The Dictatorship
Trump’s new law enforcement executive order is about brutality — not safety
This Monday, President Donald Trump issued yet another executive order, this one titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens.” As the ominous “unleashing” in the title makes clear, the order’s proposals, like so many “tough-on-crime” approaches, are far more about indulging in cruel punitiveness than in actually reducing crime.
This executive order is about retaliation, punishment and brutality.
The order’s opening line makes it clear that safety is not actually the goal. “Safe communities,” it says, “rely on the backbone and heroism of a tough and well-equipped police force.” While data, like that in a recent study“Police Force Size and Civilian Race,” makes it clear that policing can help reduce crime, literature reviews such as those produced by the Campbell Collaboration also make it clear that aggressive tactics are unhelpful if not actually counterproductive — as shown in a 2024 paper, “The effects of hot spots policing on violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.”
Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that nonpolice interventions can also significantly reduce crimequite likely more effectively than policing, with additional social benefits and far fewer social costs.
In other words, this executive order is about retaliationpunishment and brutality. It is wrapped in the veneer of “public safety,” but pushes policies that are often least likely to produce actual safety.
The order appears to have two goals.
The first half is about politics and messaging. It’s an effort to wrest back the narrative about criminal legal reform in support of those who fly Blue Lives Matter flags and instructs the attorney general to do some things she lacks the legal authority to do.
The second — and more troubling — half is about policy. It lays out more viable routes Trump may use to cripple reform efforts, although its generic language makes it hard to pin down precisely what it is threatening.
The political message of the first half is clear: It argues that the proper way to fight crime is to empower legally unaccountable police to use harsh, aggressive tactics to ramp up the number of people in prison. These tactics may not advance public safetybut they are satisfying ways to exert control over disliked groups.
The order starts by instructing the attorney general to create a mechanism to ensure that police officers are indemnified when “unjustly” sued — something that is basically not needed. A majority of states already have laws indemnifying police officersand a study in the New York University Law Review of 45 major police departments found that officers were indemnified in 99.98% of the judgments against them.
This is about messaging, not policy, and the message is “police should not be sued, and we stand behind those who are.”
What follows in the order are proposals — most of which are outside what the president can do via an executive ordersuch as using federal resources to increase police officer pay, strengthen legal protections for the police, seek enhancement punishments for those who harm police, and invest in the security and capacity of prisons.
The message is ‘police should not be sued, and we stand behind those who are.’
In almost all cases, federalism rules prevent Trump from directly telling local governments how to do these things. The feds can try to nudge states via incentive grant programs, but historically states have often been relatively unmoved by such programs, and, other than currently appropriated discretionary funds, the funding would have to come from Congress (despite Trump’s fight to get more power of the purse).
But like with indemnification, the point here is less about the policy specifics and more about using the presidential bully pulpit to place police at the center of how we think about public safety, and to provide moral (if not financial) support for traditional aggressive styles of law enforcement.
The second part of the order, parts 4 to 6, focuses more on actual policies that the Trump administration may be able to use to subvert reforms and entrench traditional, aggressive policing.
Part 4 first seeks, at a minimum, to ramp up the infamous 1033 programwhich funnels retired military gear to local police departments — it’s how the Los Angeles school district ended up with grenade launchers. (It talks of sharing “assets,” though what those assets are is unstated, and the legal pathway to sharing them is unclear.)
The second section of part 4 is the one that has alarmed people the most, but perhaps not for the right reasons. This part calls on the attorney general and the secretary of defense to “determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.”
This has raised the specter of Trump using the Insurrection Act to circumvent the Could County Act (which generally forbids federal troops from engaging in police activity) to use the military to crush protests.
Which is definitely possible!
The federal response to protests in Trump’s first administration were often heavy-handedand Trump’s then-defense secretary, Mark Esper, indicated that Trump wished the response had been more violent still (section 6 of the order, urging greater use of Homeland Security Task Forces, also points in this direction). But military tanks on the streets is an escalation that the military itself may resist and that would likely engender significant public pushback.
Jess Pishkoa journalist whose beat is conservative sheriffs, has pointed to a different, and more insidious, possible goal here, one whose invisibility may make it harder to resist: a massive increase in surveillance, by linking the police and national security resources, and by expanding law enforcement’s access to intelligence gathering resources. This sort of behind-the-scenes collaboration can greatly expand the reach of law enforcement, but in a way far less likely to spark political resistance than the 101st Airborne marching down Main Street.
The last key part of the order, section 5, points to another angle Trump may hope to use: directing the DOJ to charge and sue reformers.
