Social Democracy Outlook:
May 01, 2025
The Social Democrat has been on a publishing hiatus since the end of 2024. As editor, I offer my apologies for being AWOL. Lacking the resources to cover, blow-by-blow, the firehose of insanity that has thus far constituted Trump's second presidency, I felt it best to step back, closely observe, take notes, and wait until some of Trump II's major contours came into better focus before attempting to identify salient issues or offer analysis. As we pass Trump II's 100-day mark on April 30, I feel that the current Trump regime has settled into several identifiable courses of behavior, and this organ will resume its weekly Social Democracy News wrap, its Featured Links and occasional longer articles—including this Social Democracy Outlook post.
First, and most importantly, Trump has proven himself to be both a traitor to our democracy and also the wanna-be dictator many feared he would be—and not "just on the first day," as with characteristic sly stupidly he announced during his campaign. He became a confirmed traitor to our democracy on the very day of his inauguration, when he issued pardons for virtually all those convicted of having participated in the attempted coup d'etat at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2020. In the more immediate aftermath of the attempted coup, Trump had temporized, claiming that he had meant for those he instigated to march on the Capitol to protest only peacefully. Later comments describing those convicted of charges ranging from trespassing and destruction of property through weapons offenses, seditious conspiracy and assaults on police officers as "political prisoners," "hostages" and "patriots," made it clear, however, that he did not disapprove of the insurgents' behavior. This may all be said to have just been talk, but when the Diktraitor, as we will henceforth refer to Trump, used presidential pardon authority to exonerate his supporters of an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to his duly elected successor, he officially endorsed their behavior. On March 25 the Diktraitor went so far as to suggest that the U.S. government should provide "compensation" to his "supporters" for inconvenience suffered under the custody of the federal court and prison systems. It is not enough that he put a presidential seal of approval on their attempted coup d'etat, he now wants to pay them for their efforts on his behalf. Welcome to the first banana republic to appear north of the Rio Grande.
Not only did the Diktraitor, with the pardons of January 20, become a confirmed traitor to our democracy, but anyone who agreed to participate in his administration is likewise tainted, as are any members of Congress who have not done everything within their power to drive him from office, this latter category including every Republican member of both the House and the Senate.
So, to state the obvious, we are not in a normal time. We have a confirmed traitor to our democracy in the Oval Office, and what complicates matters further is that both houses of Congress are dominated by Republicans either too stupid to understand the democratic foundations of our government, too cynical to care whether these foundations are shredded as long as they feel they or their partisan obsessions will reap some benefit from the situation, or too cowardly—or too attached to the emoluments and flattery of high office—to resist what they know is wrong. Focusing for now on this essential fact, one that supersedes all other issues—that the federal government is in control of a cabal that is either actively attempting, cheering on, or passively accepting—the dismantlement of several basic aspects of our democracy, let's take a look at what the Diktraitor has thus far wrought.
It will be noted that TSD's new offical moniker for Trump is a conflation of the words "dictator" and "traitor." I have just described how the Diktraitor, in pardoning the January 6 convicts, became an irredeemable traitor to our democracy on the first day of his term of office. In his ongoing attempts to turn the American presidency into some kind of elected distatorship he, of course, commits further acts of treason. Let's now look at specific instances of how the Diktraitor is attempting to make a dictatorship out of the office of the president of the United States.
Though operating within a disparate set of circumstances, these attempts at dictatorship all share a common characteristic: a willful determination to govern by presidential fiat, without regard for the roles reserved by the United States Constitution to both Congress and the federal judiciary. The country's founders were very clear about one thing: they wanted nothing more to do with rule by the whim of one person (they'd had enough of that with King George III). They set up a governing system with three separate functions, to be performed by three separate branches of government: Congress is to make laws; the president is to "execute" or enforce the laws that Congress promulgates; and the federal courts, with the Supreme Court at their apex, are to both determine the proper interpretation of laws passed by Congress, and to reign in either of the other branches (or state and municipal governments) when they attempt to pass or enforce the kinds of laws that our Constitution does not allow (such as those discriminating against racial-ethnic groups, or depriving people of life, liberty or property without "due process").
The Diktraitor does not like to operate within the constraints imposed by the Constitution upon the office of the presidency. And a large number of his controversial actions might be described as failing to "stay in his lane"; that is, stay within the boundaries of the authority which is actually granted to the presidency by Article II of the Constitution. All of his efforts, for example, to downsize, or effectively eliminate, federal agencies he does not like fall into this category. In some cases, such as USAID, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or Voice of America/Radio Free Europe, the Diktraitor has directed his agency heads to dismiss so much of the work force that carrying on the agency's functions has become impossible. The Diktraitor has also refused to disburse funds for programs passed by Congress during the Biden administration, such as grants for green energy projects. The problem with these acts is that the Constitution directs the president, and presidents take an oath upon inauguration, to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Congress passes laws. The president executes them. Every federal agency was, at one time, set up and funded, and its purposes determined, by laws passed by Congress. The president cannot, by fiat, ignore or subvert the laws that set up and fund these agencies. Nor can the president withhold funding for programs that Congress has by law established. That, at least, has been how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution since the beginning of the Republic.
