The Cracks in Our Democracy — and the Citizens Who Can Repair Them
Warning Signs in Our Republic: A Civic Educator’s Alarm
I write this with a heavy heart, feeling like a lookout sounding the alarm after the floodwaters have already begun to breach the levee. As a law professor and attorney who regularly talks about government, civics, and the law, I’ve always preached vigilance before a crisis. Now I find myself describing constitutional dangers that are already unfolding around us. The situation is somber – our democratic institutions show cracks where there should be strength – yet I remain hopeful that by recognizing these warning signs we can act in time to repair our republic. In this post, I’ll walk through several recent breaches of U.S. constitutional principles, from due process to free speech, and explain why they matter. Each example illustrates an erosion of the rule of law, the separation of powers, or our basic rights, and each should concern every American who cares about our democracy.
Due Process Denied in Deportation Cases
The Fifth Amendment guarantees our right to due process before being deprived of “life, liberty, or property.”
One of the bedrock promises of American law is that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process. Yet recent policies have starkly undermined this principle in the context of immigration. A newly uncovered Justice Department memo exemplifies this assault on due process: it instructs federal officers that certain detainees – those labeled “alien enemies” under a 1798 law – are “not entitled to a hearing, appeal or judicial review” before being removed (Exclusive: DOJ memo reveals blueprint to target Venezuelan gang). In other words, people can be arrested and deported without ever seeing a judge or having a chance to defend themselves. This directive, issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi in March, essentially orders agents to short-circuit the immigration courts. It even authorizes officers to enter homes without warrants if they deem it impracticable to get one first (Pam Bondi says "alien enemies" can be deported without judicial review) (Exclusive: DOJ memo reveals blueprint to target Venezuelan gang). Such actions ignore the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee and the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. They treat constitutional rights as optional.
It’s important to note that these extreme measures have not gone unchallenged. Courts are beginning to push back – for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that even under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, detainees are entitled to challenge their detention (Pam Bondi says "alien enemies" can be deported without judicial review) and that the use of the Alien and Enemies Act is unlawful (Trump-appointed federal judge blocks use of Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelans in South Texas). But the very fact that our government’s policy had to be reined in by judges speaks volumes. When an administration claims the power to bypass hearings and judicial oversight, it undermines the rule of law that binds our nation. As a civic educator, I find this development chilling: I never imagined I’d be describing a scenario in America where officials boast that “no person gets a trial” because it’s too much trouble (Marco Rubio Splits With Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi on Due Process). Yet here we are, and it’s my duty to warn that due process – a principle dating back to Magna Carta – is being eroded before our eyes.
Economic Consequences of Unilateral Actions
Another cornerstone of our constitutional system is the separation of powers – for example, Congress holds the power to regulate commerce and levy taxes, including tariffs. In recent years, however, the executive branch has increasingly acted on its own to impose tariffs and other trade barriers, often with little consultation or check. These unilateral trade actions haven’t just raised constitutional questions; they’ve also inflicted economic pain. When a single branch makes sweeping economic decisions in a vacuum, the fallout can reverberate through the whole country.
Consider the series of aggressive tariffs implemented by executive order over the past year. Allies and economists alike warned that these sudden tariff hikes – done without congressional approval – would upend supply chains and hurt American businesses and consumers. Indeed, analysts cautioned that the 2025 tariff package could “reignite inflation, raise the risk of a U.S. recession and boost costs for the average U.S. family by thousands of dollars.” (Trump tariffs sow fears of trade wars, recession and a $2,300 iPhone | Reuters) This isn’t a hypothetical concern; we watched it play out. Stock markets swooned on the news of new tariffs, and farmers and manufacturers saw overseas orders canceled in retaliation (Trade war, tariffs 'full-blown crisis already,' U.S. farm exporters say) (Trump tariffs sow fears of trade wars, recession and a $2300 iPhone). The economic contraction caused by these trade wars illustrates why our system of checks and balances exists: major policy shifts benefit from debate, deliberation, and broader buy-in. When one leader can unilaterally tax American consumers (because that’s what a tariff effectively is) without a thorough review of the consequences, it “allows the executive branch to ignore any costs of tariffs and thus to implement tariffs that make Americans worse off.” (Why does the executive branch have so much power over tariffs?) In short, bypassing Congress on economic decisions doesn’t just violate constitutional norms – it also hurts everyday people’s livelihoods.