The point here is less about the policy specifics and more about using the presidential bully pulpit to place police at the center of how we think about public safety.
The first part of section 5 appears to threaten reform politicians by seeking to file federal criminal charges against anyone who obstructs law enforcement from carrying out their duties (although what those charges could be is somewhat unclear). The language is confusing, so it may also just be saying that when reformers refuse to make arrests or file charges, the feds will step in when they can to do so themselves. (The overall tenor of the order, though, seems to caution against assuming the less-harsh perspe ctive.)
Perhaps more significant is the second part of section 5, which suggests that Trump also plans to use the civil rights “pattern or practice” lawsuits that the Obama and Biden DOJs filed to target abusive police departments to target reformers instead. Their less-punitive practices, the argument goesare in fact the real source of discrimination and civil rights violations. This could, among other things, result in local reformers getting pushed into consent decrees with the feds that significantly limit their discretion.
All told, the order represents a serious effort to roll back reforms, both directly (by supplying military gear and by threatening reformers with criminal and civil investigations) and indirectly (by forcefully asserting the tough-on-crime perspective that law enforcement should be encouraged to act aggressively while remaining almost entirely free of any meaningful oversight).
It is not a recipe for actual public safety. But it is one for oppressive cruelty and retribution.

John Pfaff is a professor of law at the Fordham University School of Law. He is the author of “Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform.”
The Dictatorship
House Republicans caved — and changed the politics of government shutdowns
In March 2025, 10 Senate Democrats voted to advance a government funding bill and avoid a government shutdown. Responding to furious Democratic voters who felt betrayed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said“a shutdown would be 10 or 20 times worse.” Six months later, seven Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King voted to end a 40-day stalemate. Had the shutdown continued, Sen. Tim Kaine, one of those seven, argued“I do not believe Republicans would have conceded on health care.”
What a difference a few months make.
The House of Representatives suddenly passed a bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, ending a 76-day funding standoff. The legislation funds all of DHS with two exceptions: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. Instead, Republicans will fund ICE and CBP separately through the budget reconciliation process, without the cover of Democratic votes.
The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon.
After federal immigration agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis this year, Democrats refused to fund ICE without reforms, and they demanded the agency’s funding be dealt with separately from the rest of DHS. In late March, Senate Republicans gave up on waiting for a handful of Democrats to end the filibuster, and they passed by unanimous consent a partial funding bill splitting off ICE, as Democrats demanded. The House dragged its feet for almost a month after that, but gave in Thursday and meekly passed the bill in a voice vote. “Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Schumer crowed.
For the first time, the side precipitating a government shutdown neither had to cave in the end nor suffer a backlash for holding out. It seems that, at least for now, the politics of shutdowns have fundamentally changed.
It should be acknowledged at this point that unlike last year’s shutdown showdowns, this one was over one department and not the whole government. But though the shutdown was more limited, its effects were still visible to voters: Lapses in TSA funding led to long lines at the airport, for instance. And the debate concerned immigration and border security, issues on which Republicans typically poll well. Many of the dynamics at play in this debate, then, should carry over to future government funding fights.

The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon. It certainly helps Democrats that congressional Republicans can barely keep their ship afloat. The relationship between Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune is frosty at bestand while Republicans’ narrow House majority would challenge any speaker, Johnson’s tenure has consisted largely of disorganization punctuated by last-minute scrambles to push through must-pass bills. “It’s just been a mess,” one House Republican told MS NOW’s Mychael Schnell. “We haven’t really had any guidance or direction. We’re moving from one fire drill to the next every single week, and then half the time it feels like, why are we even here?”
It also helps that President Donald Trump at this point in his term is less popular than any recent president. A president doesn’t even need high approval ratings to “win” a shutdown: When House Speaker Newt Gingrich led Republicans in shutting down the government in late 1995 when Bill Clinton was president, Clinton’s approval was around 50%. When Sen. Ted Cruz and a handful of other GOP senators encouraged the House to shut down the government in 2013, President Barack Obama’s approval was in the low to mid-40s. But in both cases, the party out of the White House ended up caving.
Trump, however, is below 40% in multiple polling averages. His war with Iran and the related spike in gas prices are just the latest errors perpetuating the slow but steady downward march of his numbers. What works in this political environment may not work in opposition to even a president of average popularity. But Trump has work to do before even getting back to average popularity.