The Diktraitor's immediate circle, however—his cabal, if you will—champions a rogue theory of the powers of the presidency, something they call the "unitary executive" theory. Russell Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, is the chief proponent of this Cracker Jack box philosophy. According to the "unitary executive" theory, the president may do anything he pleases within the executive branch, even if this means rendering dysfunctional agencies set up by Congress or firing civil servants protected by congressional statute.
There are myriad cases now in the federal court system challenging the Diktraitor's authority to effectively eliminate—or in some cases, sharply curtail—federal agenices, or to withhold funding of programs set up, by Congress. The New York Times, which maintains an excellent update of lawsuits filed against the administration, writes on April 18 that federal courts have placed, to date, 90 pauses on the Diktraitor's executive orders. A large number of these involve attempts to fire federal workers; others involve withholding funding for congressionally mandated grants and programs. To mention a few salient examples, federal judges have directed the administration to rehire probationary civil servants terminated en masse; they have halted mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and on April 15 a federal court ordered the administration to release billions of dollars of green energy grants awarded under the Biden administration's 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. District Judge Mary McElroy, an appointee of the Diktraitor himself, wrote the following:
"Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a president's agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration."
Aside from attempts to dismantle federal agencies and programs, the other key areas in which the Diktraitor is attempting to subvert American democracy involve the persecution of law firms which have represented clients to whom he is opposed, or who have opposed him; the persecution of press organs that report news he does not wish to see reported, or in a way he does not wish to see it reported; the persecution of universities that teach subjects he does not wish to see taught, or whose campus codes do not align with the administration's desire to quash any criticism of the State of Israel in the conduct of its war in Gaza; and the deportation of immgrants.
In the case of law firms, the Diktraitor has required several law firms to supply millions of dollars (up to $125 million) in free legal services to causes supported by the Diktraitor (or to the administration itself) to avoid being barred from federal contracts, security clearances and even access to federal buildings. Every large law firm must at various points deal with the federal goverment, and in blacklisting firms he opposes, the Diktraitor is quite intentionally attempting to destroy their businesses. Each of the affected firms had, at some time, represented clients who had worked against the Diktraitor, such as Covington & Burling, who has provided pro bono work to Jack Smith, who prosecuted two cases against the Diktraitor himself—those involving the classifed documents illegally held by the Diktraitor at Mar a Lago and another examining the Diktraitor's attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Another firm targeted by the Diktraitor, Susman Godfrey, represented Dominion Voting Systems, a maker of voting machines, in its successful defamation suit against Fox News, who had falsely claimed that Dominion's voting machines were rigged.
While several of the targeted firms have caved into the Diktraitor's extortion, facing the possibility of a mass exodus of their customers and revenues, others are fighting back, and winning, in the courts. On April 16, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, overseeing the Susan Godfrey case, blocked the administration's actions, saying from the bench that "the framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power."
Legal scholar Daniel Ortner concurs, writing on the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression that the Diktraitor's attempts to punish law firms for representing clients he does not like are singularly offensive to the U.S. Constitution, and indeed to the very foundations of a society based upon the rule of law:
"This is deeply troubling," Ortner writes, "regardless of where one stands on the activities or firms affected. The process of defending constitutional rights relies heavily on the ability of private attorneys to bring lawsuits against the government. This requires lawyers to be free from official government pressure when choosing which clients and causes to represent. If lawyers are put in fear of federal government retaliation for representing clients who challenge the government or stand for unpopular causes, many injustices will never be challenged.
"The administration’s actions represent a direct assault on this freedom. Punishing firms for their choice of clients or the nature of their legal work cannot help but intimidate the legal community, discouraging attorneys from taking on cases that may be politically unpopular or present a challenge to those in power.
"It also sets an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. If the Trump administration can target specific firms on this basis, what prevents future administrations from blacklisting firms that represent, say, gun-rights groups? This concern is hardly theoretical: just last year, the Supreme Court had to slap down a New York state official for trying to punish a third party for doing business with the NRA. Could religious organizations be next? Or animal-rights activists? Could the next Democratic president ban from federal buildings any attorneys that represented Republican candidates? What is the limiting principle?"
Ortner goes on to cite a 1963 case, NAACP v. Button, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State of Virginia could not prevent the NAACP from instigating litigation to oppose segregationist policies being pursued by the Virginia legislature, upholding a First Amendment right of lawyers “to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights.”
