How Well Are ICE Officers Screened and Trained?

Training

ICE officers receive training that prepares them for various roles within the agency. There are differences in training length and focus depending on specific duties. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) officers receive more training than the Enforcement Removal Operations officers (ERO). Both receive less than Homeland Security Investigators (HIS). Officers receive a mix of classroom instruction, practical skills training, and ongoing field education, with training durations varying significantly between different roles within the agency.

Prior to January 2025, most ICE recruits attended training at a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The enforcement and Removal operations officers (ERO) had a training program just short of 8 weeks, which focused on operational tasks and safety in high-contact situations. Most of the training focused on locating, arresting, and removing illegal immigrants who have violated the law. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) candidates had a 90-day (12 week) academy experience. Specifically, these officers received training in firearms, driving skills, defensive tactics, and use of force. The training also included de-escalation techniques. There was heavy emphasis on immigration law, the Constitution, and criminal investigations. Officers were required to take a basic Spanish course or test out of the offering.

Unfortunately, the training for the new recruits has been substantially reduced to 47 hours due to the hiring surge needed to carry out Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. This reduction of hours for ERO officers from 320 to 47 creates an important question regarding officer readiness and public safety, especially in high stakes situations. The Spanish course was dropped from the curriculum.

Screening

Prior to 2025, background checks and psychological screening were consistent with hiring practices in most municipal departments. The process generally included a combination of clinical interviews and standardized psychological tests.

Of concern is the impact of the hiring surge on the level of background and psychological screening. Top of Form

According to multiple sources, ICErecruits are showing up for training with disqualifying criminal backgrounds. New hires are reportedly failing background checks, drug tests, and open-book tests (Alex Woodward, New York Times). Often times, new recruits are reportedly failing physical fitness requirements. Some new recruits are entering training programs before the agency performs background checks or finishes a screening process. ICE officials have discovered that some recruits failed drug testing or had disqualifying criminal backgrounds while they were already enrolled in training. At least one recruit at the agency’s training academy in Brunswick, Georgia, had been previously charged with strong-arm robbery and battery stemming from a domestic violence incident, according to a Homeland Security official. Some recruits had not submitted fingerprints or gone through any background checks at all before entering the six-week training course (NBC News).

“The loosening of hiring standards and training requirements is unacceptable and will likely result in increased officer misconduct — similar to or worse than what occurred during a small surge in hiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in the early 2000s,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He continued, “Exacerbating our concerns, DHS has gutted offices responsible for overseeing ICE officers and ensuring accountability for use-of-force incidents. Given these developments, greater congressional oversight of ICE’s hiring is essential.”

To boost recruitment, Homeland Security offers a “maximum $50,000 signing bonus” and student loan forgiveness. DHS also dropped age limit requirements, allowing people as young as 18 years old to apply and opening ICE to recruits older than 40 years old (The Atlantic). Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said that many new recruits are former law enforcement officers who go through a different hiring process. McLaughlin said the figures in above cited NBC’s report “reflect a subset of candidates in initial basic academy classes.”

How does the training of ICE officers compare to that provided by most police departments in America?

For all municipal police departments, the average duration of training for municipal officers ranges from 4 to 5 months, with an average of 672 hours. State Police Officer Standards and Training Boards (POST) require anywhere from 12 to 24 weeks. After graduation from the POST academy, most officer complete months of supervised training by a field training officer.

Most POST academies include the following in their core curriculum:

Constitutional & criminal law
Arrest/search/seizure procedures
Firearms training
Defensive tactics
Emergency vehicle operations
Report writing & courtroom testimony
Community policing principles
Use of technology (body cameras, digital evidence, databases)

The curriculum is updated regularly to include new laws, changes in technology, and changing police strategies. The academies also stress training in the use of force, and de-escalation techniques.

ICE Training Compared to Municipal Departments

Prior to January 2025, the training received by ICE ERO officers was closer to that received by municipal police recruits. However, 320 hours of training, which included instruction on Spanish, was still far below the municipal average of 672 hours. CBP training was 480 hours at the low end of the municipal training spectrum. Given the new 47-hour standard for ERO officers, is it any wonder that ICE officers are not performing well?

How the U.S. Compares Internationally

While the training of ICE ERO officers is far below the US municipal average, consider the fact that American police receive far less training than many countries where police training lasts 2–3 years (e.g., Finland, Norway, Germany). In 1994, an effort by the federal government attempted to increase the training to 2 years by incorporating traditional academy experiences with more classroom study. However, due to concerns over federal involvement in local police training, the program ended in 2009. The shorter training period for American police is often cited in debates about police professionalism, use‑of‑force outcomes, and public trust.