The DHS funding bill, like the other appropriations bills earlier this year, runs through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. If Republicans pass their reconciliation bill, ICE and CBP won’t be on the table then; the GOP plans to fund the agencies for three years. And with midterms looming, Congress could punt the next round of funding bills until after votes are cast, as it did in 2024. But with even some Republicans expecting Democrats to flip the House and perhaps the Senate, a postponement could hurt the GOP’s leverage. Regardless of the date for the next funding fight, though, Democrats should reprise and even deepen the resolve they showed in this one.
James Downie is an opinion editor for MS NOW Daily.
The Dictatorship
FEMA and the American people deserve better than Trump’s political lackeys
Though President Donald Trump has not carried out his threat to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, his administration has systematically weakened it during his second term. He has hollowed out its workforce, pushed out experienced staff in favor of political lackeys, dismantled preparedness programs and undermined the agency’s ability to respond when Americans need it most. Last spring, the administration announced that it had canceled billions of dollars worth of key mitigation programs that helped communities become more resilient to the effects of floods, hurricanes and other disasters.
More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration.
The elimination of those mitigation projects shifted risk onto states and local governments that lack the resources to pay for them themselves. More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration, worsening an already severe staffing shortage. Now reports suggest the Trump administration is considering even deeper workforce cuts — a highly dangerous proposal with the start of hurricane season less than a month away.
But just as worrisome as qualified people being pushed out of FEMA is unqualified people being brought in. Gregg Phillips, whom Trump appointed associate administrator of the Office of Response and Recovery in December, holds one of the most powerful positions at FEMA. It’s his job to lead the federal government’s frontline response to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires and other disasters. Because lives are on the line during such emergencies, the role ought to be filled by someone with relevant experience who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, as well as has sound judgment and a steady hand. Unfortunately, it was clear before Phillips took his position that he lacks all those qualifications.
Phillips has no background in emergency management. He built his career as a political operativerising through Republican politics in Mississippi and Texas, where his time in state government was marked by controversy and ethics concerns. He later gained national prominence by promoting conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Not only has he demonstrated a lack of commitment to public safety, he has encouraged heinous political violence. He has said former President Joe Biden “deserves to die,” and he has urged Americans to “learn to shoot” migrants who are “coming here to kill you.”
And then there’s the truly bizarre. Phillips has said he’s experienced teleportation on multiple occasions and that he was once teleported 50 miles away to a Waffle House in Georgia. Reportedly, Phillips has quarreled with Trump’s social media platform, which he has accused of suppressing posts about his teleportation claims.
With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed.
With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed. However, Phillips is not the root of the problem at FEMA; he is just a recent example of it.
Nearly half the agency’s top positions remain vacantand Trump has not nominated a permanent, Senate-confirmed FEMA administrator since he was inaugurated. Reports indicate he may nominate Cameron Hamilton, who ran FEMA in early 2025 until he was fired by Kristi Noem. But Hamilton does not have the necessary qualifications or experience to lead the agency.
Neither does Karen Evans, FEMA’s third acting administrator in a year who currently serves in two senior roles — administrator and chief of staff. Saddling an unqualified person with two important positions at the agency is more evidence of how Trump has deprioritized FEMA and its leadership. FEMA also does not have leadership in its southern regional officeswhich assist the states that traditionally see the most destruction from hurricanes.

In addition to all the above, there are growing concerns that disaster response is being politicized. The rate at which Trump has approved major disaster declarations has varied sharply by statewith Republican-led states receiving much more FEMA assistance than those led by Democrats. In some cases, Trump has denied aid to Democratic-led states even after federal assessments showed communities qualified for help.
Taken together, the Trump administration’s actions have left FEMA and communities less prepared than they have been in a generation. In any other administration, FEMA would by now have a permanent administrator, its leadership ranks filled and a reserve workforce under contract and ready to deploy. As hurricane season approaches, the stakes could not be higher.
If FEMA is to be functional and ready for disasters in the coming months, the Trump administration must course correct and stop playing around with the nation’s lead disaster response agency. To put it back on course, the administration must rebuild FEMA’s workforce, fill vacancies with experienced leaders, restore preparedness programs and ensure that disaster assistance is delivered based on need — not politics. When disaster strikes, Americans should not pay the price for an administration that refuses to take its responsibilities seriously.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat representing Mississippi’s 2nd congressional district is the ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
The Dictatorship
What Hegseth’s defensive testimony revealed about his unsuitability for his role
ByJeff McCausland
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s testimony to the House and Senate Armed Services committees this week was his first appearance before Congress since U.S. military action began against Iran.