Erosion of the Rule of Law: Citizens Caught in the Dragnet
Perhaps the most heart-wrenching sign of our norms breaking down is when American citizens themselves become collateral damage of law enforcement overreach. The rule of law means the law should protect all of us and that authorities must follow legal procedures for all. Yet recent immigration enforcement tactics have trampled those ideals, sweeping up even U.S. citizens in their zeal. This should set off alarm bells for everyone, no matter your politics.
The adminstration’s enforcement of immigration laws has led to violations of civil and constitutional rights.
In one particularly jarring episode, immigration agents actually deported multiple U.S.-born children alongside their undocumented mothers – effectively exiling American citizens without due process. Early one Friday morning, three little children (ages 7, 4, and 2) from Louisiana were taken with their mothers and put on a plane out of the country (Marco Rubio Splits With Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi on Due Process) (Marco Rubio Splits With Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi on Due Process). They were given virtually no chance to contact family or lawyers before being expelled (ICE deported 3 children who are U.S. citizens, their families’ lawyers say | PBS News). One of these children was a four-year-old girl battling stage-four cancer, who suddenly found herself in a foreign country without access to her medication or doctors (Marco Rubio Splits With Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi on Due Process). The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates called this “a shocking — although increasingly common — abuse of power.” (ICE deported 3 children who are U.S. citizens, their families’ lawyers say | PBS News) In fact, a federal judge, upon learning what happened, scheduled an emergency hearing “in the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.” (ICE deported 3 children who are U.S. citizens, their families’ lawyers say | PBS News) Even if some officials argue the children left “voluntarily” with their mothers, the reality is they were given no real choice (ICE deported 3 children who are U.S. citizens, their families’ lawyers say | PBS News). It’s hard to imagine a more blatant violation of the rule of law than deporting your own citizens in secret, without a day in court. If the government can spirit away a cancer-stricken four-year-old American girl despite court orders pending, who among us can feel secure?
Sadly, the erosion of legal norms doesn’t end there. Innocent American families have also been subjected to mistaken, heavy-handed raids. Picture this: an Oklahoma mother and her three daughters, recently moved into a new home, awaken to the sound of 20 armed agents breaking down their door. The agents – a mix of ICE and other federal officers – force the family outside in the pouring rain, wearing nothing but their underwear at gunpoint (Mom Says ICE Agents Humiliated Her Family in Mistaken Raid ). The terrified mother and her girls repeatedly protested that they are U.S. citizens, but it didn’t matter in that moment. Only after ransacking the house did the agents admit they had the wrong address – the family had no connection whatsoever to the investigation (it was a botched human-smuggling raid targeting a previous resident) (Mom Says ICE Agents Humiliated Her Family in Mistaken Raid ). The agents even seized the family’s phones, laptops, and savings as “evidence,” leaving them with no idea how to recover their belongings (Mom Says ICE Agents Humiliated Her Family in Mistaken Raid ). An official later brushed off the incident as the morning being “a little rough” for the family (Mom Says ICE Agents Humiliated Her Family in Mistaken Raid ). A little rough. Imagine your own family subjected to such an ordeal – it’s the stuff of nightmares, and it happened on American soil to American citizens. When law enforcement feels empowered to kick down doors first and ask questions later, the rule of law is turned on its head. These mistaken raids and wrongful deportations show an alarming slide toward lawlessness: procedures and safeguards that once protected innocent people are being cast aside. We’re left asking, if this isn’t crossing a line, what is?
