Donald Trump hofft

„In just the past week, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency canceled union contracts covering nearly 500,000 federal government workers. The reason: national security.“

„Since retaking office in January, President [Donald Trump](https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/donald-trump) has often justified his expansive — and oftentimes illegal — view of executive branch power by invoking national security in policy announcements. To strip union protections from nearly 75% of the federal government workforce, he issued an [executive order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/exclusions-from-federal-labor-management-relations-programs/) labeling numerous agencies as having national security as their primary responsibility, despite many of these agencies having little to do with traditional conceptions of national security.“

„Trump’s broad brush application of national security to his policies has a twofold purpose. First, many laws authorizing the president to take unilateral action require an assertion or declaration they are being invoked in defense of national security. And second, courts have long offered deference to presidents when they assert powers under the umbrella of national security or foreign affairs.“

„The aim is to use these emergency powers and claims of national security threats to cement Trump’s unitary control of the government. With Congress in Trump’s pocket, the courts stand as the lone potential bulwark among the branches of government. But in declaring everything a national security threat, Trump hopes to bypass the courts by relying on these longstanding principles of deference on those issues to rule by decree.“

“If everything can be a national emergency or a threat to national security or a matter of foreign policy, then essentially all constitutional powers are ceded to the president,” said Shirin Sinnar, a law professor at Stanford Law School. “And that can’t be intended by the constitutional design.”

„But courts haven’t been so willing to grant Trump the blanket deference he desires. Federal district courts have tackled challenges to his policies with some acceptance, but, by and large, they have rejected Trump’s power grabs or found ways to rule without raising questions around the president’s national security powers.“

“The ‘national security’ label tends to trigger judicial deference of varying degrees,” said Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. “There’s no definition of what constitutes national security, so it’s far too easy for a president to slap the label on anything and everything in order to evade robust judicial review.”

„And that is why Trump has gone so much further than previous presidents, invoking expansive powers often with no real emergency or national security threat at hand.“

„This can be seen in Trump’s sweeping tariffs, deportation of immigrants, revocation of foreign student visas for speech, domestic deployment of the military, purges of government workers, decertification of government employee unions and attacks on law firms. When the administration offers explanations for what national security problems these orders are meant to address, the reasoning is often convoluted or nonsensical. In court filings defending many of these policies, the administration has declared that courts cannot question the president’s decisions or the facts justifying the president’s assertions of power and, in some cases, that they cannot hear the case at all. But district court judges have been, mostly, nonplussed with these demands for deference.“

„As seen in many of these cases, initial decisions by district court judges who did not afford deference to Trump were put on pause by appellate courts. These cases are bound to continue in appeals courts and, considering the weighty issues involved, are likely headed to the Supreme Court — which in recent years has been[ eager to rule in Trump’s favor](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-trump_n_6862d368e4b08e0b4a74feaf).“

„The Supreme Court, which has tilted even further to the right since Trump’s appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, will be the ultimate decider in whether Trump’s even more audacious claims of emergency powers and national security can survive a challenge or if courts can even rule on them at all.“

„If not, the balance of the separation of powers would tilt almost exclusively to the president, enabling widespread emergency decrees without requiring any basis in actual reality.“

Fascism 101.

Everything is an emergency.

Grant me the powers needed to fix it, because I’m the only one.

It is when the court already calls him Sugar Daddy

Hindsight is 20/20 but we really effed ourselves over with the forking over rights en masse disguised as „patriotism“ post 9-11

Kind of thinking we should’ve had a backstop mechanism for this kind of abuse….oh yeah, Impeachment. Good luck with that.

The Epstein files must be released so we can bring the criminal pedophile to justice

And the people who were protesting the „Patriot Act“ are now out saying „I told you this would happen“.

National Security or Terrorism get no questions or pushback.

—

Here’s a more detailed look at the risks:

Erosion of Civil Liberties:

* Surveillance Powers: The Patriot Act expands government surveillance capabilities, including wiretapping and access to electronic communications, raising concerns about privacy violations.
* „Sneak and Peak“ Warrants: It allows for delayed notification of searches (sneak and peak) without probable cause, potentially undermining the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.
* Freedom of Speech: Critics argue that the Act chills free speech by allowing investigations based on activities protected by the First Amendment, such as expressing political opinions.
* Due Process: Concerns exist that the Act bypasses due process protections by allowing surveillance and information gathering without proper judicial oversight.

Potential for Abuse:

* Racial Profiling: There are concerns that the Act could lead to increased surveillance and targeting of specific communities, particularly Arab and Muslim communities, based on their ethnicity or religion.
* Lack of Oversight: The expansion of surveillance powers raises concerns about insufficient oversight and accountability, potentially leading to abuses of authority.
* Hypothetical Abuses: Critics point to hypothetical scenarios where the Act could be used to target individuals based on their reading habits or other personal information.

Impact on Privacy:

* Access to Personal Information: The Act allows law enforcement to access a wide range of personal information, including library records, medical records, and financial data, without probable cause of criminal activity.
* Erosion of Privacy Expectations: The broad surveillance powers and access to personal information erode the public’s expectation of privacy.

Literally impeached last term for trying to use Top Secret to hide politically embarrassing conversations. Second term just does it silly nilly. 

We just need Nurembourg 2: Electric boogaloo for the modern fascists. Just convict them if crimes against humanity and the US and punish them appropriately

So far it has been.

It’s worked out well for the government so far. My old professor used to say that government attorneys just needed to assert national security and SCOTUS’ principles would “scatter like roaches in a Florida motel”

And he will be correct. The corruption that is the Republican party and the will ensure this.

Republicans have the power to end it. They are 100% on board with it. Just remember thst all and I repeat ALL Republicans voters are supporting fascism . At this point there is excuse other than willful ignorance so no room to be let off.