Multiple polls show that Trump has the worst ratings of any President in decades at this point in his term. But he doesn’t believe the polls unless they affirm his claims. While polls show that the public is opposed to his tariffs, economic uncertainty, and continued inflation, he continues to claim great success and to attack Joe Biden. One big change: he switched referencing “the late, great Hannnibal Lecter” and now refers to “the late, great Al Capone.”

In other words, he’s the same old Trump: boasting, lying, and insulting his enemies.

Dana Milbank watched his 100-day celebration of the “new golden age” and reported back:

President Donald Trump, at his Michigan rally on Tuesday night marking 100 days in office, gave a shout-out to his traveling groupies from the campaign trail. There was “my friend, Blacks for Trump,” the guy in the brick-patterned suit he identified as “Mr. Wall,” the group of “beautiful women” from North Carolina and the “Front Row Joes.”

“I miss you guys,” he said. “I miss the campaign.”
I believe him.

After 100 days on the job, Trump has found the hard work of governing to be less pleasant. His tariffs have destabilized markets and brought historic levels of pessimism to American businesses and consumers. His policies have alienated allies and emboldened Russia and China. He has the lowest approval rating that any president in generations has experienced at this stage of his presidency.

Those were simpler times, when he could make up nonsense claims about how Joe Biden, “the worst president in history,” had turned the United States into a “failing nation” and a “third-world country” — and could present an alternative in which Trump would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours, spread peace across the planet and make a booming U.S. economy the envy of the world.

So what did Trump do to mark his 100th day in office? He renewed his campaign against Biden.
“What’s better, Crooked Joe or Sleepy Joe?” he asked his supporters in Michigan. “Ready? A poll!”

Having ascertained from the crowd that they preferred the moniker “Crooked Joe,” Trump revived a favorite campaign story about his retired former opponent. “He goes to the beach, right? And he could fall asleep … drooling out of the side of his mouth. And he’d be sleeping within 10 minutes.” The story went on in disjointed fashion: “Carrying the aluminum chair, you know, the kind that’s meant for old people and children to carry? It weighs like about four ounces. And he couldn’t get his feet out of the sand … He’d be in a bathing suit. Somebody convinced him that he looks great in a bathing suit.” [Imagine Trump in a bathing suit!]

Trump invoked Biden’s name 21 times on Tuesday night, not counting an additional nine references to “Sleepy Joe” and “Crooked Joe,” a transcript shows. This is on top of various and sundry disparaging references to the “last administration” or simply “this group” or “that guy.” By comparison, Trump made just two mentions of the economy in an hour and a half, and seven of inflation — and even these were often employed to describe “Biden’s inflation disaster” and the like.

Here was a president with so little to say about his own achievements that he dwelled on the imagined failures of another man: “Sleepy Joe, the worst president in history … Biden had no control … Joe Biden was down 35 points. The debate was not a good one for him … Whoever operated the autopen was the real president.”

On some level, Trump must have known it wouldn’t really work to blame Biden for his problems. Recounting a conversation with an appointee about the price of eggs, Trump said the price would have to come down, because “nobody is going to believe me when you get out there that it’s Sleepy Joe Biden’s fault.”

And yet that’s just what Trump spent the night doing. For 100 days, he has run the country with authoritarian sweep, unconstrained by Congress (with its subservient GOP majority) or by concern for what is legal or constitutional. If things aren’t going well, he has nobody to blame but himself.

Yet he looked everywhere for villains to take the fall. He mocked “Kamala, Kamala, Kamala” and “lunatic” Bernie Sanders “going around with AOC.” He blamed “fake polls” put out by the “crooked people” in the media. He cited the “totally crazy” backbenchers who want to impeach him and imagined that “the radical Democrat Party is racing to the defense of some of the most violent savages on the face of the Earth.”

He recited his grievances as if the months and years had never passed: Democrats “tried to cheat” in 2024. They “tried to jail your president.” He was “under investigation more than the late, great Alphonse Capone.” To his familiar list of persecutors, he added a few new entrants: “grandstander” Republicans,” the Federal Reserve and “communist radical left judges.”

