Archive for September, 2025

Would Orwell Be Branded a Terrorist? The Government’s War on Thought Crimes

Posted: September 24, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

“Those who created this country chose freedom. With all of its dangers. And do you know the riskiest part of that choice they made? They actually believed that we could be trusted to make up our own minds in the whirl of differing ideas. That we could be trusted to remain free, even when there were very, very seductive voices—taking advantage of our freedom of speech—who were trying to turn this country into the kind of place where the government could tell you what you can and cannot do.”—Nat Hentoff

The Trump administration is taking its war on free speech into the realm of thought crimes.

This is more than politics.

In declaring “Antifa”—a loose ideology based on opposition to fascism—as a domestic terrorist organization, the government has given itself a green light to treat speech, belief, and association as criminal acts. With this one executive order, political dissent has been rebranded as terrorism and free thought recast as a crime.

Critics will argue that “Antifa” means rioting and property destruction. But violent acts are already crimes, handled under ordinary law.

What’s new—and dangerous—is punishing people not for violence, but for what they believe, say, or with whom they associate. Peaceful protest, political speech, and nonviolent dissent are now being lumped together with terrorism.

Violence should be prosecuted. But when peaceful protest and dissent are treated as terrorism, the line between crime and thought crime disappears.

When the government polices political belief, we’re no longer talking about crime—we’re talking about thought control.

This opens the door to guilt by association, thought crimes, and McCarthy-style blacklists, making it possible for the government to treat peaceful protesters, critics, or even casual sympathizers as terrorists.  

Protesters who identify with anti-fascist beliefs—or who, under this administration, simply challenge its power grabs and overreaches—can now be surveilled, prosecuted, and silenced, not for acts of violence but for what they think, say, or believe.

Under this executive order, George Orwell—the antifascist author of 1984—would become an enemy of the state.

This is how dissent becomes labeled as “terrorism” in a police state: by targeting political thought instead of criminal conduct.

Once you can be investigated and punished for your associations or sympathies, the First Amendment is reduced to empty words on paper.

Nor is this an isolated development. It is part of a larger pattern in which the right to think and speak freely without government interference or fear of retribution—long the bedrock of American liberty—is treated as a conditional privilege rather than an inalienable right, granted only to those who toe the official line and revoked from those who dare dissent.

The warning signs are everywhere.

The Pentagon now requires reporters to pledge not to publish “unauthorized” information. Broadcasters silence comedians after political outrage. Social media platforms delete or deplatform disfavored viewpoints.

The common thread running through these incidents is not their subject matter but their method.

Government officials don’t need to pass laws criminalizing dissent when they can simply ensure that dissent is punished and compliance rewarded.

The result is a culture of self-censorship.

The First Amendment was written precisely to prevent this kind of chilling effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that speech does not lose protection simply because it is offensive, controversial, or even hateful.

Yet today, by redefining unpopular expression as “dangerous” or “unauthorized,” government officials have come up with a far more insidious way of silencing their critics.

In fact, the Court has held that it is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment…that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” It is not, for example, a question of whether the Confederate flag represents racism but whether banning it leads to even greater problems—namely, the loss of freedom in general.

Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.

If citizens cannot stand out in the open and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives, and its policies without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment—with all its robust protections for speech, assembly, and petition—is little more than window dressing: pretty to look at, but serving little real purpose.

Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right—whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign.

That is what the First Amendment is supposed to be about: assuring the citizenry of the right to express their concerns about their government, in the time, place, and manner best suited to ensuring those concerns are heard.

Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it little more than the right to file a lawsuit against those in power.

In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges authority, exposes corruption, or encourages the citizenry to push back against injustice.

The machinery of censorship is more entrenched than ever.

With growing monopolies of the media, a handful of corporate gatekeepers dominate the digital public square. Government regulators hold powerful levers—licenses, contracts, antitrust threats—that can be used to manipulate content so that only what is approved is publicized. And a public increasingly conditioned to equate harm with offense becomes an unwitting accomplice to suppression, cheering the silencing of adversaries without realizing that the same tools will be used against them tomorrow.

This crackdown on expression is not limited to government action.

Corporate America has now taken the lead in policing speech online, with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube using their dominance to censor, penalize, and regulate what users can say. Under the banner of “community standards” against obscenity, violence, hate speech, or intolerance, they suspend or ban users whose content strays from approved orthodoxy.

Make no mistake: this is fascism, American-style.

As presidential advisor Bertram Gross warned in Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, “Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. . . . In America, it would be super modern and multi-ethnic—as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic façade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.”

The appeal here is the self-righteous claim to be fighting evils—hatred, violence, intolerance—using the weapons of Corporate America. But those weapons are easily redirected. Today they are aimed at “hate.” Tomorrow they will be aimed at dissent.

The effect is the same: the range of permissible ideas shrinks until only government-approved truths remain.

Combine this with Trump’s Antifa executive order, and the danger becomes unmistakable.

By labeling a loose ideology as terrorism, the government opens the door to treat political opposition as criminal conspiracy. Combine that with corporate censorship, and the result is chilling.