Conclusions

ICE ERO officers and CBP officers are NOT trained to deal with police situations or the public when they receive only 47 hours of training. Even the pre 2025 curriculum for CBP officers (480 hours) does not begin to properly prepare these officers for the job. The training of the ERO officers is not much more than a citizen in Illinois who gets a firearms permit. In Illinois, individuals must complete a 16-hour course from an Illinois State Police approved instructor. The course covers firearm safety, marksmanship, and Illinois firearms laws.

The ERO officers are not qualified to enforce customs laws and certainly not prepared to handle police situations. The training needs to be improved. Hiring practices need to be restored to pre-2025 levels. The current threat to defund ICE operations should be taken as a wakeup call. The entire organization needs to be reformed. Officers need more training than they currently receive.

Congress for Sale

“We the People” are supposed to be the government. Our founding fathers made it clear that a democratic republic needed educated and involved people. The earliest members of Congress were chosen by the people. However, these early leaders also understood the temptations that power brought to various individuals and groups. George Washington, in this farewell address, cautioned against political parties. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and others cautioned against the influence of monied interests. As designed, the system would work only if “guard rails” were established.

Washington’s concern was soon disregarded, as the founding fathers themselves could not agree on whether to have a strong central government or a system of states represented in a republican nation. This basic difference of opinion continues under our present political two-party system, with smaller parties playing only a tangential role.

The concerns of John Adams and the others were also ignored. While early representation was likely to be influenced by those already in local power and those with financial influence, at least the elected representatives did represent the districts that they served. In today’s political environment, these same influences continue but have been distorted by the Supreme Court Decision in Citizen’s United and a lack of strong rules regarding lobbying efforts. Large corporations now have a political voice. Lobbyists represent not only individual monied interest, but large corporations with unlimited funds that are used to sway representative views.

The founding fathers created a democratic republic where the people were to be decision makers. However, monied interests were soon influencing elected officials. While the problem of money in politics is not new, today’s PACs, and dark money operations, have eroded the power of the people in favor of those who can influence our political leaders with money and other opportunities, such as paid vacations, and personal favors.

Who (or what) has the greatest impact on legislation and our elected representative? Companies, labor unions, trade associations, social and political groups, and other influential organizations spend billions each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Last year over 4.5 billion dollars was spent by 13,000 lobbyists. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. How can the average voter compete?

Organized spending by PACs and special interests have a great deal of influence. In 2024 the biggest spender was Future Forward USA, spending over $510 million dollars. This organization leans democratic and worked to elect Kamala Harris. The next biggest spender was MAGA at $377 million. Other major groups leading the list are political action organizations supporting both democrats and republicans. America PAC (Texas), a group primarily funded by Elon Musk, supports President Trump with $196 million. Americans for Prosperity spent $138 million, with funding by the Koch family supporting Libertarian causes. Fairshare PAC is funded by Cryto, Coinbase, Ripple (cryto firm), and Andreessen/Horowitz (capital investment firm) at $112 million. The most altruistic group is Preserve America, founded by G. W. Bush, to support American culture and nature spending at $112 million.

Individual companies spending large sums include SpaceX with contributions of $289 million, followed by Adelson Clinic spending $147 million. Adelson Clinic was established to study drug use and abuse issues following the Opioid epidemic. Third is Uline funded by Robert Uihien, a prominent ultra conservative, at $146 million.

National Associations also spend large sums lobbying for their organizations. At the top of the list is the National Association of Realtors spending $86 million. They are followed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at $76 million. The next grouping, which includes pharma, hospitals, Blue Cross, and the AMA, spends a combined total of $113 million.

There are many others that spend millions of dollars to influence legislation. If the government was truly of the people, should these special interest groups be allowed to have such a massive impact on elected officials? There is a reason that so many in Congress are millionaires. Consider our key legislators. Mike Johnson received over $618,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2023. and Lockheed Martin added another $60,000 in donations. Hakeem Jefferies received $866,000 from the AIPAC, and $64,000 from Lockheed. Chuck Shumer is supported by Blackstone (investment firm) with $281,000 and an additional $235,000 from NextEra Energy. John Thume received $122,000 from AIPAC and $96,000 from Sanford Health. Dick Durbin is supported by Power Rodgers LLP (Chicago law firm) with $102,000 and Simmon Hanly Conroy (law firm) for $80,000. For more information about specific legislators go to Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org).

Perhaps the answer to why so many Congressional initiatives that might help the average American don’t get passed lies with the undue influence of big money! We need to support efforts to get big money and excessive lobbying out of Congress!

Did Slotkin, Kelly, Houlahan, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Crow Say Anything Illegal?

Senator Slotkin and six others recently posted a video reminding our military that they can refuse illegal orders. President Trump’s team is upset, saying that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and his orders must be followed. He also said that Slotkin and her “co-conspirators” are traitors and should be executed. Did they cross the line? Can soldiers, police officers, and other line personnel refuse an order. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear for military personnel. And, as a police officer, I was taught the same material. A soldier or police officer can refuse illegal orders. The question is, what is an illegal order? Equally at issue is whether the Commander in Chief has issued any illegal orders that can be refused.

