voting process.
• Independents also show high levels of concern, with 80% seeing a serious threat in the July 2025 poll. 

Overall, polls consistently show deep and widespread concern among the U.S. electorate about the health and future of American democracy. 

A significant majority of Americans express concern about the state of U.S. democracy, with recent polls indicating that 76% to 84% believe it is facing serious challenges or is in crisis. The specific reasons for this concern, however, are highly polarized along partisan lines.

The percentages are far more than just Democrats or just Republicans. The public agrees that there are serious problems. A vast majority of citizens think there are problems. What are these problems?

If you know the threats, then you can take steps to protect yourself. You can vote for protections.

The key threats to U.S. democracy identified by various experts and recent reports are multifaceted and deeply interconnected, primarily stemming from internal political and social divisions. 

Key threats include:

• Political Polarization and Violence The extreme division between political parties makes compromise difficult and is a major concern for most Americans. This has also manifested in a pronounced risk of political and electoral violence.
• Attacks on Free and Fair Elections Efforts to manipulate electoral processes, such as changing election rules or the personnel who oversee certifications, undermine the foundation of democratic governance. This includes gerrymandering, which dilutes the voice of millions of voters. Gerrymandering is changing the boundaries of voting districts to reduce the other party’s voice. It is unethical regardless of which party does it.
• Misinformation and Disinformation A distorted media landscape and the spread of fake news sow public distrust in institutions and corrupt fact-based debate, making it difficult for a healthy democracy to function.
• Inequality and Exclusion Both economic and racial inequality are seen as foundational problems that create a deeply unequal society where citizens may no longer feel part of the same political community.
• Executive Aggrandizement and Abuses of Power Concerns exist regarding the overreach of executive power, the politicization of independent institutions, and a lack of checks and balances, which can lead to more authoritarian forms of governance.
• Erosion of the Rule of Law This involves actions that undermine the justice system, accountability, and the basic principle that everyone is subject to the law.
• Lack of Trust and Civic Engagement Widespread disengagement and a lack of youth participation, fueled by a belief that the government is not responsive to its people, weaken the democratic process. 
• ICE is violating civil rights, not using judicial warrants, and are violent. Ice agents have broken down doors, arrested the wrong people, separated family members, and deported citizens. In some incidents they have killed citizens. Much of this has been caught on video.

Experts argue that the current situation is uniquely challenging because many of these threats are occurring simultaneously, amplifying their potential impact. 

Are you angry? Call your congressmen and senators.

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS WRITTEN BY EXPERTS

When elements of the government tread on your civil rights and the Constitution, you lose protection and security. As you see others suffer, you realize you need to do something.

Executive summary

Legal scholars, civil-rights groups, and state attorneys general have flagged multiple Trump administration actions as unconstitutional — most prominently an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, orders reshaping election administration, and many sweeping executive actions that critics say exceed statutory authority or ignore judicial limits (see critics and court rulings). Federal courts, advocacy groups, and trackers document injunctions and lawsuits challenging passport/birth-citizenship policies, election-directed executive orders, and a pattern of fiscal and regulatory steps said to flout statutes such as the Impoundment Control Act

Legal experts, civil-rights organizations, and state attorneys general have identified several Trump administration actions as potentially unconstitutional, especially executive orders related to birthright citizenship and election processes. Federal courts and advocacy groups have documented injunctions and lawsuits challenging these policies for allegedly exceeding statutory authority or violating judicial limits.

1. Birthright citizenship: a direct constitutional challenge

Multiple sources record that Trump issued an order and related policies aiming to curtail birthright citizenship, and judges and legal advocates called that move unconstitutional; a Seattle federal judge described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” and advocacy groups such as NILC and trackers report lawsuits and injunctions against the administration’s effort to deny federal recognition or documents to U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents. Legal scholars and plaintiffs argue the order conflicts with the 14th Amendment and long‑standing statutory practice; courts have served as immediate checks in several suits.

Several sources report that Trump ordered policies to limit birthright citizenship, which judges and advocates labeled unconstitutional. Courts quickly checked these efforts, with lawsuits citing conflicts with the 14th Amendment and established law.

2. Election‑related executive orders: federalizing state election administration

Civil‑rights and democracy groups assert that an executive order directing the Election Assistance Commission (and pressuring states) to change voter‑registration requirements and mail‑ballot processes exceeds presidential power and infringes on states’ authority over elections; organizations such as Campaign Legal Center and State Democracy Defenders Fund are mounting litigation arguing the president “does not have the power to regulate our elections”. State attorneys general and coalitions likewise call the order “unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un‑American,” and have filed challenges emphasizing both separation-of‑powers and federalism concerns.

Civil rights and democracy groups argue that an executive order altering voter registration and mail-ballot processes oversteps presidential authority and encroaches on states’ control of elections. Organizations like Campaign Legal Center and State Democracy Defenders Fund are suing, stating the president cannot regulate elections. State attorneys general call the order unconstitutional and antidemocratic, filing challenges based on separation of powers and federalism.

3. Broad deregulatory and spending steps are said to violate statutes and procedure

Policy analysts and legal observers contend the administration’s financial and regulatory maneuvers — including a “spending pause” characterized by OMB, Office of Management and Budget, as rescissions — ran afoul of the Impoundment Control Act because the administration did not follow that law’s procedures; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities lists those actions among moves with clear legal defects. The White House frames deregulatory steps as restoring lawful governance, but critics say using enforcement discretion and agency directives to nullify statutes or appropriations invites litigation and statutory challenges 

Policy analysts argue that the administration’s financial and regulatory actions, such as the OMB’s “spending pause,” violated the Impoundment Control Act due to procedural issues. While the White House claims deregulatory measures restore lawful governance, critics warn that using agency discretion to override laws could lead to legal challenges. If you can override a law, it isn’t effectively a law.

4. Immigration enforcement, campus orders, and other executive actions facing courtroom pushback

Congressman trackers and legal news compendia document many other actions that courts or advocates describe as overreach: expanded immigration enforcement targeting noncitizens and students, executive orders conditioning federal funds, and campus‑accountability directives tied to civil rights enforcement — all of which have prompted suits, injunctions, and federal-judge scrutiny. Those sources show a pattern in which the administration’s claims of broad executive authority repeatedly bump up against statutory text and constitutional limits.

Congressman trackers and legal-news summaries record various actions labeled as overreach, such as expanded immigration enforcement, executive orders affecting federal funding, and campus directives tied to civil rights. These actions often lead to lawsuits, injunctions, and judicial review, showing a recurring clash between the administration’s broad executive claims and legislative or constitutional boundaries.

5. Courts as the principal check — and a shifting litigation landscape

Observers and legal trackers note that federal judges have often blocked or enjoined key policies (for example, passport sex‑designation rules and the birthright‑citizenship order), but litigation outcomes remain uneven; one tracker notes Supreme Court emergency orders and stays that can temporarily alter lower‑court blocks. Campaign Legal Center warns that a Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA also altered judicial tools for nationwide injunctions, potentially narrowing courts’ ability to check presidential acts — an institutional development that reshapes how constitutional challenges play out.

Legal observers report that while federal judges frequently block major policies, such as passport sex-designation rules and the birthright-citizenship order, litigation outcomes vary, and Supreme Court emergency actions can override lower-court decisions. The Campaign Legal Center highlights that the Supreme Court’s Trump v. CASA decision has limited the use of nationwide injunctions, reducing courts’ ability to review presidential actions and influencing future constitutional challenges.

6. What sources emphasize and what they do not

Advocacy groups and legal centers emphasize constitutional and statutory violations and cite injunctions and court language to back those claims. Nonpartisan trackers and reporting compile case law and procedural updates, but also document stays and Supreme Court interventions that complicate relief. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive scholarly consensus listing every specific Trump action labeled unconstitutional; instead, the record shows many separate suits and sector‑specific critiques rather than a single uniform judgment across all actions.

Advocacy groups and legal centers highlight constitutional and statutory violations, referencing court decisions. Nonpartisan sources track case law, procedural developments, stays, and Supreme Court interventions that complicate legal relief. There is no comprehensive scholarly consensus listing each Trump action deemed unconstitutional; instead, records show individual lawsuits and specific critiques rather than a unified judgment.

7. Bottom line for readers

Multiple high‑profile Trump actions — the birthright citizenship directive, election‑related orders, fiscal rescissions, campus and funding directives, and expanded immigration enforcement — are the subject of sustained constitutional challenges and have been enjoined or litigated in federal courts, with advocates and judges frequently calling some measures unlawful or unconstitutional. The dispute now centers not only on the merits of individual cases but also on the broader institutional capacity of courts to block presidential overreach, a dynamic closely tracked by legal organizations.