Together, they create a chokehold on dissent.

The Constitution’s promise of free speech becomes little more than words on paper if every outlet for expression—public or private—is policed, monitored, or denied.

“Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

We have entered an era in which free speech has become regulated speech: celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority, tolerated when it doesn’t, and branded “dangerous” when it dares to challenge political, religious, or cultural comfort zones.

President Trump, who regularly mocks critics while trying to muzzle those who speak out against him, may be the perfect poster child for this age of intolerance. Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, anti-bullying policies, hate-crime statutes, zero-tolerance rules—these legalistic tools, championed by politicians and prosecutors across the political spectrum, have steadily corroded the core freedom to speak one’s mind.

The U.S. government has become particularly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against its many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that is being flagged, censored, surveilled, or investigated by the government: “hate speech,” “intolerant speech,” “conspiratorial speech,” “treasonous speech,” “incendiary speech,” “anti-government speech,” “extremist speech,” and more.

By rebranding dissent as dangerous speech, government officials have given themselves the power to police expression without judicial oversight.

This is not a partisan issue.

Under one administration, speech may be stifled in the name of fighting “misinformation.” Under another, it may be curbed in the name of rooting out “dangerous” or “hateful” speech.

The justifications change with the politics of the moment, but the outcome is the same: less speech, narrower debate, and more fear.

The stakes could not be higher.

If we no longer have the right to tell an ICE agent to get off our property, to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before entering our home, to stand outside the Supreme Court with a protest sign, to approach an elected representative to share our views, or  if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how offensive, intolerant, or politically incorrect—then we do not have free speech.

Just as surveillance stifles dissent, government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, smothers independent thought, and fuels the kind of frustration that can erupt in violence.

The First Amendment is meant to be a steam valve: allowing people to speak their minds, air grievances, and contribute to a dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When that valve is shut—when there is no one to hear what people have to say— frustration builds, anger grows, and society becomes more volatile.

Silencing unpopular viewpoints with which the majority might disagree—whether by shouting them down, censoring them, or criminalizing them—only empowers the Deep State. The motives—discouraging racism, condemning violence, promoting civility—may sound well-intentioned, but the result is always the same: intolerance, indoctrination, and infantilism.

The police state could not ask for better citizens than those who do its censoring for it.

This is how a nation of free people becomes an extension of the surveillance state, turning citizens against each other while the government grows stronger.

The path forward is clear.

As Justice William O. Douglas wrote in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.

The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.

What is required is more speech not less—even when it offends.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s time to make the government hear us—see us—and heed us.

This is the ultimate power of free speech.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/2s49rpmp

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. 

Standing Armies at Home: Civil Liberties Groups Oppose Trump’s National Guard Takeover

Posted: September 22, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — A coalition of free speech organizations is asking the federal courts to rein in President Trump’s unprecedented use of the military against civilians, especially as a means of silencing and punishing disfavored speech, warning that such actions echo the very abuses the nation’s Founders sought to prevent. The filing comes amid Trump’s ongoing threats to deploy troops to Memphis, Baltimore, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City, often over the objections of state governors.

In an amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Newsom v. Trump, The Rutherford Institute joined the ACLU, its state affiliates, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University to challenge Trump’s June 2025 order federalizing the California National Guard and deploying active-duty Marines in Los Angeles to quell protests against his immigration raids. The coalition’s brief argues that the President’s claim of unilateral, unreviewable authority to deploy troops on American streets is “extreme, unprecedented, and incompatible with the history, traditions, and laws of the United States.”

“The Founders warned against standing armies on American soil, fearing that the military might be used not to defend the people, but to control them,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Deploying the military to deal with domestic matters that can—and should—be handled by local police violates the Posse Comitatus Act and crosses the line into authoritarianism.”

On June 7, 2025, President Trump invoked a rarely used statute, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, to forcibly federalize the California National Guard and deploy thousands of troops against largely peaceful protesters in Los Angeles. The protests erupted after armed federal agents carried out aggressive immigration raids, sparking public outrage. The federal government escalated the situation by unleashing military troops armed with tear gas, pepper balls, and flash-bang grenades on demonstrators that included journalists, legal observers, clergy, children, and elected officials. Trump claimed that the protests “constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government.”

Five days later, the federal district court found that “[Trump’s] actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment,” and thus issued a temporary restraining order to return control of the National Guard to the Governor. But a panel of the Ninth Circuit then stayed that initial restraining order pending appeal, giving high deference to the President’s authority. While this appeal has been pending, the district court ruled on Sept. 2, 2025, that the federal government also violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of the military for domestic policing absent express constitutional or statutory authorization.

The coalition’s brief before the Ninth Circuit stresses that: 1) History and tradition strictly limit military deployments against civilians; 2) Military policing threatens the First Amendment by suppressing lawful protests, political dissent, and association; and 3) Unchecked troop deployments risk authoritarian abuse, because the President cannot label ordinary political opposition as “rebellion” to justify military force. With 300 National Guard troops to remain deployed in Los Angeles through Election Day, the dangers of Trump’s military deployments are not theoretical: internal assessments reveal that troops’ presence in Washington, D.C. has been perceived by the public as “leveraging fear.”  