Members of the military have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse illegal or unlawful orders. The oath that soldiers take provides a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not a loyalty to the Commander-In-Chief or his subordinates. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders that are beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

Has the Commander in Chief or his delegates issued any orders that are unlawful? To date, as far as the public knows, there has been no military action to ignore any of President Trump’s directives. However, there have been numerous orders/directives, which have come under scrutiny by Congress, retired military, and the media. The question yet to be answered is “If you were given orders to take part in any military actions or asked to deploy to support the ordered actions which are possibly illegal, what would you do?”

What action has the Trump administration taken that involve the military, and once adjudicated, could be found to be illegal? The first action during his second term occurred in Los Angeles. The military (guard and marines) were called to duty to support ICE officers. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions– primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.” The use of guard units has continued in operations in other cities. The issue has met with stalled legal action.

Most recently the Secretary of Defense (War) has ordered the Navy to attack vessels in international or foreign waters. And this week, the Washington Post reported that the Secretary had ordered attacks on surviving crew members or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.

Also, this week the President has signaled a pending invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals. This action follows earlier suggestions that the United States might attack, invade, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force. President Trump has also not ruled out “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries, or to annex Greenland or Canada. International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to in many situations is legally questionable. In the above situations, Congress has not declared war. However, no U.S. military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war. In place of a declaration of War is the Gulf of Tolkin Act which requires that the President receive permission from Congress to continue military operations beyond 30 days. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S., or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful. The question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order, to call The Military Law Task Force for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss their options.

Did our six Congressional Representatives do anything that could be considered treason? Absolutely NOT! They simply noted that our military personnel need to know that they can refuse an illegal order.

What Can I Do?

Whether it is climate change, animal rights, pollution, civil rights, or other political problems, I am often asked, “What Can I Do? I’m just one person!” That’s true. As one person, you have little power to influence the direction of policy. But one person can influence another person, who might influence another person, and so on. As an individual you need to share your voice with others. When you become a small group, you have power, and the larger the group, the more power.

We have all seen the media coverage on the “No Kings” march. That is a group action that cannot be ignored. If you are concerned about recent government efforts to minimize the fact that there is global warming, you should be focusing on COP30. World leader from almost all the nations of the world have pushed back against the Trump administration’s dismantling of our nation’s environmental protection plans. The world is moving ahead with efforts to reduce global warming. And while the Trump administration did not have any representatives present, there were many American mayors, governors, business owners, and individuals who did attend.

Do NOT sit on the sidelines asking, “What can I do?” Talk with those who may agree with you. Have civil conversations with those who have differing opinions. Work to organize small groups, write letters, send emails, and send texts. Get involved. The more the average American becomes an advocate for a cause, the more likely some action will eventually come about.

It can take only one person to start a movement. Consider Candy Lightner, Rosa Parks, Harvey Milkman, Margaret Sanger, David Hogg, Ross Pero, Lydia Marie Child, Ida B. Wells, and many others too numerous to name. Smaller movements on the local level can also reap benefits. For example, in McDonough County, the Macomb Woman’s Club worked for years to bring glass recycling to the county. Now over 12 tons of glass has been recycled since June 26, 2025. You can make a difference! Get involved whether it be at the local, regional, state or national levels!

We The People

I just finished reading In the Hands of the People: Thomas Jefferson on Equality, Faith, Freedom, Compromise, and the Art of Citizenship for the second time. Our small book club had decided to discuss it at our last meeting. While most of you probably do not need to hear the following, I am compelled to speak out to those who say, “It’s politics and I don’t want to get involved.” Or “I don’t want to have my life interrupted by all that bad news, so don’t talk about it.” Our Constitution starts with the familiar words, “We the People.” Our founding fathers’ vision was revolutionary. The government would be in the hands of the people, not kings or other individuals. They knew they were taking a chance. People were accustomed to having government make decisions for them, not having the option to make their own choices.

These same founding fathers, while holding doubts about the long-term viability of their creation, believed that a well-educated and informed people would make good choices in this republican system of representative democracy. Public education was supported by Washington, Jefferson, Adams and many others. Educated people who had access to information, whether biased or not, could and would make good decisions. With these dreams in mind, subsequent generations of Americans improved education and created a Fourth estate to provide good information even when it showed obvious bias. We the People were controlling our own destiny.

However, in recent years, complacency has become common. Many of the People have failed to keep fully informed, basing their judgment on biased or limited information. Our education system has reduced the amount of teaching in civics, history, and social sciences. There have been successful efforts to restrict information that does not conform to standards established by power groups. Too many citizens have failed to realize that the government that they are criticizing is a criticism of self. If you are not informed and engaged, if you fail to take part in your government, you have no justification for complaining.