Much of this is from Google AI, cross-checked with Bing and Dogpile.

Several major Trump directives—covering citizenship, elections, budgets, campus policies, and immigration—face ongoing constitutional challenges and have been halted or litigated in federal courts. The debate now focuses on whether courts have the authority to prevent presidential overreach, a concern closely monitored by legal groups.

You and each individual citizen have the responsibility to be knowledgeable and to put pressure on politicians to stop things you do not accept. Call your representatives. Vote.

Are you aware of Trump’s violations and their consequences? Being aware can help you decide how to help counter them and what to say when contacting your political representatives.

Constitutional violation of Trump (Bing.com   12/10/25)

List of times Trump violated the Constitution. Violating the Constitution denies the protections it provides to you and your fellow citizens. Do you want to keep these protections?

Checked on November 29, 2025

Executive summary

Multiple watchdogs, congressional Democrats, legal groups and news outlets say the Trump administration has taken actions they argue conflict with constitutional limits — including attempts to end birthright citizenship, frequent executive orders, firing inspectors general, and defying court orders (see Brennan Center, Senate HSGAC, Ohio Capital Journal). Independent trackers show hundreds of lawsuits and an expanding litigation docket challenging executive actions; Reuters and Just Security document mass personnel retribution and dozens of legal challenges tied to administration policy shifts.

Numerous watchdogs, Democratic lawmakers, legal organizations, and media outlets report that the Trump administration has taken actions seen as conflicting with constitutional limits—such as ending birthright citizenship, issuing frequent executive orders, dismissing inspectors general, and ignoring court orders. Hundreds of lawsuits now challenge these executive moves, and independent sources highlight significant personnel retaliation and legal disputes arising from policy changes.

1. Executive orders and claims to exceed text and precedent

Critics point to an unprecedented pace of executive orders and several that legal observers and judges called unconstitutional — most prominently an order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which a federal judge blocked as “blatantly unconstitutional” and which the Brennan Center cites as an early, major transgression. Reporting and legal trackers list many orders in 2025 and note litigation challenging policies such as definitions of sex on passports and other administrative directives

Critics highlight a record number of executive orders in 2025, including several deemed unconstitutional by legal experts, such as the blocked order on birthright citizenship. Many directives have faced legal challenges, notably those concerning sex definitions on passports and other administrative policies.

2. Court defiance and litigation flood

Senate Democrats’ oversight reporting and other outlets emphasize that the administration faced more than 350 lawsuits and that judges appointed by both parties ordered halts to administration actions — a pattern framed as threatening the separation of powers. Just Security’s litigation tracker catalogs ongoing lawsuits and injunctions against policies, including passport and gender-related rules, showing the judiciary as the primary check on these initiatives 

Senate Democrats’ reports note that the administration faced over 350 lawsuits, with judges from both parties blocking actions, raising concerns about the separation of powers. Just Security’s litigation tracker highlights ongoing legal challenges to policies like passport and gender rules, illustrating the judiciary’s role as a key check.

3. Claims of unlawful use of military and federalization disputes

State officials — notably California’s governor — publicly accused the president of improperly federalizing the National Guard and “turning the military into his own personal police force,” arguing this violated Title 10 and state prerogatives; the governor’s office laid out a timeline of a memorandum and call-ups that it says sidestepped necessary coordination with the governor. Available sources document the accusation and the governor’s legal and rhetorical framing, but do not provide a final judicial ruling on that specific dispute in the materials provided

California’s governor accused the president of improperly federalizing the National Guard and violating Title 10 by bypassing required coordination with the state. While sources detail these accusations and the governor’s arguments, they do not include a final court ruling on the matter.

4. Personnel moves, alleged retribution, and First Amendment concerns

Investigations and reporting show an extensive pattern of personnel actions that critics say amounted to political retribution: Reuters documented a tracker of at least 470 “targets” of retribution across agencies, and examples include firings tied to ideological or identity-related disputes. House Democrats and watchdogs also flagged firing inspectors general without congressional notice as violating statutes or norms. 

Investigations reveal widespread personnel actions alleged to be political retribution: Reuters tracked at least 470 such “targets” across agencies, including firings over ideological or identity-based issues. House Democrats and watchdogs also cited inspector general firings without congressional notice as statutory or normative violations.

5. War powers, emergency powers, and checks on use of force

Some lawmakers and commentators accused the president of breaching constitutional war powers — for example, statements that military action (such as strikes abroad) bypassed Congress’s authority to declare war — a claim made by Representative Al Green and rounded up in commentary about alleged War Powers Clause violations. The Constitutional Accountability Center and others also raised alarms about emergency economic authorities and pauses on federal spending that critics say infringe Congress’s appropriations power 

Several lawmakers and commentators claimed the president bypassed Congress’s war powers by authorizing military action without approval. Critics, including the Constitutional Accountability Center, also argued that emergency economic actions and federal spending pauses violated Congress’s authority over appropriations.

6. Rights and rule-of-law advocacy groups’ framing

Legal advocacy centers like the Brennan Center and Constitutional Accountability Center framed several moves as clear legal oversteps: the Brennan Center catalogued early orders and personnel moves as “flagrantly” violating law or the Constitution, and CAC lawyers warned that orders to pause federal spending and an attempt to end birthright citizenship contradict established constitutional text and congressional powers

Legal advocacy groups such as the Brennan Center and Constitutional Accountability Center criticized early orders and personnel changes as clear legal violations, noting that halting federal spending and efforts to end birthright citizenship conflict with constitutional text and congressional authority.

7. Competing narratives and official defenses

The White House presents its agenda as lawful and transformative policy, touting administrative results and defending executive actions as within the president’s authority. Congressional Republicans and the administration argue that many actions are lawful uses of executive power and necessary to implement policy. Available sources show these competing claims but do not include definitive appellate or Supreme Court resolutions for every contested action; the judiciary remains the arbiter referenced in coverage 

The White House asserts its agenda is both legal and transformative, defending executive actions as within presidential authority. Congressional Republicans and the administration maintain these actions are valid uses of executive power for policy implementation. While sources reflect these opposing views, not all disputes have clear appellate or Supreme Court rulings; courts remain the ultimate arbiters.

8. What the sources do — and do not — establish

The documents and reporting supplied establish repeated legal challenges, injunctions, and formal accusations that the administration exceeded constitutional bounds in areas including birthright citizenship, use of executive orders, federalization of forces, mass personnel reassignments and alleged retaliation. Available sources do not mention definitive court findings that exhaustively label the full sweep of these actions as constitutional violations in every instance; many items remain litigated or framed as allegations by oversight entities and advocacy groups

Documents and reports show ongoing legal disputes, injunctions, and accusations that the administration may have exceeded constitutional limits in areas like birthright citizenship, executive orders, federal force use, personnel moves, and retaliation. No sources confirm that all these actions have been definitively ruled unconstitutional; many remain under litigation or are allegations from oversight groups.

Contextual takeaway: multiple, credible institutions — Congress Democrats, legal centers, state officials, and investigative reporters — document a broad catalogue of contested actions the administration took that critics say violated constitutional limits; many of those claims are being tested in courts, producing injunctions, stays and an expanding litigation record. 

Much of this is from Google AI, cross-checked with Bing and Dogpile.

Politicians have full-time staff members who record and count information on calls. In the absence of phone calls, politicians think things are OK. When they get many phone calls on an issue, they fear for their jobs. CALL.

Legal solutions take time. This section adds clarity to the magnitude of the actions in the courts now. You might feel better knowing that things are being done even though this is not in the news. You can understand the length of the legal process.

The President and Constitutional Violations: Will the Federal Courts Contain the President’s Power Grabs?

A throughline of President Donald Trump’s second term in office is that his administration believes it can act with impunity when it comes to the law and to the U.S. Constitution. In a recent interview, President Trump responded to a question about whether he had to uphold the Constitution with “I don’t know.”  In the more than 150 executive orders (EOs) that President Trump has issued during the first four months of this term, he frequently asserts that he is acting under authority granted him by Article II of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is intended to limit the powers of the presidency, not to provide nearly limitless authority, as President Trump contends. The Constitution does not give a president the power to violate the Constitution, create or change congressional statutes, or override U.S. Supreme Court decisions—no matter what the EOs say.

President Donald Trump’s administration has often acted as if it is above the law and the Constitution. Recently, he expressed uncertainty about his obligation to uphold the Constitution. In over 150 executive orders issued in the first four months of his term, Trump claims broad authority under Article II. However, the Constitution limits presidential power and does not permit a president to violate it, alter statutes, or override Supreme Court rulings, regardless of what executive orders may purport to do.

