Elon Musk Does Not Understand Macroeconomics

From Robert Reich: 

' Friends, During a three-hour interview with the podcaster Joe Rogan some months ago, Elon Musk revealed the core of the ideology animating the richest person in the world.

“The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy,” Musk said, adding that liberals and progressives are “exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.”

Musk pointed to California’s move to provide medical insurance even to undocumented people who qualify for its low-income Medi-Cal program.

“We’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on,” Musk continued. Empathy has been “weaponized.” '

Elon Musk has a colossal misunderstanding of basic macroeconomies when he suggests that there is "...a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response...”

When you ignore the 'empathy response' and assume that economics is a zero sum game, then you create a situation whereby you are constantly chasing a bigger share of a smaller and smaller pie. 

The actions you might take to chase that bigger share would probably involve taking away some income from as many as possible in order to increase your riches. You might weaken labor unions so that they cannot get higher wages for workers, eliminate the minimum wage so that people will work for very low wages, do away with public government funded medical care and stop or reduce pensions for elderly and disabled people. That might grow your wealth in the short run but in the long run your income and wealth will shrink since fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the stuff you sell.

All these follow from the classical economic, free market school of economics which argues that any interference in market dynamics lowers welfare for everyone. In that belief system any introduction of empathy means changing some market outcomes to favor some people disadvantaged by market forces. I won't introduce the concept of market failures here since it is a long discussion but I will suggest that those free market principles require that competition exist in order for those principles to work.

We can assume safely that national governments which enact the 'empathy response' in a national economy means that more people will better off with higher incomes and better living standards, which means that more people will spend more money to buy more and better stuff and that the economy will grow. 

See the Circular Flow of Money In The Economy illustration below:

Copied with permission from: Macroeconomic Essentials: College Macroeconomic Textbook for Undergraduates Kindle Edition; by Mike P. McKeever (Author)

And it follows that if you are a rich person with a high income, you derive most of your income and wealth from people buying the stuff you sell. And it further follows that the incomes of everyone including especially those of rich people, will rise. 

See also Dispositional Greed Scales from  the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research (TIBER) .

So then, the empathy response actually makes rich people even richer.  One would think that otherwise intelligent people would understand that basic relationship.

Of course, there are some people who accumulate wealth through government contracts and are thereby not inconvenienced every day by market forces. Even those folks, however, will face the consequences of lower general incomes for everyone since the government contracts revenues are paid from income taxes on taxpayers. As wages for most people decline then the income tax revenue to the government will also decline making it more difficult for the government to enter into those contracts. So far, entitled government contractors have encouraged the government to borrow money in order to pay for government deficits, some part of which are caused by those self-same contracts combined with a decline in individual household incomes and lower income tax payments. But resolving that issue will be painful; for all sectors of the population as we saw in the Greek example of a few years ago. 

 

Introducing the American Fascist Party: Is It Evil?

Some Europeans call today's GOP the American Fascist Party. 

It seems like an appropriate name. Most Republicans seem to have abandoned the GOP to join the Fascist trump cult.

Be that as it may, the real question is whether or not the new party is Evil.

Evil is a large philosophical question and I'm not sure there is enough agreement around to denigrate an entire party with that designation.

But, the is some agreement on designating some acts and policies as Evil regardless of who creates them.

The question arises: What is an Evil act and why is it Evil?

We need a definition of Evil, then, to look at Evil acts. I think it's fair to use the definition of Evil as the one that was developed after World War 2 at the Nuremburg trials of Nazi officials, many of whom were executed after those trials.

According to army psychologist Captain G. M. Gilbert, who was assigned to watch the Nuremburg trials after WW 2, Evil is a lack of empathy. Without empathy people can think that other people do not have human attributes and are little better than plants, rocks or livestock. That is to say, the Nazi's treated people like inanimate cut outs who felt no emotions and were thus able to be manipulated and abused without consequences.

In today's American Fascist Party, party leaders like Steve Miller and Donald Trump may gain support from some voters by treating immigrants to the United States as less than human. They may calculate that deporting immigrants without due process will gain them fear in the population and possible votes from supporters. Whatever consequences befall the deportee or his family are of no consequence since the people deported do not possess humanity.

Clearly, some acts by the American Fascist Party are Evil in nature.

I will leave to others the judgment of whether or not that means that the entire American Fascist Party is evil or whether the individual Party leaders are evil people.

