· 8 min read
Of all the concerning things – and there have been many – reported during the first 75 (or so) days of Trump’s triumphal return to Washington, the following paragraph struck my constitutional nerve. If this were a movie, here’s the scene where ominous music plays in the background – dah, dum, duM, dUM, DUM!!
However, this is not a movie, and the frightening reality is that President Trump is beginning to detain and prosecute people for what they think and their conformity to what he thinks. Today, it's about demonstrating against Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people; tomorrow, it could be for thinking environmental regulation is a proper function of government.
The chill-inducing paragraph was reported in the Guardian:
"A White House official told the Free Press that Khalil, who was arrested without charge, poses a ‘threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States’ and the ‘allegation here is not that he was breaking the law.'" (Emphasis added)
The Khalil involved is Mahmoud Khalil. A former Columbia University student who grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria served as a lead negotiator for the Gaza solidarity encampment at the university last year, mediating between protesters and administrators. Khalil is married to a US citizen and holds a green card, making him a legal permanent resident entitled to the protections of the US Constitution, one of which is the right to counsel.
As told by Amy Goodman: “The government’s charging document says the Secretary of State Marco Rubio has determined that Khalil’s presence or activities in the United States would have, quote, ‘serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.’” (Emphasis added)
The actual foreign policy consequences have neither been explained nor hinted at (from what I can glean from the reports). Neither has Rubio offered any evidence that Khalil is pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, or even anti-American.
The secretary is quick – perhaps too quick – to point out that the case is not about free speech. According to Rubio:
“This [the Khalil case] is not about free speech. This is about people who don't have a right to be in the United States, to begin with.”
On the contrary, Khalil has a right to be here. He's followed the rules and received a green card.
The State Department is accusing Khalil of having lied on his visa about his intent when he came into the country. The government is claiming he knew he was a Palestinian activist and should have disclosed that.
Mr. Khalil is being punished for a presumed intention. Presumed because there’s no evidence to support the government’s conclusion he’s affiliated in any way with Hamas. Based on the public accountings, the most Khalil seems guilty of is trespassing on university property.
The charge of antisemitism is miscast. Khalil’s anti-Israel’s war on Palestine not antisemitic or pro-Hamas.
Mr. Khalil is not said to be in contact with or under the control of a terrorist organization. Neither has he been charged with offering material support to any subversive group. Beyond expressing his opposition, e.g., by holding a banner and sitting in a university building as a protest, to Israel’s reducing Gaza and the West Bank to dust, how has anything Khalil done amounted to having “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States?”
A monthly public opinion survey by the Israel Democracy Institute’s Israeli Voice Index found that 48 percent of Israelis believe Netanyahu should resign immediately, and 24.5 percent believe he should step down following the end of the war in Gaza.
Are Israelis who disagree with Netanyahu’s handling of the country’s security and the response to the October 7th egregious terrorist attack by Hamas guilty of being antisemitic or Hamas sympathizers?
Khalil is a trial case by the Trump administration to test the bounds of both the Constitution and the presidency. The former Columbia student is being detained and deported under an 18th-century law giving a president extraordinary power to repel a foreign invasion. The Alien Enemies Act was never intended for mass deportations. It has only been used three times since its enactment. It was the basis for the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII.
Although the law was upheld in 1944, the decision is not considered good law. Congress acknowledged the injustice of the internment camps in the passage of the Civil Liberties Act in 1988.
The act “acknowledged the injustice of ‘internment,’ apologized for it,” and provided and paid reparations to surviving internees.
Trump’s basing mass deportations on AEA is not the only matter being tested in the early cases. The president is also testing whether or not he can ignore (at least certain) judicial decisions.
A federal judge has recently ruled that the use of the act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was improper. As reported by Axios, two senior administration officials said:
“The Trump administration says it ignored a Saturday court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because the flights were over international waters, and therefore, the ruling didn't apply.”
The administration believes that US District Judge James Boasberg exceeded his authority in stopping the deportations. Judge Boasberg's order included a demand that any planes in the air be returned to the US. The administration says it didn't defy the order because the aircraft were over international waters. It also says that the judge's decision had no basis in law – although that's for the courts to decide.
Climate activists should not ignore Khalil's case. Trump's return to Washington is a vengeful one. He’s endeavoring to punish anyone in government or out involved in any way with the multiple lawsuits he faced during his four-year leave of absence from the White House.
As president, he’s gone so far as to write an executive order against private law firms. In one order Trump writes:
The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”) has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016, while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton...
The law firms Trump targets have a connection to anyone who's opposed him in the past. He's even targeted the law firm defending former Department of Justice (DOJ) special prosecutor Jack Smith, who Attorney General Garland appointed to investigate Trump's various actions, e.g., retaining classified materials.
A president going after a private law firm is unheard of in the US. Legal experts are warning that such tactics are a clear and present danger to people attempting to obtain representation. My constitutional nerve wasn’t the only one shivering over Trump’s executive actions.
Judge Beryl Howell said the actions being taken by the Trump administration targeting these firms are "terrifying" to the legal community and noted that the DOJ's arguments in support sent "chills down my spine."
Once again, the administration seemed to ignore a judge’s decision. Days after being told by a judge that the attack on a law firm “appeared to violate the Constitution," Trump issued a similar memo on another law firm (bringing the total separate attacks to three).
Climate activists need to consider the possibility that Trump and his cabal will continue to find ways to prosecute “enemies” of the state – including climate advocates. It’s not as far-fetched as you may imagine.
Nearly every time he mentions climate science or references solar and wind, he speaks of them not as proven reliable and economically competitive but as the fancies of the far-left socialists and crooked Joe Biden. He uses clean energy and climate as a meme for what ails the nation throughout his four-year campaign to regain the White House. Trump’s energy emergency declaration even leaves out any mention of solar and wind.
The term “energy” or “energy resources” means crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals, as defined by 30 U.S.C. 1606 (a)(3).
The Musk-led "reform" of government has included decimating a critical number of science – especially climate-related – programs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has suffered the loss of almost 2,000 employees and significant budget cuts. NOAA “monitors the oceans, the atmosphere where storms roam and space, and puts out hundreds of “products” daily. Those products generally save lives and money, experts say.” The US Weather Service is even on the chopping block.
The administration is doing more than just erasing programs and positions. It's wiping references to climate change from federal websites and publications. According to Grist, the administration began:
Within days [of Trump’s taking office], not just “diversity” but also “clean energy” and “climate change” began vanishing from federal websites...Scientists who receive federal funding were told to end any activities that contradicted Trump’s executive orders. (Emphasis added)
Trump is coming to define everything by its conformity to his priorities and agenda. People shouldn’t be fooled by the fact that some of the extra-judicial deportations likely included members of the violent Tren de Argua gang. However, even violent criminals are entitled to due process.
It starts with "some bad hombres," as Trump likes to say. But where does it end? What's to stop Trump from saying that under a national energy emergency, anyone who demonstrates in front of a federal building is guilty of an un-American activity in a time of danger? The courts?
I’m not suggesting that climate activists should be passive. My message is to be careful.
This article is also available on Civil Notion. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