When a president acts beyond the scope of his constitutional powers, members of his administration and the other branches of government must step in to stop him, lest the nation face not just a constitutional crisis but also the dismantling of American democracy. Congress has thus far failed to serve as a check on executive overreach, perhaps out of fear of political retribution. Thus, it falls to the courts to robustly fulfill their constitutional role in policing the executive branch when it violates the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress.

If a president exceeds constitutional authority, other government officials must intervene to prevent both a constitutional crisis and threats to democracy. So far, Congress has not checked executive overreach, possibly due to concerns about political retribution. As a result, it is now up to the courts to enforce constitutional limits on the executive branch.

Indeed, in the first months of the second Trump administration, at least 39 separate judges appointed by five different presidents—including Donald Trump himself—have ruled against his overreaching actions. They have variously issued temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions preventing the Trump administration from, among many other things, ending constitutional birthright citizenship, targeting opponents with politically motivated investigations, freezing funding that Congress had approved for projects, and cutting off funding due to political disagreements.

In the early months of Trump’s second administration, at least 39 judges appointed by five presidents—including Trump—have blocked his actions. Their rulings stopped attempts to end birthright citizenship, pursue political investigations, freeze approved funds, and cut funding over disputes.

However, in the few cases that have reached the Supreme Court, the conservative justices appear to be using highly technical and narrow procedural decisions to avoid directly confronting the Trump administration and its seemingly unconstitutional actions. We have already seen how these rulings—such as those in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Alien Enemies Act cases—have resulted in the administration skewing clear rulings to its own ends, thereby frustrating the lower courts. By punting decisions on merits and permitting these seemingly unconstitutional actions to continue, the court is providing President Trump time to consolidate an anti-constitutional regime and to take actions that harm Americans’ well-being and undermine America’s global leadership. The damage being done to the nation will take years to undo, but may well be irreversible.

In rare Supreme Court cases involving the Trump administration, conservative justices have relied on technical procedural decisions to avoid addressing potential constitutional violations. Examples like the Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Alien Enemies Act cases show these rulings allow the administration to exploit ambiguities and frustrate lower courts. By deferring decisions, the court is enabling President Trump to strengthen his position and take actions that may harm Americans and diminish U.S. global leadership, causing lasting, possibly irreparable damage.

Until Congress stands up to the Trump administration’s efforts to strip its own powers, the courts—and especially the Supreme Court—must stand up for Americans’ rights and the rule of law.  And though there is a right-wing majority on the high court, the court should still be able to speak with one voice that the Constitution prevents the president from acting unconstitutionally. The key question to be answered is: Are the president’s actions constitutional and legal? The short answer is no.

Until Congress challenges the Trump administration’s attempts to limit its authority, the courts—particularly the Supreme Court—must defend Americans’ rights and uphold the law. Despite the right-leaning majority, the court should affirm that the Constitution restricts presidential overreach. The key issue is whether the president’s actions are constitutional; they are not.

The president cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport people.

President Trump’s EO invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1789 and his claim that the AEA grants him the authority to remove people—in this instance, alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren De Aragua (TdA) gang—without due process appears to be both illegal and unconstitutional. First, the Fifth Amendment was a direct rebuttal to such abuses as it requires that “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” extending these protections beyond just citizens. Several lower court judges have issued orders prohibiting the removal of anyone under the AEA without due process. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the government must provide individuals targeted by this EO the due process right to challenge their removals through the legal process. Though not legally binding, the Declaration of Independence shines a light on the illegitimacy of Trump’s actions; it decried the English king subjecting people in the colonies to “a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,” “depriving [people] in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,” and “transporting [people] beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.”

President Trump’s executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1789 to remove alleged Venezuelan Tren De Aragua (TdA) gang members without due process is likely illegal and unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process for all persons, and several lower courts have banned removals under the AEA without it. The Supreme Court has also affirmed individuals’ right to challenge such orders. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence denounced depriving people of legal protections and fair trials.

Furthermore, a Trump-appointed judge in the Southern District of Texas recently ruled that the president’s invocation of the AEA to remove people “exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.” To that effect, the AEA—invoked only three times in American history—requires a “declared war” or an “invasion or predatory incursion” “by any foreign nation or government” for invocation, none of which is present here. In reviewing invocation of the AEA, a judge appointed by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush opined that “an invasion is a military affair, not one of immigration.” A recently declassified intelligence memo indicates that the Venezuelan government is not directing TdA in the United States, further undermining President Trump’s claims that the AEA was appropriately invoked.

A judge in the Southern District of Texas found that President Trump’s use of the AEA to expel individuals exceeded the statute’s plain meaning. The AEA has only been invoked three times and requires a “declared war” or an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation—conditions not met here. Another judge noted that “an invasion is a military affair, not one of immigration.” Intelligence reports also show Venezuela is not directing TdA activities in the U.S., further weakening the justification for invoking the AEA.

So far (Nov 25), the Trump administration has sent more than 260 individuals—more than 100 of whom the administration says are members of TdA—to an El Salvadoran prison without constitutionally required due process. This includes Abrego Garcia, who had a judicial hold on his removal that granted him protection from being deported. Despite admitting that Abrego Garcia was removed due to an “administrative error,” the administration has vigorously pushed back against court orders that the government facilitate his return. As a result, one federal judge has already found probable cause to hold the government in criminal contempt of court for defying his orders around AEA removals. A second judge is conducting expedited discovery in the Abrego Garcia case with the apparent purpose of determining whether contempt proceedings should proceed.

As of November 25, the Trump administration has deported over 260 individuals—more than 100 said to be TdA members—to an El Salvadoran prison without due process. This includes Abrego Garcia, who was protected from removal but was deported due to an administrative error. The administration has opposed court orders to return him, leading one judge to find probable cause for criminal contempt and another to conduct expedited discovery regarding further contempt proceedings.

 

The president cannot legally run for a third term

President Trump has flirted openly with running for a third term, stating that there are “methods” for doing so. He has even released “Trump 2028” merchandise. Regardless of whether President Trump has walked these claims back, the Constitution explicitly forbids President Trump from running for office for a third term.

President Trump has suggested running for a third term and even released “Trump 2028” merchandise. However, the Constitution clearly prohibits him from seeking a third term, regardless of any changes in his statements.

The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951 to limit presidents to two terms, following Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s election to a fourth term in 1942. Members of Congress who passed the amendment were unified in its purpose of “preventing a dictatorship or some totalitarian form of government from arising.” The amendment itself makes clear that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice …” This negates any of President Trump’s assertions that he will be permitted to run again because his terms were not consecutive.

The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 after FDR’s four terms, limits presidents to two terms. Congress passed it to prevent dictatorship, stating, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” which rules out any claim that President Trump can run again due to non-consecutive terms.

Additionally, the 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President.”  A clear reading of the Constitution shows that President Trump could not run for vice president with the intent of the president stepping down upon inauguration because President Trump is constitutionally ineligible under the 22nd Amendment.

The 12th Amendment states that anyone ineligible for the Presidency is also ineligible for the vice presidency. Since President Trump is constitutionally barred from the presidency by the 22nd Amendment, he cannot serve as vice president with the intent of becoming president.

The president cannot legally punish law firms for their legal activities

President Trump has issued several EOs targeting large law firms for representing clients affiliated with the Democratic Party, lawyers involved with the January 6 Committee, and former Democratic officials. These EOs strip the security clearances of all attorneys affiliated with the firms and prohibit them from accessing federal buildings. The EOs also require government contractors to disclose their affiliation with targeted law firms, which could result in the loss of their government contracts.

These EOs appear to be unconstitutional and violate multiple sections of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, a federal judge just ruled that President Trump’s EO targeting the law firm Perkins Coie was “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints … contrary to the Constitution.” That court found that the EO violated the First Amendment through retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, the Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court did not address whether the EO served as an unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder”—imposing punishment on targets without trial—but suggested that the president cannot independently do what Congress is specifically barred from doing and that the matter could be addressed at a later time. As scholars have noted, “Even under the most tyrannical monarchs, the king never asserted unilateral authority to issue bills of attainder—a power the president now asserts for himself.” (emphasis in original)

Three other law firms subject to these EOs have already received temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether several other powerful law firms will now back out of agreements they made with the Trump administration to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of pro bono work to the government.

The president cannot legally punish his political opponents

The president can’t order that political opponents be punished but he can theoretically order that they be investigated, although such actions have long been considered beyond the pale of presidential action. In doing so, President Trump has destroyed the long-established independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its freedom from political influence. Furthermore, by initiating sweeping investigations against his political opponents, Trump is taking upon himself a power that the founders explicitly rebelled against in 1776. As Joseph diGenova—President Trump’s former lawyer and a former U.S. attorney—stated, “The power to investigate and prosecute is the power to destroy.”