So far, this conflict has resulted in the deaths of 14 American service members, including one whose death was not combat-related, and a reported cost of over $25 billion. These hearings were originally scheduled as a routine review of the administration’s proposed $1.45 trillion Pentagon budget for fiscal 2027 but ended up being the first opportunity lawmakers had to question Hegseth about the war.
The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties.
But this was not “routine” and was a critical moment for the nation’s security. The American people are threatened by an ongoing conflict that could easily escalate and is already having a dramatic effect on the global economy. The nation is potentially facing its greatest energy crisis in history, and Hegseth’s testimony cast doubt on his fitness for the position of secretary of defense.
The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties. Hegseth began the hearing with a formal statement that argued “the biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans.”
This was hardly a serious effort to demonstrate his understanding of defense economics or elicit support from members of Congress concerned that the proposed massive Pentagon budget — a 45% increase over 2026 — would have serious implications for the nation’s debt, which already exceeds $39 trillion. If enacted, this budget would expand the force by 44,000 troops, provide significant pay raises and boost procurement of new ships, aircraft, and weapons by 76%. Hegseth further deferred nearly every question about individual program costs.

He maintained this aggressive fashion throughout the five-hour House hearing, a stark contrast to the calm, professional responses by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine. At one point the House Armed Services Committee chairman halted the proceedings and urged Hegseth to show more respect to committee members. (Party shouldn’t matter here, but the chairman is a Republican.)
Meanwhile, Hegseth’s strategic analysis of the Iran war was questionable at best. Last June he said that strikes against Iran, conducted in conjunction with Israel (Operation Midnight Hammer) had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilitiesdespite media reports suggesting evidence to the contrary. Questioned about this obvious inconsistency during the hearing, the secretary stated that the facilities had been destroyed but that Iran still had “nuclear ambitions.”
This statement clearly undercuts President Donald Trump’s assertion that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States that allowed him, as commander-in-chief, to order an attack without congressional authorization. Oddly, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also have said since the war began that Iran was not enriching uranium when U.S. forces attacked in February. If that is the case, Iran did not pose an imminent threat and this conflict is a war of choice and not a war of necessity.
The Trump administration has also argued that one of the primary goals of this conflict is to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. It is difficult to believe that a country’s nuclear ambitions could be permanently eliminated by military force alone. Such a change in a nation’s defense policy would require regime change.
During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list.
During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list. On April 8 he stated that “Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory” that by any measure had “decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come.”
Unfortunately, many reports suggest Iran maintains significant military capabilities, possibly as much as 60% of its missile launchers and a substantial drone arsenal. Since the U.S. attack, Tehran has also seized control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s supreme leader recently declared Tehran’s intent to retain control over shipping passing through the strait as well as maintaining its nuclear program.
Pete Hegseth is the 29th man to hold the position of secretary of defense. Three previous secretaries were retired senior military officers. This included Gen. George Marshall, who played a significant role in America’s victory in World War II and was the author of the “Marshall Plan” for European recovery. Others had been leaders of major corporations, members of Congress or CIA director. Some, like William Perry or James Schlesinger, had significant scientific backgrounds in nuclear matters.
Many secretaries were successful in this role. Others, such as Robert McNamara, were not. But all were highly qualified for what may be the most difficult job on the planet next to being president of the United States. Based on their background and experience, they were prepared to tell truth to power and provide presidents with frank counsel even when that was difficult.

Sadly, Hegseth has once again proven that he is totally unprepared and ill-suited for the role of secretary of defense. He demonstrated this during the “Signalgate” scandal when his use of unclassified communications risked placing American military personnel in harm’s way. Other examples of his poor judgment and problematic tenure include his firing of more than two dozen senior officers without reason, and these actions have been questioned by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Many were female or minorities, and it is widely believed that was why they were forced into early retirement. He also delivered an embarrassing speech to several hundred general officers hastily summoned to Quantico; and portrayed U.S. action against Iran in religious terms, even describing it as an “American crusade.”
Even the most loyal supporter of President Donald Trump must look at Hegseth’s record and agree that he is in over his head. He was selected for this critical post not for his expertise but, rather, for his fealty to Trump. But our nation is at a dangerous moment in its history. Amid a war with Iran, ongoing war in Ukraine and the rising threat of China, we can ill-afford incompetence in the Pentagon leadership.
But that is what we have because, at a time of war, Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s testimony was not intended for Congress — or even the American people. It was intended for an audience of one.
Jeff McCausland
Jeff McCausland, a retired Army colonel, is a visiting professor at Dickinson College. A former dean of the U.S. Army War College, he commanded a battalion in combat and was later a member of the National Security Council. He is the author of”Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship8 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?




