MAGA's authoritarian surveillance state

The bad news continues to flow as our democracy, rule of law and civil liberties continue to fade.

MAGA's authoritarian surveillance state gains reach and power 

The HDS (Department of Homeland Security) is proposing a vast expansion in government surveillance reach and power. This is aggressive and intrusive based on no evidence and crackpot reasoning. What DHS proposes is a drastic, unconstitutional expansion of the MAGA's surveillance state capabilities. The fig leaf to hide the illegality and authoritarianism is alleged border security needs. In recent years, the CBP (Customs and Border Control) increased biometric data collection, but this specific vast expansion crosses red lines regarding privacy, genetic sovereignty, and guilt-by-association.

The most radical shift is the expansion of "biometrics" to explicitly include DNA and iris scans for nearly all Form I-94 applicants (all tourists, business travelers, students and foreign workers). Before this, biometrics were limited to fingerprints and face photos. 

Requiring DNA submission for routine tourist or business travel treats every entrant as a criminal suspect. DNA collection is usually reserved for arrestees, not tourists or business travelers. There is no immediate security utility for DNA in a typical border crossing scenario that fingerprints or face photos do not already provide.

But wait!! There's much more: Worse than all of that, the proposed changes mandate collecting intrusive data about a traveler's family. That includes (1) family member telephone numbers used in the last five years, and (2)​ family member dates of birth, places of birth, and residencies. By demanding 5 years of phone history for family members, the government is effectively building a surveillance database of people who are not crossing the border. That includes millions of US citizens who are related to foreign visitors. This requirement means that a traveler's eligibility can depend on the conduct or identity of their remote relatives. It is a classic tool of authoritarian regimes to leverage family data to pressure or monitor individuals.

The perjury trap: The 5-year data requirement requirement is administratively absurd. Most people cannot accurately recall every family member phone number over a five-year period. This intentionally creates a perjury trap. Inevitable minor errors can be used to deny entry or revoke visas later. 

Unneeded and unjustifiable: Although the stated goal is identity verification, current e-Passports (with chips), facial recognition, and 10-print fingerprinting is already statistically almost perfect for proving identity. Adding iris and DNA would yield diminishing very little added security while exponentially increasing privacy risk.

The DHS notice cites an "unanticipated event" to justify an emergency clearance, but it fails to explain why historic family phone numbers are suddenly critical for national security. Common sense says it will rarely be useful. However, this vague justification is evidence the MAGA government is fabricating a crisis to permanently expand its authoritarian powers. These changes transform the I-94 from a travel document into a comprehensive intelligence dossier. It demands that visitors surrender not just their own privacy (genetic data), but the privacy of their entire family tree (contact history).

Why I keep taking insults and reality-detached nonsense from MAGA people

Occasionally someone muses out loud about why I keep doing this in view of its apparent futility. Short answer is that this is the best means of defense of democracy, rule of law and civil liberties I can contribute to with what I believe to be at least some modest degree of competence. Obviously, MAGA people would vigorously disagree, to say the least.

If I recall right, the social science research I'm aware of that touches on the problem of being unable to speak rationally to closed minded people raises two points:

MAGA's Epistemic exhaustion tactic

    Point 1. Over time, speaking truth to closed minds occasionally gets through and creates some reasonable doubt, even if those minds do not change. Reasonable doubt is better than no doubt or cynicism. Reasonable doubt (evidence and reason-based, healthy skepticism) also tends to humanize the targets of false beliefs, e.g., just about everyone who disagrees with a MAGA person about something in politics.

Research indicates that not all "doubt" is the same. Doubt created by honest speech typically fosters skepticism, while doubt created by demagoguery tends to foster cynicism. Demagogues use toxic doubt as a shield against trust. It cynically leads people to falsely assume that everyone they disagree with is lying, corrupt, or self-interested.

Studies show that cynicism (sometimes called "cynical hostility") is correlated with lower cognitive ability, poor mental health, and crucially, dehumanization.

Demagogues don't just lead people to doubt a fact; they get them doubt the existence of truth itself. This state has been called epistemic arrogance" or epistemic exhaustion." That mental state leads people to view others not as mistaken (human) but as intentional deceptive manipulators (monsters), which justifies their dehumanization.

Epistemic exhaustion is a mental state of cognitive fatigue that occurs when people are forced to constantly evaluate conflicting information, defend their reality against gaslighting, or navigate a flood of lies, i.e., Trump's and Steve Bannon's Flood the Zone With Shit tactic (Putin does zone flooding too).

The morality of it

    Point 2. In a democracy, there arguably is a moral duty to stand up for and constantly defend empirical facts and sound reasoning. Both are inherently pro-democracy by virtue of dispelling false beliefs. False beliefs instilled by demagogues take from people their power to think, decide and act on the basis of facts and sound reasoning, with that power flowing to the deceivers and manipulators.