 

Judge Michael Luttig’s July 4th Essay in Telos

Media Mention, July 2, 2025

In honor of the Fourth of July, Board Member J. Michael Luttig authored an exclusive piece for Telos outlining twenty-seven truths — an homage to the original 27 grievances the colonists presented to the British Crown — about the freedoms, rights, and liberties we all enjoy as Americans.

From the article:

'When the tyrannical reign of King George III became destructive of the ends of government by law under which all persons are equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, the American Colonists declared their independence from the British King, chronicling 27 grievances of self-evident truths about tyranny as reasons for their declaration of independence.

On this July 4, 2025, the eve of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of America’s declaration of independence and the founding of this Nation, ‘We the People’ hold to be self-evident these 27 truths about freedom—and about tyranny.'

Read the piece here.

https://www.telos.news/p/luttig-the-self-evident-truths-of-freedom

 

Surviving Life in A Dictatorship Using Passive Aggressive Behaviour

A disclaimer first: Until now, I have never lived in an authoritarian regime. 

My thoughts are educated guesses at best. However, there may be some behaviour rules that will help the country until the tyrant is gone, regardless of the reason he goes.

I think it is a safe assumption that all of his and his minions' actions are evil and will harm real people. Since he thinks like a tyrant, then all his actions are directed to his own benefit regardless of any harm that may hurt citizens. This is the root definition of evil: a lack of empathy. He considers other people to be objects without feelings or worth who can be manipulated and/or destroyed for his personal benefit. 

Some of us want to prevent the tyrant from inflicting harm on the country with any of his programs and initiatives. We may be in a position to impede his and his minions' machinations. We should do so wherever we can. 

My basic mind set is that whatever he chooses to do will be harmful for the general population while any benefits accrue to him and his cronies.

Here's an idea of how to impede and delay his evil programs for those in positions of power: continue to vocally support the tyrant while at the same time you are obstructing any and all actions he wishes you to perform. "Of course I support you because you are mighty and wise, I am only sorry that I was not able to do what you asked. I will try harder."

If the tyrant says that he will fire you for poor performance, then make him do just that, don't do his job by quitting. Continue deflecting and offering excuses as long as you can since that will use up his attention and delay other harms he wants to do.

That is disgusting behaviour for anyone. However, it is justified since that behaviour is exactly what the tyrant does every day. 

When all the directions from the tyrant will harm the people you love and he has political violence at his disposal, it will likely be foolish of you who are in a power position to 'get in his face' and call him out. That time has passed for any minor action. Of course, there may be something so bad that you are willing to torpedo your career to stop him; if so, the God bless you.

Others may be unable to sabotage his programs because they are outside positions of power; those of us in that position should march, protest and strike with as much vigour as we can find. Some political scientists suggest that tyrannies fall when 3.5 % of the population demonstrates continuously against the regime. Recent protests have seen 5 million people march and demonstrate; that number has been growing. 3.5% of the population is about 11 million, so we must continue to protest.

 

Gaming Out Trump's Death and/or Resignation

His demise or departure will be good for the United States of America. We will dance in the streets with great joy.

But, let us be clear - his departure will not end our problems. While we will still have the shells and appearance of many of the institutions which create the Rule of Law, those institutions will be hollowed out and filled with trump's Fascist supporters. Other institutions may be moribund or inactive.

We will see a recession after his demise because billionaires control large sections of the economy. We can overcome the recession by ensuring that the Rule of Law survives.

In order to create or re-create the Rule of Law, we will need to restore integrity and power to all our institutions. Otherwise, we will just be another country ruled by Oligarchs. Here's how: remove all trump supporters and other Fascists and replace them with people of integrity and competence. 

Here is a partial list of the institutions in peril: 

1. Election integrity. Today our election process is vulnerable to manipulation. Credible reports suggest that election interference gave trump the win in 2024. 

2. Monopoly Regulation. Private firms which control any industry are incentivized to raise prices and sell less for more profits. They also increase profits when they acquire or destroy competitors. 

3. Competition. Firms in free markets reduce prices to consumers, encourage innovation and raise the GDP when they face competition. When privately owned industries cannot be made to allow more competition, then they can be managed by a Public Utilities Commission which has the power to approve of price changes and acquisitions and divestments. Obviously any such commission will be the target for bribery and corruption and so must be protected vigorously.