Get informed. Know your sources of information. Research “hot topic” issues. Engage in civil discussions with your friends and acquaintances. Take time to know what your elected representatives believe. Take part in local, state, and federal elections. Don’t tell me “I don’t want to hear about it!”

The Supreme Court and the Shadow Docket

Introduction

In the past months the media has occasionally mentioned the Supreme Court and its Shadow Docket. This tool has become important to the Trump administration as it attempts to deal with lower court decisions that hamper the President’s agenda. Examples include the deployment of federal troops to support ICE operations, and the court ordered payments for the SNAP program.

The Merit Docket

The Supreme Court has used two approaches to hearing cases. The first is the merit docket. This traditional docket involves a Court review to determine on merit the 60 to 70 cases that the Court will consider during any given year. In making this decision, the Court hears briefs and holds oral arguments. If the case is heard, the Court then issues its opinion explaining its reasoning, usually with dissents and concurrences. The process involved transparency and shows informed decision-making.

The Shadow Docket

The second track is the shadow docket. The traditional view of the shadow docket is simple. The Supreme Court rules on procedural matters such as scheduling and injunctions. Most of the time these cases, as noted above, deal with due dates for briefs, or a request to halt a lower court’s orders. These cases are not under intensive review and do not require oral arguments. Generally, the decisions have no explanation and often lead to questions about the rationale for the decision. As noted by Stephen Vladeck in his testimony before Congress, “Owing to their unpredictable time, their lack of transparency, and their usual inscrutability, these ruling come both literally and figurative in the shadows.”

The Growing Problem with the Shadow Docket

The term “shadow docket” was first used by University of Chicago law professor Will Baude in 2015. He used it to refer to the docket of work at the Supreme Court that almost no one noticed. This work consists of thousands of decisions usually handed down as an “order” by a single judge, usually the Circuit Judge for a particular district. Sometimes, the order reflects the opinion of the entire Court. Of course, routine decisions can be made without all of the justices hearing all the arguments. The current issue is that the justices are sometimes granting relief in contentious cases. The problem is that cases which had been determined as significant are now being decided in the “shadows.”

Significant Issues Decided or Blocked by the Shadow Docket

The shadow docket decisions have included gerrymandering, environmental regulations, and abortion. And in many cases, the administration has filed an emergency motion where the administration seeks to suspend or reverse lower court decisions, even while the case is ongoing! Emergency actions are supposed to be rare. They are considered by the Supreme Court when the lower court ruling could cause irreparable harm. Justice Elena Kaga has said that the court has gone “astra” making the “Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all …… only another place for merits determination—except made without full briefing and argument.”

Why is This Change a Problem?

Use of the shadow docket process runs against the historic record of transparency and rule of law generally associated with the Supreme Court. The Court has historically allowed the lower courts to establish facts and make determinations on cases. The Court then receives full briefings on the lower court case, holds oral arguments from both sides of the issue, and decides on an outcome, providing details of the decision-making process (including dissenting and supporting opinions). This process has been the backbone of the Court’s legitimacy with the American people.

It is no wonder that the American public is beginning to question the Court’s objectivity. Shadow docket decisions do not have the transparent look of the merit docket. Decisions are being rendered with little or no reasoning given. This has fed the believe that the Court has become more political in its decision making.

In addition, the concept of case law, which has guided lower courts in their decision making, has become difficult to follow. Federal judges often cannot agree on what weight to give shadow docket decisions. This has played out in the confusion over Trump’s immigration policies and his use of the military to support ICE.

The Consequences

District Judges are not only having problems applying case law or knowing the Supreme Court’s message, but they are also resigning out of frustration. One example is Judge Mark Wolf, U.S. District Judge for the Massachusetts District, who has resigned after many years on the bench. He has expressed his frustration with the erosion of prosecutorial independence, attacks on the Constitution, and rule of law by the current administration. Wolf was appointed by President Reagan in 1989 and was a major jurist in the Watergate Affair.

Conclusion

The shadow docket is likely being misused as a matter of political expedience. It is up to the Justices to reign in this practice and recognize that matters which the administration views as emergencies should be allowed to play out through the normal appeals process.

The Trump Administration and The Bill of Rights

The Future is in the Supreme Court’s Hands

One of the most important written documents in American history is the Constitution. And within the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These amendments spell out the limitations of our government by the people as well as the rights of the people. Has the Trump administration adhered to our founding father’s vision of a nation ruled by the people and for the people? A look at how well the administration has followed the tenants of the Bill of Rights gives a clear picture of an administration that has no interest in these important rights and limitations! It will be up to the Supreme Court to determine just how far the administration can push the letter of the law!

