That Ain’t How It’s Supposed to Work! Trump’s Revenge EOs: Weaponizing Government Against Critics
What Happened
In April and May 2025, President Trump signed executive orders targeting:
Miles Taylor, a former DHS official who criticized him anonymously in a 2019 book.
Chris Krebs, the ex-cybersecurity chief who debunked Trump’s 2020 election fraud lies.
Law firms like Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey for defending clients Trump dislikes (e.g., Dominion Voting Systems).
The orders revoked their security clearances, banned them from federal buildings, and tried to cancel government contracts. Trump accused them of “dishonest activity” and “treason,” but offered zero evidence of crimes. Courts swiftly blocked these orders as unconstitutional.
Why It’s Unconstitutional
1. The First Amendment: Free Speech Protections
The Constitution explicitly bars the government from retaliating against individuals for their speech or lawful work. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.”
This protection applies to all branches of government, including the executive. Punishing critics like Miles Taylor or Chris Krebs for speaking out-or targeting law firms for representing unpopular clients-violates this foundational right. Courts have made it clear: government retaliation for protected speech is unconstitutional.
2. Bills of Attainder: No Punishment Without Trial
The Constitution forbids laws or executive orders that single out specific individuals or groups for punishment without a judicial trial. Article I, Sections 9 and 10 prohibit both Congress and the states from passing “Bills of Attainder.” Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group are bills of attainder if they inflict punishment without a judicial trial.
Trump’s orders targeting named individuals and law firms fit this definition and are therefore unconstitutional.
3. Due Process: The Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Revoking security clearances, banning access to federal buildings, or canceling contracts without evidence or a fair hearing violates this right. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the government must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before taking punitive action.
How It’s Supposed to Work
If the government suspects someone has committed a crime, the Constitution lays out the process:
Investigations are led by neutral agencies like the FBI or IRS-not the president.
Charges are filed by prosecutors, based on actual evidence, not personal vendettas.
Trials are held in courts, where guilt is determined by a jury, not by executive order.
If there’s a legitimate reason to believe someone leaked classified information, the FBI investigates. If there are claims of tax evasion, the IRS handles it. But none of these agencies act just because someone “pissed off” the president. That’s not how justice works in America.
The Bottom Line
Trump’s executive orders weren’t just petty-they were a direct assault on the very constitutional guardrails that protect us all. In a functioning system:
The government investigates crimes, not critics.
Courts protect free speech and due process.
Presidents can’t unilaterally blacklist citizens or businesses like a king.
As Judge Beryl Howell put it in her opinion blocking Trump’s executive order against the targeted law firms: “The government must respond to unpopular or dissenting speech or ideas with tolerance, not coercion.”
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