4. Income and Wealth Inequality. Most of our wealth and incomes are owned by the very rich among us. That cannot stand. We need a viable middle class in order to be prosperous and free. Extreme wealth should be nationalized; very high incomes should be highly taxed to fund the social services our population needs. 

5. Immigration. Immigrants contribute vast amounts of wealth and industry to all our benefit. Our 100 year sustained economic growth pattern relies on immigrants to continue. 

6. Education. Our jobs and wealth come from technologies invented by scientists and engineers trained in our universities. We must support them in order to secure our future.  

Americans can find the will to fix these issues, but it will be hard. Our grandchildren deserve no less.  

 

UPDATE - ICE Hires Bounty Hunters as Domestic Terrorists

Let us be clear.

47 is not a legitimate Constitutional officer of the United States of America.

Instead, he is a Fascist dictator wannabe who ignores any and all laws including elections and election results to consolidate his exclusive control.

ICE is his Gestapo whom he tasks with creating fear and anxiety in the population; the goal is to ensure that that most citizens will distrust any Federal Officer, Politician and/or laws.

There is no concern whatsoever for the welfare of any individual abductee or family member of an abductee detained by ICE; the abduction and resulting fear of abduction is the point.

More than 3.5% of the entire population of the United States demonstrated against 47 and his goons a few days ago. Political scientists have evidence that tyrants lose their power when that happens.

Let us hasten that along by congregating in public places where Congress and other legislatures conduct business and BOO loudly. Make him feel our anger.

VIDEO LINK HERE - 

ICE will hire bounty hunters to capture people for a fee; that's our future as prey.

 

Text of Lawsuit: American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, et al.,

The ABA has filed suit against the President., click below for full text  .pdf

American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, et al., 

BOOOOOOO Them

BOO ICE.

BOO GOP.

Tell them, loudly, we do not like them. 

We are more than 3.5% of THE ENTIRE POPULATION! 

Tyrannies fail when more than 3.5 % of the population demonstrates against them. We can help that that failure happen.

ABOUT BOOING:

WHY: They will feel our antagonism. They are helping a tyrant hurt us.

WHERE: Any public place you see ICE or GOP. Ideally, in Congress, City Halls and Statehouses or in any street whenever they are there.

WHEN: Any time you see ICE or GOP.

HOW LONG: Every day, all day until the tyrant is gone.

WHO: All of us, whether in groups, crowds or alone. Continuous small groups are as effective as sporadic large groups. 

 

What's Next ?

 

"3.5% rule" says that when 3.5% of a population shows up to resist a dictator, his rule always collapses. We're at 3.8%.

FINAL RESULTS: 13.14 million showed up to 2,300+ No Kings protests nationwide. 💪 

Political scientists' "3.5% rule" says that when 3.5% of a population shows up to resist a dictator, his rule always collapses. We're at 3.8%.

Now is the time to take the PEACEFUL, NON-VIOLENT protests inside the City Halls, County Supervisors, State legislatures and Congress itself.

Sit or stand in the areas open to the public and when our announcer says 'Here is GOP member [name], we all BOO.

And when we annouce a progressive member, we all CHEER ! 

We do this for perhaps a day, perhaps a week.

We stop when we meet our goal: Our goal is the resignation of 47 and a new election for national offices. 

The Law About Crimes Committed by ICE

Here's what I understand after an off the record conversations with a US attorney.

ICE can arrest a person legally with a probable cause

The law allows police officers including ICE agents to arrest people whom the agent thinks have a probable cause of a criminal act. That cause can be formal as in a warrant or less formal as in a name on a list of criminals.

Interfering with an agent is a crime.

HOWEVER, if the agent does not identify himself as a police or federal agent, the person targeted is free to defend himself from the act as though it was committed by any random criminal. 

Deportation 

My question: 'is it a crime to deport a person without a formal court order to do so?'

ChatGPT said:

Yes, in most democratic countries with established legal systems (such as the United States, Canada, EU nations, etc.), deporting someone without a formal court order or proper legal process can be unlawful—and potentially a crime or serious civil rights violation, depending on the circumstances.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. Due Process Is Required

In countries like the United States, deportation (or removal) generally must follow due process, which includes:

Notice of charges

Right to a hearing before an immigration judge

Opportunity to appeal

Summary deportations without legal review or court oversight are rare and only allowed under very specific circumstances, like:

Expedited removal for undocumented individuals who are apprehended at or near the border and meet certain conditions.

Even these require documentation and oversight—not just arbitrary removal.