 

Much of this is from Google AI, cross-checked with Bing and Dogpile.

 

While the president cannot order punishment of political opponents, he can technically direct investigations—though such actions have long been seen as unacceptable. President Trump’s moves have undermined the Department of Justice’s independence and violated principles that the founders opposed in 1776. As Joseph diGenova, Trump’s former lawyer, remarked: “The power to investigate and prosecute is the power to destroy.”

Indeed, directing pretextual investigations against political opponents for their constitutionally protected acts may well violate the Constitution in multiple ways. The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States from prosecution based on their free speech unless it constitutes a “true threat,” which does not apply to the cases described below. The Fifth Amendment equal protection clause also protects these individuals and institutions and prohibits the “illegitimate exercise of government power.” Furthermore, constitutional protections against bills of attainder could apply here as well.

Directing pretextual investigations against political opponents for constitutionally protected acts can violate multiple constitutional provisions. The First Amendment protects free speech unless it is a “true threat,” which does not apply here. The Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause also prohibits illegitimate government power, and protections against bills of attainder may be relevant as well.

These legal and constitutional principles should apply to the EOs directing the criminal investigation and stripping of security clearance of two political appointees from President Trump’s first term: Chris Krebs, former director of the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security. These EOs appear to be wholly in retaliation for Kreb’s and Taylor’s past statements critical of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle democratic institutions and elections during his first term.

These legal and constitutional principles should govern the EOs targeting the criminal investigation and removal of security clearance for two political appointees from President Trump’s first term: Chris Krebs, former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director, and Miles Taylor, former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff. The EOs seem primarily retaliatory, responding to Kreb’s and Taylor’s earlier criticism of President Trump’s attempts to undermine democratic institutions and elections.

Beyond the Krebs and Taylor investigations, Attorney General Pam Bondi and former interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin appear to be pursuing this agenda of political retribution through abuse of the criminal justice system. While interim U.S. attorney, Martin sent letters to Democratic members of Congress and senators purporting to investigate their public political speech as criminal threats. Martin has told top law schools to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or their graduates would be blacklisted from DOJ jobs. He has also sent threatening letters to top-tier medical journals, such as The New England Journal of Medicine, accusing them of bias in publishing research articles. Martin is now an associate deputy attorney general and is in charge of a so-called DOJ “Weaponization Working Group.” Although this group is purportedly intended to de-weaponize DOJ, Martin has affirmed that it will be criminally investigating federal, state, and local officials who previously investigated President Trump, including special counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and the DOJ personnel tasked with prosecuting January 6 insurgents.

Many of the targets of these investigations are already pushing back against the Trump administration’s seemingly unconstitutional actions, though the status of the cases remains unclear, as they have not yet been brought before a court.

Many investigation targets are challenging the Trump administration’s potentially unconstitutional actions, but the cases have yet to reach court and remain unresolved.

The president cannot legally punish private companies and public organizations for diversity programs

President Trump has issued a slew of EOs targeting and attempting to eliminate DEI initiatives within and outside of the government. The administration has declared DEI “illegal,” issued EOs to eliminate DEI programs in the federal government, created a list of more than 250 words (including “accessible” and “woman”) to target and remove from government-maintained webpages, threatened to defund public schools that maintain diversity programs, threatened to cancel government contracts with companies and grant recipients if they use or encourage diversity programs, and initiated investigations against public and private institutions for using or having diversity programs.

Yet President Trump and the administration have not defined what they consider illegal about DEI. Simply put, their efforts to punish private individuals and organizations for vaguely prohibited speech and actions appear to be arbitrary and capricious and thus illegal. The First Amendment prohibits the government from mandating a speech code and prohibiting free association for the public. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from punishing people and private organizations without due process of law. As the EOs appear to prohibit people and organizations from speaking and associating freely and to punish those who do not comply with the president’s view of DEI, they appear to be facial violations of the Constitution.

President Trump and his administration have not specified what they find illegal about DEI. Their attempts to penalize private individuals and organizations for unclear speech or actions seem arbitrary and may violate the First and Fifth Amendments. These executive orders may restrict free speech, association, and due process, raising constitutional concerns.

The administration’s declaration that DEI programs are illegal stems from its expansive reading of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. That case narrowly held that universities could not use race-based admissions systems but could consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life.

The administration claims that DEI programs are illegal based on a broad interpretation of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The ruling only prohibited race-based admissions but allowed universities to consider applicants’ discussions of how race influenced their lives.

Since the EOs were issued, at least 240 colleges and universities have deprioritized or eliminated diversity reforms for fear of being defunded. Some of America’s largest companies—including Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, Warner Bros., and The Walt Disney Co.—are eliminating or modifying DEI programs for fear of losing government contracts or facing intrusive federal investigations.

No statute or Supreme Court ruling states that advancing or considering diversity interests by private citizens or organizations is illegal. A Maryland federal district court judge recently barred implementation of the EOs because they were unconstitutionally vague and likely violated the First and Fifth amendments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit later narrowed the lower court’s order based on the government’s assertion that it would not act to violate the Constitution while the case proceeds on the merits. A concurring judge noted that “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the [EO’s] narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns.”

The administration’s recent move requiring all state education departments to affirm that their K–12 schools will not engage in DEI initiatives—again, without defining DEI—or be cut off from federal funding appears to fall squarely under the courts’ concerns. This threat seems to run afoul of Supreme Court precedent as illegally coercive. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—involving Congress’ efforts to cut off Medicaid funding to states—the court held that unduly coercive efforts requiring states to adopt federal policies are unconstitutional. The court explicitly stated that “‘the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.’ Otherwise, the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.” That very same reasoning should apply directly to a president attempting to coerce states into adopting his policies, especially when those policies are not backed by law.

The administration’s recent mandate that all state education departments reject DEI initiatives—without defining DEI—or risk losing federal funding may conflict with Supreme Court precedent. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Court ruled that coercing states to adopt federal policies is unconstitutional. The same logic should apply here, arguing that a president cannot force states to follow his policies without legislative backing.

The president’s threats to cancel education funding due to ideological disputes contravene settled constitutional and legal principles. President Trump enjoys many powers under the Constitution, but the power to unilaterally, absent any due process, force states and institutions to comply with his shifting policy demands or lose federal funding is not one of them. Individuals, organizations, universities, and states themselves should be wary of bowing to the president’s demands because anticipatory obedience to an illegal order wreaks just as much havoc on the nation’s democratic system as the illegal orders themselves.

The president’s threats to cancel education funding over ideological disagreements conflict with established constitutional law. While President Trump has significant authority, he cannot unilaterally withhold federal funds without due process to enforce his policy preferences. States and organizations should resist complying with such unlawful orders, as even preemptively following them undermines democracy.

Conclusion

So far, the Supreme Court has made it difficult for the lower courts to enforce their orders against President Trump’s apparent overreach. Five justices have largely permitted the administration to move forward with seemingly illegal or unconstitutional actions by overturning temporary restraining orders on technical or procedural bases but have not spoken on the merits of any of the appealed cases. In doing so, the Roberts court may be staving off a direct confrontation between the judiciary and President Trump. However, judicial appeasement like this will only serve to provide a longer runway for President Trump and his administration to engage in activities that may later be deemed illegal and unconstitutional while harming Americans—and America—in the process. The courts should not shy away from this fight. The lower court judges who are on the front lines understand this. It is time for Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues to publicly recognize what is being done to the republic and take a stand for the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has so far made it challenging for lower courts to enforce orders against President Trump, allowing his administration to proceed with disputed actions by overturning restraining orders on procedural grounds. This approach avoids direct conflict between the judiciary and the president but risks enabling further potentially unlawful actions. The courts must not avoid addressing these issues; Chief Justice Roberts and the other justices should defend the rule of law.

SOURCE: The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Much of this is from Google AI, cross-checked with Bing and Dogpile.

As a private citizen, you can help with pressure on politicians via phone calls and voting in elections. When politicians see one of their own lose their job that was previously won by a large margin, other politicians take notice. Call your representatives.

Democracy is safety, security and comfort. Without it you are in a dictatorship. Is this important to you? How does these things affect you?

President Trump Actively Destroys the Rule of Law He Claims to Be Restoring

President Trump will claim he is working hard to restore law and order in the United States, while he actively and blatantly violates the law, undermines the U.S. Constitution in countless ways, and attacks the men and women who patriotically serve their country in the Department of Justice.

In advance of President Trump’s speech at the Department of Justice, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) and Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Grace Meng (NY-06) highlight how the Trump Administration is already violating the law.