The First Amendment relates to religion, free speech, and assemblage. The government should make no laws establishing a preferred religion or prohibiting the exercise of religion. Today, Christian Nationalism fails to allow for the exercise of religion other than that of Christians. Laws requiring Christian references have been passed in several states. Usually, they are found unconstitutional when reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Free speech is guaranteed. However, under the current administration, speech which does not conform to the standards set by the President has been under attack. Comedians making jokes about the administration are regularly attacked by the President and his surrogates. Colbert, Kimel, and O’Fallon are just a few who have had to pay a price for making jokes about the President and his administration. The President has even issued an executive order that prohibits flag burning, despite a previous Supreme Court decision that makes it a form of free speech. In the last few days, he has reiterated that anyone burning the flag should be in jail for one year! Furthermore, the press is being stifled with threats from the Federal Communications Commission following our President’s disapproval of news coverage. ABC recently settled a lawsuit regarding free speech rather than paying the price to defend the corporation and jeopardize a pending multi-million-dollar merger with Nexstar.

Freedom of assemblage is being taken away as the President sends national guard and/or federal troops to Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and other cities where demonstrations around Immigration Customs Enforcement protest the government’s attack on immigration. As of this writing, federal judges have blocked the deployment pending hearing legal responses from the federal government.

The Second Amendment concerns the Militia (National Guard). The “Guard” is highly regarded and regulated by law and decades of precedents. Our President is using powers granted to him to control insurrections or enforce federal laws to create unrest where there are no insurrections and the enforcement of federal laws are not being forcefully ignored. The right to bear arms is not under attack by the administration.

The Third Amendment concerns quartering of troops. It has little application in today’s world. The administration, so far, has not tried to place troops in private homes or businesses. Although, ICE has trespassed on private property in the pursuit of illegals.

The Fourth Amendment provides for the security of people against unreasonable search and seizure. Probable cause is needed for searches and warrants. The amendment requires that warrants give a description of the place, persons, and things that can be seized. The ICE crackdown on immigrants has often failed to follow the simplest rules set forth in this amendment. People are arrested without probable cause as defined by our courts over many years. People are arrested because they do not look like “Americans”. Even children are being detained (arrested)!

The Fifth Amendment addresses the requirement for an indictment for crimes. A person must be indicted by a grand jury. In modern times, the prosecuting attorney can present the indictment. In 2025, individuals are being arrested without being indicted. There is no trial. This amendment also addresses double jeopardy; a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This amendment also provides for the right to not be a witness against oneself. It also requires due process before private property can be taken for public use. These three areas seem to be left alone.

The Sixth Amendment provides for a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers. This is the habeas corpus amendment. It provides for the right to call and confront witnesses. It also provides for the right to have an attorney. Many of the alleged illegal immigrants are not provided these basic rights. Many have been arrested and removed from this country without any formal hearing!

The Seventh Amendment is the double jeopardy rule. At this point this amendment is not being attacked.

The Eighth Amendment concerns bail. It cannot be excessive. It also says that the punishment cannot be cruel or unusual. In the case of ICE deportations, the charged crime of being an illegal immigrant has resulted in deportees being incarcerated in prisons in other countries or detained in deplorable detention centers here. Think Alligator Alley.

The Ninth Amendment reflects a deep philosophical commitment to the idea that liberty is not confined to what’s written in law. The rights of the people are not limited by the Constitution. The interpretation of this amendment may have bearing on current situations.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. Current actions regarding the use of national guard and federal troops are beyond what the founding fathers likely believed. Their creation of posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act have limited the use of our military. While there are exceptions to both, the current situations as viewed by our president go beyond what the rationale person would accept as insurrections or a need to enforce federal law.

In conclusion, the decisions made by the Trump administration need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. We can only hope that justice prevails over political pressures!

Cents or Common Sense?

I often ask, “How much is enough?” How much wealth is enough for a person to live a good life? Is it $100,000, $1,000,000, billions, and now in some cases trillions? Most of our founding fathers were educated, skilled, and diverse in their financial status. They chose to create a constitution that guaranteed equality of opportunity and equal treatment of individuals. While slaves were not considered equals and women were not given any rights, these men were people of their time and represented a vision of the future where the people would govern themselves with equal voices. Is the pursuit of wealth what our founding fathers visualized when they established this great republic? NO, their vision was about equal opportunity, not the accumulation of vast wealth and the power that comes from having it.

The America That was Planned.

The Constitution, written by our founding fathers as our “blueprint,” stressed individual freedom through a representative democracy. The “people” were to be the government. The assumption was that an educated electorate would choose the best candidates to represent their interests. The founding fathers tried to draft a document that would allow the people to make decisions. However, several of these same authors also had a skeptical view of the future. They warned about greed and consolidation of power. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Franklin were very vocal about their concerns. Franklin is quoted as saying, “We have a democratic republic, can we keep it?” Some people with wealth and power have been trying to control government decision making for decades. And in 1958, Dwight Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

What is America About in the 21^st Century?