Attacks on Free Speech and the First Amendment
A free society depends on the freedom to speak, to criticize, and to advocate – without fear of government retaliation. The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any official who would punish speech or press they dislike. Yet in recent times, we have seen unprecedented attacks on the freedom of speech coming from those in power, striking at the media, lawyers, and even students. As someone who teaches about these rights, I feel a profound duty to highlight these breaches – and to remind us why the First Amendment’s protections are so vital.
Our First Amendment right to peacefully protest is sacrosanct in our democracy.
One troubling trend is the use of “lawfare” against the press – essentially wielding lawsuits as weapons to intimidate journalists and news outlets. Just weeks after the 2024 election, the then-president-elect (himself no stranger to litigation) unleashed a flurry of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against major media organizations, including The New York Times and CBS News, accusing them of bias and defamation (Trump sues for billions from media he says is biased against him | Donald Trump | The Guardian) (Trump sues for billions from media he says is biased against him | Donald Trump | The Guardian). Observers described these suits as frivolous and politically motivated – part of a broader campaign of hostility toward the press, which the president-elect had ominously labeled “the enemy camp” (Trump sues for billions from media he says is biased against him | Donald Trump | The Guardian). The goal of such lawsuits is not truly to win in court (indeed, press freedoms are strongly protected by decades of Supreme Court precedent), but rather to chill criticism, drain resources, and bully the media into silence. At the same time, the administration turned its sights on lawyers who had dared to cross the president. In early 2025, a series of executive orders targeted prominent law firms that had been involved in investigations of the president or that represented his political rivals (2 federal judges rule against Trump orders targeting law firms : NPR) (2 federal judges rule against Trump orders targeting law firms : NPR). These orders attempted to punish firms like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale – for example, by barring their attorneys from federal buildings and stripping their security clearances – simply because those firms had represented clients or causes the president opposed (2 federal judges rule against Trump orders targeting law firms : NPR) (2 federal judges rule against Trump orders targeting law firms : NPR). Such retaliatory action against lawyers is virtually unheard of in our recent history; it undermines the right to counsel and the duty of attorneys to advocate for their clients, even when those clients challenge the powerful. Thankfully, when these orders were challenged in court, judges swiftly blocked them. One federal judge bluntly wrote, “There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.” (2 federal judges rule against Trump orders targeting law firms : NPR) In other words, using the levers of government to punish media outlets for reporting or lawyers for lawyering violates the First Amendment’s core guarantees of free speech, free press, and petitioning the government. It’s heartening that the judicial branch intervened, but it’s sobering that such steps were even necessary. We’ve long held up the United States as a place where no leader is above criticism, and where lawyers and journalists can do their jobs without fear – now we must fight to keep that true.
Equally concerning has been the crackdown on individuals’ speech, especially students and activists. Across the country, there have been reports of students being disciplined, monitored, or even detained by authorities for expressing dissenting views. A striking example unfolded this spring: Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian-American graduate student at Columbia University, was suddenly arrested by ICE agents while attending what he thought was a routine immigration interview. Mahdawi is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the U.S. for years; he had no criminal record. The real reason for his detention? His outspoken activism on campus in support of Palestinian human rights (Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi freed after federal judge orders release | US immigration | The Guardian). In an extraordinary use of power, the administration tried to strip him of his legal status and deport him under an obscure statute that lets the State Department deem someone a “threat” to foreign policy (Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi freed after federal judge orders release | US immigration | The Guardian). Effectively, he was being exiled for his political views – punished for pure protected speech. Mahdawi languished in custody for two weeks without charges, until a federal judge ordered his release. In freeing him, the judge explicitly noted that the government had “failed to demonstrate any legitimate interest” in this student’s continued detention and warned that keeping him locked up “would likely have a chilling effect on protected speech.” (Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi freed after federal judge orders release | US immigration | The Guardian) This case was not an isolated one: Mahdawi was “one of a number of international students” detained in recent months for advocacy on the Palestine issue (Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi freed after federal judge orders release | US immigration | The Guardian). Members of Congress from both parties were stunned, calling these detentions a “national disgrace” and demanding answers. As an educator, I emphasize to my students that the First Amendment is our safety valve – it’s what lets us debate, protest, and correct injustices without resorting to violence. When government starts detaining people for peaceful activism or suing critics into silence, that safety valve is being shut off. The long-term danger here is a culture of fear, where people self-censor and shy away from civic engagement. We cannot let that happen in America. Free speech is not a partisan issue; it’s the foundation of every other right. We must insist that our leaders respect it, even when the speech is critical of them.
