Uprising of the Unafraid: Speaking Truth to Tyranny
Individuals and Institutions Bravely Standing Up to Trump's Authoritarian Coup
Standing up to tyranny, speaking truth to power, takes courage. It focuses attention on you, identifying you as a target. For most of us it’s easier to put our heads down, bury them in the sand and leave it to “the other guy” so we don’t get targeted ourselves.
During Trump 1.0, we had numerous, sterling examples of people who refused to do just that, despite the damage to their careers and threats of violence to themselves and their families: Republican Congress Persons Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, former White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson, retired uber-Conservative Appeals Judge Luttig, military Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and even (much too little and much too late) former Vice President Mike Pence, to mention just a few.
“Look, when this election is over, I would have every right to go after them.” — Trump, in an interview with Fox News
Trump 2.0 Hall of Fame Resisters
Terry Moran
Terry Moran’s April 29, 2025 interview with Trump was a striking example of unbiased journalism under pressure. Despite trump’s repeated attempts to undermine Moran’s credibility -- going so far as to claim he’d “never heard of” the veteran journalist and accusing him of being “not very nice”-- Moran pressed forward with pointed, substantive questions on contentious topics including tariffs, mass deportations, and presidential authority.
As Trump tried to cow Moran into submission, saying such things as it was his “big chance,” implying he was “blowing it” and would never get another interview, Moran steadfastly continued.
When the discussion turned to illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s tattoos, Moran did not back down in the face of trump’s insistence that the tattoos were clear evidence of gang affiliation, even as Trump dismissed Moran’s corrections about the image being photoshopped. Moran’s willingness to challenge misinformation directly, rather than letting the president’s assertions go unchallenged, exemplified a commitment to truth and accountability that is too often missing from high-profile political interviews.
Throughout the exchange, Moran maintained composure and focus, refusing to be derailed by personal attacks or attempts at intimidation. In a time where so many figures in the media are intimidated by Trump, his performance set a high standard for journalistic integrity and courage, demonstrating that the rest of the media could learn much from his unwavering pursuit of the facts, even when confronted by the most powerful figures.
Yale Professors Marci Shore, Timothy Snyder and Jason Stanley
Historian Marci Shore, along with her husband Timothy Snyder (also a prominent Historian), and Philosopher Jason Stanley, are leaving Yale University to take up positions at the University of Toronto.
The primary reasons for their departure are concerns about the political climate in the United States, especially under the perceived threat of a second Trump administration and its impact on democratic institutions and academic freedom.
The three have expressed doubts about American universities' ability to protect their students and faculty in a climate of increased political pressure and potential government interference.
"Well, revenge does take time. I will say that. And sometimes revenge can be justified, Phil, I have to be honest. You know, sometimes it can." — Trump, during an interview with Dr. Phil McGraw.
Marci Shore
Shore has explicitly stated her fear of the U.S. "going into free fall" and the potential for "civil war." As a Historian who studies totalitarianism and Eastern European history, she draws parallels and sees alarming trends in the current American political landscape.
Shore is a parent, and a significant factor in her decision is the desire to raise her children in a country she perceives as safer and more stable. She has mentioned the gun violence and the "permissiveness for violence" she observes in the U.S.
“The lesson of 1933 [the rise of fascism in Germany] is you get out sooner rather than later.” — Marci Shore
“ My colleagues and friends, they were walking around and saying, ‘We have checks and balances. So let’s inhale, checks and balances, exhale, checks and balances.’ And I thought, my God, we’re like people on the Titanic saying our ship can’t sink. And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can’t sink.”
Shore's move is a significant and publicly articulated statement of concern by a prominent academic regarding the direction of American democracy and the perceived threats to academic freedom and personal safety. She views it not as abandoning the fight, but as relocating to a place where she feels her work and her family will be more secure.
Timothy Snyder
Timothy Snyder's decision to move to the University of Toronto also reflects his concerns about the current global context, particularly regarding the state of democracy and academic freedom in the United States.
In a statement to the Yale Daily News, he said that he believes the University of Toronto is "extraordinarily well suited to have clear and significant conversations about freedom and unfreedom, unfortunately ever harder in the U.S."
This suggests that he perceives a decline in the space for open and critical discussion on these fundamental topics within the American academic and political landscape. Snyder's move can be seen as a response to this perceived threat, seeking an environment where these fundamental academic values are more secure.
“We want to make sure that if there is a political crisis in the US that Americans are organised,” Snyder said.