In the 21^st Century, success varies depending on the individual. Those with gifts for business control the decisions that Congress makes through lobbyists and PACTS. The control of government by vested business is not new. By 1900, “robber barons” influenced many government decisions. This influence was eventually limited during two presidencies—Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. However, over the decades following WWII, business interests have once again been able to exert excessive influence over our leaders.

Do we value wealth over our freedom of expression, and the ability to live life as we choose as long as we do no harm to others? The relationship between money, happiness, and freedom is complex. Can money buy happiness? According to one study, the answer is “yes” for 59% of Americans (72% of Millennials and 67% of Gen Z). Most associate a “Return on Happiness” with on-time bill payment (67%), being debt-free (65%), affording everyday luxuries without worry (54%), and owning a home (45%). Half of people say contentment is found in spending on experiences with those they cherish (53%) and in optimism for what’s next, including retiring on their own terms (37%).

However, many also recognize that financial stress can hinder overall happiness, with 73% of Americans reporting that they experience financial stress. In the current environment, people estimate that they will have to delay their expected retirement by three years (to age 63), on average. Economic pressures like inflation (81%), rising costs (81%), interest rates (66%), and student loans (32%) are dampening a sense of prosperity. Half of the people say they carry debt (54% of Gen Z, and 72% of Gen X), and 36% state that they could not handle an unforeseen expense over $500 without real worry (Empower Press, November 20,2023).

Apathy

However, as Noam Chomsky said, “As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please.” When the average American could have a nice home, car, truck, boat, and the ability to take vacations, then no one paid attention to the what the government was doing unless it impacted them directly.

In America, political apathy is a problem. In the United States, turnout for presidential elections places the country in 31st place out of 49 nations where data is available. During the 1800s, on average, 70% of Americans voted in presidential elections. Since 1900 the average has been consistently around 62-64%. The highest turnout was in the Hayes/Tilden race of 1876 with an 83% turnout. By the 21^st Century, apathy was common.

Donald Trump entered the Republican primary in June 2015. His campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again (MAGA)!” He won! Still, while Trump accurately claimed the election saw the largest number of voters to ever vote, voter turnout, at approximately 60%, was not great. The MAGA movement believes the U.S. was once great but has declined due to foreign influence. It supports “America first” policies, economic protectionism, reduced immigration, and what it regards as traditional American values, some of which involve discriminatory policies. In 2016, the MAGA movement made it clear that many Americans were concerned about the “extreme liberal” direction of the nation and the impact that it might have on their lives. The leaders of the movement stressed the “good old days” when Americans were patriots with Christian values. Opportunity existed for all if they would just work for it. They believed that government had become a tool for the left thinking socialists/communists. These left leaning leaders gave handouts to, and created opportunities for those who were not prepared or deserving.

Under President Donald Trump, America has now arrived at a critical point in determining what this nation represents. Are we going to step up and be about personal freedom or are we going to allow monied interests to control our government and our lives? Americans need to decide what is the ideal balance of wealth and power versus happiness and freedom for all.

Donald Trump’s Use of the Court System as a Tool to Implement His Objectives

It should come as no surprise that President Trump has been counting on his use of the court system to allow his administration to pursue his objectives despite legal challenges. Donald Trump and his businesses are not novices when it comes to using the court system to their advantage. Since 1973, Donald Trump’s businesses have been involved in over 4,000 federal and state legal cases. The cases run the gamut from real estate issues to personal defamation. His businesses have been involved in over 100 tax cases. In 2022 the Trump Organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges. (Jacobs, Shayna, “Trump Organization Convicted in N.Y. Criminal Tax Fraud Trial,” Washington Post, December 6, 2022). Donald Trump has been to court for accusations of sexual harassment and assault. The E. Jean Carrol case decision founds him guilty and fined him $80 million. (Stempel, Jonathan, “US Judge Upholds 83.3 Million Defamation Loss, Rejects New Trial,” Reuters, April 25, 2024). In January 2023, he was fined nearly $1 million because the judge found him to be “a prolific and sophisticated litigant who repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. Haberman, Maggie (January 31, 2023) “Trump’s Well-Worm Legal Playbook Starts to Look Frayed,” Vanity Fair.

While many MAGA supporters would say that the Democrats have used the justice system to persecute Donald Trump, his record of problems with the government, other businesses, and people precede his interest in politics by several decades. Most cases in which Donald Trump has been involved were before he announced his candidacy for President.

Still, since January 2025, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the current Trump administration. These lawsuits challenge various executive orders and actions taken by the administration, including those by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk. The courts have blocked the administration in several cases, and many of these cases are currently under appeal.