Hina Shamsi, Charlie Hogle, Sean M. Lau, and other ACLU attorneys advanced the arguments in the amicus brief.

The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties organization dedicated to making the government play by the rules of the Constitution. To this end, the Institute defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a broad range of issues affecting their freedoms.  

Source: tinyurl.com/2bmsy45p

Political Gaslighting: The Government’s Latest Playbook for Dismantling the Constitution

Posted: September 17, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

“That was when they suspended the Constitution… There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

What we are witnessing is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; it is a government over the people.

Call it what it is: political gaslighting—the regime says one thing while doing the opposite, and insists on the citizenry’s trust while dismantling the very checks and balances that make trust possible.

So when the powers-that-be claim to be protecting the Constitution, they’re dismantling it at every turn. In this way, the mechanisms of constitutional government—separation of powers, federalism, due process, and the Bill of Rights—are being hollowed out in plain sight.

Although this dismantling did not start with President Trump, it has accelerated beyond imagining.

What was once a slow bleed is now a hemorrhage—and it is not random. The damage is unfolding on two parallel tracks: a steady, methodical, bureaucratic erosion (rule changes, executive orders, new databases) paired with shock-and-awe surges (National Guard deployments, mass round-ups, headline-grabbing prosecutions).

The words may say “freedom” and “order,” but the deeds smack of tyranny.

Attorney General Pam Bondi vows to punish “hateful” speech even as the administration normalizes hateful rhetoric and violent imagery. Vice President JD Vance promises to “go after” those with a “leftist” ideology while preaching free-speech absolutism for allies.

The Trump administration denounces “hate speech” even as it excuses and downplays the Jan. 6 riots; pledges fiscal restraint while shoveling billions into surveillance, prisons, and domestic deployments; wraps itself in law-and-order while tolerating lawlessness by cronies; sermonizes about faith and morality while normalizing cruelty as governance; and peddles outrage over waste while spending lavishly on the trappings of office.

Rights are framed as absolute for friends and privileges for critics. That is the opposite of constitutional government, which holds everyone—especially those in power—to the same rule of law, applied evenly.

If the government can police ideas, deploy troops at home, run dragnets by algorithm, disappear people into distant prisons, build spectacle cages, and amass power in one office, then no American is safe—including those who cheer these efforts today.

If you believe in limited government, equal justice, and due process—whatever your party—these double standards should alarm you most, because the precedents being cheered today will be wielded against you tomorrow.

What follows is a running ledger of the gaslighting playbook and its constitutional costs.

The Gaslight: “We’re Restoring the Constitution.”
Reality: The “temporary” powers created after 9/11 have hardened into a permanent police-state architecture—Patriot Act surveillance, secret FISA processes and National Security Letters, DHS fusion centers, a diluted Fourth Amendment “border zone,” civil-asset forfeiture, Pentagon 1033 militarization, Real ID, facial-recognition and geofence warrants—now run at full throttle across administrations.
The Cost: A police state.

The Gaslight: “We Value Law and Order.”
Reality: The administration deployed Marines and the National Guard into American streets to police protests protected by the First Amendment. On September 2, 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s deployment of thousands of Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles—ostensibly for immigration protests—violated the Posse Comitatus Act, describing a “top-down, systemic effort” to militarize civil law enforcement. The Constitution’s framers feared standing armies and military occupations of American communities.
The Cost: The death of Posse Comitatus.

The Gaslight: “We Defend Free Speech.”
Reality: Dissent is criminalized, expressive conduct is relitigated, and disfavored groups face terror labels and IRS pressure. Protest is a right, not a privilege, yet the government increasingly recasts organized dissent as conspiracy. After the Charlie Kirk shooting, the White House floated designating “antifa” and other liberal groups as domestic terrorists, bringing racketeering cases against funders, and targeting nonprofits critical of the administration—all while downplaying right-wing violence. Fold in Bondi’s vow to target “hateful” speech and Vance’s pledge to eradicate “leftist ideology,” and power slides from punishing unlawful acts to policing ideas.
The Cost: A weaponized First Amendment.

The Gaslight: “We’re Protecting You from Extremists.”  
Reality: Watchlists without due process, elastic “material support” theories, politicized “extremism” labels, and donor targeting that treat journalists, whistleblowers, activists—even parents at school boards—as suspects first and citizens second. Speaking truth to power is reframed as a security risk. In free societies, the state fears the citizen; in unfree ones, the citizen fears the state.
The Cost: Dissent rebranded as extremism.

The Gaslight: “We’re Ending Federal Censorship.”
Reality: On Day One, the President signed an order to “end federal censorship.” Read closely, it asserts sweeping control over how agencies interact with media platforms and broadcasters, rebranding ordinary outreach and fact-checking as First Amendment violations, while positioning the Executive as referee of the private square. By centralizing power over the flow of information in the Executive Branch, it threatens the independence of the very private forums where Americans speak. The test of free speech is whether the government stays out of the marketplace of ideas—not whether it curates it to the President’s liking.
The Cost: The state as speech referee.