Even so, he insisted that he presided over “the most successful first 100 days of any administration in the history of our country, and that’s according to many, many people.” By “many people” he apparently meant “Stephen Miller,” for the presidential aide joined Trump on the stage and shouted at the crowd that Trump is “the greatest president in American history!”

Trump regaled his audience with phony achievements in lieu of actual ones. The cost of eggs is down 87 percent. We now have a trade surplus. His actual approval rating is “in the 60s or 70s.” Americans say the country is headed in the right direction for “the first time ever.” His tariffs are acts of “genius.”

The crowd cheered for his inventions. They cheered for Elon Musk and Pete Hegseth. They cheered for a video showing migrants, deported without due process, being humiliated at an El Salvador prison. They cheered him for pardoning the “political prisoners” who attacked the Capitol. They cheered when a junior aide joined him on stage and asked, “Trump 2028, anybody?”

The rally began, as during the campaign, with the song “God Bless the USA” and ended by doing his Trump dance to “YMCA.” Supporters waved placards proclaiming a new “Golden Age.”
And yet, the magic was gone. The pool traveling with Trump’s motorcade found relatively few supporters lining the motorcade route. When Trump called a supporter onstage for a lengthy tribute ending with the words “President Trump, I love you,” a girl on the stage behind Trump yawned. Attendees started trickling out of the arena 30 minutes into his speech and continued doing so over the next hour.

Perhaps they had come seeking reassurance about their present troubles — only to hear from a man mired stubbornly in the past.

Trump has used his presidency to attack universities, schools, media organizations, corporations, foreign students, and everyone else he sees as his enemy. He has used Elon Musk to close down agencies–like USAID–and Departments–like Education. He has taken personal control of the Kennedy Center and intends to remove exhibits he doesn’t like from the Smithsonian. He has directed the Department of Justice to investigate his critics and enemies. He has blighted whatever he chose. The list of his attacks on democracy is long.

A new poll reported by Axios shows that most Americans (52%) think he is a “dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.” He retains the support of a majority of Republicans and whites, who believe he needs more time to “make America great again.”

Robert Shepherd is a polymath who frequently comments on this blog. He has worked in almost every aspect of education, on curriculum, assessments, textbooks, and as a classroom teacher. His breadth of knowledge is remarkable.

Shepherd writes:

First, a little about the nature of nature.

There are about 800 known species of fig. Each particular species[1] is pollinated by females of ONE species of tiny wasp. For example, the two known species of fig in the United States, the Florida strangler fig (Ficus aurea) and the shortleaf fig (Ficus citrifolia), are pollinated by the fig wasps Pegoscapus mexicanus and Pegoscapus tonduzi, respectively. When a fig has flowered (the flowers are internal), it emits a specific odor that attracts its ONE specific wasp, which burrows into the fig for a meal. The wasp lays its eggs inside the ovaries of the short seeds of the fig and pollinates, incidentally, the long seeds with pollen from its original host fig, and so the short seeds produce baby fig wasps, and the long seeds produce, eventually, with luck, more figs. The pollinating wasp dies, and its nutrients are absorbed by the fig and turned into luscious fruit. It’s a cycle.

Black Elk explained why his people, the Lakota, built their teepees in circular forms and arranged them in circles. Birds do this, too, he said, “because theirs is the same religion as ours.” It is worth contemplating what might be the guiding principles in such a religion.

So, here’s the key point: If you interfere with the lifecycle of one of these wasps, the corresponding fig dies out. If you interfere with the lifecycle of one of these figs, the corresponding fig wasp dies out. That’s how things work out there beyond the asphalt jungle, folks. It’s all about mutuality and interdependence.

Biologists can tell you how breathtakingly interdependent species are. So can indigenous peoples. Here is Oren Lyons, Haudenosaunee Faith Keeper of the Wolf Clan of both the Onondaga Nation and the Seneca Nation. The Haudenosaunee are the Six Nations of the Grand River, also known as the Iroquois:

“The Seven Generations reminds you that you have responsibility to the generations that are coming, that you indeed are in charge of life as it is at the moment. . . . You have the continuing responsibility to look out for the next seven generations. . . .