“President Trump began breaking the law on day one of his term, and immediately pardoned hundreds of violent criminals upon taking office. The Trump Administration is breaking the law and undermining the Constitution every day by illegally stealing funds for the programs that help American families and businesses, firing career civil servants without cause, and dismantling agencies created by acts of Congress. If President Trump wants to restore trust, he should get back to addressing the cost of living and not overturning existing trade agreements which help American workers,” said House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (CT-03).

“From the first day his second term began, the President has continuously undermined the Constitution and made Americans feel less safe. From firing public servants to dissolving federal agencies and taking taxpayer money from our communities, the Administration has violated the law time and time again. Restoring law and order starts with respecting the Rule of Law itself and the sacredness of our Constitution. This Administration has failed to do so since day one,” said Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Ranking Member Grace Meng (NY-06).

If the President is truly committed to law and order, here are examples of lawless and reckless actions and other actions that undermine law and order that he should immediately rectify and reverse: 

• Impoundment of congressionally-appropriated funds at numerous federal agencies, in violation of federal law
• Firing of dozens of experienced federal prosecutors
• Firing of thousands of other federal professionals in violation of the law, and the initiation of government-wide plans for further firings
• Firing of 17 Inspectors General, independent watchdogs that investigate waste, fraud, abuse, and potential criminal activity in our government
• Letting Elon Musk and DOGE access the sensitive data on tens of millions of Americans
• Signing of a series of illegal and unconstitutional executive orders
• Removal of experienced career FBI officials and threats to fire FBI Special Agents and analysts
• Removal or transfer of other experienced career officials at the Department of Justice
• Initiation of plans to transfer up to 1,500 FBI headquarters professionals out of the Washington, DC area
• Initiation of plans to gut the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, which helps investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials
• Initiation of plans to gut other Justice Department units that combat money laundering, prosecute foreign corruption cases,  and more
• Initiation of plans to restore gun possession rights to convicted felons and persons with domestic violence convictions
• Closure of the U.S. Agency for international Development, in violation of Federal law

SOURCE

• Subcommittees
• 119th Congress
• Committee on Appropriations (119th Congress)
• Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (119th Congress)
• Issues: Commerce, Justice, Science

Much of this is from Google Ai cross checked with Bing and Dogpile.

You are now more aware. We are the last line of defense. Contact your representatives. 

People and organizations are using the courts to stop the federal government abuse. You just don’t hear about it in the news. The courts system is slow. This material may give you hope.

Beating Trump in court, Public Citizen 12/13/25
Public Citizen has filed 23 lawsuits against the regime since Donald Trump returned to power. There will be more to come in the year ahead, but we wanted to give you an update on all the cases so far.

First, an important note:

Lawsuits against the federal government can move slowly. Both sides are given a lot of time to submit and respond to filings. With the Trump administration acting so recklessly, this deliberate pace can be frustrating, to say the least. That’s why seeking temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is a key part of our strategy in many cases.

Most of our lawsuits against the regime have not yet reached a final ruling. But in many of these cases, we have succeeded in stopping, or at least reducing, the damage that Trump is trying to inflict. And when these cases are ultimately decided, we of course believe we should prevail.

OK, on to an as-quick-as-we-can-make-it recap of each of our 23 lawsuits so far, starting with the most recent and working back from there.

LAWSUIT #23 — CONSUMER PROTECTION
DATE FILED: December 5, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To stop Trump from completely defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
BACKGROUND: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established after the 2008 financial crisis to keep everyday Americans from getting ripped off by Big Banks. (Public Citizen played a major role in creating the CFPB.) Trump put one of his top lieutenants — Russell Vought, a primary architect of the infamous Project 2025 manifesto — in charge of the Bureau. Vought is refusing to comply with a law that requires him to request funding for the CFPB from the Federal Reserve.
WHERE THINGS STAND: We filed a motion for summary judgment — meaning we asked the court to issue a final ruling right away (because the administration is doing something obviously illegal) and order Vought to request funding for the CFPB as required by law.

LAWSUIT #22 — STUDENT LOANS
DATE FILED: November 4, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To prevent the Trump administration from denying student loan forgiveness to borrowers just because the regime doesn’t like the kind of work they do.
BACKGROUND: In 2007, Congress created the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to help people who go into public service work, including: public school teachers, first responders, social workers, military personnel, librarians, government workers, people who work at homeless shelters and food banks, nurses and other employees at nonprofit hospitals, people who provide services to survivors of domestic violence, and many other kinds of workers. Under Trump’s Education Secretary — the billionaire former professional wrestling magnate Linda McMahon — the administration has decided to deny public service loan forgiveness to borrowers whose work it just doesn’t like.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The administration has until early January to file its initial response to our suit.

LAWSUIT #21 — EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
DATE FILED: October 20, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To block a directive telling staff at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to ignore an entire category of civil rights violations.
BACKGROUND: An employment practice that negatively affects some people more than others because of traits like race, sex, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability is a form of discrimination known as “disparate impact.” Under Trump, staff at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have been ordered to stop investigating disparate impact claims.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The case was dismissed. The judge ruled that our client was not qualified to sue, but did not rule on whether the administration is acting lawfully.

LAWSUIT #20 — COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES
DATE FILED: October 20, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To challenge a rule from Trump’s Department of Transportation that prohibits asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients — immigrants who are legally authorized to work here — from getting, renewing, or even keeping existing commercial driver’s licenses.
BACKGROUND: The new rule was based solely on the immigration status of the workers. There is no evidence of a safety issue or any other rational basis for barring people who have passed the written and road tests, and who have legal work authorization, from working as drivers. The administration put the rule into effect immediately, with no advance notice, directly threatening the livelihoods of 200,000 truck drivers, bus drivers, and delivery drivers. The rule will also hurt countless businesses, both large and small — as well as schools and potentially millions of American consumers — that depend on these drivers.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The court granted our motion asking it to put the rule on hold while the case proceeds.***

LAWSUIT #19 — FREE SPEECH FOR FEDERAL WORKERS
DATE FILED: October 3, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To stop the Trump administration from violating the First Amendment rights of federal workers.
BACKGROUND: With the recent government shutdown, hundreds of thousands of government employees set up “out-of-office” emails before being furloughed. But at Trump’s Department of Education — run by the billionaire former professional wrestling magnate Linda McMahon — these emails were replaced with a partisan message blaming “Democrat Senators” for the shutdown. That change was made without the employees’ consent and without notice that partisan messages were being sent in their names. In essence, they were being forced to make a political statement, whether they agreed with it or not.
WHERE THINGS STAND: We won. The court granted our motion and ordered the Department of Education to remove the partisan messages from the employees’ emails.***

LAWSUIT #18 — HEALTH RESEARCH
DATE FILED: August 21, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To restore health research grants from a critical agency within the Department of Health and Human Services.
BACKGROUND: In 1999, Congress established the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support research into how America’s health system works, how to support patients and clinicians in choosing the best care, how to improve health by improving healthcare delivery, and more. Under the “leadership” of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS has destroyed AHRQ’s capacity to process grant applications, withheld decisions on pending grant applications, and refused to spend appropriated funds.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The court ordered HHS to hold onto the funds it refused to spend — rather than return those funds to the Treasury Department — so that the funding will remain available to be spent if we win the case.

LAWSUIT #17 — JOB CORPS PROGRAM
DATE FILED: June 18, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To prevent the Trump administration from closing Job Corps centers all across the country and shutting down the Job Corps program.
BACKGROUND: Congress created the Job Corps program in 1964 to provide vocational and academic training to low-income young people. The program has continued with ongoing bipartisan support in Congress — even when Richard Nixon wanted to shrink it and Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate it altogether. But the Trump regime, in flagrant defiance of the law, wants to suspend the program and close all 99 Job Corps centers nationwide. Public Citizen, with Southern Poverty Law Center as co-counsel, filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the administration’s unlawful attempt to close the Job Corps centers.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The court granted our motion for a preliminary injunction — meaning the regime cannot mothball the Job Corps program while the case proceeds — with the judge writing that the administration’s actions were “unprecedented” and that it “unequivocally” acted illegally in its scheme to kill the program.***

LAWSUIT #16 — HUNGER IN AMERICA
DATE FILED: June 10, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To stop the Trump regime from shutting down the National Hunger Clearinghouse and hotline.
BACKGROUND: For more than 30 years, Congress has required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to contract with a nonprofit organization to serve as an information clearinghouse for food assistance resources. Hunger Free America has held that contract since 2014, helping tens of thousands of individuals and families access food banks, soup kitchens, and government programs. But in May — with no explanation or warning — the Trump administration terminated the current contract and took no action to find another nonprofit to maintain the clearinghouse.
WHERE THINGS STAND: In response to our lawsuit, the administration complied with the law and awarded the contract to our client.***

LAWSUIT #15 — CONSUMER PROTECTION
DATE FILED: May 21, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To block Trump’s unlawful firing of members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
BACKGROUND: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) conducts product-safety research, sets standards, and issues recalls. Under federal law, the agency has five commissioners who serve staggered seven-year terms. To ensure the CPSC’s independence, Congress stipulated that commissioners can be removed by the president prior to the end of their terms only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” However — with no explanation and no suggestion of neglect of duty or malfeasance — Trump illegally attempted to terminate three CPSC commissioners whose terms are not complete.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The District Court ruled in our favor, but the Supreme Court put that ruling on hold while the case proceeds (meaning the commissioners are fired — for now).