Dismantling Government Agencies by Fiat
Another troubling sign for our democracy is the attempt to dismantle or neuter federal agencies unilaterally, without the approval of Congress. The structure of our government is established by law: agencies and departments exist because Congress created them, and usually only Congress can fundamentally alter or abolish them. This is a critical aspect of checks and balances – it prevents a president from simply wiping out programs or offices he dislikes on a whim. Yet recent moves from the executive branch show a disregard for this constitutional design, with efforts to tear down parts of the federal government by decree.
““The accumulation of all powers, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ”
A case in point is the fate of the U.S. Department of Education. In March 2025, the president signed an executive order that outright calls for closing the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities elsewhere (2025 Trump’s Executive Order To Dismantle The Education Department Was Inspired By The Heritage Foundation’s Decades-long Disapproval Of The Agency). This is not a modest reform or a budget cut – it’s an attempt to eliminate a Cabinet-level department that has existed since 1979. The order directs the Education Secretary to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department,” framing it as returning power to states and local communities (2025 Trump’s Executive Order To Dismantle The Education Department Was Inspired By The Heritage Foundation’s Decades-long Disapproval Of The Agency). Here’s the catch: the President cannot do this unilaterally. Even the order itself quietly acknowledges that “[t]he president needs congressional approval to shutter the department.” (2025 Trump’s Executive Order To Dismantle The Education Department Was Inspired By The Heritage Foundation’s Decades-long Disapproval Of The Agency) Under our Constitution, Congress created the Department of Education by law, and only Congress can abolish it. By issuing this order without waiting for Congress, the executive branch is thumbing its nose at the separation of powers. Legal experts immediately pointed out that this move was likely unconstitutional – a “reckless attempt to dismantle our government without congressional approval” as one non-profit group put it (Statements: Massive Coalition of Unions, Non-Profit Groups, and ...). Sure enough, multiple lawsuits have been filed to stop the implementation of this order (Stopping the Unconstitutional Dismantling of the Federal Government). Why should we, as citizens, care about this procedural fight? Because behind it lies a fundamental question: can a president ignore legal limits to remake government in his own image? If one president can ax an entire department on his say-so, a future president could do the same to, say, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Justice – whichever agencies they find inconvenient. Today it’s education; tomorrow it could be elections or civil rights enforcement. Our system was built to prevent such unilateral dismantling. By design, big changes require debate, legislation, and consensus – or at least some agreement between the branches. When that process is short-circuited, we risk concentrating too much power in one person’s hands and losing the guarantees that essential public services will continue impartially. Whether one agrees or disagrees about the Department of Education’s merits, the proper way to reform or even abolish it is through our representatives in Congress, not by executive fiat. Anything less sets a dangerous precedent.
Ignoring Laws and Court Orders – A Constitutional Crisis
The final warning sign I want to highlight is perhaps the most blatant: the tendency of the executive branch to ignore laws passed by Congress and even rulings of the courts. The President’s constitutional duty is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” When a president instead chooses to defy a law or a court order simply because he disagrees, it strikes at the heart of our constitutional structure. It effectively announces that the executive considers itself above the law – a scenario that the Framers of our Constitution feared and tried to prevent.