In the United States, they have a Bill of Rights that they added onto the Constitution. . . . And I think that should have been a Bill of Responsibility, not a Bill of Rights. People talk about their rights, their rights, but they never talk about their responsibility. And leadership has got to have that above all. They’ve got to have vision. They’ve got to have compassion for the future. They’ve got to make that decision for the seventh generation. That’s not just a casual term. That’s a real instruction for survival. Every animal, every nation, every plant, has its own area to be, and you respect that. You know, as we sit here and look about us, there are these flowers. And no tree grows by itself . . . certain plants will gather around certain trees, and certain medicines will gather around those plants, so if you kill all the trees, if you cut all the trees, then you’re destroying the community. You’re not just destroying a tree. You’re destroying a whole community that surrounds it and thrives on it, and that might be very important medicine for people and for animals, because animals know the same medicine. They use this medicine. That’s where we learned. We learned by watching the animals. They taught us a lot. Where is the medicine? Because they use it themselves. And if you replant the tree, you don’t replant the community. You replant the tree. So, you’ve lost a community. And if you clear cut, which is what’s happening in America and in Canada a great deal these days and I guess around the world, then you’re really a very destructive force, and simply replanting trees is not replanting community. You lost a lot in the process. IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU WILL [Caps mine].”

—From the film Indigenous American Prophecy (Elders Speak)

It is with these matters in mind that I want you to consider the modification of interpretation of the Endangered Species Act posted for comment by the Trump Maladministration’s Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service on April 17 of this year:

Rescinding the Definition of Harm under the Endangered Species Act

Regulations.gov

What this modification does is redefine harm to a threatened or endangered species as take, that is, as the direct killing of an animal. And the effect is to do away with the established definition of harm as, duh, taking an action that causes harm, such as destroying an animal’s habitat, including the plants and animals and fungi and eukaryotes and prokaryotes upon which the animal in question depends (for example, the network of fungal mycelia by which plants and trees communicate with one another and share essential resources; trees will nurture other sick trees nearby by sharing nutrients via these networks; don’t get me started on that one; you will end up out in the woods with me, boot deep in humus and mud).

This proposed modification of interpretation will be devastating to threatened and endangered species because ALMOST ALL EXTINCTION RESULTS FROM HABITAT LOSS, not take. That’s why, for example, Indian Elephants and Mountain Gorillas are facing extinction. Their habitats have steadily eroded from human encroachment. “The Endangered Species List has become like the Hotel California: Once a species enters, they [sic] never leave,” Trump’s Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, wrote, with typical Trump maladministration semiliteracy. “The only thing we’d like to see go extinct is the need for an endangered species list to exist.” The vandalous Trump maladministration is claiming that the proposed rule change doesn’t matter at all but just clarifies the meaning of the Act. But then, out of the same all-consuming maw, it refers to a dissent by Cro-Magnon Antonin Scalia that defines harm as “take” and take as the direct killing of an animal. And that’s the side of the maw that speaks the actual meaning of its action. 

Real Estate developers (LIKE TRUMP; what a surprise!) have long hated the Endangered Species Act because it prevents them from going into fragile, interdependent, mutualist, codependent habitat and clearing it for building. If you live in the so-called developed world, you are familiar with this phenomenon. Developers name their developments after whatever they ripped out to do their building. They cut down the whispering pines and christen their development Whispering Pines. They cut down the palms and level the rock palisade and name their development Palisade Palms. They bulldoze the plants that produce the flowers the butterflies used to migrate for thousands and thousands of miles to feed upon and name their barren, butterfly-less, soulless McMansions development—you guessed it—Mariposa Acres.  

It is unsurprising that Trump was recently filmed in the now Offal Office saying that, you know, a lot of endangered species ought to go extinct. [Since this amendment was proposed, I have looked in vain for that clip of IQ 47. If anyone can find it, please share in the Comments, below.]

The change will, OF COURSE, be devastating for vulnerable species. But being devastating to the vulnerable so as further to engorge the rich is what the Trump maladministration specializes in, isn’t it? And all the while, as it paves the way for the rapacious wealthy to leave devastation for the next seven generations, it will tell you that what it is doing is a nonissue. Here’s what Shakespeare had to say about that sort of equivocation:

“And be these juggling fiends no more believed, 

That palter with us in a double sense.”