LAWSUIT #14 — WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY
DATE FILED: May 14, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To preserve the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
BACKGROUND: The Trump regime has been quietly dismantling the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which protects workers in high-risk industries like mining, firefighting, construction, and healthcare. Under Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “leadership” at the Department of Health and Human Services, where NIOSH is housed, the majority of its staff have been fired, slated for termination, or otherwise forced out. As a result, workers throughout the country who otherwise would have been safe will get sick, hurt, and killed on the job.
WHERE THINGS STAND: We are waiting for the court to rule on the administration’s motion for the case to be dismissed.

LAWSUIT #13 — HUMAN RIGHTS
DATE FILED: April 24, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To prevent the Trump administration from shutting down offices within the Department of Homeland Security that safeguard civil rights.
BACKGROUND: Congress has created three offices within the Department of Homeland Security to make sure DHS respects civil rights and civil liberties, to help immigrants who experience problems dealing with department bureaucracy, and to monitor conditions in detention facilities. In March, DHS — under the “leadership” of Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary and self-professed dog killer Kristi Noem — announced its intention to close all three of these oversight offices and fire nearly all of their employees.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The case is proceeding.

LAWSUIT #12 — WORKER RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD
DATE FILED: April 15, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To reverse the administration’s abrupt and unlawful cancellation of critical international labor rights programs.
BACKGROUND: The Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) protects workers and businesses in the United States from unfair competition by companies and governments that violate workers’ rights to free association and collective bargaining, that use forced labor or child labor, or that otherwise violate labor rights to gain an unfair advantage in the global marketplace. In March, the Trump regime terminated all of ILAB’s cooperative agreements, with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being run by Elon Musk insisting that the administration would not spend funds Congress specifically appropriated to combat unfair labor practices and to support workers’ rights abroad.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The case is proceeding.

LAWSUIT #11 — CLIMATE CHANGE & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
DATE FILED: April 14, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To restore key environmental data the Trump regime scrubbed from various government websites.
BACKGROUND: Shortly after the Trump regime took over in January, it started removing interactive pages related to climate change and environmental justice from the taxpayer-funded websites of various agencies — including the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We filed suit on behalf of the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.
WHERE THINGS STAND: We are waiting for the court to rule on the administration’s motion for the case to be dismissed.

LAWSUIT #10 — GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
DATE FILED: April 8, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To stop the Trump administration from keeping its decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars secret.
BACKGROUND: Trump put a man named Russell Vought — a primary architect of the infamous Project 2025 manifesto — in charge of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). By law, OMB is required to publicly post information about the funds allocated to each federal agency. This is known as the Public Apportionments Database. But under Vought’s leadership and in clear violation of the law, OMB took that database offline and told Congress it would stop maintaining the database altogether. The Public Apportionments Database is one of the most important tools we have for monitoring how the government spends taxpayer money — including whether the administration is flouting Congress’ constitutional authority over government spending (the “power of the purse”).
WHERE THINGS STAND: In response to our lawsuit, the court ordered the administration to restore the apportionments database while the case proceeds. Although OMB has appealed, the information is now back online.***

LAWSUIT #9 — EDUCATION IN AMERICA
DATE FILED: April 4, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To challenge the Trump regime’s dismantling of the Institute of Education Sciences.
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is a semi-independent division within the Department of Education that conducts, supports, and disseminates high-quality, evidence-based research about education in America. In February, the Department of Education — run by the billionaire former professional wrestling magnate Linda McMahon — began dismantling IES by cancelling dozens of contracts for research studies and support services vital to the agency’s functioning. In March, roughly 90% of IES employees were notified that they would be terminated.
WHERE THINGS STAND: After we sued, the administration announced that it would not cancel access to a key research database as it had planned to do. We are waiting for the court to rule on the administration’s motion to dismiss the case.

LAWSUIT #8 — TAXPAYER PRIVACY
DATE FILED: March 7, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To prevent the IRS from illegally sharing taxpayer data with DHS and ICE.
BACKGROUND: Like other workers, undocumented workers are required to pay income taxes. The Internal Revenue Service is legally required to treat their tax records, like those of every other taxpayer, as private and confidential unless disclosure is specifically allowed by law. No law permits the IRS to disclose tax records for immigration enforcement purposes. But the Trump regime — specifically the Department of Homeland Security along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement — wants to access tax data to support its mass deportation agenda. This is not just about the rights of undocumented workers: Congress enacted taxpayer privacy laws in response to misuse of IRS records during the presidency of Richard Nixon.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The judge agreed that sharing tax information for civil immigration enforcement is not permissible. But, accepting the administration’s claim that it would share such information only for use in criminal investigations, the judge denied our motion for a preliminary injunction. We have appealed that ruling.

LAWSUIT #7 — CONSUMER PROTECTION
DATE FILED: February 13, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To stop the Trump administration from eliminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
BACKGROUND: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established after the 2008 financial crisis to keep everyday Americans from getting ripped off by Big Banks. (Public Citizen played a major role in creating the CFPB.) Trump has openly declared his intent to “totally eliminate” the CFPB, and he put one of his top lieutenants — Russell Vought, a primary architect of the infamous Project 2025 manifesto — in charge of the Bureau. But the administration cannot lawfully dismantle a federal agency created by statute. Any attempt to do so is in defiance of the Constitution’s separation of powers. That hasn’t stopped Vought from trying to fire the vast majority of CFPB employees, among other schemes to shut the Bureau down.
WHERE THINGS STAND: The judge granted our motion for a preliminary injunction blocking Vought from summarily firing CFPB staff and cancelling CFPB contracts while the case proceeds. We are waiting for an appeals court ruling on the administration’s appeal of that preliminary injunction. We recently withdrew as co-counsel in this case to focus on Lawsuit #23 (above).***

LAWSUIT #6 — FOREIGN AID
DATE FILED: February 10, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To block Trump’s illegal and inhumane foreign aid freeze.
BACKGROUND: On his very first day back in office, Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to freeze foreign assistance that supports humanitarian efforts worldwide, including $4 billion that was supposed to be spent by the end of September. The administration then froze, and later terminated, a large swath of grants for foreign assistance work. Only about 1% of the federal budget — just one penny out of every dollar — goes to foreign aid. With that relatively modest expenditure, American aid helps millions and millions of people all across the world who are facing disease, famine, illness, malnutrition, and oppression.
WHERE THINGS STAND: In February, the court ordered the government to pay all the grantees’ invoices for work they had already done. More recently — after a great deal of back-and-forth in this case, some of which made national headlines — we won a preliminary injunction in the lower court requiring the administration to spend appropriated funds before September 30. The Supreme Court stepped in and allowed the administration to impound (meaning not spend) about $4 billion.

BACKGROUND: On his first day back in office, Trump ordered a freeze on foreign aid, halting $4 billion meant for humanitarian projects. The administration subsequently cut many foreign assistance grants. Foreign aid accounts for about 1% of the federal budget but supports millions facing crises worldwide. WHERE THINGS STAND: In February, a court required payment of grantees completed work. Recently, a lower court ordered funds to be spent by September 30, but the Supreme Court allowed the administration to withhold around $4 billion.

The case is proceeding.***

LAWSUIT #5 — GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
DATE FILED: February 7, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To keep “DOGE” out of the Department of Education
BACKGROUND: Operatives from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being run by Elon Musk infiltrated Department of Education databases that include financial information of thousands of student-loan applicants and their families.
WHERE THINGS STAND: After the court indicated that our clients could not show harm needed to pursue the case, we closed the case voluntarily.

LAWSUIT #4 — GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
DATE FILED: February 6, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To preserve the U.S. Agency for International Development.
BACKGROUND: Shortly after returning to power, Trump tried to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in clear disregard for the law and the Constitution. Elon Musk later bragged that he had spent a weekend “feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” Established by Congress in 1961 — when John F. Kennedy was president — USAID provides life-saving food, medicine, and support to much of the rest of the world. In January, though, Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, illegally ordered USAID workers to stop doing their jobs, froze the agency’s funding, and prepared to lay off or fire nearly all employees. With USAID in disarray, medical clinics, soup kitchens, refugee assistance programs, and countless other critical projects across the globe could not operate.
WHERE THINGS STAND: We initially won a temporary restraining order to stop Trump from carrying out this global humanitarian nightmare. But the judge later lifted it, allowing the regime to terminate the majority of USAID’s employees, and granted the administration’s motion to dismiss the case. We have appealed that ruling.