“If you think that there’s this thing out there called American and it’s exceptional, that means you don’t have to do anything. Whatever is happening, it must be freedom. And so then what your definition of freedom is just gets narrowed and narrowed and narrowed and soon you’re using the word ‘freedom’ – what you’re talking about is authoritarianism.” — Timothy Snyder
He sees the join the University of Toronto and Canada as a whole as a more conducive environment for his work and for engaging in crucial conversations about freedom and democracy in these uncertain times.
Jason Stanley
Jason Stanley is an American Philosopher who was a professor of philosophy at Yale University. He is known for his work in philosophy of language and epistemology, and more recently for his work in political philosophy, particularly on topics like propaganda and fascism.
His decision to move to Toronto was influenced by his concerns about the political situation in the United States. Stanley cited Columbia University's response to demands from the Trump administration as a red flag, fearing other institutions might similarly "capitulate."
“I’m leaving to the University of Toronto because I want to do my work without the fear that I will be punished for my words.”
“You know you’re living in a fascist society when you’re constantly going over in your head the reasons why you’re safe. What we want is a country where none of us have to feel that way.” — Jason Stanley
“I want Americans to realize that this is a democratic emergency. It’s essential to set up centres of resistance in places of relative safety.”
Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowsky
On the PBS program "Washington Week," Murkowsky cited real fears of Americans of feeling afraid of the widespread use of intimidation and threats of litigation and violence to quiet their opposition to the direction the US is heading.
"I am oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real," she said. "We are all afraid," describing widespread anxiety among lawmakers and the public due to the political climate under Trump’s second administration. She admitted to feeling "very anxious" about using her voice because "retaliation is real," emphasizing that this fear is unprecedented in her career.
Murkowski highlighted concerns about the erosion of checks and balances, rapid policy changes, and the real risk of consequences for speaking out, but affirmed her intent to continue advocating for her constituents despite these fears
Harvard University
Harvard University is actively defying what it perceives as unlawful and unconstitutional attempts by the US federal government to exert control over its academic and administrative functions. This defiance is manifested in its refusal to comply with government demands, its legal challenge to the administration's actions, and its strong defense of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The situation represents a significant clash between the federal government and a leading private university over the boundaries of government oversight in higher education.
The Trump administration has issued a series of demands to Harvard University, asserting that the institution has failed to address antisemitism on campus, promotes ideological bias, has lax academic standards, and mishandles foreign student admissions.
The Trump administration has taken concrete action by freezing and threatening to withhold billions of dollars in federal research grants and contracts to Harvard. These demands reportedly include restructuring internal governance, abolishing DEI programs, ensuring "viewpoint diversity" through external audits of faculty and students, terminating support for certain student groups, and increased monitoring of foreign funding.
It is also taking steps to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status, breaking the Constitutional statute which reserves taxation rights to the US Congress, not the Executive.
Harvard has refused to comply with these demands, viewing them as an unprecedented and improper overreach that would impose undue government control over its academic decision-making, admissions, and hiring practices. Harvard contends that the government is using funding as leverage to enforce a political ideology and is retaliating against the university for refusing to comply with its demands.
Harvard sees its legal challenge as a defense not only of its own rights but also of the broader principles of institutional independence and freedom of thought in higher education.
Over 100 US universities and colleges have issued a joint letter condemning the Trump administration's "political interference" in the education system and expressing concerns about government overreach and the coercive use of public research funding. This indicates that Harvard's stance against federal control is supported by a significant portion of the higher education community.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
In a May 2025 address at the First Circuit Judicial Conference in Puerto Rico, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a powerful critique of escalating attacks on the judiciary, particularly those associated with President Trump and his allies. While refraining from naming Trump directly, Jackson referred to "the elephant in the room," highlighting rhetoric from the Trump administration that she described as "designed to intimidate the judiciary."
Justice Jackson emphasized that these attacks are not isolated incidents but deliberate efforts to undermine judicial independence. She noted that judges across the nation are facing increased threats of physical violence and professional retaliation simply for performing their duties. Such actions, she warned, pose a significant threat to democracy and the rule of law.
Drawing parallels to historical challenges faced by the judiciary during the Civil Rights Movement and the Watergate era, Jackson urged her colleagues to exhibit "raw courage" in upholding justice. She stressed the importance of civic education to help the public understand the critical role of judicial independence in a democratic society.
Her remarks were met with a standing ovation, underscoring the resonance of her message among the legal community. Justice Jackson's speech stands as one of the most direct criticisms of the Trump administration by a sitting Supreme Court justice, following earlier rebukes from Chief Justice John Roberts.
