One Thing We Know For Sure: Despair Is NOT The Answer To Trump And Musk

Will The Lawyers And Judges Save Us? The Democratic Party? God?

John Pavlovitz spent much of his professional life as an evangelical youth minister. Hate isn’t what he preached. He learned at an early age that “hating what a person does, doesn't mean hating who they are; that we can and should try and separate people from their actions... [T]here is humanity buried deeply, even within those who do the most terrible things, and that I should strive to see it... There is in the Christian tradition of my upbringing, a persistent call to love; to love others as I believe God loves me, to love my neighbor as myself—to even love my enemies. For most of my life this has been my greatest aspiration; to see the good in all people, to acknowledge their inherent worth, to believe that every human being is made in the image of God and that I should revere that truth in them… [B]ut I hate Donald Trump.”

For me, this hatred is actually a matter of the deepest, truest love. It is a Jesus-emulating faith affirmation. You see, among his directives to love our neighbor, Jesus also commanded us to love the least; to fiercely protect the marginalized and forgotten and vulnerable, to defend those most-assailed by men abusing their power and preying upon them. Jesus unequivocally, explicitly, and fully detested when people were victimized by the religious and the wealthy and the powerful— and he saved his harshest words and most visible outrage for these offenders.

I can and should hate this malevolence.All decent, loving, compassionate people should.Every person claiming to care about what Jesus cared about should hate it.Good people should unapologetically hate atrocities against humanity.Christians should be fighting it instead of cultivating it.

I hate him because of the love I have for everything and everyone he is abusing and destroying.

…I hate what he and those alongside him are doing to good, loving, decent human beings who call this place home, and I'm going to keep hating such things because that is simply the other side of caring for the least of these.

Silence in the face of oppression is compliance, it's participation.And opposing it is how I show who and what I am for.Fierce and clear hatred of injustice is a redemptive way of loving people most threatened by it.

Yesterday, Dan Balz asked if there are restraints that could slow Trump down as the upheaval continues, as he assumes he can do whatever he wants almost without impunity… “So far the resistance has been minimal. Democrats have offered little opposition beyond rhetoric. Republicans in Congress have acted as if they are an extension of the executive branch rather than a separate branch of government. The courts have blocked temporarily some of what Trump has tried to do, but there is a long way to run on that front.”

Many of November’s voters, he wrote, were “quite clear-eyed about who Trump is. They knew his warts, weaknesses and excesses, yet they supported him anyway. They were hoping for lower food prices or a more secure border or a pushback on the culture war policies of the Democrats. At this early stage, there are anecdotal indications that Trump’s voters are satisfied with what he is doing, including efforts to cut the size of government and reduce foreign aid. Some of Trump’s actions enjoy public support. His order aimed at barring transgender athletes from participating in women’s or girls’ sports has solid majority backing. A majority agree that undocumented immigrants should be deported, with stronger support for sending back those who have committed violent crimes. But did these Trump supporters favor the use of the military to carry out the deportation efforts? Did they vote to take a wrecking ball to government? Did they vote to put Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, in charge of an effort that claims to be seeking efficiencies but has become an assault on federal workers? Did they vote to pardon or commute sentences of those convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers or helping to organize the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol? Did they vote to give Trump the power to override or ignore federal law or even to violate the Constitution? Those verdicts are yet to be rendered.”

Unlike in his first term, Trump is operating without internal guardrails. The people who surround him, at the White House and in key agencies, are loyalists and in many cases architects of the policies that are drawing attention and criticism. True to form, Trump is commanding the stage, setting in motion so many possible changes that his opponents are left to decide which battles to fight.

But there are some checks and restraints left in the system, even if Congress abdicates its constitutional authority and responsibility to act as a check on the power of the executive.

One such check on his power will be the courts, which already have begun to slow down the train that Trump has set in motion. Early Saturday, a New York judge barred Musk’s DOGE team from gaining access to sensitive personal and financial data stored at the Treasury Department. Earlier on Friday, a judge prevented Trump’s administration from putting an additional 2,700 USAID workers on leave. Other things Trump has done appear illegal or even unconstitutional. So far the actions by judges are only temporary. How the judicial system, including the Supreme Court, will rule overall on Trump’s effort to expand executive power will be a long-running battle.

Another check could be the markets. The president’s move to impose (and then delay) tariffs on Mexico and Canada sent world markets gyrating with his oscillating policy. Consumer sentiment has begun to sour. Trump is a keen watcher of the stock indexes and will feel the effects if his tariff, tax and spending policies lead to higher interest rates, higher prices or slower growth. Of all the promises he has made, a better economy with lower prices might be the one that resonated most broadly with voters.