LAWSUIT #3 — PUBLIC HEALTH
DATE FILED: February 4, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To restore critical health information the Trump regime deleted from government websites.
BACKGROUND: Based on a directive from the administration to scrub information related to gender or “DEI” from government websites, essential public health agencies — like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — removed vital information that doctors and researchers all across the country were using to treat patients, monitor diseases, advance medical discoveries, and save lives. In some instances, information that had been publicly available going back to the 1990s had vanished.
WHERE THINGS STAND: We won. The court issued a final ruling in our favor, requiring the agencies to restore the deleted information, which they have done.***

LAWSUIT #2 — FINANCIAL PRIVACY
DATE FILED: February 3, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To limit “DOGE” infiltration of the Treasury Department.
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Treasury Department possesses sensitive personal and financial information for millions and millions of Americans who send money to or receive money from the federal government. Federal laws protect such information from improper disclosure and misuse — including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it. But instead of protecting Americans’ private information as required by law, Scott Bessent, Trump’s billionaire Treasury Secretary, allowed operatives from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being run by Elon Musk access to the data.
WHERE THINGS STAND: We are waiting for the court to rule on our motion for summary judgment in the case.

LAWSUIT #1 — “DOGE” WAS ILLEGALLY STRUCTURED
DATE FILED: January 20, 2025
WHY WE SUED: To prevent “DOGE” from operating in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
BACKGROUND: Within literally one minute of Trump taking office on January 20, Public Citizen filed suit in federal court alleging that the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being run by Elon Musk was not in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a law that requires federal advisory committees to consist of members with a fair balance of viewpoints, to make meetings open to the public, and to make records and work product available to the public.
WHERE THINGS STAND: With DOGE mutating into something other than an advisory committee, we voluntarily closed this case.

We know that was a lot. So here’s a recap of the recap:

In 8 of these 23 cases — those marked with three asterisks (***) at the end of the entry — we have either won the case outright or obtained a ruling, such as a preliminary injunction, that impedes whatever harm the regime is trying to do while the case proceeds.

That’s over a third of the lawsuits we have filed so far! And — in terms of what we noted above about the pace at which these kinds of cases tend to make their way through the courts — it’s still early. We fully expect more progress in some of these suits.

Given the powerful forces and legal realities we’re up against, this is something that everyone who supports Public Citizen can and should take pride in.

Are these lawsuits alone enough to fully defeat Trump and MAGA? Of course not. But are they a meaningful part of the pushback that is our only chance to collectively save our country? No doubt about it.

What you and Public Citizen are doing together matters. What hundreds of other organizations, big and small, are doing matters. What millions upon millions of our fellow Americans are doing matters. We believe that to our core. We take solace in that. And we draw inspiration from that. We hope you do, too.

BACKGROUND: Following an administrative directive to remove gender or “DEI” content from government websites, agencies like the CDC and FDA deleted important resources used by health professionals nationwide. Some information dating back to the 1990s is no longer accessible.

BACKGROUND: Minutes after Trump took office on January 20, Public Citizen sued in federal court, claiming the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), run by Elon Musk, did not comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which governs the composition and transparency of federal advisory committees. WHERE THINGS STAND: As DOGE changed its function, we closed the case voluntarily.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Treasury collects sensitive financial data from millions of Americans, which is protected by federal law against improper access or disclosure. However, Scott Bessent, Trump’s Treasury Secretary, permitted Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access this information in violation of those protections. CURRENT STATUS: We are awaiting the court’s decision on our summary judgment motion.

BACKGROUND: Congress established the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program in 2007 to support individuals in public service jobs, such as teachers, first responders, social workers, military personnel, nonprofit hospital workers, and others. Under Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the current administration has chosen to deny loan forgiveness to some eligible borrowers based on their roles. WHERE THINGS STAND: The administration must respond to our lawsuit by early January.

– Lisa Gilbert & Robert Weissman, Co-Presidents of Public Citizen

Public Citizen | 1600 20th Street NW | Washington DC 20009

From email to me as a supporter of Public Citizen

It is not hopeless! Trump is not winning everywhere. People are waking up. Join the resistance.

Trump has a method to his actions. Many media companies do not explain this. Understanding it will help you see why it is important to vote.

Trump wants to be a king. In his first term, he praised leaders of dictatorships in North Korea, Russia, China and elsewhere.   This is what Trump appears to be doing to increase his power as President.

1. He takes an action through an alleged emergency executive order, EO.
2. He takes actions that he wants to be able to do that have not been done before. This is a test to see if he can get away with it.
3. If there is a slight push back, he continues.
4. If a complaint goes to court, he continues and delays by appeals.
5. If the court goes against him, he appeals again and continues doing the action.
6. The delays are repeated.
7. In some of the cases in which he loses, he continues because the enforcement is done by the Department of Justice, which works under him.

This is not just one or two incidents. It is hundreds of incidents. His behavior is reinforced by the fact that Republicans control all three branches of government: the Presidency, the Senate via majority, the House of Representatives via majority, and the Supreme Court, which has a majority of Republican appointees.

Republican senators and representatives are afraid that Trump will cause them not to be re-elected. Trump immediately bullies and threatens every Republican politician who disagrees with him. He has caused politicians not to be re-elected.

Trumps method of delaying is running out. Many court decisions are reaching conclusions in the appeals process. He has lost many cases. He tries to distract and make people feel that nothing can be done. Don’t fall for this. Join the resistance. Vote, Protest, and communicate to friends and neighbors. Trumps polls are terrible. Keep the faith. Vote, contact politicians.

GOOGLE AI RESPONSE TO QUESTION,”IS THE US A DEMOCRACY”.

We have looked for a summary of this question on several search engines: Google, Bing, Dogpile, Amazon. The results are all very similar. There is so much material on this category. A summary might help. Here it is.

Based on recent analysis, the U.S. is experiencing a decline in democratic quality, with many experts classifying it as a “flawed” or “hybrid” democracy rather than a robust one

While it maintains free elections and civil liberties, significant concerns exist regarding rule of law, political polarization, and the stability of democratic norms.

Key Aspects of Current US Democracy Status:

• Rankings: Indices from Freedom House and V-Dem show the U.S. is at its lowest point in decades, with V-Dem placing it at a 75/100 score in 2024, similar to 1966 levels.
• “Flawed” vs. “Full” Democracy: The Economist and other researchers often classify the US as a “flawed democracy,” alongside nations like Brazil, Israel, and Poland, rather than a full democracy.
• Concerns: Observers point to “red flags” including threats to election integrity, partisan gerrymandering, and a rise in partisan divisions regarding the legitimacy of elections.
• Authoritarian Concerns: Some, like political scientist Brian Klaas, argue the US is moving towards a “competitive authoritarian” system where the opposition is disadvantaged.
• Strengths: Despite declines, the U.S. still maintains core democratic elements, such as competitive elections and free speech. 

In summary, the consensus is that the U.S. is still a democracy, but it is currently operating as a weak, “flawed,” or “hybrid” system rather than a robust, stable one, notes The Guardian and Bright Line Watch. 

 Whether the United States is currently “acting like a democracy” is a subject of significant debate among political scientists, with several major indices now categorizing the country as a “flawed,” “illiberal,” or “mixed” democracy rather than a full one.

 While core democratic features like elections remain intact, experts point to several areas where the U.S. has drifted toward authoritarianism.

1. Shifts in Global Rankings 

• Downgraded Status: As of late 2025 and early 2026, the V-Dem Institute classifies the U.S. as an “electoral autocracy,” and the Polity data series describes it as “no longer a democracy”.
• “Flawed” Benchmark: Both Freedom House and The Economist Intelligence Unit have maintained a “flawed democracy” rating, noting significant declines in scores over the last two decades.
• Comparisons: Recent assessments place U.S. democratic health closer to countries like Israel and Mexico than to traditional peers like Great Britain or Canada.

2. Signs of Authoritarian Drift

• Experts cite specific actions and structural changes as evidence of “acting” less democratically:

• Executive Overreach: Unprecedented use of executive orders (nearly 100 in early 2025 alone) and efforts to reduce the independence of the civil service.

• Erosion of Checks and Balances:Critics point to the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity as a “presidential coup” that significantly limits legal accountability for the executive. Recent Supreme Court rulings have weakened the immunity.