U.S. District Judge Judge Beryl Howell
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has been actively involved in cases involving law firms targeted by President Donald Trump. In April , 2025, she expressed skepticism about the Trump administration's efforts to sanction law firms, pressing a Justice Department lawyer for more information on the penalties and the deals the administration struck with firms hoping to avoid punishment.
On May 2, 2025, Judge Howell issued a 102-page ruling, declaring Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie unconstitutional and unlawful. Perkins Coie was the first law firm targeted with a sweeping executive order that imposed potentially existential punitive measures on it. Trump's order suspended security clearances for the firm's employees, barred its attorneys from access to government buildings and officials, and ended government contracts with the firm.
She criticized the executive order as an attack on foundational principles of American jurisprudence and the role lawyers play in ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice.
"No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies. The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system's fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era," — Howell, in her 102-page ruling.
This case, she added, "presents an unprecedented attack on these foundational principles."
Trump's order, the judge wrote, "stigmatizes and penalizes a particular law firm and its employees," from partners through mailroom attendants because of the firm's representation of clients pursuing claims and taking positions that Trump doesn't like.
"In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'let's kill all the lawyers,'" she adds, Trump's executive order "takes the approach of 'let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else."
Judge Howell also rejected a Trump administration request that she recuse herself from the case, accusing the Justice Department of attacking the messenger because it could not attack the message.
In her ruling, Judge Howell found that Trump's executive order violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution, and permanently barred its implementation. She emphasized that the order was a "blunt exercise of power" that was not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President.
Republican Congress Person Don Bacon
Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska is displaying a level of backbone and independence unique among House Republicans, one of the few willing to speak his mind on issues like tariffs, Ukraine and Pete Hegseth.
He became the only Republican in the House to call for Pete Hegseth’s dismissal over allegations that the Defense Secretary revealed imminent attack plans to family members and his lawyer via a Signal chat.
Few Republicans dare to cross Trump when he offers such public backing. But Bacon, a five-term congressman who served almost 30 years in the Air Force, retiring as a Brigadier General, brushed aside both Hegseth’s dismissal and Trump’s praise to zero in on what mattered: the allegations themselves.
“If it’s true that he had another chat with his family about the missions against the Houthis,” Bacon said, “it’s totally unacceptable.”
In an interview with CNN, he said, “I would hold him accountable and I’d fire him.” As to whether the information was classified, Bacon said that “if you’re talking about when you’re launching an aircraft to attack … and you’re doing that two hours before the mission, status is classified. We’d fire a Second Lieutenant for that.”
His view, he said, “is not a Republican view, it’s not a Democratic view. I think it’s an American view.”
It’s not the first time that Bacon has gone his own way. Late last month, the congressman opposed Trump on Ukraine, saying Trump had “been very weak on Ukraine, and he’s been a bit of an appeaser to Russia.”
He also was the first House member to challenge Trump’s tariff authority, crafting a companion bill to Senator Chuck Grassley’s effort to reclaim congressional authority over tariffs.
In March, Bacon joined the coalition that avoided a government shutdown by passing the continuing resolution, angering MAGA followers that preferred a standoff. In return, Bacon got pay raises for military members, increased veterans’ benefits and funds for new warships.
In a conversation with the Center for Effective Lawmaking, which named him the most effective Republican in the House during the 2021-23 session, he attributed his pragmatism to his years in the military. Some of his first friends in Congress, he said, were veterans on both sides of the aisle.
“Most veterans, particularly those who served active duty. We see things like, ‘What is in the nation’s interest? What do we have to solve?’” — Don Bacon
Americans desperately needs lawmakers who love their country and party enough to tell them what they don’t want to hear.
Maine Governor Janet Mills
At a February 21 meeting with governors, Trump threatened to withhold funds from Maine if it did not comply with an executive order he signed banning transgender athletes from playing girls’ and women’s sports.
The U.S. departments of Education and Justice claim that Maine is violating Title IX by allowing transgender athletes to participate in girls’ and women’s sports. The Education Department proceeding put about $250 million Maine receives annually for school funding into jeopardy.
Both the Education Department and HHS found the Maine Department of Education to be in violation of Title IX — a verdict reached after short investigations and portended by the Trump administration upon their launch. Mills had called the outcomes "all but predetermined."
“We’re going to follow the law, sir. We’ll see you in court.” — Gov. Mills
"The State of Maine went to court and fought this unlawful attempt to freeze critical funding for our school lunch program — and we won," said Maine Gov. Janet Mills in a Friday statement.