2. Deportation Without a Court Order Can Be Unlawful

If a government agent or official removes someone from a country without legal authority or court order, it can be:

A violation of immigration law

A civil rights violation

Grounds for criminal charges in cases of abuse of power, kidnapping, or false imprisonment.

3. Exceptions & Special Cases

Military zones, wartime scenarios, or national security cases may allow more discretion—but are still typically governed by laws or special tribunals.

In authoritarian regimes, deportation without court process may be common—but that doesn't mean it's legal under international law.

4. International Law

International human rights law (e.g., UN conventions) typically requires:

Protection against arbitrary expulsion

Right to seek asylum

Non-refoulement (not sending someone back to a country where they face persecution)

In Summary

✅ Yes, deporting someone without a formal court order or proper legal process can be a crime or civil rights violation, depending on the legal framework of the country involved. It’s not just unethical—it may be legally actionable.

If you're thinking about a specific case or country, I can look up the relevant laws for you.

 

Is It Right to Shoot An ICE Agent At Your Door?

 

That is a hard question. 

On one hand it is both illegal and immoral to kill another human being. That stricture applies to any physical violence one human being does to any other human being. All such violence is wrong on its face. It is wrong even when taken in self defence. 

However, the moral component of violence becomes murkier when it is done for defence of life and property. If the threat of violence and/or deportation is imminent and credible such that the alleged target of ICE can be killed or sent to a prison in another country, then many will consider that violent action against a perceived threat by an ICE target justified even if it results in death of the ICE agent.

If a victim of ICE prosecution and/or imminent arrest fears for his deportation, life and/or property it may be that violence in defence of self, family and home is justified. But it is probable that the other agents will react by spraying the home with machine gun fire. Justified or not, lethal violence is a bad idea for that reason alone.

Doxing the agents so that the agent's family can be threatened is an immoral act; however, ICE agents committing deportation will not face such threats if they use proper documentation and allow due process. When the ICE agents do not follow Constitutional procedures they should not be surprised that neither do their targets.

 

The real problem is that the ICE agents most likely will not have a lawful warrant for the arrest of a person. Further the ICE agent can and may well violently take custody of that person and deport them to an ICE camp in another country, state or locality WITHOUT ALLOWING DUE PROCESS FOR THE TARGET. All such acts are crimes whether the person committing that crime is a sworn police officer, an ICE agent with invalid credentials or a random kidnapper. While it may seem reasonable for the subject of the arrest to let the reprocess proceed under the existing laws of the country, State and locality, standard ICE practice consists of immediate deportation and/or imprisonment WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

Self defence in that circumstance can be moral.

Creating Nuremburg Justice for the Executive Office

 

It is never too early to create a mechanism to bring the GOP to justice. My question is this: 'How can we structure a Joint Congressional Committee to investigate crimes in the executive offices including but not limited to the president similar to the Nuremburg trials of Nazi's after WW 2.'

Perhaps some Senators and Representatives can start work on the idea now in readiness for the next election where it is both desirable and likely that the Democrats will be the majority Party in both houses. 

ChatGPT said:

Creating a Joint Congressional Committee to investigate alleged crimes within the executive branch — including those potentially committed by the President — and structuring it similarly to the Nuremberg Trials would be highly complex. The U.S. system of government, bound by constitutional protections like separation of powers and due process, limits Congress’s authority compared to post-war international tribunals. That said, here is a step-by-step conceptual framework for how such a committee could be structured within the bounds of U.S. law:

---

⚖️ 1. Legal Foundation

A committee with this kind of extraordinary scope would need a clear legal and constitutional basis:

• Congressional Resolution or Act: A joint resolution passed by both chambers could create a Temporary Joint Investigative Committee on Executive Conduct, defining its mandate, powers, and limitations.
• Supreme Court Review: Expect challenges to the legitimacy and scope; a preemptive review or legal defense strategy is essential.

---

🏛️ 2. Committee Structure

A high-level structure might include:

Role	Function
Bipartisan Leadership	Co-chairs from both parties, likely senior members from Judiciary or Oversight Committees.
Subcommittees	Organized by type of alleged crime: abuse of power, obstruction, corruption, civil rights violations, etc.
Legal Advisors	Constitutional and criminal law experts to ensure legal compliance.
Fact-Finding Teams	Subpoena power, field investigators, forensic accountants, etc.
Public Communications Office	To ensure transparency and maintain public trust.