A striking recent example involves the popular social media app TikTok. Last year, Congress debated and ultimately passed a bipartisan law addressing national security concerns about TikTok, which is owned by a Chinese company. The law gave the company a clear ultimatum: sell TikTok’s U.S. operations to an American owner by a certain deadline, or the app would be banned nationwide. This law was not rushed or one-sided; it passed with overwhelming support from both parties and was signed by the President at the time. Privacy and security experts raised First Amendment questions (since banning a communications platform is a serious step), but those claims were litigated. In January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the TikTok ban law, finding that it did not violate free speech rights given the national security justification (US lawmakers cheer Supreme Court for upholding TikTok ban law | Reuters). In a normal world, that would be the end of the matter – the law is the law, and it should be carried out. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the new administration simply chose not to enforce the law. As the deadline for TikTok to shut down approached, President Trump – now in his second term – unilaterally issued extensions delaying the ban, effectively giving the company a reprieve in defiance of Congress’s mandate. He first extended the deadline by 75 days, then further into the summer (Senator Warner says new Trump TikTok extension may violate law | Reuters) (Senator Warner says new Trump TikTok extension may violate law | Reuters). This was done without any authorization from the law itself, which had set a firm date. Lawmakers and legal analysts were aghast. Senator Mark Warner, for example, flatly stated that the President’s action “violates the law,” noting that the extension plan under consideration didn’t meet the requirements Congress had set (Senator Warner says new Trump TikTok extension may violate law | Reuters) (Senator Warner says new Trump TikTok extension may violate law | Reuters). By April, TikTok was still operating freely despite the ban date having passed – solely because the executive branch opted not to enforce the law, as if the law were optional (Senator Warner says new Trump TikTok extension may violate law | Reuters). Regardless of one’s feelings about TikTok, this situation is a constitutional crisis in miniature. The executive branch was presented with a law, upheld by the highest court in the land, and essentially said, “No, we don’t agree, so we won’t obey.” That approach shatters the concept of checks and balances. If allowed to stand, it means any future president could ignore any law he dislikes – from environmental regulations to civil rights protections – and dare others to stop him. It’s the very definition of rule by decree, not rule of law.
We’ve also seen other instances of this kind of defiance. There have been cases of the executive branch refusing to spend funds that Congress appropriated for programs it didn’t favor, or enforcing only the portions of laws it likes and neglecting the rest. Each time that happens, another brick from the wall of “government of laws, not of men” falls away. Our democratic system is not designed to run on the honor system alone – it assumes officeholders will at least follow the basic commands of statutes and court orders. When that assumption breaks down, so does the system.
Choosing Hope: How We Move Forward
At this point, after surveying these many troubling examples, it’s easy to feel despair. I will not sugarcoat it: the damage to our constitutional norms is real, and the hour is late. In many ways, I feel like Paul Revere riding through the night after the redcoats have already arrived – a warning that comes as the crisis is unfolding, not before. But even now, it is not too late to act. Americans have faced grave tests to our democracy before and emerged with our freedoms intact, often stronger for having fought for them. We can do so again. The very fact that I can publish this post and that you can read it is a testament to the resilience of our system – these abuses have not gone unnoticed, and we still have the power to correct course.
Hope, to me, lies in the countless citizens and institutions pushing back in defense of the Constitution. It lies in the judges across the ideological spectrum who have ruled against overreach, in the journalists who continue to investigate and report the truth under threat of lawsuit, in the lawyers and advocacy groups working pro bono to challenge unlawful actions. Hope lies in you, the engaged citizen – because ultimately “We the People” are the bedrock of our republic. The League of Women Voters was founded on the principle that an informed and active electorate will keep our democracy healthy. Now is the time to be active and informed like never before.