“We are pleased that the lawsuit has now been resolved and that Maine will continue to receive funds as directed by Congress to feed children and vulnerable adults,” Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said in a statement.
Mills said the reinstated funds will preserve school meals for 172,000 Maine students.
60 MINUTES
US Television network CBS's 60 Minutes has been at the center of a significant controversy involving former President Trump, highlighting tensions between journalistic integrity, political pressure, and corporate interests.
In October 2024, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. The broadcast featured two different segments of Harris's response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leading to accusations from Trump and his allies that CBS had deceptively edited the interview to favor Harris.
Trump responded by filing a $20 billion defamation lawsuit against CBS, alleging that the network's editing amounted to election interference. CBS firmly denied these claims, stating that the interview was edited for time constraints and that no part of Harris's response was hidden or altered to mislead viewers.
CBS's legal team rejected Trump's demands to release the full, unedited transcript, citing First Amendment protections and emphasizing the necessity of editorial judgment in news broadcasting. They argued that acceding to such demands would set a dangerous precedent, allowing political figures to influence journalistic content.
Amid the lawsuit, reports emerged that Shari Redstone, chair of Paramount Global (CBS's parent company), had requested 60 Minutes to delay airing stories critical of Trump until after the approval of Paramount's merger with Skydance Media. This request raised concerns about corporate interference in editorial decisions.
The situation led to the resignation of 60 Minutes Executive Producer Bill Owens, who cited a loss of editorial independence. Correspondent Scott Pelley publicly criticized the network's leadership for compromising journalistic autonomy.
The conflict underscores the challenges faced by news organizations in maintaining editorial independence amid political and corporate pressures. Media analysts have expressed concern that such interference threatens the foundational principles of a free press and democratic accountability.
West Point Philosophy Professor Graham Parsons
Parsons announced his resignation from the US military academy, West Point, following a 13-year tenure with the academy.
"In a matter of days, the United States Military Academy at West Point abandoned its core principles. Once a school that strove to give cadets the broad-based, critical-minded, nonpartisan education they need for careers as Army officers, it was suddenly eliminating courses, modifying syllabuses and censoring arguments to comport with the ideological tastes of the Trump administration."
"I will be resigning after this semester from my tenured position at West Point after 13 years on the faculty. I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly. I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form." — Graham Parsons
The US Supreme Court Upholding the Constitutional Right to Due Process
On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Trump administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelan migrants in its attempt to remove them from the U.S. using the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law. The court ordered the Fifth Circuit to determine whether the Trump administration's proclamation of the AEA was legal and how much notice is due to those targeted by the act. The ruling was in response to an emergency appeal from the ACLU after the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Venezuelan migrants' request for a temporary injunction against AEA removals.26
The Supreme Court emphasized that those subject to removal must be given an adequate amount of notice and an opportunity to challenge the removal. The court also criticized the Trump administration for not complying with its previous order on removals using the wartime act.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed his belief that the matter should be resolved promptly by the Supreme Court rather than being remanded to the lower courts.
Significantly, all the Trump’ own Supreme Court appointees – Kavanaugh, Amy Comey Barret and Neil Gorsuch opposed the ruling. Only Alito and Clarence Thomas supported it.
“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the Court said.
“The District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.” — US Supreme Court
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Congress Persons Bonnie Watson Coleman, Robert Menendez Jr, LaMonica McIver
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, a gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey, was arrested on trespassing charges during a chaotic scene involving protesters, members of Congress and federal agents at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility for an oversight inspection.
Alina Habba, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, said that the Democratic mayor trespassed and “ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security” officials to “remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon. He has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state.”
Baraka gave a different account, saying that he was allowed on the property in the first place and that nothing happened for at least an hour. “After they finally told us to leave, and I told them I was leaving, they came outside the gate and arrested me. So it looked like it was targeted.”
Sen. Andy Kim said that he had spoken with ICE officials, “who relayed that the mayor was arrested” on trespassing charges. “However, video clearly shows the mayor outside the gates of Delaney Hall facility when he was arrested.”
Congressman Menendez referred to Baraka’s arrest as “an act of intimidation,” adding that ICE had sent more than 20 “armed individuals” to confront the lawmakers and that they had “put their hands” on Watson Coleman and McIver.
The charges against Baraka were dropped when U.S. District Judge Andre Espinosa dismissed the case, labeling the incident a “worrisome misstep” and an “embarrassing retraction of charges.”