Even the conservative Cato Institute, in an amicus brief to the federal court hearing a case brought by law firm Perkins Coie, summed up why the Diktraitor's vendetta against law firms is utterly contrary to American principles. The Cato brief argues that the Diktraitor's justification
"cannot survive the First Amendment, which protects lawyers’ advocacy on behalf of their clients against arbitrary or viewpoint-based government interference. Second, the executive order violates fundamental separation-of-powers principles by striking at the bar’s independence. The judiciary depends on an independent bar to fulfill its constitutional role as a bulwark against usurpations by the legislative and executive branches. By chilling lawyers from engaging in zealous advocacy on behalf of clients adverse to the Trump administration, the executive order not only infringes the protected speech and petitioning of private parties, it also deprives courts of the expert counsel necessary, in our adversarial legal system, for a full and fair adjudication of the most pressing constitutional and statutory issues."
A final constitutional objection to the Diktraitor's extortion of law firms that these commentators don't raise, but seems patently obvious, concerns the Fifth Amendment's assertion that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Here we have the Diktraitor demanding that law firms, under threat of disabling them from serving clients that have business with the federal government, provide $100 million and more in legal services to clients of the Diktraitor's choosing. If this raw shakedown is not a deprivation of property without due process, I can't imagine what would be.
Along with Susman Godfrey, three other law firms (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale) have gained court orders blocking the Diktraitor from carrying out his threatened retaliations. Eleven others have ceded to the Diktraitor's extortionist demands, fearing in some cases the complete ruination of their businesses. Appeals will be forthcoming; so as in most other areas of the Diktraitor's attempted evisceration of our democracy, we will likely have to wait until the Supreme Court can weigh in for final adjudication of these cases.
Another of the Diktraitor's major targets has been the press. He has severely hindered AP News' access to White House coverage because AP, one of the world's three most important wire services, refuses to go along with his ridiculous attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico. In his personal capacity, the Diktraitor has sued 60 Minutes over objections to the way they edited an interview with Kamala Harris, and under his direction the Federal Communications Commission has launched an investigation of the broadcaster. In that case, the FCC is relying on a legal requirement that entities holding public broadcasting licenses (such as over-the-airwaves TV and radio stations) not distort the news. Applying this concept to CBS's standard editing of the Harris interview (interviews are always edited for clarity, flow and interest) is a clear attempt of the Diktraitor's regime to control the content of news, and like the persecution of AP News, represents a drastic assault on the First Amendment's protection of press freedom. At this point a federal judge has ordered the White House to stop blocking AP's access; it remains to be seen whether the administration will comply.
A final two areas in which the Diktraitor is attempting to subvert American democracy are in his attacks upon universities and immigrants. In the case of universities, he has frozen billions in federal funds awarded to ten Ivy League schools with the stated reason that they have violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That seminal law bars funding to any institution that practices discrimination based on race or religion. In the administration's telling, the targeted universities have violated Title VI in two major respects: by allowing anti-semitism to flourish in the guise of student protests against Israel's actions in Gaza; and by applying "reverse discrimination" in their DEI-inflected hiring practices. Universities must bow to a long list of administration demands if they wish to see the funding restored, demands that dictate hiring practices and curriculum choices, and even go so far as to place schools in government oversight for up to four years: essentially allowing the Diktraitor's regime to manage our most prominent universities.
The trend toward one-man rule is again evident here, and as elsewhere it wears the costume of a complete lack of due process. Harvard University has sued to restore the withheld funding: their brief in the case includes the following explanation:
“Congress in Title VI set forth detailed procedures that the Government shall satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. Those procedures effectuate Congress’s desire that termination of or refusal to grant or to continue federal financial assistance be a remedy of last resort. The Government made no effort to follow those procedures—nor the procedures provided for in . . . agency regulations—before freezing Harvard’s federal funding."
Again we find the Diktraitor attempting to install in America the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare: government by the whim of one person. And the same scenario is playing out on the immigration front, with immigrants being sent to foreign prisons without regard for the due process to which U.S. law and its constitution entitle them. The Supreme Court on April 20 issued an order halting further deportations of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvidor unless they were given an opportunity to have hearings before an immigration judge, and thus far the administration is complying. In the most celebrated of these cases—that of Maryland resident Kilmar Ábrego García—the administration is under orders to find a way to return him to the United States; on April 17 a federal appeals court backed up U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling requiring the administration to demonstrate steps they are taking to bring Garcia home. Boasberg has threatened administration officials with a full investigation, and charges of criminal contempt, if they do not comply.
I have devoted this Outlook to what I consider our nation's most pressing three-alarm fire: the Diktraitor's attempts—aided and abetted by co-conspirators in his administration and all Republicans in Congress—to subvert our democracy. Meanwhile the Diktraitor and his co-conspirators are simultaneously forging ahead with a predictable far-right agenda: reduce social spending; gut environmental protections; raise taxes on working people ("tariffs"); lower them on the rich; support reactionary regimes abroad; distance the United States from its historic democratic allies. I will address these topics in my next Outlook, and in this site's ongoing News Feed and Featured Links.
W. E Smith, Editor, The Social Democrat