The Gaslight: “We Use Smart Tech, Not Dragnet Surveillance.”
Reality: The administration is fusing government databases and outsourcing “intelligence” to private vendors in such a way that data becomes the warrant. ICE’s new $30 million deal with Palantir to build “ImmigrationOS” promises to identify, track, and deport people using AI-driven analytics and cross-agency data sharing. Add in geofence warrants, face-scan dragnets, and fusion-center “suspicious activity” pipelines, and you get a domestic intelligence system that presumes guilt by data trail.
The Cost: Probable cause replaced by algorithms.

The Gaslight: “We’re Tough on Crime.”
Reality: This year, U.S. agencies financed the transfer of migrants to El Salvador’s mega-prison (CECOT), where families and lawyers lost contact with detainees for months. Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” detention site whetted the government’s appetite for scaled-up incarceration, converting state prisons into immigration jails nationwide. These attempts by the Trump administration constitute an end run around longstanding constitutional protections for anyone accused of a crime. The common denominator is spectacle over justice, expansion over restraint.  
The Cost: The death of due process.

The Gaslight: “We’re Compassionate, Not Cruel.”  
Reality: The push to clear homeless encampments combines criminalization with expanded involuntary commitments. A July 24, 2025 executive order encourages states to funnel people into institutions and mental-health courts, tying funding to “maximum” use of commitments—an end-run around the presumption of liberty that undergirds due process.
The Cost: Bureaucratic coercion over compassion.

The Gaslight: “We’re Streamlining Government.”
Reality: The separation of powers was intended to serve as a check against any one government agency becoming too powerful. Yet the administration has pressed an aggressive unitary-executive theory to encroach on independent agencies, such as the Federal Reserve. Scholars warn this could erase the independence of agencies designed to check the White House.
The Cost: Checks and balances gutted.

The Gaslight: “We’re Keeping America Safe Overseas.”
Reality: Killing by assassination, not authorization. Twice in recent months, U.S. forces have launched unannounced attacks on Venezuelan boats, killing crews without warning or due process, on the mere assertion that they were drug traffickers.
The Cost: War powers and judicial oversight bypassed.

The Gaslight: “We’re Fixing Wasteful Spending.”
Reality: Having poured billions into surveillance, prisons, and domestic deployments, the “police-state budget” unravels the economy while eroding liberty.
The Cost: A debt-funded police state.

Many who cherish ordered liberty, limited government, fiscal restraint, and constitutional morality would normally recoil at these tactics under any other administration, so why not now?

Principles should not change because the party in power has changed, and yet that’s exactly what continues to drive the double standard.

If there’s a constitutional scorecard, “we the people” are on the losing team right now.

The First Amendment is buckling as protest is chilled, expressive conduct is targeted, opponents are threatened with terror labels, and the Executive Branch expands control over the speech ecosystem.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments have been weakened by AI surveillance and cross-agency fusion that normalize suspicionless tracking, while offshore detention and coerced commitments compromise due process.

The Eighth Amendment is mocked by harsh, theatrical detention regimes.

Federalism and the Tenth Amendment give way when federal troops step into local policing.

Separation of powers erodes as an inflated unitary-executive theory encroaches on independent agencies.

War powers are skirted by extrajudicial killings abroad. And fiscal responsibility is inverted as surveillance and prison appropriations swell while liberty contracts.

What must happen now?

Congress must codify guardrails against domestic military use—tighten Posse Comitatus, narrow Insurrection Act exceptions, and mandate transparency for any domestic mission. Courts and prosecutors should reaffirm expressive rights, rejecting end-runs around Texas v. Johnson and refusing cases that criminalize symbolism.

Lawmakers must impose bright-line limits on data fusion, bar cross-agency pooling for generalized surveillance, and require algorithmic transparency and adversarial testing before any tool touches liberty. The U.S. must prohibit outsourcing detention to abusive regimes, close loopholes, and apply human-rights scrutiny to every foreign arrangement.

The independence of watchdogs and the Fed needs protection through clear “for cause” standards. States and cities should decriminalize homelessness and fund housing-first approaches instead of coercive commitments.

Congress must reassert war powers, requiring explicit authorization before any attack abroad. And fiscal sanity must be restored: sunset emergency outlays for surveillance and prison build-outs, mandate GAO audits of domestic deployments and fusion contracts, and attach civil-liberties impact statements to major security spending.

Our job as citizens is not to trust the government but to bind it down with the Constitution. “In questions of power,” Thomas Jefferson warned, we must “bind [government] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Whatever you do, don’t trust the government with your privacy. Don’t trust it with your property: no-knock raids and forfeiture turn “private” property into whatever authorities permit you to keep.

Don’t trust it with your finances: Washington spends money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford. Don’t trust it with your life: force without accountability is not protection.

Above all, don’t trust it with your freedoms: on paper, rights endure; in practice, they are rationed by policy memos, watchlists, and shifting lines in the sand.

This should never be a right-vs-left debate; it’s the State vs. your liberty.

If you wouldn’t trust your worst political enemy with these weaponized tools, you shouldn’t trust your favorite politician with them either.