---

🔎 3. Scope of Authority

Define jurisdiction carefully:

• Crimes Under Federal Law: Fraud, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, espionage, etc.
• Violations of International Law or Human Rights: If applicable, referencing treaty obligations like the Geneva Conventions or the Rome Statute.
• Abuse of Office: Patterns of unethical or unlawful executive conduct, potentially including use of pardons, national security powers, or foreign influence.

---

📜 4. Powers and Tools

Like the Watergate and Church Committees, this one could have:

• Subpoena Power (for testimony and documents)
• Contempt Proceedings (if witnesses refuse to cooperate)
• Immunity Grants (to compel testimony)
• Collaboration with DOJ, IGs, and GAO (for law enforcement and auditing)
• Public Hearings (modeled after Nuremberg/Watergate for transparency)

---

🌐 5. Accountability and Justice Mechanisms

This committee wouldn’t itself try cases like the Nuremberg Tribunal but could:

• Refer Evidence to DOJ for Prosecution
• Recommend Articles of Impeachment
• Propose Structural Reforms (e.g., limit executive privilege, create an independent prosecutorial body)

---

🧭 6. Nuremberg-Like Features

To mirror the moral clarity and legal rigor of Nuremberg, the committee should:

Feature	Implementation
Documented Record of Abuses	Create a detailed historical and legal archive.
Clear Ethical Framework	Use international human rights principles as a guide.
Independent Judges or Review Panel	Consider appointing retired federal judges or special masters.
Transparency	Public reports, televised hearings, access to findings.

---

⚠️ 7. Limitations

• No Judicial Authority: Congress cannot convict or imprison.
• Political Risks: Can be dismissed as partisan unless handled with extreme fairness.
• Constitutional Constraints: Especially regarding executive privilege and due process.

---

✅ Example Precedents to Study

• Nuremberg Trials – For legal structure and moral clarity.
• Watergate Hearings – For oversight and public engagement.
• Iran-Contra Investigation
• Church Committee – For intelligence and executive abuse oversight.
• Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (South Africa, others) – For moral legitimacy.

 

 Here's a model draft resolution: 

I'm sure this framework needs a lot of work before calling for a vote, but it is a beginning.

ChatGPT said:

Here's a model draft resolution for establishing a Joint Congressional Committee to Investigate Executive Branch Crimes and Abuses, structured to align with U.S. law but inspired in part by the investigative rigor of the Nuremberg Trials:

---

🏛️ Model Congressional Resolution (Joint)

"Joint Resolution to Establish the Select Committee on Executive Accountability and Integrity"

---

116th CONGRESS
1st Session

JOINT RESOLUTION
To establish the Joint Select Committee on Executive Accountability and Integrity to investigate alleged violations of federal and international law by current or former officials of the executive branch, including the President of the United States, and to ensure constitutional accountability, transparency, and justice.

---

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

---

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Joint Resolution may be cited as the “Executive Accountability and Integrity Act.”

---

SECTION 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

There is hereby established the Joint Select Committee on Executive Accountability and Integrity (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”).

---

SECTION 3. PURPOSE AND MANDATE.

The purpose of the Committee shall be to:

1.      Investigate credible allegations of criminal conduct, corruption, abuse of power, or violations of federal or international law by executive branch officials, including current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Cabinet Secretaries, and senior advisors;

2.      Document a full public record of findings and make recommendations for criminal referrals, civil liability, or structural reforms;

3.      Uphold the rule of law and constitutional accountability in the highest offices of government.

---

SECTION 4. COMPOSITION.

·         The Committee shall consist of 20 members, 10 from the Senate and 10 from the House of Representatives, appointed equally by the Majority and Minority Leaders of both chambers.

·         The Committee shall have two Co-Chairs, one from each major political party, elected by the Committee members.

---

SECTION 5. POWERS.

The Committee shall have the authority to:

·         Issue subpoenas for testimony, documents, and records;

·         Administer oaths and compel witnesses;

·         Work in cooperation with the Department of Justice, Inspector Generals, Special Counsel Offices, and relevant state attorneys general;

·         Hold public and closed hearings;

·         Appoint independent special legal advisors, including experts in constitutional law, international law, and human rights;

·         Commission independent investigations and forensic audits.

---

SECTION 6. INVESTIGATIVE AREAS.