•  Targeting Dissent: Concerns have been raised regarding the use of state power to investigate political opponents, attack the press, and limit academic freedom.

3. Remaining Democratic Strengths

Despite the decline, several “democratic” pillars remain active:

• Free Elections: Most scholars agree that elections remain free for now, providing a mechanism to reverse the decline.
• Resilient Civil Society: Independent media, universities, and non-profits continue to challenge government actions.
• Decentralization: The U.S. federalist structure makes it difficult for any single leader to seize total control, as state and local governments run their own elections and can resist federal mandates.

Public Sentiment

The American public is deeply skeptical:

• Low Satisfaction: Only 28% of Americans were satisfied with how democracy was working in early 2024, a record low.
• Crisis Perception: Approximately 84% of Americans believe U.S. democracy is either in a “crisis” or facing “serious challenges”.

Are you ready to get involved? Then share this website. Talk with your friends and neighbors. Register for mail in voting. You are less likely to miss voting with mail in voting. Any tricks at the polling booths will not affect your ballot. Your country and its citizens need you.

What reforms can reverse the US’s democratic decline?

The problems we see now need to be fixed. Many citizens and research organizations are working on this. You can encourage your politicians to work to create these ideas.

 To reverse democratic decline, experts and legislators have proposed a series of structural, electoral, and legal reforms designed to restore checks and balances and reduce political polarization.

1. Electoral & Voting Reforms

• Reformers emphasize making the electoral process more representative and resistant to manipulation: 

• Alternative Voting Systems: Implementing ranked-choice voting or proportional representation to reduce the influence of extremist candidates and encourage moderate compromise.
• Ending Gerrymandering: Passing legislation like the For the People Act to establish non-partisan redistricting and prohibit redrawing districts for partisan advantage.
• Strengthening Voting Access: Codifying federal protections for voting rights, including automatic voter registration and protecting election infrastructure from executive interference.

2. Campaign Finance & Ethics

Addressing the “corrosive influence of money” is cited as essential for restoring public trust: 

• Overturning Citizens United: Pursuing a constitutional amendment to limit corporate spending in elections or creating public financing systems for all campaigns.
• Ethics & Accountability: Banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks and closing the “revolving door” between government and lobbyists.
• Term Limits: Recent proposals in early 2026 include constitutional amendments for congressional term limits and 20-year limits for federal judges and Supreme Court justices. 

3. Executive & Judicial Guardrails

To counter executive overreach and ensure judicial independence: 

• Codifying Norms: Turning unwritten democratic norms into enforceable laws to safeguard judicial independence and prevent the weaponization of the Department of Justice.
• Restoring Congressional Oversight: Modernizing legislative procedures to prevent the executive branch from “running roughshod” over the law, such as through enhanced whistleblower protections.
• Expanding the “Big Tent” Coalition: Building diverse alliances across civil society, labor unions, and the private sector to defend pluralistic governance and counter disinformation. 

4. Civic & Social Renewal

Long-term repair focuses on rebuilding the democratic culture: 

• National Service: Expanding programs that bring young people from different backgrounds together to rebuild social trust through shared labor.
• Civic Education: Investing in media literacy and civics in schools to help citizens combat misinformation and understand their rights. 

Much of this is from Google AI, cross-checked with Bing and Dogpile.

It is not enough to stop a problem. We need to create changes to prevent it from happening again. Being aware of them can help you to communicate with politicians to make the necessary changes.

We have given a lot of facts, this answers in summary form our view on the question.

Here are some things that are happening now.

1. 30 percent of the country is owned by 1% of citizens.
2. Corporations can donate to political campaigns in any amount. Some do this in hundreds of millions of dollars. This enables leaders of corporations to dominate fund raising in politics.
3. Political parties jerrymander voting precincts to make their candidate win. This is immoral and not democratic.
4. The current President makes 100’s of Executive Orders (EO), to do things that are not within his authority.
5. The President selects a cabinet based on loyalty instead of competence.
6. The President ignores judges’ decisions.
7. The President threatens his own party senators and congressmen for voting differently than he wants. Congressmen and Senators have the right to make their own decision.
8. The President by EO, cuts funding for medical and other research from Harvard and other colleges for his personal reasons. These research funds were created by Congress. This is a decision that he has no authority to do.
9. The President is hurting Venezuela by coercing the country to do what he wants. He is bombing boats from Venezuela. This is against international law. He had the military invade the country and capture Venezuela’s President and his wife. They are in custody in the U.S.
10. The President is using the military to help eliminate immigrant people.
11. The President is using tariffs to hurt other countries. These tariffs are ultimately paid by his own citizens. This causes inflation.
12. The President praises dictators. He denies that Russia invaded Ukraine.
13. The President tax cuts cause cuts in federal programs. He cuts safety net health programs.
14. His economy is not doing well. Tariffs are taxes on citizens.

It’s difficult to pinpoint the exact share for just the top 5 individuals in a specific county, but national data shows extreme concentration: the top 10% of U.S. households hold around 70-87% of the nation’s wealth, with billionaires and the ultra-rich owning a massive portion, meaning even a tiny fraction of the richest individuals (like 5 people) in a wealthy area would control a huge chunk of that locale’s assets, often more than the bottom half of residents combined, reflecting massive wealth disparity. 

National Wealth Concentration (U.S. Examples)

• Top 10%: Own about 73% to nearly 90% of U.S. wealth, depending on the year and data source (Federal Reserve, Statista).
• Top 1%: Own a significant chunk (around 37% in one analysis after the recession), with billionaires holding substantial shares.
• Extreme Cases: The top few individuals can possess more wealth than the entire bottom half of the population. 

In 2023, 97.5% of all net worth —totaling $139.4 trillion — was owned by the 50% of Americans with above-average net worth. The remaining 167 million Americans owned about 2.6% — or $3.6 trillion.

How much wealth does the top 1% own?

As of 2023, the top 1% of American households owned 30.0% of net worth, or 30 cents of every dollar. This has risen from 22.8% in 1990 and 28.4% at the start of the 2008 recession, but remains below a 2021 peak of 30.9%.

Much of this is from Google AI, cross-checked with Bing and Dogpile.

Back to the question. Is America still a democratic republic?

Many suspect the answer is not really. The President is acting like a king. He is not totally in charge yet. The wealthy, through their corporations, are controlling politics. All authority resides in one party. 

We suspect that the country is acting like an Oligarchy (a Government run by a few extremely rich people) and moving towards a monarchy.

Can citizens stop this? We think we still can. We must act this year. We can’t be softly talking about the problems. We need to be blunt, straightforward, and forceful. We need to talk to our friends to get them to vote. We need to vote. It’s not up to any single person but all of us. We must VOTE!

What we were – What we now are – What we must do

This topic talks about our past, our present, and what we need to do for our collective future. By seeing our past and our present, we can see what we have lost more clearly.

Who we were.

After World War II, we were viewed by most countries as the heroes of World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. We had power and never used it to gain more territory. We were the country other countries could come to for help. We gave money and help to countries in difficulty. We helped create NATO. We created the United Nations with a building in our country.

The US was often referred to as “the Beacon of hope high on the hill.” We were world leaders in technological development. People wanted to live here. We welcomed people to our country. We continually tried to get better and improve our freedom. We fought a civil war to stop slavery. Expanded civil liberties to all. We have given woman the right to vote. Women are leading in Medical Schools and Law Schools now. We have had a black president, black senators, female senators, and various races in high political office. Every single subgroup has been productive in our country.

It was nice to be admired and desired.

Who many have become.

Now, many of our allies are aghast at how we have changed. Counties tell their citizens that this is a dangerous country to visit. Allies have lost trust in our country. We change trade agreements at a whim. Our slogan has changed from leadership and friendship to selfish (America first), racially prejudiced, and rude. We don’t follow international law. We kill people and don’t treasure life. Our President lies all the time. He says that Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. American civil liberties are frequently violated. Safety net programs are being cut. Due process is often not followed. We are abandoning the poor. We are becoming isolated from other countries.

Thoughts

We see that our country is being destroyed from within. President Lincoln said that if our country were destroyed, it would come from within. We have met the enemy; it is us.

Many of the friends of this website have read a great small paperback book, “On Tyranny” by Timothy Snyder. It has 20 small chapters on how to avoid tyranny. The first chapter tells scientifically why it could happen here. The last chapter is very short. It is called “Be as courageous as you can.” The chapter has one sentence,” If no one is willing to die for freedom, then we will all live in Tyranny.” As Thomas Paine once said, “These are the times that try one’s soul. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink for the service of their country; but he that stands now deserves the love and thanks of men and women.”

WHAT WE MUST DO

This is a call to action. Be informed. Talk to people. Share ideas. Learn. VOTE!