Finally, there is public opinion. James Rowe Jr. wrote a memo for President Harry Truman in 1946 in which he reminded the president that public opinion was the key to almost everything. “Presidential leadership, if it means anything, means no more than how to lead the people only as fast as they will follow,” he wrote.

The public is relatively patient with a newly elected president, hopeful that whatever changes are initiated will improve their lives. The optimism about the future expressed in some early polls reflects this. But voters’ patience is not indefinite, and assessments and attitudes can change. Trump is calling for fundamental changes and has started at a jarringly fast pace. He cannot afford to run too far ahead of the people.

Yesterday, Mattathias Schwartz, reported that “More than 40 lawsuits filed in recent days by state attorneys general, unions and nonprofits seek to erect a bulwark in the federal courts against President Trump’s blitzkrieg of executive actions that have upended much of the federal government and challenged the Constitution’s system of checks and balances… The multipronged legal pushback has already yielded quick— if potentially fleeting— results. Judicial orders in nine federal court cases will, for a time, partially bind the administration’s hands on its goals. Those include ending automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants on U.S. soil; transferring transgender female inmates to male-only prisons; potentially exposing identities of FBI personnel who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol; coaxing federal workers to accept ‘deferred resignation’ under a tight deadline; and freezing as much as $3 trillion in domestic spending.”

But while the executive branch is entrusted with the capacity for swift, decisive action, the judiciary is slow by design, and the legal opposition to Trump’s opening moves may struggle to keep up with his fire hose of disruption.

…Some legal experts see the executive branch’s deliberate effort to push the boundaries of legality as a bare-knuckle strategy to overwhelm the president’s opposition and eventually win at least some precedent-shattering decisions from the conservative Supreme Court.

“The administration seems to have wanted challenges that consume a ton of resources— of opponents, courts and public attention— even as members of the administration know the provisions do not square with the law that exists,” said Judith Resnik, a professor at Yale Law School.

… The ascent of some cases through the trial courts, to the appellate courts, and then to the Supreme Court could take months. Those lengthy battles will be political as well as legal, pitting a president who sees himself as the almost invincible leader of a populist movement against attorneys general, almost all Democrats, with their own ambitions, some legal scholars say.

“The attorneys general swung into action quickly. If they eventually prevail in court and in public opinion, they will reap political dividends for their perceived defense and vindication of their citizens’ rights,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School.

If the attorneys general are using the campaign against Trump to burnish their own political futures, Amar added, that too is by design. “Our Constitution was designed so that ambition would counter ambition,” he said. “That is how the framers drew up the blueprint.”

Those pursuing the cases say they are unsurprised by the task ahead. Parallel efforts by Democracy Forward and the Democratic attorneys general to prepare for a second Trump presidency have been underway since early 2024. Now, coalitions of plaintiffs huddle on Slack long after midnight to prepare complaints in response to the administration’s latest moves. For the most part, the attorneys general have presented a united front, with some occasional last-minute jostling to decide who will get top billing as one of the leaders of the case, and in which venue it will be filed.

The one surprise factor? Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman who has been handed extraordinary— and possibly illegal— powers to cut and reshape the government, with no real title or Senate confirmation.

Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, called Musk “the one wild card” thrown at them.

“I’m not even sure Trump knows what he is doing,” Platkin said of Musk. “He’s an unelected billionaire running around government, slashing huge amounts of the work force and behaving in all kinds of potentially illegal ways.”

In legal filings, the Justice Department has argued that Musk’s associates are acting lawfully as employees detailed to agencies across the government and that they are under the authority of acting cabinet members.  

The states have “special solicitude” as plaintiffs, a doctrine that draws on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling. That doctrine, which has carried less weight in recent years, makes it easier for states to bring lawsuits claiming that their rights or the rights of their citizens have been violated. It may be harder for those same states to apply that doctrine in claims against Musk’s teams, which operate at the federal level and affect the states less directly, according to lawyers familiar with the effort by attorneys general.

But that wrinkle did not stop Judge Engelmayer from siding, for now, with Letitia James, attorney general of New York, and 18 other Democratic attorneys general in their effort to keep Musk’s teams out of sensitive Treasury Department systems.

They argued that giving the government efficiency team access would violate the Constitution, and harm states that rely on the Treasury Department to fund child support payments and recover debts.

“I think right now we’re in the midst of a constitutional crisis,” said James, when the lawsuit was announced last week.

Resnik, the Yale Law School professor, said that while she expected the legal system to be “resilient,” it was hard to overstate the stakes for the judiciary in the coming weeks and months.

“Unbounded power is the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “That point is on display every time you enter the U.S. Supreme Court, where etched in stone are the words: ‘equal justice under law.’”