So think nationally, act locally.

Rebuild the habits of self-government where you live: know your neighbors and officials; know your rights and your city charter; ask who runs the jail and demand transparency; vet the people you entrust with power; and hold officials to account—show up, file requests, appeal, document, organize.

This is the work in front of us—not knee-jerk outrage, but persistent, consistent work to fortify the “chains of the Constitution.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if we let emergency rule become ordinary rule—military troops as beat cops, protest as crime, data as warrant, assassination as policy, money as politics—there won’t be a Constitution left to defend.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/ydxdjx5b

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. 

How Tyranny Becomes Entrenched: 9/11 and the Police State’s Endless Power Grabs

Posted: September 10, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.”—Thomas Paine

They said it was for safety.
They said it was for order.
They said it was for the good of the nation.

They always say it’s for something good… until it isn’t.

Nearly a quarter-century after 9/11, we are still living with the consequences of fear-driven government power grabs. What began as “temporary” measures for our security have hardened into a permanent architecture of control.

The bipartisan police-state architecture that began with 9/11 has been passed from president to president and party to party, each recycling the same justifications—safety, security, patriotism—to expand its powers at the expense of the citizenry.

So they locked down the country “for our safety.”
They expanded surveillance “for our security.”
They rounded up anyone who challenged the narrative “for the common good.”
They erased names, ideas, and histories “to prevent offense.”
They forced schools to teach only what was politically correct “for the children.”
They censored speech “for our protection.”
They targeted dissenters “to preserve peace.”
They militarized the streets and called it “law and order.”

These very abuses—once denounced when carried out by the Left—are now cheered, defended, and excused when carried out by the Right.

People who once spoke passionately about truth, freedom, and faith have now fallen silent in the face of injustice, or worse, convinced themselves that nothing is wrong. The very voices that should be warning against tyranny are instead excusing it or looking away.

This is the danger of double standards in politics: every tyranny is rationalized in the moment by its chorus of defenders.

But history teaches that what goes around comes around. If you justify it now, you’ll have no defense when the tables turn.

And yet, time and again, the lies we tell ourselves make it possible. The cult of personality. The blind loyalty to party. The belief that “our side” can’t be the villain.

It never ceases to amaze how far people will go to excuse the actions of their favorite tyrant, even when those actions are the very things they once swore to oppose.

The pattern of justifying tyranny is as old as power itself. Every abuse comes wrapped in the same excuse: we had to do it.

After 9/11, Americans were told the Patriot Act and mass surveillance were “necessary to prevent terrorism.” The result was a sprawling security state that tracks every phone call, every online search, every purchase. The justification was security. The cost was freedom.

Under Obama, drone warfare and the prosecution of whistleblowers were defended as “keeping America safe.” The president even claimed the power to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad without trial. The result was an unaccountable government acting as judge, jury and executioner. The justification was safety. The cost was due process.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns and mandates were imposed in the name of “public health,” laying the groundwork for a Nanny State empowered to micromanage every aspect of our lives—where we go, what we buy, who we see. The result was government claiming control over every aspect of daily life. The justification was saving lives. The cost was the right to govern our bodies.

Under Trump, the script is familiar.

National Guard deployments in American cities are justified as “restoring order.” Sweeping surveillance is framed as “protecting communities.” Crackdowns on dissent are defended as “stopping criminals.” Mental health round-ups of the homeless are justified as “helping the vulnerable.” Militarized patrols on city streets are justified as “cleaning up the streets.” Turning ICE into a roving army of lawless thugs is justified as “protecting citizenship.” Censorship and efforts to sanitize American history are now being lauded by the same voices that railed against “cancel culture.”

That same logic has taken a deadly turn abroad. At Trump’s direction, the U.S. carried out a series of preemptive military strikes this year—against Iran’s nuclear sites, against the Houthis in Yemen, and most recently against what the administration claimed was a drug-trafficking boat off the coast of Venezuela. The White House has justified these deadly attacks—carried out without congressional approval or constitutional authorization—as part of the president’s unilateral war-making authority.

This, too, is part of the bipartisan police-state architecture built after 9/11, when presidents claimed open-ended authority to wage preemptive war without meaningful congressional oversight.

What began with Afghanistan and Iraq has metastasized into a global battlefield where any president can launch attacks—on Iran, on Yemen, on Venezuela—without accountability.

As always, the justification is order, safety, and patriotism. The cost is truth, justice and freedom.

Every time Trump expands his powers, the chorus is the same: It wouldn’t be necessary if Democrats had done their job. If you don’t break the law, you have nothing to fear. If you’re not doing anything wrong, why worry?

These are the oldest excuses for tyranny—and they never change. Only the partisanship does.

What makes Trump and those who came before him especially dangerous is not merely their willingness to wield power but the eagerness of their enablers to excuse and defend it at every turn.

History shows that bullies and strongmen can only rise when mobs rally to their side. A tyrant’s greatest weapon is not his fist, but the crowd that cheers him on, intimidates his critics, and convinces itself that might makes right.

