We are not sheep. Get louder. Take action. Create a shadow cabinet.

February 10, 2025

Over the weekend, Musk and JD Vance each posted statements asserting that the president should or could defy court orders. A Harvard law professor joined the conversation by endorsing the notion that judicial restraints on the president violate the separation of powers doctrine.

They mean business, folks. They want Trump to be unbounded by the Constitution, Congress, or the courts. In other words, they want a dictator. They think we are sheep who will huddle together for safety and look the other way. They are wrong, and it is time for us to let them know by raising the volume.

Let’s skip through thousands of words of analysis and get to the point: Trump believes that he is immune from all laws, can ignore Congress, and spend money (or not) based on his whims (or those of teenage hackers and rogue AI), and that we will dutifully send our tax dollars to Washington without so much as a whimper.

Trump is making a dangerous political bet: That he can smash the social compact that binds Americans together and that we will continue to abide by a social contract he has destroyed. Such a one-sided bargain doesn’t make any sense.

Americans willingly obey the law, pay taxes, go to work, and patronize businesses because they believe that deep down, everyone is bound by the rules. But the logical consequence of telling people that the rules don’t apply to the president and his minions is that they don’t apply to anyone. That is not an outcome anyone wants.

One would think that the biggest cheerleaders for the social compact would be American businesses that thrive because we have orderly markets, relatively corruption-free government, and happy consumers. If consumers, taxpayers, and citizens refuse to play a game of charades in which one side always wins, the American economy crumbles. Overnight.

The right solution is for Trump, Musk, and JD Vance to stop making wild statements that the president can act in a lawless manner with impunity. Let’s hope they do so. We should give them at least another 30 minutes to prove their bona fides.

And when the 30-minute grace period has expired, we need to ramp up the pressure, increase the volume, and make American businesses realize that their profits will evaporate overnight unless they become part of the solution.

No more toadying up to Trump. No more bowing and scraping to adopt his illegal executive orders. No more cocktails on the patio at Mar-a-Lago as kids in America are kicked out of cancer research trials and children across the world are told to feed themselves in a lifeless bomb-scape created with US-supplied munitions.

I have a few recommended solutions. But no one should wait for me. I don’t have the magic solution, just some common-sense suggestions and thoughts about where all of this is heading.

• Street protests must continue to grow daily.

• Telephone lines into the offices of every US Representative and Senator should melt from the volume and anger of the messages.

• Everyone in America should belong to a grassroots organization that is actively involved in planning protests (even if you are unable to show up at the protests).

• Engage in daily acts of resistance: Jessica Craven Chop Wood Carry Water, Third Act, and 5Calls.org, and others.

• Support Democrats while demanding that they act in a manner consistent with the constitutional emergency we face.

• Support the legal advocacy organizations leading the fight in court: Democracy Forward, Public Citizen, Democracy Docket, ACLU, and other legal advocacy groups.

Trump, Musk, Vance, Bondi, and others won’t stop until they recognize that they are threatening the political, social, and civic fabric that allows billionaires like Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Trump to rake in obscene profits from a system that depends on you and me going to work in good faith to keep the enterprise humming along. Once they realize that they are threatening the engine that makes them wealthy and secure, they will relent. But not until then.

Let’s look at what happened over the weekend—not because we need to frighten or anger ourselves, but because we need to steel ourselves for the fight ahead with the moral clarity that comes from knowing the other side has stopped playing by the rules.

Musk, Vance, and a Harvard law professor suggest that the president should not be required to follow court orders.

On Sunday, JD Vance posted on Twitter, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power." See NBC News, J.D. Vance and Elon Musk question judges' authority over Trump.

Vance is a disgrace to Yale Law School, which should revoke his law degree and condemn his dangerous rhetoric. Come on, Yale! What are you waiting for--until it is too late and you are a government-run “re-education camp”? Find your voice and your backbone! And, sadly, law professors from NYU and Columbia defended Vance’s tweet, saying that his use of the word “legitimate” means that he is not calling for unlawful actions.

Give me a break! We all know precisely what JD Vance means. See, for example, the Rolling Stone headline, J.D. Vance Says Trump Can Ignore Judges. The knee-jerk reaction of institutionalists to serve as apologists for fellow graduates of elite institutions must stop before it is too late.

The tweet by Vance is one of the most reprehensible, dangerous statements made by a vice president. Alumni of Yale should be melting Yale’s switchboard with irate calls!

Musk put an exclamation point on the sentiment posted by Vance, posting, “I don’t like the precedent it sets when you defy a judicial ruling, but I’m just wondering what other options are these judges leaving us.” Well, Musk, here is another option: “Appeal the ruling you don’t like, and when you lose on appeal, obey the ruling”—which is what every other American would do!

Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule wrote the following after Senator Tom Cotton called a ruling “outrageous” for halting Trump unconstitutional violation of the Article I powers of Congress:

Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch is a violation of the separation of powers.

The usually somnolent NYTimes is finally—finally—starting to show a flicker of recognition of the enormity of the crisis we face. It featured two stories about what it calls a potential “constitutional crisis.” The stories ran under the headlines, Vance Says ‘Judges Aren’t Allowed to Control’ Trump’s ‘Legitimate Power’ and Why Federal Courts May Be the Last Bulwark Against Trump.

In the second story above, the Times blamed the potential crisis on “a compliant Congress and mostly quiet streets.” Of course, the Times failed to include its own miserable failure to speak the truth about what is happening. It continues to gloss over Trump's obvious mental deterioration, his ceding of presidential power to Musk, the obvious unconstitutionality of impounding funds, and the wild swings in foreign and financial policy.

On top of those lapses, the Times is failing to report on the true extent of grassroots protests and then has the gall to claim that the streets are “mostly quiet.” I suggest that its reporters get out of Manhattan to find out what his happening across America.

Sherrilyn Ifill addressed the false narrative that “no one is doing anything” in her Substack post, Democracy is Crumbling. Is Anybody Doing Anything? Ifill writes,

I also see repeated posts and hear in conversation with people around the country the claim that “no one is doing anything.”

Even newspapers have reported that there is no resistance this time.

And this is patently untrue. And yet people keep repeating it.

So, our job is to get louder, be more visible, and become relentless thorns in the side of our representatives and the media until they recognize that we are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore!

---

Trump questions the validity of US treasury bonds—potentially creating a financial crisis

On his flight to the Super Bowl, Trump appeared to question the validity of bonds issued by the US Treasury. He said,

There could be a problem, you’ve been reading about that, with Treasuries, That could be an interesting problem because it could be that a lot of those things don’t count. Therefore, maybe we have less debt than we thought of.

Like everything else that comes out of Trump's mouth, it sounds like oatmeal tastes—mush. But markets have been toppled by less incendiary statements than suggesting that the US won’t honor “Treasuries” it has issued. The UK learned the lesson under Prime Minister Liz Truss the hard way that playing games with the bond market is a fast path to disaster. See Business Insider (1/7/2025), Soaring Bond Yields Risk Liz Truss Moment for Markets: Apollo Economist. As explained by Business Insider,

the UK bond market reacted furiously to then-Prime Minister Liz Truss's tax cut plans. The market upheaval almost led to a collapse of UK pension funds and ultimately contributed to Truss's resignation from the top job.

The Trump administration's plans to unveil a combined spending bill and tax cuts could scare the bond market considerably, as it would likely lead to increased deficit spending.

If proposing a budget with tax cuts and an increased deficit are likely to “scare” the bond market, image the pain if Trump gave Musk and his teenagers the power to selectively refuse to pay US debt based on phantom allegations of fraud.

As Paul Krugman (@pkrugman.bsky.social) wrote on BlueSky,

It could mean that the world financial system melts down when investors realize that Elon Musk may selectively default on US debt. Just saying.

Trump's Chief of Staff, Suzie Wiles, later claimed that when Trump said “Treasuries,” he didn’t mean “Treasuries,” he meant “payments by the US Treasury,” which (of course) includes interest payments on Treasuries. They are a clown car on fire going over a cliff. Unfortunately, we are passengers in that car.

Look, if Trump doesn’t know the difference between “Treasuries” and a payment by the US Treasury to an agency or department of the executive branch, he has no business being within ten miles of the nuclear codes.

---

Trump limits research overhead to 15%, a move likely to halt research at many universities.

Universities around the nation are the powerhouses of research that saves lives and imporoves the quality of our lives. Research requires overhead to pay for things like laboratories, supplies, safety officers, etc. On Friday, with zero notice, Trump announced that all research universities would be limited to 15% overhead on research, a move that will literally shut down lifesaving research. See Politico, NIH slashes funding for research overhead, leaving universities scrambling.

The cuts are so drastic that some red-state members of Congress are begging Trump to reconsider. See HuffPo, This Red State Senator Has Concerns About Trump's NIH Cut. Per Huffpo,

It’s not hard to imagine why [Senator Katie Britt] would [object]: As AL.com columnist John Archibald pointed out over the weekend, [University of Alabama at Birmingham’s] health system is the region’s economic backbone.

“Millions upon millions will be lost in an institution that employs 28,000 people and enrolls 23,000 students, that provides jobs and health care and fuel to the regional economy that otherwise relies disproportionately on the service industry — restaurants and breweries and bars,” Archibald wrote.

Multiply the disruption in Birmingham a hundredfold, and you begin to get an idea of the chaos that is about to descend on the research communities at American universities. The downstream effect on life-saving treatments, local business, and start-up spin-offs is staggering. All because a 19-year-old software engineer is incapable of imagining the human suffering that reckless cuts will cause.

