140: Rule of Law for Thee, Not for Me

Big thanks to Adam, Allan M, and Miriam for upgrading to a paid subscription! This publication will remain free for people to read, comment, and steal. However paid subs really make a difference, especially when it comes to staring down the dystopia to see something beyond it. 👊🏼😍 Even more important than money is love, and you can spread the love by liking, commenting, and sharing what we post. Spread the virus of democracy.

The American right is no longer flirting with authoritarianism. It’s committed to it.

In the past 48 hours, the Trump administration and its allies in Congress have launched a coordinated offensive against democratic institutions and the rule of law. This isn’t rhetorical or symbolic—it’s structural and strategic. They are tightening control over elections, targeting the judiciary, and punishing legal resistance. And civil society is scrambling to respond.

Suppressing the Vote with Bureaucratic Precision

A significant attack on democracy happened yesterday via an executive order from the White House, titled Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections. At first glance, it echoes familiar voter ID rhetoric. But under scrutiny, it becomes something far more sinister. The order mandates documented proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections—not merely a driver’s license or social security number, but a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers. Tens of millions of eligible Americans do not have immediate access to such documents. Disproportionately, they are poor, elderly, students, or minorities. In practice, this is a massive voter purge disguised as reform.

Civil liberties groups, from the ACLU to the Brennan Center for Justice, have condemned the order as a blatant attempt at mass disenfranchisement. Legal challenges are underway, but with a judiciary increasingly stacked with Trump-aligned judges, outcomes are uncertain. Meanwhile, states refusing to comply face the threat of withheld federal funding, a form of coercion that makes resistance politically perilous.

Intimidating The Judiciary

Just as the legal system becomes the battleground, Speaker Mike Johnson escalated the fight. In public remarks, he floated the idea that Congress has the authority to eliminate federal district courts altogether. Though later framed as a theoretical statement, it sent shockwaves through the legal community. The message wasn’t subtle: the judiciary exists at the pleasure of the ruling faction, and should it step out of line, it can be dismantled.

Judicial independence is foundational to any functioning democracy. The American Bar Association and several judicial watchdogs have responded with alarm, warning that such rhetoric undermines the very checks and balances the Constitution was designed to protect. For them, this is not a debate about legal theory. It’s a warning flare.

Criminalizing Legal Defense

Then came another executive order targeting a private law firm, this time Jenner & Block, a company that has represented clients opposing the Trump regime's efforts to ban gender-affirming care and roll back civil rights protections. The administration has suspended the firm’s security clearances and launched a federal review of its contracts, effectively punishing it for doing its job.

In response, the legal community has started to cower. While some firms have spoken out, others are quietly retreating. Increasingly, law firms are refusing to represent Trump opponents, fearing political retaliation or financial fallout. The chilling effect is real—legal representation itself is becoming partisan, if not outright criminalized.

One Standard for Us, Another for Them

Taken together, these developments mark a dangerous consolidation of power: seizing control of who votes, neutering the courts that might object, and intimidating the lawyers who would defend the opposition. The architecture of authoritarianism is being assembled in public view, under the pretense of law and order.

And all the while, the double standard grows more flagrant.

While the Trump administration expands its surveillance powers and threatens legal retaliation for those who question it, its own officials evade oversight. Pete Hegseth, who now serves as Secretary of Defense, was recently involved in a serious breach of national security. In a Signal group chat created by National Security Advisor Michael Waltz—which mistakenly included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg—Hegseth and other senior officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, discussed details of imminent U.S. airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. Hegseth shared operational specifics, including sequencing of attacks. The strikes occurred shortly after the conversation, raising alarm about the use of private channels for sensitive military planning and the disregard for official protocols.

To contrast, consider Jack Douglas Teixeira, a 22-year-old Air National Guardsman who leaked classified documents on Discord. He was sentenced in late 2024 to 15 years in prison for violations of the Espionage Act. His actions were reckless, but the disparity in consequences could not be starker. Teixeira, a low-ranking service member, was swiftly prosecuted. Hegseth, a cabinet official, remains untouched.

The rules apply to the ruled, not the rulers.

Authoritarianism rarely arrives all at once. It is assembled piece by piece, through legal manipulations, bureaucratic assaults, and cultural normalization. The pieces are now snapping into place.