The machinery of authoritarianism always needs a chorus of defenders, and today that chorus is louder, more organized, and more dismissive of constitutional limits than ever before.

We have been building to this moment for a long time. Even so, why do people accept tyranny so easily?

First, the cult of personality. When people invest blind faith in a leader, they will excuse anything he does. If he says surveillance is necessary, they believe it. If he says dissenters are enemies, they cheer their punishment. It is the psychology of the mob, cloaked in the loyalty of the true believer.

Second, fear as a political weapon. Every despot knows that frightened people will tolerate almost anything. Fear of terrorism. Fear of crime. Fear of disease. Fear of immigrants. Fear of collapse. Fear makes people beg for the chains that bind them.

Third, the “our side” fallacy. People imagine tyranny is only tyranny when the other side does it. When their side does it, they call it leadership. They call it patriotism. They call it protection. But the abuse doesn’t change when the party label does. Wrong is wrong.

Every new regime that seizes power promises it will use extraordinary authority only for good. And every regime—without exception—uses it to entrench itself at the expense of liberty.

Every generation tells itself the same lies to excuse the same abuses.

Consider the whiplash of partisan double standards:

  • Conservatives who blasted the Obama administration for NSA spying now cheer Trump’s Palantir partnership and AI-driven surveillance that tracks Americans’ digital footprints.
  • Democrats who embraced Biden’s use of emergency orders to advance their agenda have been quick to denounce Trump for ruling by executive order.
  • Those who bristled at COVID mandates under Democrats now applaud Trump’s use of government force to impose his own version of “public safety.”
  • Both sides flip-flop on free speech. Conservatives denounced censorship on college campuses but defend banning “dangerous” books and surveilling dissidents, while liberals oppose Trump’s attempt to whitewash history yet defend platforms censoring speech they deem “harmful” or “hateful.”

The double standard is breathtaking.

Tyranny doesn’t change depending on who carries it out. Yet partisans convince themselves it does. They say: It’s different this time. It’s necessary. It’s for us.

In truth, the only difference is who holds the whip.

The Constitution was designed to restrain exactly this impulse. It does not say: “These rights apply only when the other party is in power.” It does not say: “The executive may rule by decree if he is popular.”

James Madison warned that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels. That is why the Constitution separates powers, guarantees due process, and protects speech and assembly—especially in times of crisis.

Every time one party tramples these limits, the other eventually inherits those same powers and uses them in turn. The Patriot Act, passed under Bush, was wielded aggressively under Obama, Trump, and Biden. The executive orders one president signs become the precedents for the next.

“What you excuse today,” history warns us, “will be used against you tomorrow.”

The descent into tyranny always begins with justifications.

The Roman Republic collapsed into empire because senators claimed Caesar needed extraordinary powers to restore order. The republic never recovered.

In 1930s Germany, emergency decrees were defended as temporary measures to stabilize society. They became the permanent architecture of dictatorship.

In post-9/11 America, warrantless surveillance and secret courts were sold as temporary protections. Nearly a quarter-century later, they remain fixtures of government power.

Tyranny is never announced as tyranny. It is always justified as safety, morality, and order. It is always explained away as temporary. And it is always defended by people who believe they are on the winning side.

And so here we are.

A president issues executive orders that erode the Bill of Rights. His supporters applaud. Another president expands surveillance or censorship. His supporters applaud.

Both sides denounce the abuses of their opponents yet sanction the same abuses when carried out by their own.

This is how liberty dies—not with a sudden coup, but with partisan politics valued more than principled freedom.

The police state thrives on this selective outrage. It does not matter which party is in power. The machinery of control grows. The Constitution withers. And the people are left squabbling over whose tyrant is better.

There is only one antidote: principle.

You cannot defend freedom by defending tyranny when your side is in power. You cannot preserve liberty by cheering for its destruction. You cannot expect constitutional limits to shield you tomorrow if you discard them today.

The warnings span centuries. The Founders foresaw the danger: James Madison cautioned against the “gradual and silent encroachments” of government. Thomas Jefferson warned that the natural tendency of power is to grow.

Justice Louis Brandeis later confirmed it from the vantage point of the modern state: “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Those warnings went unheeded after 9/11, and we have been paying the price ever since. The bipartisan police-state architecture built in those years has only grown stronger, repurposed by each new administration.

Unless we find the courage to dismantle it, today’s justifications will become tomorrow’s permanent chains.

The lesson is clear: if you want liberty, you must defend it consistently—even when it restrains your own party, your own leader, your own side. Especially then.

What you excuse today will be used against you tomorrow.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it does not matter whether the abuse comes draped in red or blue. It does not matter whether it is cheered by the Right or justified by the Left.

Tyranny, once excused, becomes entrenched.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/3htehha7

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge.

Court Rules: Trump Can’t Impose State-Sanctioned Ideology on Harvard

Posted: September 6, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

BOSTON, Mass. — In a major victory for the First Amendment and academic freedom, a federal court has ruled that the Trump administration’s blatant attempt to force Harvard University to conform to the government’s ideological viewpoint is unconstitutional.