–Macbeth, Act V, Scene xiii.

If you don’t understand that, your grandchildren will.

[1] The redundancy is intentional and for emphasis.

For more work by Bob Shepherd, see Robert Shepherd – YouTube

Imagine that you are a career civil servant , having worked at the same agency for 30 years. Then one day a 25-year-old youngster arrives with instructions to make rapid, sweeping change. He fires you and everyone else who knows how the agency works. This is called reform. Who are these people? It turns out that they hold jobs in multiple federal agencies. Do they receive multiple salaries?

Ethics experts have questioned the practice but Trump has never listened to ethics experts.

Faiz Siddiqui and Jacob Bosage wrote in The Washington Post:

Gavin Kliger, a U.S. DOGE Service software engineer in his mid-20s, arrived at Internal Revenue Service headquarters in February, telling senior agency officials he was there to root out waste, fraud and abuse.

Then, according to three people with direct knowledge of the events, he placed five government-issued laptops on a conference table and requested a sixth computer that would give him access at the IRS.

At the time, court records show, Kliger held two job titles at the Office of Personnel Management, as well as positions at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He was also working on dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Earlier this month, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, Kliger showed up at the Federal Trade Commission, too.

Kliger is not alone. His expanding portfolio — which now includes jobs in as many as seven federal offices — is typical of at least a handful of DOGE staffers. The unorthodox practice affords trusted acolytes of billionaire Elon Musk authority across broad swaths of government, as well as access to an array of confidential information, including tax documents, federal workforce records and consumer data.

Because their jobs are embedded within agencies, the DOGE staffers have far more influence than those who might have worked collaboratively across government before — and their positions raise the possibility that even if Musk leaves government service at the end of May, as he has suggested, his allies will still have power, potentially for years to come.

“Your people are fantastic,” Trump told Musk in a Cabinet meeting on Thursday. “In fact, hopefully they’ll stay around for the long haul. We’d like to keep as many as we can. They’re great — smart, sharp, right? Finding things that nobody would have thought of.”

Government policy and ethics experts say the arrangement is unusual — and unprecedented — for the sweeping amount of access it grants to relatively low-level bureaucrats. Government officials have argued that DOGE and Musk do not have formal authority over decisions but rather advise officials at Cabinet departments on actions to take. But that makes the appointments DOGE liaisons are taking at multiple agencies even more influential.

In addition to Kliger, who worked for Twitter before Musk bought the platform in 2022 and later joined an AI-focused data software firm, numerous DOGE associates have been given extraordinary power to shape government policy at multiple agencies. Among them:

• Software engineer Christopher Stanley, who worked on the White House WiFi system and was serving at the Office of Personnel Management, was appointed as a director on the board of the mortgage financing giant Fannie Mae. The appointment came with an annual salary ranging from at least $160,000, but Stanley quickly resigned. Stanley, who has worked for X and SpaceX, did not respond to a request for comment.
• Former Tesla engineer Thomas Shedd, 28, is running the digital arm of the General Services Administration, known as the Technology Transformation Services division but also has served in the office of the chief information officer at the Department of Labor, according to records reviewed by The Washington Post.
• Luke Farritor, a former SpaceX internin his 20s who won a prestigious prize for decoding a Roman scroll, is detailed to at least five agencies, according to a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s authority.
• And in perhaps the most high-profile case of cross-posting, Edward Coristine, the 19-year-old software engineer who used the online moniker “Big Balls,” was appointed to the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to his position at DOGE.

Even Amy Gleason, the official administrator of DOGE, is also an “expert/consultant” at the Department of Health and Human Services, a court filing shows. Gleason’s appointment to HHS was reported earlier by Politico.

White House spokesman Harrison Fields did not directly address multiple positions held by DOGE staffers, but he touted DOGE’s work in a statement to The Post.

“President Trump is committed to ending waste, fraud, and abuse, and his entire Cabinet, in coordination with DOGE, is working seamlessly to execute this mission efficiently and effectively,” he said.

In his business empire, Musk has frequently moved staffers and resources across companies, sometimes inviting scrutiny. But such arrangements are unusual in the federal government, where employees traditionally are assigned to one job and one agency at a time.