“Your role is not to secure convictions at all costs, nor to satisfy public clamor, nor to advance political agendas. Your allegiance is to the impartial application of the law, to the pursuit of truth and to the upholding of due process for all.” — U.S. District Judge Andre Espinosa
Despite this, Congresswoman McIver was subsequently charged with assaulting federal law enforcement officers in the skirmish. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin accused Watson Coleman and Menendez of “storming” into the detention facility.
Watson Coleman denies the allegations, saying that she and two other Democratic members of the New Jersey congressional delegation were “exercising our oversight authority to see for ourselves” what it’s like at the ICE facility, saying that the ICE facility “opened without permission from the city & in violation of local ordinances.”
"We were assaulted by multiple ICE agents.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a statement Friday night that it was the lawmakers' "constitutional responsibility" to go tour the facility. "The masked agents who physically accosted two Congresswomen must be identified immediately. Keep your hands off of Members of Congress."
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman denounced his arrest. "This is un-American. This breaks my heart that in the United States of America, as imperfect as it has been, there has never been this disrespect for individual rights, for positions or for justice in general.”
The Graduating Class of Virginia Commonwealth University
During the commencement ceremony where Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin was invited to speak, dozens of graduating students staged a silent walkout as the governor began his address.
The reasons for the walkout were multifaceted:
Opposition to Governor Youngkin's policies: Many students protested his stance on race and gender issues, as well as his administration's actions regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in education.
Support for pro-Palestine protests: Some students also indicated their walkout was a show of solidarity with pro-Palestine protests that had occurred on campuses across the country, including at VCU where an encampment was cleared by police. They were critical of the governor's stance on these protests.
Criticism of the university's choice of speaker: Some students and faculty had previously criticized the university's decision to invite Governor Youngkin as the commencement speaker, arguing that his policies were contrary to the values of the university community.
Ordinary Americans blocking ICE agents from making illegal arrests
There are several recent examples of ordinary Americans taking to the streets to block or protest ICE agents from arresting their immigrant neighbors, particularly in the wake of intensified immigration enforcement during President Trump’s second term:
According to data from early 2025, immigration-related demonstrations have surged to record levels, making up 27% of all reported protest events in the U.S. this year. These protests, occurring in all 50 states and D.C., have overwhelmingly been peaceful, with communities rallying to protect immigrant rights and push back on enforcement actions.
St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, and Other Cities (Early 2025): Large-scale protests erupted in multiple cities, including direct actions where demonstrators obstructed traffic and gathered at locations targeted by ICE. In Charleston, South Carolina, seven people were arrested during such demonstrations, indicating that some protesters directly intervened to impede ICE operations.
Southern California (February 2025): News coverage documented protesters working to disrupt an ICE raid, with activists and neighbors mobilizing quickly to physically and vocally oppose agents’ attempts to detain immigrants in their community.
El Cajon, California (March 2025): After an ICE raid at a local business, community members gathered at the Civic Center to denounce the operation and demand accountability from city officials. Protesters expressed solidarity with affected families and made it clear they would not stand by while neighbors were targeted by ICE, emphasizing their intention to offer support and resistance.
National Day of Action (April 2025): Across 13 states and Washington, D.C., community members participated in the “Communities Not Cages” campaign, holding rallies and vigils outside ICE offices and detention centers. These actions were explicitly aimed at resisting ICE raids, detentions, and deportations, with advocates uniting to protect immigrant family members, friends, coworkers, and neighbors.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (April 2025): Judge Indicted for Aiding Immigrant
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, evade ICE agents at the courthouse. Although Flores-Ruiz was later arrested, the incident sparked political tensions and debates over the role of judiciary in immigration enforcement.
Worcester, Massachusetts (May 2025): Community Protests Arrest
ICE agents arrested Ferreira De Oliveira, a mother, in front of her daughters and grandchild in Worcester, Massachusetts. The arrest sparked immediate outrage among local residents. Hundreds of protesters gathered, chanting "no warrant!" and "not the mother!" The incident drew national attention and highlighted the community's resistance to aggressive immigration enforcement tactics.
Waltham, Massachusetts (May 2025): Child Left Alone After ICE Arrest
In another incident, ICE agents detained an adult in Waltham, Massachusetts, leaving a 12-year-old boy alone on the sidewalk. Neighborhood watch volunteers quickly intervened to ensure the child's safety. City Councilor Colleen Bradley-MacArthur criticized the agents for their actions, describing the situation as distressing and intimidating. This event underscored the community's vigilance and willingness to protect vulnerable individuals.