So what can we do, individually and collectively, to address these dangers and reaffirm our nation’s core values? Here are a few steps every one of us can take:
Stay informed and educate others. Knowledge truly is power. Share credible news about these issues with your friends and family. Discuss what due process, free speech, and checks and balances mean and why they matter. Public awareness is the first line of defense against abuse of power. If more Americans know that, say, American children are being deported without hearings or judges had to stop a President from retaliating against law firms, there will be greater demand for accountability. As a civic educator, I’ll continue doing my part to spread this knowledge — whether through blog posts or Instagram reels or community workshops — and I invite you to do the same in your circles.
Vote in every election – and vote informed. This cannot be stressed enough. Voting is the tool by which we, the people, hire and fire our leaders. If you are alarmed by officials who flout the Constitution, use your vote to support those who will uphold it. From the presidency down to county judges, every office matters. Research candidates’ positions on rule of law issues. Do they respect court rulings? Will they uphold laws they personally dislike? Will they put country over party or ego? The League of Women Voters provides nonpartisan voter guides to help you understand candidates’ views. Encourage others to vote as well, especially those who feel disillusioned – remind them that their voice is their vote.
Contact your representatives and demand oversight. Congress, state legislators, and local officials work for us. If you’re troubled by what you’ve learned, call or write to your representatives. Demand that they conduct oversight hearings, support investigations, or pass protective legislation. For example, if due process in immigration matters concerns you, ask your Congressperson to support legislation reining in summary deportations or to beef up immigration court resources. If the treatment of the press worries you, urge them to speak out or even consider laws to discourage abusive libel suits (without infringing legitimate ones). Elected officials do pay attention to constituent communications, and every letter helps. The rule of law is not a “left” or “right” issue, so you can appeal to your representatives on the basis of shared American values.
Support civil society organizations. Numerous non-profit organizations are working tirelessly to defend constitutional rights and hold power to account. These include groups like the ACLU (which has challenged family separations and free speech violations), Protect Democracy (which is literally suing over the “dismantling” of agencies without Congress (Stopping the Unconstitutional Dismantling of the Federal Government)), the League of Women Voters (educating and empowering voters), and many more. They need public support, whether through donations, volunteering, or simply amplifying their messages. By backing these groups, you amplify your impact beyond what any one person can do.
Engage in peaceful protest and public dialogue. The First Amendment is still in force, and we should use it. Peaceful demonstrations, petitions, town hall meetings – all these send a message that citizens are watching and care deeply about these issues. When university students protest a classmate’s unjust detention or when community members rally against corruption, it shines a spotlight on problems and often forces change. Likewise, talking with neighbors and attending local forums can bridge divides – you might be surprised how many fellow Americans share your concerns about constitutional principles when politics is set aside. Build those coalitions. We’re all in this together, ultimately.
Finally, I want to end on a note of optimism and resolve. The tone of this post has been grave, and rightly so – the threats to our system are serious. But the story isn’t over. America has a long history of self-correction. We have stumbled before; we have faced down dark times – and we have overcome, guided by the better angels of our nature. The constitutional violations I described are like cracks in the hull of a great ship. They are cause for alarm, but if we act, they can be repaired. I would not be writing this if I didn’t believe, deep down, that we the people can reclaim our role and set things right.
In my classroom (be it a literal classroom or a virtual one on social media), I often tell young people that citizenship is a verb – it’s something you do. Each of us has a part to play in renewing our democracy’s promise. By speaking out against wrongdoing, by voting and advocating, by teaching the next generation, we carry on the work of those who came before us – the suffragists, the civil rights activists, the everyday patriots who insisted that America live up to its highest ideals. Now it’s our turn.
The League of Women Voters’ motto is “Empowering Voters. Defending Democracy.” Those aren’t just words; they’re a call to action, especially now. Yes, we are living through somber times for our republic. But I remain hopeful because I know the power to change course is in our hands. Let’s heed the warning signs, resolve to address them, and move forward together – reflective, determined, and hopeful. Our American experiment has weathered storms for over two centuries. With informed, engaged citizens at the helm, it can weather this one too.
Together, let’s ensure that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish, but prevail.
