Right-wing editor tears into Trump's endless 'national emergency' declarations

President Donald Trump is displaying nothing short of “narcissistic authoritarianism” when he repeatedly describes various things as being a “national emergency,” according to a right-leading editor.

“Much like his notion of what constitutes a ‘national emergency,’ Trump's perception of existential threats to the republic is highly idiosyncratic,” wrote Reason Magazine editor Jacob Sullum in a piece published Tuesday. Sullum then reviewed the list of issues that Trump has characterized in apocalyptic terms including crime, terrorism, illegal immigration, “Democratic electoral victories” and "constitutionally protected criticism of Trump.” From there, Sullum went into detail about an issue that he has raised before — Trump’s attempt to prosecute members of Congress who urge members of the military to ignore illegal orders.

“That video, which featured two senators and four representatives, reminded U.S. military personnel of their duty to ‘refuse illegal orders,’” Sullum wrote. “The Trump administration is ‘pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,’ the legislators said. ‘We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.’ Although ‘we know this is hard,’ they added, ‘your vigilance is critical,’ and ‘we have your back.’”

Trump tried to indict the legislators but failed, with Sullum writing that the federal grand jury rejecting the proposed indictment was a “striking rebuke, since grand jurors, who hear only the government's side of a case, almost always approve charges recommended by federal prosecutors.”

He added, “Two days later, in a separate case involving the Defense Department's attempt to punish Sen. Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.) for participating in the video, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the retired naval officer's criticism of Trump was ‘unquestionably protected’ by the First Amendment.”

Overall Sullum concluded Trump’s habit reflects “the narcissistic authoritarianism that underlies much of what Trump says and does, whether it is declaring nonexistent crises, waging war without congressional approval, summarily executing suspected cocaine smugglers, asserting unlimited tariff authority, attempting to rewrite statutes or the Constitution by presidential decree, demanding impeachment of judges who rule against him, using the criminal justice system to punish his foes, or threatening people who say things he does not like with deportation, regulatory penalties, grant revocations, or other unpleasant consequences.”

Sullum has previously criticized Trump, even though both men identify with factions of America’s political right-wing. Earlier in March, he did so by blasting the president’s law enforcement policies.

"Under federal law," Sullum wrote, "millions of Americans are committing felonies right now because they own guns and use marijuana — even if they live in states that have legalized the drug. There is nothing unconstitutional about that baffling situation, a Trump Administration lawyer assured the Supreme Court on Monday, (March 2), because cannabis consumers are analogous to 'habitual drunkards,' who historically, could be confined to workhouses or mental institutions. Most of the justices, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, seemed skeptical of that claim."

Sullum concluded, "Their agreement reflected the trans-partisan alliances inspired by this case, which illustrates the potential for common ground between right-leaning critics of gun control and left-leaning critics of the War on Drugs."

Similarly in February Sullum argued that the Justice Department prosecuting Trump’s critic should encounter the legal obstacles that did indeed beset them.

"In 2013, several Republican senators questioned President Barack Obama's use of drones to kill suspected terrorists," Sullum wrote. "The lawmakers, who included Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ted Cruz (R–Texas), Mike Lee (R–Utah), and Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), were especially troubled by the possibility that drones might be deployed against American citizens on U.S. soil, which, they argued, would be clearly unlawful in the absence of an imminent threat. How would Republicans have reacted if Obama, assisted by a Justice Department eager to do his bidding, threatened to arrest and jail those critics? That is how President Donald Trump has responded to Democratic legislators who worry about his potentially illegal use of military power."

Writing for Reason Magazine as a contributor in 2024, this author quoted President Grover Cleveland, who though a Democrat articulated in his 1887 State of the Union message the philosophy in favor of low tariffs that conservatives and libertarians have consistently advocated throughout American history. A number of Reason Magazine contributors have criticized Trump for his high tariffs.

"When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share toward the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice," Cleveland wrote in that address. "This wrong inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation, like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences."

• george conway
• noam chomsky
• civil war
• Kayleigh mcenany
• Melania trump
• drudge report
• paul krugman
• Lindsey graham
• Lincoln project
• al franken bill maher
• People of praise
• Ivanka trump
• eric trump