A stupidometer

All of that is why I keep doing this and continue to take insults and stupid shit from arrogant, insulting people who are almost always uninformed but firmly believe they know what they are talking about. And they believe they are rational. I'm fighting in defense of democracy, the rule law and civil liberties as best I know how.

This is trench warfare, hand-to-hand combat against malicious, vicious MAGA demagoguery and sleaze. If we don't fight against it, we're definitely f*#@%^d. And maybe we're f*#@%^d even if we do fight against it. That's just my humble opinion.

MAGA's unprincipled legal reasoning supporting American authoritarianism

Context

A constant in recent MAGA legal reasoning at the USSC is use of law as a means to authoritarian ends by the six Republicans. Such weaponization converts the law from from a system of neutral principles binding more or less on all into a tool for advancing partisan political agendas or private benefits. The consequences ripple through every foundation of democratic society, including morality, democratic institutions, and the rule of law itself.

When law becomes weaponized for partisan purposes, it loses its pro-democracy moral authority. The law's legitimacy comes mostly from the idea that it represents a system of neutral, impartial principles. The law has intrinsic moral value because it structures political, commercial, and social relationships around principles of even-handedness and predictability.

Democracy and the law requires institutions that operate independently of corrupting partisan and special interest influence, particularly those responsible for accountability and justice. Judicial independence is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. That helps ensure that courts remain accountable to the Constitution and laws, not to politicians, demagogues, ideologies or special interests. When legal institutions are captured for partisan ends, independence is lost.

Unprincipled, dishonest MAGA judging

An article published by The New Republic discusses an example of the unprincipled, dishonest legal reasoning. MAGA USSC judges now routinely resort to this deplorable state of affairs when facts and principled, honest legal reasoning cannot lead to partisan MAGA outcomes. The article focuses on Chief Justice John Roberts weaponization Federalist No. 70 to enable and protect a unitary president who is above the law.

The bit about putting Trump above the law came in the 2024 USSC decision in Trump v. US, which granted broad immunity from prosecution of crimes a president commits while in office. In essence, Trump cannot be prosecuted for committing crimes while he is in office, including serious felonies. The legal reasoning to support that grievous wound on our democracy and rule of law is based on lies and dishonest reasoning that Roberts dreamed up to support his vision of a corrupt American dictator.

In granting above the law status to a US president, Roberts intentionally misinterpreted Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 70. He had to do that to justify creating an authoritarian vision of presidential supremacy, now called the unitary executive. In Trump v. US, the grant of criminal immunity for crimes in office actually upends Hamilton's commentary about executive accountability. Advocates of  unitary-executive theory, including Roberts, have weaponized select phrases in Federalist No. 70 regarding "energy in the executive" and "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch". MAGA elites and Roberts use those comments to argue for essentially unrestrainable presidential power. That completely ignores Hamilton's equal emphasis on accountability mechanisms to restrain a rogue president.

Hamilton never argued for a unitary president like what Roberts and the other five MAGA USSC judges now support. In an earlier 2020 case, Seila Law v. CFPB, Roberts falsely claimed that Hamilton viewed legislative power as a "special threat to individual liberty" while treating the executive as uniquely democratic. He just made that up. That directly contradicts Hamilton's text, which only observed that legislative debate, while sometimes obstructive, promotes deliberation and circumspection as checks on majority excesses. Hamilton never characterized Congress as a major threat. Roberts himself made up that unprincipled falsehood himself.

In his criminal immunity decision, Roberts cherry-picked Hamilton's comments about presidential "vigor" while ignoring passages about the need to keep a president restrained and accountable.​ He also decontextualized quotes in Seila Law. There, Roberts used Hamilton's warning about "jarrings of parties" in a plural executive (not a unitary executive) as if it applied to legislative-executive separation of powers. What the unprincipled, authoritarian Roberts did was to claim a need for presidential immunity, calling it a constitutional necessity. But in fact no such necessity exists. He asserted that prosecution would paralyze the presidency, but that was a claim that Hamilton never made. Only Roberts and the other five MAGA USSC judges make that claim.

Authoritarian MAGA legal reasoning asserts that presidential immunity exists because MAGA wants to build an unaccountable unitary executive with dictator-level power. The constitution itself does not provide a compelling case that a US president needs to have immunity for crimes he commits while in office. So, MAGA judges simply made up an unpersuasive reason for immunity.

Are they really that ignorant?

The TNR article comments that the Heritage Foundation's Kevin Roberts (an important Project 2025 author) celebrated the Trump immunity decision by telling Americans to read No. 70 over Independence Day. He apparently believe that text, which is not part of the US Constitution, supports the idea of an American dictatorship. That text argues the opposite of what Roberts wants us to celebrate. Readers of Federalist No. 70 will find that Hamilton's clear intent was to explain why the presidency ought to be be constrained by the rule of law, not freed from it as Roberts and the other MAGA judges have done.

Hamilton's presidency was envisioned as energetic yet prosecutable. That contradicts Roberts' invented presidential immunity holding. Roberts' vision makes presidents "sacred and inviolable" like the British kings Hamilton explicitly rejected.