As if referencing Pavlovitz again, let’s take a look at Dan Pfeiffer’s Sunday essay, How to Channel Your Anger at Trump into Meaningful Action, in which he asserts that congressional Democrats are finally getting off the mat to fight the Musk-Trump regime’s legally and constitutionally dubious attempt to tear down the federal government agency by agency. Reminding his readers that “Change comes from the bottom up,” he suggests some things we can do to channel our anxiety and anger into action.

“There are,” he wrote, “two types of accountability for people like Donald Trump: legal and political. Over the last several years, it has become clear that our legal system is not set up to hold rich, powerful, and politically connected people accountable. The relatively open and shut federal cases against him collapsed before the election. Now, Trump has complete control of the Department of Justice and the FBI. He and his friends can commit crimes without fear of prosecution. While Trump won this election, he has been unskillful at eluding political accountability. Since winning in 2016, Trump and his party lost the 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2023 elections. Winning elections— or even outperforming expectations in a tough race— are an opportunity to send a message that there is a political price to pay for what Trump is doing to the country. The first key race will happen in Wisconsin on April 1st. Liberals currently have a 4-3 advantage on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal, is retiring, so the balance of the court is once again up for grabs. This is technically a non-partisan election, but Jan Crawford is a liberal running against yet another MAGA extremist. Control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is essential. The Liberal majority finally undid the horrific gerrymandering that gave the GOP a stranglehold on the legislature in this quintessentially 50-50 state… [L]ater this year, there will be gubernatorial and legislative elections in New Jersey and Virginia. There are primaries in those races, so the candidates are still unknown. Once again, a Republican victory in these Blue(ish) states would be seen as a MASSIVE validation of Trump’s moves and give even the most vulnerable Republicans permission to vote for extreme policies.”

There are also important state legislative elections in New Jersey and Virginia. And, of course, national congressional elections. But before tackling the congressional elections, Pfeifer suggested congressional phone calls. “Does calling Congress really work,” he posited. “Do they care? Well, let’s delve into how a typical Congressional office works. Once a week— sometimes once a night— the staff sends around a report on the calls and emails received— their content and the sentiment of the messages. If there is a surge in calls about a topic, it is noticed by the staff and reported to a member. A bunch of calls won’t force a member to do something that they totally disagree with or runs counter to their political self-interest, but it doesn’t go unnoticed either. So, if you are represented by a Republican who is blindly supporting Trump, call them and yell at them. If your Democratic member isn’t fighting hard enough against Trump— call them and let them know. Conversely, if your Democratic member is doing the right thing, call them and thank them— especially if they are looking down the barrel of a tough race. These ‘thank you’ calls may be the most impactful. Make your voice heard. The main switchboard for Congress is (202) 224-3121.”

“Democrats,” he continued, “need to win the House in 2026. The election seems far away, but if we can take the House, Donald Trump will never pass another bill without Hakeem Jeffries’ permission. Democrats will also gain the ability to investigate rampant corruption within a Trump Administration being run by some of the world’s richest people. This is very doable. Republicans have the narrowest majority in decades. Our electoral coalition is now dominated by college-educated frequent voters, so Democrats perform well in non-presidential elections (a problem to solve another day). History is also on our side, as the opposition tends to do very well in a President’s first midterm. Here is the Cook Political Report’s list of most vulnerable members”

He makes some awful suggestions— contributing to shitty right-wing Democrats who vote with the GOP, contributing to the DCCC, other crap, DC establishment Dems want to trick people into doing. But the idea of supporting Democrats— but just the good ones— is something everyone should consider. There won’t be many good ones; so don’t worry about it bankrupting you.

His final suggestion is about messaging: countering “Trump and Musk’s demands for attention combined with the firepower of Fox News and an army of Right Wing digital influencers and media operations means that the Right dominates the information wars. They are setting the agenda, pushing misinformation, and drowning out Democratic messaging. The traditional media has been crippled by changes in technology and the economy and cowed by threats of retribution from Trump. Democrats can build a counterweight… Research shows that influential messaging does not come from the media or political ads but from people we know and trust. That’s right. You are more persuasive to your friends and family about the dangers of Trump and the Republicans than some Democratic politicians or media figures. You can post on your social media platform, pop into the family group chat, or bring stuff up at dinner. Additionally, I can provide you with guidance— based on my experience and public opinion research— on the most effective ways to talk about those issues.”

I like the way Jamie Raskin put it to his followers yesterday: “[N]ow it's our turn to flood the political zone with protests, marches and demonstrations, lawsuits and injunctions, and creative legislative action, both offensive and defensive.”