This post is for all my high school friends who support Trump—especially the ones who balked, rolled their eyes, or laughed when comparisons were drawn between authoritarian regimes and what’s happening in the U.S. right now.
I get it. I really do. No one wants to believe it can happen here. No one wants to believe that someone they voted for—someone they might even admire—could be laying the legal foundation for autocracy. It sounds dramatic. It feels conspiratorial. And yet, history tells us it’s exactly in those moments—when the public laughs, dismisses, or looks the other way—that authoritarianism takes root.
They say, “That’s not possible in America.”
They say, “Come on, sir—Trump isn’t serious.”
But you know he is. He likes to say he’s joking. But let’s be honest: when people say they’re joking, they’re often 80% serious. The punchline is a distraction. The intent is real. And every time we let it slide, it moves the line of what’s acceptable.
This is your wake-up call.
The Most Dangerous Word in American Law Today: “Generally”
On May 15, 2025, something chilling happened in the U.S. Supreme Court—right in the open.
During oral arguments over Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, his administration’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, made a statement that should alarm every American.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the administration believed it must comply with rulings from federal appeals courts. Sauer’s response?
“It is general practice to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice.”
“General practice”? “Not categorical”?
That’s legalese for: We obey court rulings when we feel like it.
Barrett, herself a Trump appointee, pushed for clarity. She wasn’t asking about hypothetical rulings from decades ago. She was asking about a real scenario—say, a federal court rules against an executive order today. What happens tomorrow?
Sauer’s answer was the same: Generally, the administration would comply.
That one word—generally—is the most dangerous word uttered in a courtroom this year. It signals that the Trump administration believes the rule of law is optional. That judicial orders are a buffet, not a mandate.
The Rule of Law Is Not a Recommendation
The idea that a sitting president can selectively obey the judiciary is a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution.
We are not a nation of “maybes.” We are a nation of laws. And those laws only mean something when the executive branch commits to enforce and abide by them—especially when those laws are inconvenient.
Sauer claimed that this practice has been “longstanding policy” in the Department of Justice. But legal scholars from across the political spectrum immediately rejected that characterization. The Department of Justice has never endorsed selective compliance with court orders. In fact, DOJ guidelines stress the importance of maintaining institutional integrity by following the rule of law—especially during litigation.
This Is Not an Isolated Incident
This claim from Trump’s DOJ is not an accident. It’s a logical step in a broader campaign to erode constitutional checks.
Let’s review the evidence:
- Trump has repeatedly said he doesn’t know if he needs to uphold the Constitution. He’s been asked directly and refused to commit.
- He’s declared he would use the military to intervene in Democratic-led cities, regardless of governor approval.
- His administration ignored a direct Supreme Court order to return Mario Abrego, an immigrant unlawfully deported under Trump’s orders.
- He’s mused about terminating the Constitution entirely when it doesn’t serve his political goals.
- He’s pressured the Supreme Court to “step in” to overturn elections that he lost by millions of votes.
- And now, his own top legal official is telling the Court—on the record—that obeying judicial rulings is a maybe, not a must.
The Military Base Incident: When “Jokes” Become Doctrine
As dangerous as the DOJ’s courtroom claims are, an equally telling moment occurred abroad, far from Washington D.C., and it got far too little attention.
During a visit to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Trump addressed U.S. troops in a speech that blurred the lines between policy, campaign, and personal cult of personality.
He began with flattery:
“There’s nobody been stronger than the military in terms of backing us.”
And then came the pivot:
“We won three elections, OK? And some people want us to do a fourth. I don’t know. I’ll have to think about that.”
He held up a “Trump 2028” hat, joked about how popular it is, and smiled.
Let’s break this down:
- It is illegal for the military to endorse political candidates.
- It is dangerous for a former president to suggest a third term—especially while on a military base.
- It is unprecedented for someone seeking office to encourage the perception of military loyalty to a single man, not the Constitution.
Authoritarians don’t start with tanks. They start with humor, swagger, and testing norms.
The “joke” about a fourth term is not new for Trump. But this time, it was said in front of troops, while displaying campaign merchandise, on a U.S. military installation.
That’s not a punchline. That’s a provocation.
This Is How Authoritarianism Creeps In
Donald Trump isn’t just campaigning. He’s building a narrative where elections don’t matter, laws are flexible, and the military stands with him, not the country.
And too many people are laughing it off.
As UCLA law professor Scott Cummings put it so clearly:
“In no country where leaders take aim at all the independent institutions—like Trump is doing—do they just walk away. They do it because they intend to stay in power permanently.”
We’ve seen this pattern before:
- In Hungary, where Viktor Orbán restructured the judiciary and rewrote electoral rules.
- In Turkey, where Erdoğan consolidated power by replacing independent judges with loyalists.
- In Russia, where Putin’s first step wasn’t invading Ukraine—it was seizing the judiciary and media.
Trump is not an exception. He’s following a well-documented script. And he’s counting on you to dismiss it as just Trump being Trump.
If the Courts Don’t Matter, What Does?
If the Trump administration can ignore lower court rulings, then the federal judiciary becomes irrelevant. That means constitutional protections are meaningless unless you’re powerful enough to enforce them on your own.
Imagine a world where:
- A federal court says a ban on books is unconstitutional—but the White House implements it anyway.
- A circuit court rules that asylum seekers cannot be indefinitely detained—but DHS ignores the order.
- A judge blocks surveillance without a warrant—but the executive branch keeps spying.
That’s not dystopia. That’s what Trump’s lawyer argued for last Thursday.
The Response Must Be Loud, Unflinching, and Immediate
This is not a drill. This is not performative panic.
This is a constitutional crisis unfolding in slow motion, and every second we delay makes the damage harder to undo.
So what do we do?
1. Call It What It Is
This is authoritarianism. Say the word. Use it. Normalize the truth, not the gaslighting.
2. Educate Others
If you’re a teacher, professor, or parent, now is the time to explain how the rule of law works—and what it means when leaders decide it doesn’t apply to them.
3. Pressure Your Institutions
Civic organizations, churches, schools, unions, bar associations—everyone has a role. Issue statements. File briefs. Host teach-ins. Speak.
4. Hold the Line
Our institutions are only as strong as the people willing to defend them. If your representative won’t denounce selective legal obedience, call them out publicly.
5. Don’t Let the Military Become a Prop
Respect our troops enough to protect them from political manipulation. Speak out when the military is used as a campaign stage.
Conclusion: Red Alert Means Red Alert
This isn’t theoretical. This isn’t exaggerated. This is the executive branch declaring conditional loyalty to the judicial branch. It is a president implying loyalty from the military. It is the Constitution being held at gunpoint by smirking authoritarianism wrapped in red, white, and blue.
The punchlines are camouflage.
The “jokes” are roadmaps.
The hats are propaganda.
The courts are under siege.
And the military is being positioned for something it should never be used for: personal power.
So here we are.
You were warned. You were told. You saw it coming.
Now what will you do?
Red alert. Pass it on. Wake up.
Cloaking Inequity 
Leave a comment