It is also worth noting that nothing in the US Constitution explicitly says that a president is above the law and not accountable for their crimes. That is a cynical fabrication. It was made up by activist authoritarian MAGA judges in their quest to kill democracy and the rule of law. They need to do that to establish a deeply corrupt, American authoritarian MAGA state. 

America's bipartisan moral rot cancer

 Context

A NYT opinion (not paywalled), The Pardon That Represents the New Era of Corruption, by two former federal corruption prosecutors discusses a example of blatant moral rot related to a Trump pardon of a sleazy political criminal. Both political parties are complicit in the moral rot. This example is representative of a much broader gaping wound on our democracy. Deep moral rot that has set in on our two-party system. At present, it is very likely not reasonably repairable.

Last week, Trump issued another pardon that is corrodes the rule of law. Trump pardoned Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat. He was awaiting trial on well-documented federal bribery charges. This pardon was brazen. Trump publicly acknowledged that he had issued it to induce Cuellar to switch parties, and attacked him for a “lack of LOYALTY” when he didn't.

Instead of criticizing or staying silent, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries welcomed and justified Trump's unwelcome, unjustifiable pardon. Jeffries pandered to maintain Cuellar’s party loyalty. He attacked the legitimacy of a very legitimate criminal case. Jeffries publicly dismissed the not at all thin federal indictment against Cuellar as “very thin.”

What about the Democratic Party?

The deep moral rot of Trump and his MAGA elites is very well documented and no longer rationally disputed. It is still irrationally disputed, as things in politics often are, but that major concern is off topic.

The question is why did Jeffries, a Democrat, praise Trump's clearly morally rotted pardon? Exactly who is this guy? Well, he was put in power by Democratic party elites, especially by the morally challenged Nancy Pelosi.** therefore, Jeffries can be therefore be seen as representative of Democratic Party leadership morality or lack thereof.

** As some may recall, Pelosi had a hard time figuring out why insider trading by members of congress, their families and some others should be made illegal like it is for everyone else. At least for some of us, the arrogance and condescension in her moral cluelessness was insulting and breathtaking.

If one looks, one finds that Jeffries has a long, troubled moral track record, to say the least. His competence in terms of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties is weak. Arguably, that reflects the inherent moral incompatibility of democracy and the rule of law with post Citizens United corruption of politics (also a major, but off topic concern).

For example, 1992, as a 21-year-old college student, Jeffries wrote an editorial defending his uncle, Leonard Jeffries. Leonard was a Black studies professor who had made virulently antisemitic statements claiming "Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies" and comparing Jews to "dogs" and "skunks". Jeffries has lied about this and been found to be a liar.

Also, some credible critics have criticized Jeffries' timid strategy and risk-averse politics. They plausibly argue he fails to be the leader for the party needs because it is basically operating without effective political leadership. Old Democratic Party dinosaurs like Schumer and Clyburn are feckless and worthless as party leaders. Jeffries has turned out to be corrupt, but no better than the old dinosaurs.

In short, Jeffries' decision-making on key issues like the Cuellar pardon is solid evidence of poor judgment. His defense of Trump's Cuellar pardon is an inexcusable moral failure that legitimizes corruption for narrow political gain. He is driven by short-term political calculations over moral principle and vigorous defense of democracy and the rule of law.

Are moral rectitude and holding power in American national politics currently mutually exclusive?

Under current post Citizens United politics, it now appears that moral rectitude in both parties are mostly to completely incompatible with gaining and holding power. The 2010 Citizens United USSC decision opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of special interest money in and corruption of politics. That money has now almost completely subdued and neutered pro-democracy and pro-public interest morality in politics. Money and power talk, while everything else walks.

In the 2024 election cycle alone, over $1 billion in "dark money", which is undisclosed donor spending, flooded elections. Billionaire spending multiplied by a factor of 163 since Citizens United. Over 80% of billionaire spending now flows through channels that were illegal before 2010. Some scholars describe the situation as "dependence corruption", which is politicians' dependence on private campaign finance that leads to democratic erosion. Even without explicit any quid pro quo bribery, this is systemic corruption that courts refuse to recognize as legally actionable.

One expert on corruption in politics, Sarah Chayes, commented that Democrats have jumped into the corruption with both feet, and now neither party can credibly defend democratic norms. Both are captured by the same donor class. Public opinion mirrors Chayes' assertion. Over 80% of Americans believe the federal government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and not for all the people or the public interest. Research shows these public perceptions of corruption are accurate, not mistaken.

Points to consider

So did Jeffries had no choice but to pander to Cuellar to keep him in the party? But even if Cuellar did not turn into a Republican and still got re-elected despite his corruption, how does that help democracy or the rule of law? Cuellar would still be an immoral crook. This is evidence of just how broken our morally rotted, special interest money corrupted two-party system is. Apparently, Democratic Party leadership feels forced to pander to criminals. Even if the GOP is significantly worse that the Democratic Party the moral rot is deep with both.