A litigation tracker by Just Security has recorded a total of 378 cases against the Trump administration’s actions. Out of these, 25 actions have been blocked, 77 temporarily blocked, and 17 blocked pending appeal. Additionally, 146 cases are still awaiting court rulings.

One notable case is Taylor v. Trump, where a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden are challenging an executive order by President Trump. This order directed the Attorney General to evaluate their imprisonment conditions and resulted in their indefinite incarceration at a federal supermax prison. Other significant cases where his efforts have been blocked include a legal challenge to a birthright citizenship executive order and challenges to suspending his asylum executive order. Immigration advocacy groups argue that the executive order violates the Constitution. Other cases where bans on executive orders are in place include challenges to suspending the Refugee Program. Plaintiffs argue that the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment. A federal appeals court ruled in March that Trump can partially enforce the refugee ban. And another case fights the Deportation of the Boulder, Colorado attack suspect’s family. A federal judge in Colorado halted the deportation of the wife and five children of Mohamed Soliman, who is facing a hate crime charge in the wake of a firebombing attack in Colorado. The ruling will remain in effect until a scheduled hearing. While President Trump has had his actions challenged and blocked, he has also had success with the Supreme Courts decision on Executive Immunity and most recently in the civil judgement in New York where the fine of $50 million for fraud was overturned by the appellate court.

Summary of Total number of cases currently tracked by Just Security: 381.

Case Status Summary:
Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff: 1
Blocked: 25 (When a case is described as “blocked,” it means that a court has issued an order preventing the enforcement or implementation of a specific action or policy. This can happen for various reasons, such as the court finding that the action or policy is likely to be unconstitutional, violates existing laws, or causes irreparable harm.)
Temporarily Blocked: 77
Blocked Pending Appeal: 17
Temporarily Blocked in Part or Temporary Block Denied in Part: 11
Temporary Block Denied: 38
Not Blocked, Pending Appeal: 34
Awaiting Court Ruling: 147
Case Closed: 22
Misc: Transferred: 2
Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 7

The End Game

For over 50 years, Donald Trump has used the courts, mostly to his advantage. When a court finds against his position, he appeals. If the appeal fails, he appeals to the next higher court. This is a delaying tactic that often results in a settlement where Donald Trump can claim a victory even if it costs him. The tactic has allowed him time to proceed with his agenda while the legality plays out in court. To improve his chances of favorable outcomes, he has discovered a tactic to appoint judges who are loyal to him to positions where he may have cases heard. In an Augst 19, 2025 article in Politico, Erica Orden notes that President Trump is circumventing the Senate to install top federal prosecutors who are loyalists. According to Orden, when Trump’s nominees can’t be confirmed by the Senate, he temporarily installs an interim US Attorney. This person can serve for 120 days (4 months). When the term ends, District Judges can reject the appointment. The Trump administration has chosen to ignore the District Judges and reappoint his selected federal attorney for an additional 120 days (Orden, Erica, “Trump Bypasses the Senate—and the Courts—to install loyal US Attorneys,” Politico, August 19, 2025).

One of the most recent cases involved New Jersey, where Alina Habba, one of Trumps personal lawyers was appointed to serve and then nominated for the permanent position of federal prosecutor. Habba was the attorney involved in the detention of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Representative LaMonica McIver when they attempted to visit an immigration detention center (Catalini, Mike, “Judge Says Former Trump Lawyer Alina Habba has been Unlawfully Serving as US Attorney in New Jersey,” Associated Press, August 19, 2025). On August 20, 2025, US District Judge Matthew Brann ruled that Habba was acting Illegally as the US attorney for New Jersey. President Trump’s illegal effort to bypass Congress was noted by the Judge. Cases overseen by Habba after her illegal appointment are now being appealed by defendants in those cases (Rivard, Ry, “The Fallout from the Alina Habba Ruling has Begun” Politico, August 22, 2025).

Conclusion

How the battle for the courts will play out is anyone’s guess. However, it is worth noting that President Trump’s team, even with its delaying tactics is losing more often than winning. The issue to be considered is the damage done to the system and the agencies impacted by the administration actions while the courts decide whether the actions are Constitutional!

The Use of Federal Troops and Officers for State and Local Law Enforcement

The recent use of the National Guard, and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, and Federal Park Police in Washington, D.C., raises the question of when, where and how federal agencies and the military can be used for general law enforcement activities outside their normal assigned responsibilities. While the Pentagon ended the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles on July 15, 2025, 300 national guard soldiers are still deployed. These troops were initially sent to deal with protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Neither Governor Newsom nor Mayor Bass requested the use of the guard in dealing with localized protests and looting. The 700-person Marine unit has been recalled. Then, on August 12, 2025, approximately 800 National Guard troops and National Park Police were deployed to Washington, D.C, under President Donald Trump’s orders to combat crime and homelessness. This deployment included members of the Guard’s 273rd Military Police Company. In addition, three states are sending additional guard troops to support the District Guard.