These instances reflect a growing trend of community members and local officials taking direct action to protect their neighbors from immigration enforcement. These examples reflect a broad, grassroots response where ordinary Americans have mobilized-sometimes physically intervening, other times through public protest-to oppose ICE raids and support their immigrant neighbors in the face of stepped-up deportation efforts. Such acts of solidarity demonstrate the power of collective resistance in challenging policies perceived as unjust.
US Musician Bruce Springsteen
At a recent UK concert, Springsteen condemned the current state of American political discourse.
“In my home, they’re persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That’s happening now. In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. That’s happening now. In my country, they’re taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers.” — Bruce Springsteen
In a steady voice, he listed the many concerns of those who oppose Trump, his enablers and his policies.
“They are removing residents off American streets without due process of law and deploying them to foreign detention centers as prisoners. That’s happening now. The majority of our elected representatives have utterly failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government,” Springsteen said as the crowd applauded and yelled its support. “They have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American.”
He finished on a positive note.
“The America I’ve sung to you about for 50 years is real, and regardless of its many faults, it’s a great country with a great people, and we will survive this moment. Well, I have hope, because I believe in the truth of what the great American writer James Baldwin said. He said, ‘In this world, there isn’t as much humanity as one would like, but there’s enough.’ ”
Trump lashed out against the legendary singer, calling him an “obnoxious jerk,” a “dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker,” and writing that he should “keep his mouth shut,” adding a threat: “We’ll see how it goes for him when he gets back to the country.”
This did not dissuade the “Born in the USA” singer. At a later concert, Springsteen thanked his cheering audience for indulging him: “Things are happening right now that are altering the very nature of our country’s democracy, and they’re too important to ignore.” He then repeated many of the lines that he used during his first show.
The Personal and Institutional Risks Faced by These Courageous Resistors
Standing up to authoritarianism can be incredibly dangerous on a personal level.
Legal and Social Consequences:
False Accusations and Show Trials: Being falsely accused of crimes against the state, leading to unfair trials with predetermined outcomes and severe penalties.
Loss of Rights: Stripping of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, movement, and the right to a fair trial.
Social Ostracization: Being labeled as an enemy of the state, leading to social isolation, discrimination, and loss of community support.
Loss of Employment and Livelihood: Being fired from jobs, blacklisted from future employment, and facing economic hardship.
Confiscation of Property: The state seizing personal assets, homes, and businesses as punishment or to financially cripple dissenters.
Restrictions on Movement: Being barred from traveling domestically or internationally, effectively making them a prisoner in their own country.
Damage to Reputation: State-sponsored smear campaigns and propaganda aimed at discrediting the individual in the eyes of the public.
"I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred." — Trump , at a speech at the Department of Justice
Psychological and Emotional Toll:
Psychological Trauma: Experiencing or witnessing violence, threats, and injustice can lead to severe psychological trauma, including PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
Fear and Paranoia: Living under constant surveillance and the threat of reprisal can create a climate of fear and paranoia, impacting mental well-being.
Stress and Burnout: The constant struggle against an oppressive system can lead to immense stress and emotional exhaustion.
Guilt and Helplessness: Feeling guilty for not being able to do more or helpless in the face of overwhelming state power.
Damage to Relationships: The strain of activism and state pressure can damage relationships with family and friends, especially if they do not share the same views or fear association.
Consequences for Family and Associates:
Retaliation Against Family: Family members may face harassment, intimidation, arrest, imprisonment, or loss of employment as a way to punish or pressure the individual.
Guilt by Association: Friends, colleagues, and acquaintances may also face negative consequences for their association with the dissident.
Family Separation: Individuals may be forced to flee the country, leaving their families behind and facing prolonged separation.
Physical Harm and Safety:
Physical Assault: Direct violence from state security forces, paramilitary groups, or regime supporters. This could range from beatings to more severe attacks.
Imprisonment: Arbitrary arrest and detention without due process, often under harsh conditions, potentially leading to torture, abuse, and neglect.
Torture and Cruel Treatment: Physical and psychological torture during interrogation or imprisonment to extract information, punish, or intimidate.
Disappearance: Being forcibly disappeared by the state, with no information provided to family or friends about their whereabouts or well-being.
Extrajudicial Killing: Being targeted for assassination by the regime or its agents, often disguised as accidents or other causes.
Harassment and Intimidation: Constant surveillance, threats, stalking, and other forms of harassment aimed at silencing and demoralizing the individual and their family.