---

NYTimes Editorial Board condemns Trump's anti-transgender policies

The NYTimes Editorial Board finally got something right. In a well-reasoned, fact-based editorial, it condemned Trump's targeting of transgender people. See NYTimes, Trump’s Shameful Campaign Against Transgender Americans (Accessible to all.) I urge you to read the entire editorial.

The Board writes, in part,

Mr. Trump’s targeting of transgender Americans will go far beyond the military. And his instinct for demonization, his habit of dividing the public into those worthy of protection and those who should be cast aside, his habitual cruelty to those who can be pushed around without others speaking up will go far beyond a campaign against this one small, vulnerable group. As these campaigns continue, Americans would do well to remember the hard-won lessons of our history.

Hitler started his campaign of genocide by targeting defenseless group. The playbook doesn’t change.

And while I am praising the NYTimes for its editorial stances, the Board also posted this editorial late last week: Opinion | Now Is Not the Time to Tune Out - The New York Times.

The Board writes, in part,

The actions of this presidency need to be tracked, and when they cross moral or legal lines, they need to be challenged, boldly and thoughtfully, with the confidence that the nation’s system of checks and balances will prove up to the task.

There are reasons for concern on that front, of course. The Republican-led Congress has so far abdicated its role as a coequal branch of government, from allowing its laws and spending directives to be systematically cast aside to fearfully assenting to the president stocking his cabinet with erratic, unqualified loyalists.

Much of civil society — from the business community, to higher education, to parts of the corporate media — has been disturbingly quiet, even acquiescent.

---

Concluding Thoughts

Many readers rightly complain that the Democratic Party has failed to provide the leadership sorely lacking in this critical moment. I agree. The party is beginning to rouse itself in a scattered and ineffective way. As always, the central messaging function is deficient.

Timothy Snyder has suggested the idea of a Shadow Cabinet. See Timothy Snyder on Substack, Shadow Cabinet: A Positive Form of Opposition.

I have not discussed the shadow cabinet proposal to this point because I had hoped that the Democratic Party would organize itself eventually. But as I noted above, we should be finished waiting for Republicans or Democrats to do the right thing. We are in an emergency, and we must act before it is too late.

As Professor Snyder explained, a shadow cabinet provides a focal point and a coherent messaging vehicle for Democrats to counteract Musk and Trump's “flood the zone” strategy. It would also help coordinate resistance to Trump's cruel and reckless cuts. And, if the time comes, it can coordinate national mass action to remind Trump that he needs the consent of the governed to keep the lights on and the markets open.

Readers have been recommending this solution to me for weeks. My initial reaction has been—and remains—“Good idea. But someone should just do it. Stop proposing it. Do it.”

I have no power to make anything happen. But I have a limited power to provoke others to react. So, in the spirt of provoking a debate about membership of the shadow cabinet, and with no expectation that my suggestions will ultimately be adopted, here are my suggestions:

The newly elected DNC Chair, Ken Martin, should be on the shadow cabinet, though I don’t believe he should lead it. We can’t start with the negative perception that a central committee controlled by “party insiders” is the face of the loyal opposition.

On the shadow cabinet:

• Hakeem Jeffries—Minority Leader, House

• Not Chuck Schumer—Minority Leader, Senate (Klobuchar?)

• Pete Buttigieg – Transportation, Fox designated hitter

• Elizabeth Warren—Social Security, Medicare

• Gretchen Whitmire—Education

• Alexandria Ocasio Cortez—Oversight

• Jamie Raskin—DOJ

• Ben Wikler—Grassroots Coordinator

• Amy Klobuchar—Foreign Relations / Secretary of State

• Gavin Newsom—Healthcare, Fox designated hitter

• Rafael Warnock—Appropriations, OMB

• Katie Porter— Consumer Protection, banking

• Tammy Duckworth—Defense

• Brian Schatz—EPA, Interior

• Chris Murphy--Labor

• Elissa Slotkin—Domestic intelligence, FBI counterpart

• Adam Schiff— Foreign intelligence, CIA, DNI, NSA

So, don’t yell at me if you disagree with my suggestions. Instead, propose a different / better list! Let’s get the conversation going rather than wait for a “formal” process. I don’t care if I am 100% wrong in my choices; the point is to kick-start the conversation!

Trump and Musk are not standing on ceremony. Neither should we! If we can force the Democratic Party to act quickly—say in a week—then we can begin to counter-message the flood of lies emanating from the White House and Fox News. We have been flat-footed too long. We are not sheep. Get louder. Take action. Create a shadow cabinet!

That’s it for this evening. Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective:

Jill and I put on a baby shower today for our daughter, and I am sick as a dog. So here is a photo from my archive. The five galaxies in this photo are 40 million to 340 million light-years from Earth.