As a career law enforcement officer, trainer, educator, and administrator, I was shocked to see the events in Los Angeles and Washington unfold using federal officers and military personnel. Most law enforcement personnel are familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385). This act prohibits the use of the military to enforce domestic laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. It was passed after the Civil War Reconstruction to prevent federal troops from policing civilian populations in the South. The term posse comitatus comes from Latin, meaning “power of the county.” Historically, it referred to a sheriff’s ability to summon civilians to help enforce the law. The Act specifically prohibits direct law enforcement by military personnel (e.g., arrests, searches, seizures). The use of the military as a domestic police force without legal authorization is not allowed.

The Trump administration has justified its actions citing the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Act provides notable statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy troops to suppress insurrections or enforce federal laws when requested by a state governor or when rebellion makes enforcement of laws impossible. In general, an insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It involves a group of people rising in active resistance to the enforcement of laws or the functioning of the government.

Historically, the Supreme Court has intervened interpreting the Posse Comitatus Act. In the United States v. Red Feather (1975) the Court upheld the concept that indirect support (e.g., equipment) does not violate the Act. However, in United States v. McArthur (1982) the Court found that military involvement in a drug investigation crossed the line into unlawful enforcement.

It is important to note that The National Guard is not regarded as a federal agency and is under individual state authority.Governors can use their National Guard units for law enforcement support within their state or, if invited, in neighboring states.

It is equally important to note that the Supreme Court has said that the military can be used inIndirect support of law enforcement activities—like sharing intelligence, training, or loaning equipment. But direct involvement in arrests or investigations is not allowed.

The Insurrection Act has been used eight times since its passage. President Abraham Lincoln activated state militias to fight the secessionist states of the Confederacy (1861-1865). President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the desegregation of public schools (1957). President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed federal troops to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama during the desegregation of southern schools (1957). President Jimmy Carter deployed federal troops to manage the influx of Cuban refugees in Florida (1980). President George H. W. Bush deployed federal troops to restore order during the Los Angeles Riots following the Rodney King verdict (1992). President George W. Bush deployed federal troops to assist with disaster relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2005). (History of U.S. Troop Deployments 1950-2023, Hoover Institution) President Donald Trump deployed troops as noted in the introductory paragraph (2025).

As noted earlier, the National Guard is currently active in Washington, D.C., with approximately 800 troops deployed to support law enforcement and community safety efforts. The D.C. National Guard has a unique status, as it is the only National Guard unit that reports directly to the President of the United States. This structure allows for rapid deployment in response to emergencies or national security needs. The question is “Is there an emergency?”. The President claims he needs to remove homeless people and stop the crime epidemic. There is no crime epidemic. There are many cities in America that have higher crime rates than in the District. According to his own FBI National Crime Report, overall crime is down, not only in the District, but nationwide.

What transpired in Los Angeles was challenged as illegal. Only Governor Newsom has the authority to call out the Guard. The Insurrection Act allows the President to use the military when there is an insurrection or to enforce federal laws when requested by the state governor. There was no insurrection where the enforcement of law was impossible and there was NO request from Governor Newsom for assistance from the California National Guard.

As a result of the federal government’s action, Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit against the federal government. The request by Newsom for an injunction was initially granted but eventually overturned by the Appellate Court. The Department of Justice argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, there was no precedent for such a lawsuit, there was no injunctive relief or money damages, and that Newsom and the State had suffered no harm. That case was adjudicated on August 13, 2025 and is still being reviewed by U. S. District Judge Charles Breyer.

While the call out of the National Guard in D.C. is within the President’s authority, that authority is to only respond to emergencies and national security threats. As of this writing, numerous groups are questioning Trump’s justification. There is NO emergency! Crime is down in the District as well as the nation, as reported by Trump’s own Justice Department. Lawsuits will likely be filed. However, Trump has historically shown a tendency to use the courts to his advantage. Court actions generally move slowly, allowing Trump to continue his activities unless an injunction is approved.

Of greater concern is President’s Trump’s comments about using the Guard in other cities. Right now, there is NO national emergency, no major uptick in crime, and no rebellion. The founding fathers did not want a national police force. The significant laws are the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The Trump administration is pushing the limits when they claim that the guard can be used beyond a logistics mission. While pending lawsuits will likely make this clear, as noted above, it has been Donald Trump’s strategy to use the courts to gain time.

It is time for concerned citizens to get involved by calling, texting, emailing or writing representatives and senators. Push Congress to act. It is time to “call out” the illegal behavior of the Trump administration before it is too late. Continued peaceful protests with widespread media coverage can be helpful, if the media finally engages. Trusted media sources must speak up along with our concerned citizens.