Staffers in DOGE’s predecessor agency — the U.S. Digital Service — worked collaboratively across government to improve technology, according to a former employee of the office, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Though they might sometimes receive an additional government-issued laptop from an agency they were assigned to work with, they did not typically work with more than one organization at a time, the person said.

Earlier this month, after Politico reported that Trump had told his inner circle Musk would soon depart government service, Trump told reporters that Musk would leave after “a few months.” Before that, Musk said most of DOGE’s work to find $1 trillion in annual spending cuts would be complete by about the end of May, when his status as a special government employee requires him to leave his White House post.

Max Stier, president and CEO of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, which advocates for better government, said that cross-postings might fly at a tech company but that they pose a “huge problem when it’s a governmental entity keeping people safe and providing critical support to millions of Americans.”

“You’ve got people who have been deputized who have no business doing what they’re doing,” Stier said.

State Democracy Defenders Fund, a group that aims to safeguard elections and perceived threats to democracy, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of more than two dozen USAID workers challenging DOGE’s constitutional authority, claiming Musk exercised authority that would typically be unavailable to a person who lacked a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

The lawsuit argues that multiple simultaneous postings provide Musk and his allies with extraordinary authority over government functions, as well as backdoor access to agencies that DOGE aims to target for spending reductions.

The suit cites the case of Farritor, a software engineer who, according to court records, was detailed to five agencies at the same time.

“You have to ask yourself: When you have people who are appointed to as many as five agencies at times — a single person — and you have others who are obviously not qualified, are those legally valid appointments or are they sham appointments done with intent to evade the law?” Norm Eisen, executive chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, said in an interview.

He added: “I have been working for or around the federal government for almost 35 years and I never heard of a detailee with that many different jobs.”

One of the most important jobs in the federal government is that of the DC federal prosecutor. He or she handles important cases related to national security, among other things. Trump has chosen Ed Martin, a MAGA lawyer who has defended the J6 insurrectionists and insisted that the 2020 election was rigged. Now, The Washington Post reports that Ed Martin has been a loyal defender of Russia and Putin and has repeatedly spouted Putin’s propaganda on Russian state media.

Spencer S. Hsu and Aaron Schaffer of the Washington Post report:

Hours before President Donald Trump announced U.S. missile strikes on Syria in response to a chemical attack that killed 90 civilians in April 2017, Ed Martin said on the Russian state television network RT America that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad might not be to blame. Instead, Martin told viewers, the situation was “engineered” in Washington “by the people that want war in Syria.”

In early 2022, Martin told an interviewer on the same arm of RT’s global network that “there’s no evidence” of a Russian military buildup on Ukraine’s borders, criticizing U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia’s security concerns. Russia invaded nine days later, igniting a war that continues today.

Martin is now interim U.S. attorney for D.C. and Trump’s pick to serve full time in the role. But as a conservative activist and former Missouri Republican official, he appeared more than 150 times on RT and Sputnik — networks funded and directed by the Russian government — as a guest commentator from August 2016 to April 2024, according to a search of their websites and the Internet Archive’s database of television broadcasts.

Martin did not disclose the appearances last month on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which asks nominees to list all media interviews. Analysis of television archives suggests he went on RT and Sputnik more often than on any major cable network during that span.

Martin’s frequent appearances, reviewed by The Washington Post, drew rebukes from some national security analysts, who accused him of amplifying anti-American propaganda on Russian outlets that the State Department last year said had moved beyond disinformation to engage in covert influence activities aimed at undermining democracies worldwide for President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Martin’s brief tenure as top federal prosecutor in Washington has stoked controversy. Democrats accuse Martin — a Trump “Stop the Steal” organizer who has called the 2020 election and the 2016 Russian election interference investigation “hoaxes” — of violating the law and legal ethics in threatening to investigate or prosecute lawmakers, protesters, journalists and others whom he perceives as undermining Trump’s agenda.

Former U.S. national security officials and analysts said Martin’s RT and Sputnik appearances, and his failure to disclose them, raise questions about his judgment and candor.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington is the largest in the country and has wide jurisdiction to prosecute important national security offenses, former officials said. Its leader should be alert to the threats and risks posed by Russia and other influence operations from overseas, such as the ones the office has prosecuted in recent years involving Russia and other foreign actors, they argued.