Investigative authority shall include, but not be limited to:

1.      Obstruction of justice

2.      Abuse of pardon power

3.      Improper use of executive privilege

4.      Foreign interference or collusion

5.      Unlawful enrichment, fraud, or misuse of federal resources

6.      Human rights abuses or war crimes

7.      Suppression or manipulation of federal agencies or intelligence

---

SECTION 7. REFERRALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Committee may:

·         Refer evidence of criminal conduct to the Department of Justice or other prosecutorial authorities;

·         Recommend Articles of Impeachment, if applicable;

·         Propose legislative reforms to prevent future abuses;

·         Publish a Final Report of findings and recommendations.

---

SECTION 8. PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRANSPARENCY.

·         Hearings shall be televised or live-streamed, except where classified information is involved.

·         All findings shall be made available through an official public website and Congressional Record.

---

SECTION 9. DURATION AND FUNDING.

·         The Committee shall operate for a period of 24 months from the date of enactment, with the option of extension by majority vote of both chambers.

·         Funding shall be appropriated by Congress as necessary.

---

SECTION 10. PROTECTIONS AND IMMUNITIES.

·         The Committee shall ensure compliance with constitutional due process protections.

·         Witnesses may be granted limited immunity where necessary to obtain testimony.

·         Protections for whistleblowers, government employees, and civil society informants shall be guaranteed.

---

SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.

---

SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This resolution shall take effect immediately upon enactment.

 

Our Courts TRY To Save Us From Tyranny

Heather Cox Richardson..May 28

Political scientist Adam Bonica noted last Friday that Trump and the administration suffered a 96% loss rate in federal courts in the month of May. Those losses were nonpartisan: 72.2% of Republican-appointed judges and 80.4% of Democratic-appointed judges ruled against the administration.

The administration sustained more losses today.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that 14 states can proceed with their lawsuit against billionaire Elon Musk and the “Department of Government Efficiency.” The administration had tried to dismiss the case, but Chutkan ruled the states had adequately supported their argument that “Musk and DOGE’s conduct is ‘unauthorized by any law.’” “The Constitution does not permit the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency…and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an ‘advisor’ in name only,” she wrote.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon struck down Trump’s March 27 executive order targeting the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, more commonly known as WilmerHale. This law firm angered Trump by employing Robert Mueller, the Republican-appointed special counsel who oversaw an investigation of the ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

Leon, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, made his anger obvious. “[T]he First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against individuals for engaging in protected speech,” Leon noted. “WilmerHale alleges that ‘[t]he Order blatantly defies this bedrock principle of constitutional law.’” Leon wrote: “I agree!” He went on to strike down the order as unconstitutional.

Today NPR and three Colorado public radio stations sued the Trump administration over Trump’s executive order that seeks to impound congressionally appropriated funds for NPR and PBS. The executive order said the public media stations do not present “a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.” NPR’s David Folkenflik reported White House spokesperson Harrison Fields’s statement today that public media supports “a particular party on the taxpayers’ dime,” and that Trump and his allies have called it “left-wing propaganda.”

The lawsuit calls Trump’s executive order and attempt to withhold funding Congress has already approved “textbook retaliation.” “[W]e are not choosing to do this out of politics,” NPR chief executive officer Katherine Maher told NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly. “We are choosing to do this as a matter of necessity and principle. All of our rights that we enjoy in this democracy flow from the First Amendment: freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press. When we see those rights infringed upon, we have an obligation to challenge them.”

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis today denied the administration’s motion for a 30-day extension of the deadline for it to answer the complaint in the lawsuit over the rendition of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man sent to El Salvador through what the administration said was “administrative error.”

Despite five hearings on the case, the administration’s lawyers didn’t indicate they needed any more time, but today—the day their answer was due—they suddenly asked for 30 more days. Xinis wrote that they “expended no effort in demonstrating good cause. They vaguely complain, in two sentences, to expending ‘significant resources’ engaging in expedited discovery. But these self-described burdens are of their own making. The Court ordered expedited discovery because of [the administration’s] refusal to follow the orders of this court as affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.”

Trump is well known for using procedural delays to stop the courts from administering justice, and it is notable that administration lawyers have generally not been arguing that they will win cases on the merits. Instead, they are making procedural arguments.

Meanwhile, stringing things out means making time for situations to change on the ground, reducing the effect of court decisions. Brian Barrett of Wired reported today that while Musk claims to have stepped back from the Department of Government Efficiency, his lieutenants are still spread throughout the government, mining Americans’ data. Meanwhile, Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought will push to make DOGE cuts to government permanent in a dramatic reworking of the nation’s social contract. “Removing DOGE at this point would be like trying to remove a drop of food coloring from a glass of water,” Barrett writes.