The ruling by Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court in Boston found that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment when it froze $2.2 billion dollars in research funding in an effort “to require Harvard to overhaul its governance, hiring, and academic programs to comport with the government’s ideology and prescribed viewpoint.” The Rutherford Institute joined a broad coalition of civil liberties organizations—including the ACLU, ACLU of Massachusetts, Cato Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press—in opposing the Trump administration’s attempts to wage a political war on academic freedom and ideological independence.

“This ruling is a powerful rebuke of the government’s attempt to police thought and punish dissent,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “By weaponizing federal funding to force ideological conformity, the Trump administration wasn’t just targeting Harvard—it was launching a war on the First Amendment itself. If the government can dictate what is taught in a university classroom, it won’t stop there—it will try to dictate what is preached in the pulpit, printed in the press, and spoken in the streets. This kind of ideological tyranny is the very danger the First Amendment was written to prevent.”

The district court’s ruling comes in response to an April 2025 move by the Trump administration to cancel billions in research funding and blacklist Harvard from future grants unless the university agreed to: vet students, faculty, and departments for “viewpoint diversity”; alter its hiring, admissions, and curriculum choices to conform to the government’s ideological preferences; submit to a third-party audit of programs that “reflect ideological capture”; and install new leadership committed to enforcing the government’s demands. Refusing to “surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” and “be taken over by the federal government,” Harvard then filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s actions.

In coming to Harvard’s defense, the coalition’s amicus brief argued that the government cannot use its financial power to force any private institution—liberal or conservative—to adopt state-sanctioned views. The First Amendment, the brief emphasizes, guarantees that private universities retain autonomy over what to teach, how to teach, who will teach, and whom to admit—free from government control or interference. The federal court agreed, ordering the restoration of all previously withdrawn grants and prohibiting the federal government from denying future research funding to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of its First Amendment rights.

Cecillia D. Wang, Ben Wizner, Vera Eidelman, Brian Hauss, Jessie J. Rossman, and Rachel E. Davidson at ACLU advanced the arguments in the amicus brief in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties organization dedicated to making the government play by the rules of the Constitution. To this end, the Institute defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a broad range of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: tinyurl.com/ycx9acu7

A Police State Presidency: When ‘Rule of Law’ Becomes ‘Rule by Gunpoint’

Posted: September 3, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

“The world will soon understand nothing can stop what is coming.”—President Trump

Donald Trump has always been a master of imagery.

From his red MAGA hats to his choreographed rallies, he understands the language of spectacle. Now he has discovered the perfect propaganda machine: AI-generated images.

AI allows the creation of endless variations of Trump-as-warrior, Trump-as-enforcer, Trump-as-savior. These images spread across social media, replicated, remixed, and shared until they become familiar, even normalized.

The latest AI-generated images of Trump, shared on his social media accounts, depict him in the militarized black uniform of a SWAT officer, or in police dress blues.

These memes are carefully crafted signals of how Trump envisions power in America.

These algorithmically perfected images, generated to flood the digital landscape and shape the subconscious of millions, are neither accidental nor new: they are psychological warfare—propaganda that is as old as time.

Propaganda does not persuade through logic. It persuades through familiarity. And Trump’s AI propaganda machine is doing its job: normalizing the sight of a president in a SWAT uniform.

Throughout history, despots have used martial imagery to elevate themselves above the people and justify power by force.

Mussolini wrapped himself in the black shirts of his paramilitaries to rally fascist Italy. Hitler’s carefully staged uniforms and parades signaled total control of the German nation. Stalin and Mao surrounded themselves with martial iconography to convey power over life, death, and law.

The message was always the same: I am not just your leader—I am your protector, your executioner, your law.

Today, Trump joins that lineage—not on a battlefield, but in digital space.

But unlike his predecessors, Trump does not need mass rallies or parades to craft this imagery. Algorithms now do the work of propaganda ministries. And unlike past dictators who required massive propaganda apparatuses, Trump needs only an internet connection and an AI tool to clothe himself in the trappings of authoritarianism.

This may be political theater, but it is also authoritarian propaganda that sends a message that Trump sees himself not as the servant of the people—bound by the Constitution—but as the nation’s chief cop, judge, and executioner.

Under a police state presidency, there are no checks and balances, no due process, no Bill of Rights that should stand in his way. By collapsing the distinction between civil government and militarized force, the president, self-styled as a SWAT chief, suggests that dissent will not be debated—it will be policed.

When Trump dons a SWAT uniform—even digitally—he is telling Americans: this is how I see power. Not as persuasion, not as consent of the governed, but as force delivered at gunpoint.

The SWAT image is the visual embodiment of a police state presidency:

  • It signals raids on the homeless, as Trump’s July 2025 executive order mandated when it directed federal agencies to clear encampments nationwide.
  • It signals mass arrests of immigrants and families rounded up in early morning ICE sweeps.
  • It signals military deployments to American cities, e.g., when Trump sent the National Guard to Los Angeles, a move a federal court recently ruled a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
  • It signals treating dissent as criminality, and opposition as insurgency.