Open the link to finish the article.

Based on his views, we can be sure that Mr. Martin will not “be alert to the threats and risks posed by Russia.” Based on his past history, we can expect that he will do what’s best for Russia.

Every once in a while, a judicial decision is so beautifully written and so well crafted that it should be read in full, not summarized.

Such a decision was rendered yesterday by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the case of Kilmer Abrega Garcia. Judge Wilkinson was appointed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Reagan in 1984. He is an old-school Republican who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Remember them? People like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are reviled by MAGA. To MAGA, whatever Trump wants overrides both the Constitution and the rule of law.

Abrego Garcia is one of the 238 men picked up by ICE and whisked away to a terrorism prison in El Salvador. None of those men had a hearing or due process. A district court judge (appointed by President George W. Bush) ordered the government to turn the flights around and bring the men in three planes back to U.S. soil. The administration ignored his ruling. Another federal district judge ordered the Justice Department to bring him back. However, the Trump Justice Department insists that the U.S. has no jurisdiction in El Salvador.

His case and plight have sparked nationwide demonstrations against the government for failing to provide him due process and refusing to bring him back despite the orders of two federal district judges and the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 that the government must “facilitate” his return while showing due deference to the President’s control of foreign affairs.

Here is the full decision. It is not long (seven pages) and it is great reading.

If you want to read its crucial reasoning (without the legal precedents referenced), here is the core of the decision:

“Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature.

While we fully respect the executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision. It is difficult, in some cases, to get to the very heart of the matter—but in this case, it is not hard at all.

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims, in essence, that because it has rid itself of custody, that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. In other words, if it thinks it’s got such good factual proof of that, what is it so worried about? It can present it, and it should prevail in getting him removed from this country.

Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongfully or mistakenly deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

Let me just repeat that. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

The Supreme Court’s decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government ‘to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’

Facilitate is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken—as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art.

We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by administrative agency and contained in mere policy directive.

Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is remove any domestic barriers to his return—that is, the government said, ‘You know what? If he can make his way to our shores, then we have to take him in’—is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.

“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prison that the withholding order forbids, and further to do so in disregard of a court order that the government, not so subtly, spurns. Facilitation does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would facilitate foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood….”

The executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport. But with powers come restraints. If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? That threat—even if not the actuality—would always be present.

And the executive’s obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’—that’s a quote from the Constitution, Article II—would lose its meaning.

Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran government disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. We are told that neither government has the power to act. That result will be to leave matters generally—and Abrego Garcia specifically—in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort and mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the executive must be reciprocated by the executive’s respect for the courts.

Too often today, this has not been the case—as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.”

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.”

This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of thedecisions of the Federal Courts.” Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words,“ [u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.”

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragicgap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

The most ominous words in this decision are the last five. “…While there is still time.”

This respected conservative jurist recognizes that the goal of the Trump administration is to diminish and undermine the federal courts and to make himself an emperor.

The Trump administration took a victory lap for deporting 238 men to a prison in El Salvador, calling them gang members or violent criminals. None of them had a trial, a hearing, or any due process. Bloomberg News now reports that few of those deported had criminal records.

Trump administration officials have described the men deported to El Salvador prisons last month as “the worst of the worst,” suggesting they were gang members involved in murder, rape and kidnapping. 

The reality is that of 238 migrants — mostly Venezuelan — that officials accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang and expelled to the Central American country in mid-March, just a small fraction had ever been charged with serious crimes in the US. 

Hundreds of pages of US legal records and American government statements reviewed by Bloomberg News found five men charged with or convicted of felony assault or firearms violations. Three men were charged with misdemeanors including harassment and petty theft. Two others were charged with human smuggling.

For the rest of the men, there was no available information showing they committed any crime other than traffic or immigration violations in the US. 

The findings raise questions about how the Trump administration determined that the migrants sent to El Salvador were violent criminals. The US maintains that all of the Venezuelans on the flights had committed a crime because they were in the country illegally, a senior official with the Department of Homeland Security said in an interview.

There is more to the story. When I read it, it was not behind a paywall. No guarantees.