Political scientist Bonica notes that there is a script for rising authoritarians. When the courts rule against the leader, the leader and his loyalists attack judges as biased and dangerous, just as Trump and his cronies have been doing.

The leader also works to delegitimize the judicial system, and that, too, we are seeing as Trump reverses the concepts of not guilty and guilty. On the one hand, the administration is fighting to get rid of the constitutional right of all persons to due process, rendering people who have not been charged with crimes to prisons in third countries. On the other, Trump and his loyalists at the Department of Justice are pardoning individuals who have been convicted of crimes.

On Monday, Trump issued a presidential pardon to former Culpeper County, Virginia, sheriff Scott Jenkins, a longtime Trump supporter whom a jury convicted of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and seven counts of bribery. Jared Gans of The Hill explained that Jenkins accepted more than $70,000 in bribes to appoint auxiliary deputy sheriffs, “giving them badges and credentials despite them not being trained or vetted and not offering services to the sheriff’s office.” Jenkins had announced he would “deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms,” if the legislature passed “further unnecessary gun restrictions.” Jenkins was sentenced to ten years in prison.

Although Jenkins was found guilty by a jury of his peers, just as the U.S. justice system calls for, Trump insisted that Jenkins and his wife and their family “have been dragged through HELL by a Corrupt and Weaponized Biden D[epartment] O[f] J[ustice].” Jenkins, Trump wrote on social media, “is a wonderful person, who was persecuted by the Radical Left ‘monsters,’ and ‘left for dead.’ This is why I, as President of the United States, see fit to end his unfair sentence, and grant Sheriff Jenkins a FULL and Unconditional Pardon. He will NOT be going to jail tomorrow, but instead will have a wonderful and productive life.”

Today Trump gave a presidential pardon to Paul Walczak, a former nursing home executive who pleaded guilty to tax crimes in 2024. The pardon arrived after Walczak’s mother donated at least $1 million to Trump. The pardon spares Walczak from 18 months in prison and $4.4 million in restitution. Also today, Trump announced plans to pardon reality TV stars Julie and Todd Chrisley, who were sentenced to 7 and 12 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud banks of $36 million and tax evasion. Their daughter spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

Bonica notes that delegitimizing the judicial system creates a permission structure for threats against judges. That, too, we are seeing.

Bonica goes on to illustrate how this pattern of authoritarian attacks on the judiciary looks the same across nations. In 2009, following a ruling that he was not immune from prosecution for fraud, tax evasion, and bribery, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi railed about “communist prosecutors and communist judges.” In 2016, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Türkiye rejected the authority of his country’s highest court and purged more than 4,000 judges. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe pushed judges to stop protests, and the judiciary collapsed. In the Philippines in 2018, Rodrigo Duterte called the chief justice defending judicial independence an “enemy,” and she was removed. In Brazil in 2021, Jair Bolsonaro threatened violence against the judges who were investigating him for corruption.

But, Bonica notes, something different happened in Israel in 2023. When Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition tried to destroy judicial independence, people from all parts of society took to the streets. A broad, nonpartisan group came together to defend democracy and resist authoritarianism.

“Every authoritarian who successfully destroyed judicial independence did so because civil society failed to unite in time,” Bonica writes. “The key difference? Whether people mobilized.”

—

Notes:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0429-93

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-wilmerhale/

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/27/trump-leon-wilmerhale-mueller.html

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278933/gov.uscourts.dcd.278933.110.0_3.pdf

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/27/nx-s1-5413094/npr-public-radio-lawsuit-trump-funding-ban

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.163.0.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-stepping-back-doge-final-form/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/us/politics/trump-pardon-paul-walczak-tax-crimes.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/trump-pardon-reality-tv-couple-convicted-fraud-00371950

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5319140-trump-pardons-scott-jenkins/

Donald J. Trump, Truth Social post, May 26, 2025, 3:19 p.m.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/07/silvio-berlusconi-immunity-law-uncontitutional

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/27/1253209931/npr-trump-lawsuit-funding

Bluesky:

adambonica.bsky.social/post/3lpv4a3ynpk2l

adambonica.bsky.social/post/3lq45lt6pnt2t

peppapaxpippa.bsky.social/post/3lq4eurqhjk26