For decades, Americans have watched the rise of SWAT teams transform America—and domestic policing—into a militarized state: battering rams breaking down doors, no-knock raids in the dead of night, armored vehicles patrolling suburban streets, flashbang grenades tossed into homes.

SWAT was originally conceived for rare, high-risk emergencies like hostage situations. Today, it has become the default face of the American police state.

The numbers tell the story.

In 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT raids per year in the United States. By the 2000s, that number had skyrocketed to 80,000 annually.

What was once a rare tactic reserved for hostage situations or heavily armed standoffs is now routine police work. The result has been predictably tragic. Children injured by flash-bang grenades. Elderly homeowners killed when they mistook armed agents for intruders. Family dogs shot in the chaos of mistaken raids.

SWAT culture has normalized the use of military tactics against civilians. It has conditioned Americans to accept armored vehicles on Main Street, black-clad officers in ski masks battering down doors, and neighborhoods transformed into war zones.

The courts have long warned against this drift into militarized policing. Yet what good are limits when the president himself imagines donning the uniform of those who kick down doors?

A Constitution that is ignored in practice, even if acknowledged on paper, is no safeguard at all.

Trump’s AI propaganda takes this dangerous normalization a step further: it places the president himself at the head of the raid—the enforcer-in-chief—rendering him the law, the enforcer, and the judge. This is the very definition of dictatorship.

The Constitution was written precisely to prevent such concentration of power. It was written to prevent the rise of a lawless ruler who would make himself enforcer as well as lawgiver.

That is why the Bill of Rights exists—to put clear, inviolable limits on government power. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The First protects dissenters and protesters. The Fifth guarantees due process before life, liberty, or property can be taken.

But in the American police state that is rapidly unfolding, citizens are not sovereign individuals but potential suspects. Dissent is not free expression but insurgency. And the citizenry are not seen as equal participants in a social contract but as a populace to be subdued.

This is not merely unconstitutional. It is anti-constitutional.

What makes Trump’s propaganda even more dangerous is how well it aligns with America’s existing drift toward militarization.

  • Police departments nationwide already deploy surplus military equipment: tanks, drones, battlefield weapons.
  • Federal agencies like Homeland Security and ICE conduct raids that look indistinguishable from military operations.
  • Surveillance technology powered by Palantir and other private firms tracks the movements of ordinary citizens.
  • Protests are met with riot gear, tear gas, and mass arrests.
  • The carceral prison state is rapidly expanding. Congressional funding for Trump’s $170 billion prison expansion threatens to make incarceration the government’s default solution to social problems.
  • Military forces are being used for domestic policing. The federalization of the National Guard to suppress immigration protests in Los Angeles, already struck down as unlawful, is a warning of how military power is being recast as domestic policing.

It must be said: Trump did not create this police state reality. But his presidency gleefully amplifies it, recasting America as a nation where “law and order” means rule at gunpoint.

This shift matters because it changes how people imagine power. A president who wears a SWAT uniform—even in AI fantasy—is telling the public: I am not one of you. I am over you.

The most insidious part of this propaganda is not its shock value but its normalizing function, part of a deliberate strategy to acclimate Americans to authoritarian rule.

Images once seen as dystopian now appear as campaign memes. The president as militarized enforcer becomes a shareable joke, a collectible, a digital poster for the faithful.

But every meme conditions the public to accept what would once have been unthinkable. Today it is a picture. Tomorrow it is policy.

This is how authoritarianism advances—not always through tanks in the streets, but through the slow, steady normalization of force as governance.

Every authoritarian regime has used uniforms and slogans to rebrand tyranny as order. The Nazis had their SS uniforms, the Soviets their red star, the Chinese Communists their Mao suits. Symbols matter because they carry meaning deeper than words.

Trump’s SWAT imagery is America’s warning sign. It is the uniform of repression, masquerading as protection. It is the costume of a ruler who governs by intimidation, not law.

We ignore this at our peril.

If we fail to see the danger, if we laugh it off as mere fantasy, we will wake up one day to find the fantasy has become reality.

The Constitution does not permit presidents to be SWAT chiefs. It does not allow them to enforce laws by decree, to jail dissenters at will, or to treat citizens as insurgents. It insists that the president is a public servant, bound by law and accountable to the people.

But that system only survives if “we the people” demand it.

“Nothing can stop what is coming,” declares Trump? On the contrary: tyranny can always be stopped—if liberty lies in the hearts of the people.

The choice before us is clear: do we accept the imagery of the president as SWAT chief, or do we reaffirm the vision of the founders that no man is above the law?

The time to decide is now. The Constitution will not defend itself.

Trump’s AI propaganda declares that law is whatever the president enforces. It declares that rights are privileges, granted or withdrawn by armored men. It declares that nothing—not law, not courts, not people—can stop what is coming.

But as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that is not the American way.

In a constitutional republic, nothing—not presidents, not uniforms, not threats at gunpoint, not tyranny—should ever be unstoppable.

Americans must decide: will we be governed by the Constitution, or will we be policed by the image of a SWAT-clad ruler who tells us resistance is futile?

The Founders knew the answer. So should we.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/59y3m29c

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge.