Does He Really Not Know?
How a post about Alcatraz and two recent interviews makes me ponder anew how little our President may know about the principles our Republic was founded on, his job, and what that says about us.
As part of a media push to recognize his first 100 days back in office, President Trump gave two interviews that raise serious questions regarding how well he knows two of the founding documents of our Republic, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This is concerning as the Declaration contains the foundational principles of our Republic and liberal democracy writ large. These principles have advanced the cause of freedom by inspiring democratic movements the world over. He has also sworn an oath before God and man to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, so the presumption, for those who believe oaths matter, is that he would know the Constitution well.
This post explores the President’s recent statements because they have made me wonder anew whether he has ever read our founding documents or, if he has, whether he understands them in the way that is commonly shared by most Americans and the people throughout history who have been inspired by them. The implication is disturbing. Considering Donald Trump has already served one term as President, his knowledge of what truly constitutes “law, order, and justice,” the Declaration, and the Constitution should be expansive.
His public statements on these topics, though, indicate a level of knowledge that is less than we expect of immigrants taking the naturalization test to achieve citizenship.
Were he not trying to actively undermine our republican values and our Constitution, with the tacit and active support of Congress and a substantial percentage of the electorate, perhaps President Trump’s comments could be brushed off as gaffes. When placed in the context of his other words and deeds, though, these comments are further evidence of a President embarked on an authoritarian project because he either does not understand or does not care about the republican values and safeguards our Founders built into the Constitution to protect us from tyranny.
First, let’s talk about Alcatraz
While the bulk of this essay will focus on the President’s two recent interviews, I am going to start with the President’s recent Truth Social post and comments about reopening Alcatraz.1 I think the President’s post makes the main point of this essay, which is that the President, disingenuously or not, demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the fundamental principles underlying our Republic. For those who may have missed it, this is the post I am talking about:
President Trump admits in this post that he wants to rebuild and reopen Alcatraz Island prison as a maximum security facility not just to house “the dregs of society,” but because he believes that “ALCATRAZ will serve as a symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE.” This belief, that Alcatraz, a prison, is a powerful symbol of “law, order, and justice,” demonstrates a very diminished and impoverished view of what those concepts mean and how intimately they are bound with the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. These founding documents act not only as guides for what we value as a nation, but they have also become powerful symbols that have inspired the causes of liberty and justice throughout the world.
How could anyone who understands our Republic choose a prison, especially one with Alcatraz’s reputation, as a symbol of “Law, Order, and JUSTICE?” If the President wanted to use a building to symbolize those concepts, I contend that there are much better choices, ones that evoke, at least until this President and this Congress, the highest ideals of “law, order, and justice.” Three of those buildings are: our nation’s Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court building. These buildings were designed to uplift and to symbolize our nation’s commitment to the Declaration’s founding principles, our Constitution, and the rule of law.
These are inspiring buildings in a way that a prison is not. When I hear the terms “law, order, and justice,” and think of these buildings, I think of the role each of our branches played in drafting, enforcing, and adjudicating Civil Rights and environmental legislation to bring our Republic closer to its founding principles – to lead us to a more perfect Union, the common goal we strive for under our Constitution.
Do not get me wrong, prisons have an important role to play in our system of justice, and those who work in corrections are amazing public servants. To see our prisons, and particularly one famous prison, as the primary symbol defining “law, order, and justice” for a nation like the United States demonstrates to me that the President’s view of those terms is skewed toward the sensational and punitive side of our justice system. The President’s focus, per the Constitution, should be on the enforcement of just laws in a way that is fair, impartial, and provides the order and stability needed to provide tranquility, opportunity, prosperity, and the promotion of the general welfare. To do that requires far more than focusing on the penal system.
It is also important to note the words used in this post. President Trump sees “ALCATRAZ” not only as a symbol of law, order, and justice, but he believes just by rebuilding it that our country will “no longer be held hostage to criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally.” Note how judges are tied up with criminals and thugs. President Trump uses the charged word “hostage,” to describe the relationship between the American people with its “judges” who, by President Trump’s logic, are not following the law when they, for example, rule against his view that he can deport people and send them to foreign prisons without due process.
All the above to say that the President’s remarks about the Declaration and the Constitution discussed below are all of a piece with the impoverished understanding of “law, order, and justice,” demonstrated by a man whose first instinct is to see a prison as the greatest symbol of those concepts, a thought I found every bit as jarring as those he expressed during the interviews I will now discuss.
The Declaration of Independence and the ABC Interview
While I am going to spend the bulk of this article discussing the interview in which the President was asked questions about the Constitution and his responsibilities, it is worth touching on the interview, done with ABC News correspondent Terry Moran on April 29th. During the initial part of the interview, in which the President is showing off his additions to the Oval Office to Mr. Moran, the President points out a majestic, framed copy of the Declaration of Independence, which, for reasons mysterious to me, can be covered up with a set of curtains. The exchange starts when President Trump points out the Declaration and Mr. Moran asks “What does it mean to you.” The President then says:
“Well, it means exactly what it says. It’s a declaration, it’s a declaration of unity and love and respect, and it means a lot, and it’s something very special to our country.”
I felt bad for Mr. Moran. Watching the clip, even though you only see the side of his of his face, it is clear he has lost a great deal of his journalistic impassivity as he tries to process this answer to what he likely thought was a softball question.2
Just in case you are wondering, four of the 100 possible questions a new citizen could face on their naturalization test are about the Declaration of Independence. There is one about who wrote it (Thomas Jefferson), one about when it was adopted (July 4, 1776), one asking the test taker to name two of the three rights mentioned in the Declaration (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), and one that asks:
What did the Declaration of Independence do?
- announced our independence (from Great Britain)
- declared our independence (from Great Britain)
- said that the United States is free (from Great Britain)
- declared unity, love, and respect (it means a lot)
OK, if after reading that last option you made a stunned face like Terry Moran and thought “wait, that last option is on the naturalization test?,” then I apologize. It’s not. I just added it to make a point, but before I get to that, I need to make a disclaimer.
Disclaimer: I realize President Trump was not asked the question “what did the Declaration of Independence do,” he was asked the much more subjective and personal question, “what does the Declaration mean to you?” The former question, the one from the naturalization test, is about basic knowledge of the Declaration, but the latter question, the one the President was asked, required him to interpret the Declaration and personalize that interpretation. So, Mr. Moran asked a more complex question, but a meaningful answer to that question required concrete knowledge of the Declaration’s text and the historical context around its creation. President’s Trump’s answer displayed none of that, which is why it appears so incongruous and jarring when set alongside the actual responses expected from someone taking the naturalization test.3
The President, like the rest of us, has the right to think and say whatever he wants about the Declaration of Independence and what it means to him. I think I am on safe ground saying that most people would, if asked the same question as the President, provide an answer like one of the answers on the naturalization test about what the Declaration did. It is a declaration…..of independence, so it is not obviously about unity unless one considers the unity of the patriots who courageously stood together to sign their names to the Declaration.4 I did not get the sense that was what the President was thinking about. Similarly, I am uncertain how the President came to believe the Declaration is about love and respect, at least in the way he implied by his answer, because the entire document, once you get passed the eloquent and inspiring preamble, is primarily a list of grievances. So, I could understand saying it was about the disrespect the colonists felt from Great Britain, but I still can’t get my head around saying it is a declaration about love and respect.
It was a puzzling statement, and I do not envy Mr. Moran, who declined to ask a follow-up question because, and I am speculating here, he probably had serious concerns about what else the President would say about the Declaration.
The Constitution and the NBC Interview
I know by now that most have seen or heard this clip5 from journalist Kristen Welker’s Meet the Press interview with President Trump on May 4th. This is the interview in which the President of the United States said “I don’t know” in response to questions about due process and whether he needed to uphold the Constitution.
Weeks later, I am still trying to get my head around the President’s responses, so I provided some thoughts set against the transcript of the exchange. I realize it is cumbersome, but what I have done is provided the transcript of the exchange and used footnotes to provide my thoughts about what I consider are key parts of the dialog. I just think keeping the text of the exchange as clean as possible is important because it is so stunning and unprecedented. For those who may find it awkward to skip back and forth between the transcript and my commentary, I have uploaded a document that puts the two side by side for ease of reading.
From the interview
Welker: “Your secretary of state says, everyone who’s here, citizens and noncitizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?”
President Trump: “I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”6
Welker: “Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.”7
President Trump: “I don’t know. It seems – it might say that,8 but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials.9 We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth. Some of the worst, most dangerous people on Earth. And I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it.”10
Welker: “Even given those numbers you are talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”
President Trump: “I don’t know.11 I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you heard is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation.”12
What is wrong with us?
I’ll discuss the implications of the Meet the Press interview in a moment, but after reading the transcript above, or watching the replay, I hope you at least ask the same question I keep asking myself, which is, “What is wrong with us?”
The President of the United States told a national audience that he does not know if the Constitution protects the due process rights of citizens and non-citizens and, even more disturbing, that he does not know if he is required to uphold the Constitution. He says this without shame even though he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution just weeks ago and was, at the time of the interview, over 100 days into HIS SECOND TERM AS PRESIDENT!
There was a flurry of press reporting about this in the hours after the interview. Just 4 days later, though, on the podcast George Conway Explains It All, Bulwark publisher
and lawyer George Conway talked about how appalling it was that discussion about the President’s “I don’t know” responses had already burned itself out. While it was discussed on the NPR show 1A’s weekly “News Roundup,” on May 9th, I searched to find other media references and analysis on the President’s Meet the Press interview beyond the initial media reaction.I could not find any. I queried three different AIs to see what they could find. They also came up empty. No one asked about the President’s responses at the next press briefing, there were, from what I can tell, no follow-up questions to administration officials about the President’s “I don’t know” responses.
The country just moved on from the fact that twice in a one week span their President demonstrated less knowledge about our Founding Documents and his responsibilities than we expect from an immigrant wanting to become a citizen. The country hypocritically moved on when the President gave answers that would have had the entire nation talking about any other politician’s unfitness for office or their cognitive decline. It is stunning, outrageous, mind blowing, infuriating - choose whatever set of adjectives you need to capture what should be the proper response to this. I ask everyone who feels the same way as I do to remember this, to give into your emotions and let them light a fire in you. Then I ask you to sear these moments of President Trump’s ignorance and hubris in your mind and heart, because we are going to need the memory of this and the passion it generates to fight our the just and noble cause of keeping our Republic.
Unfortunately, too many have not and may not do as I am asking. I realize much of that is because President Trump is a unique figure, but that is no excuse. We need to address the question, “What is wrong with us?”
The Problem – Too Many are Numb, Too Many Want a Jack Bauer President
Ms. Welker was not asking these questions to make some abstract, philosophical point. She was asking them in relation to a specific set of cases, which included the deportation of Venezuelan and other Hispanic illegal migrants, which occurred on March 15th and has generated significant, Constitutional level legal controversy. One of the most famous cases is that of Mr. Abrego Garcia, but all of those deported that day, all of those sent to a hellish prison with no set release or parole date, were deported without due process. This context is important because it must be considered to fully understand the implications of the President’s responses to Ms. Welker’s questions.
This is the reality. The President of the United States, whose responsibility is to faithfully execute the laws, is told that his administration sent a group of men to a brutal prison in El Salvador without due process and sent one of those men, Mr. Abrego Garcia, in violation of a court order that his first administration did not object to. With regard to Mr. Garcia’s case, which Ms. Welker specifically asked about, the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, after weeks of legal wrangling, affirming as correct a lower court ruling ordering the government to return Mr. Garcia to the United States. The Supreme Court unambiguously directed the Executive to “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States. If law, order, and justice were truly President Trump’s priorities, then why has the facilitation of Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return not occurred?
One does not honor the rule of law by making bombastic pronouncements about restoring a famous prison, castigating judges who decide against you, or by hiding behind one’s lawyers, however brilliant, to avoid doing the right thing. One cannot be the “law, order, and justice,” president if one does not follow the law or even know what it is. One honors the rule of law and their oath of service by first following the law themselves.
Leave aside the simple humanity of the situation – the fact that most people with the President’s power would not leave Mr. Garcia or the others the United States wrongly sent to El Salvador to rot another day in that gulag, CECOT, if they had the power to correct their error. The simple fact is the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, directed the President to fix his administration’s mistake. Rather than read the very straightforward four-page Supreme Court ruling for himself, the President has instead relied on advisors who have openly lied about and misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling. This allows the President to make the statements made to Ms. Welker and implausibly deny any responsibility for following the Supreme Court’s mandate.
Too Many are Numb
Unfortunately, too many of us have become numb to stories like this. After years of “flooding the zone” with outrageous statements, antics, and criminality, our expectations of the President have sunk to such a low level that events like the Meet the Press interview elicit outrage and pearl clutching and denunciations, but that all quickly fades when the next outrageous Trump or Trump-related thing occurs. This is the point Jon Stewart was making in the Daily Show clip I shared in the notes – that we need to discern the simply outrageous from the destructively outrageous and focus our attention on the latter. The thing is, though, we should not let this one pass by. On the simply outrageous to destructively outrageous scale, the President’s “I don’t know” responses are clearly at the destructively outrageous end.
President Trump and his administration should have been peppered with questions about his “I don’t know” responses in the days that followed the Welker interview. We should still be talking about this; still be pressing for answers and clarifications; still be angered and unwilling to let this story die. For many, though, to include Congress and the press, it has already faded from memory.
As
and have discussed13, this is all by design. For years, as the author Samuel Spitale documented in his book How to Win the War on Truth, U.S. politicians, but especially Republicans, have used propaganda techniques to offer “alternative” narratives that rely not on facts, but feelings, perceptions, and vibes to shift people’s focus away from reality. As these authors have noted, the Trump business and political organizations have brought these techniques to new levels, using Russian information warfare techniques to fuel grievance and anger (either among their base or their opponents). These techniques are also used to deflect from reporting on issues of real concern by controlling the narrative, so that popular and media attention always focuses on some new outrageous talking point or action by the President.Unfortunately, the response to these ploys is all too often a supporter base that either believes or accepts whatever is put out by the administration, not caring whether it is true or not, with the rest of America either believing little that the administration has to say or tuning out political news. Both of these approaches, while understandable, are wins for the Trump administration in its war on truth.
The only sure way to counter these techniques requires work. It requires an engaged citizenry that seeks out trusted sources of information and takes even those with a “trust but verify” attitude. This is even more important in a world where AI tools have proliferated to extent that the deepfake media products one can produce with them have a look and feel that is now difficult to distinguish from reality. I realize that many people are too busy just trying to live their lives, and I am not asking people to spend hours each day researching whether the latest statement from the administration is true or not. All I am asking is that we work together to parse what we are hearing and to use the bonds of trust and respect we have with those in our circle to point out and dialog about the stories that are truly significant from the ones that are meant to distract and deflect.
For me, the President of the United States saying a prison is the most important symbol of “law, order, and justice,” a president who does not know the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, and a president who says he “does not know” and needs brilliant lawyers to tell him if he needs to follow his oath of office are all truly significant occurrences. We need to not let those statements fade, we need to continue to discuss them and demand the President be held accountable for them.
Too Many Want a Jack Bauer President
There is another problem, perhaps an even greater problem, and that is a significant percentage of our fellow citizens seem unbothered by the President’s “I don’t know” responses. I realize this is speculative but based on comments I hear from friends and acquaintances who are Trump supporters, I believe a significant percentage of people believe President Trump should not be bound by the Constitution in any meaningful way. I often hear from people comments like “at least he is doing something” or “he is getting things done and that is what matters.” When I explain that in our Republic, bound as we all are by the Constitution, the how matters greatly, given some actions lead straight to tyranny, my view is routinely rejected. The responses are typically silence, sympathy that I am well-meaning but out of touch, concern that I am being unnecessarily alarmist, or accusations that I am being hypocritical because I never complained when the Democrats did these things.14
I realize this is an unusual thought, but I feel like these Trump supporters did not vote for a President, they voted for a Jack Bauer, the fictional anti-hero played by Kiefer Sutherland on the Fox Television show 24 that was popular in the early 2000s. For the those who don’t remember the premise of the show, Jack was a counterterrorism officer who often did horrific and illegal things to save the United States and his loved ones. The gimmick of the show was that it occurred in “real time,” with each hour of the show representing a real hour, complete with a countdown timer of a digital clock to heighten the drama. If you can accept the premise that President Trump’s supporters want a Jack Bauer figure, and that there are 35,064 hours in a presidential term, then I feel like we are in the longest episode of 24 ever made.15
It is not just the President’s supporters who want a Jack Bauer figure – someone who will disregard the law and the Constitution to “get stuff done” and “keep America safe,” but I think the President sees himself as a Jack Bauer figure as well. I think he believes the law is whatever he says it is because he believes he has that kind of power. He has said as much when he claimed in a Truth Social post that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” That claim is consistent President Trump’s belief that Article II of the Constitution gives him the power to do whatever he wants as President and that the “massive fraud” he contends occurred in the 2020 election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”16
While both the President Trump and his supporters may see the President as a Jack Bauer figure, I think there are some major differences between Jack Bauer and President Trump, beyond the fact that one man is fictional, and one is not.17 First of all, I think Jack Bauer would be offended by being compared with President Trump, as the President is just the kind of politician that Jack treated with contempt throughout the series.
Had Jack Bauer been asked for a symbol of “law, order, and justice” I don’t think his first response would have been some famous prison because Jack knew that he was fighting for a higher cause and that prisons were just one tool in our system of justice. I could be wrong, though, as Jack was in law enforcement, but I watched enough episodes to get the sense he would have answered differently from the President.
Similarly, had Jack Bauer been asked what the Declaration of Independence meant to him, I think he would have provided an answer like the ones on the naturalization test. I think if Jack watched the clip of President Trump answering the question, I think he would have been hard pressed to avoid making the same astounded face that Terry Moran and most of us made on hearing the President’s response.
Most of all, though, I think had Jack Bauer been asked questions about the Constitution, especially about areas of the Constitution he may have violated, he would have never answered “I don’t know.” Jack Bauer knew the law, knew the Constitution, knew his responsibilities. Not only were his violations conscious choices, but they were also ones he owned because the sacrifice – the moral, legal, and spiritual compromise he believed he had to make to keep people safe – was integral to Jack Bauer’s concept of himself as hero and warrior.
If asked if he had broken the law and what his responsibilities were, answering “I don’t know” would have been anathema to Jack Bauer, who would have been forthright about his transgressions. While he would have tried to justify his actions, he also would have understood those actions were illegal and would have been prepared to suffer the consequences. How do I know this? Well, compare this exchange between Jack Bauer and a Senator with the President’s interview with Ms. Welker:
Sen. Blaine Mayer: So basically, what you’re saying, Mr. Bauer, is that the ends justify the means, and that you are above the law.
Jack Bauer: When I am activated, when I am brought into a situation, there is a reason, and that reason is to complete the objectives of my mission at all costs.
Sen. Blaine Mayer: Even if it means breaking the law.
Jack Bauer: For a combat soldier, the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The people that I deal with, they don’t care about your rules. All they care about is results. My job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. I simply adapted. In answer to your question, am I above the law? No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay. But please, do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions I have made. Because sir, the truth is … I don’t.18
While President Trump and his supporters may believe he is a Jack Bauer figure, the truth is the President falls short of the standard Jack Bauer sets. Yes, Jack Bauer violates the law, just as President Trump does, but he does it in service to a greater good, he understands and affirms that his actions are lawless, and he is accountable for his actions. I could be wrong, as it has been years since I watched the series, but I can’t even image Jack Bauer relying on lawyers to answer fundamental questions about the law. Well, I honestly can’t imagine Jack Bauer hiding behind lawyers or anyone else for that matter, in any situation, but certainly not in an occasion where he was being asked to account for his beliefs and actions.
The point of this discussion is that the ends do not justify the means, and if you are going to take that approach, the only honorable, moral, and ethical thing you can do is be a Jack Bauer and own it. In a one-week span, the President talked about Alcatraz prison as a symbol of “law, order, and justice,” and exhibited so deficient an understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that his answers would have been unacceptable on the naturalization test given to immigrants who wish to be citizens. None of these incidents has given me confidence that the man leading our country has the same shared understanding of basic principles and concepts vital to the health of our Republic that many of his fellow citizens have. If the President were going to be a Jack Bauer figure, in a way I would prefer that, because at least I would know that the person making the decisions had the same understanding of the law and the Constitution I had. At least that would offer some small hope that we could one day return to that touchstone.
Does he really not know?
This remains my fundamental problem with President Trump and so many of his followers; I am so often asking myself “are they being honest or disingenuous?” These three examples highlight that problem. In the case of Alcatraz, I think President Trump was speaking his mind; I think he really does believe that Alcatraz is a symbol of “law, order, and justice,” and that restoring it as a place to house the “dregs” of humanity will not only be “just,” but will serve as a warning to others. The cost does not matter to the President, the symbolism does, but my sense is it is far more symbolic for him than almost any other person in the world.
Similarly, when I look at the ABC interview with Terry Moran, I completely believe President Trump’s answer to the question about what the Declaration of Independence meant to him was genuine. As he does with so much other information, it seems in this case he long ago synthesized an erroneous narrative about the Declaration and his interpretation of its meaning has never been corrected in his mind. It is possible, had a bigger deal been made over his response, that he would have told us all that he was “just being sarcastic” or “speaking in jest,” which is what he does when he makes other statements that are unusual or outright lies that can no longer be sustained, but the story quickly died as it was swept away by the waves of daily revelations that come from the White House.
Regarding his answers on due process and whether he is obligated to uphold the Constitution, it does not matter whether the President was being honest or dishonest, his answers were clearly inexcusable. He swore an oath, about 100 days before the interview, promising to uphold the Constitution. He served an entire four-year term as President. So, claiming ignorance of his obligation to uphold the Constitution and enforce its due process clauses is unbelievable. If the President is being honest, it means he did not understand his oath or his responsibilities during his first term.
The references to lawyers, brilliant lawyers, though, gives away the game, as that is the same tactic President Trump has used to shield himself from accountability for his actions in his public life and in the criminal prosecutions that resulted from his actions during his first term. The fact that President Trump is deferring to lawyers is as clear a sign as any that he knows the right answers (the only right answers) to the questions asked of him by Ms. Welker, but decided to deflect. Why? He knows the right answers to those questions would hold him accountable to fulfilling his oath and doing the right thing by Mr. Abrego Garcia and all those who have been deported illegally. The implications go beyond that, though, as the correct answers to Ms. Welker’s questions would invalidate the entire authoritarian project the President and his administration, with Congressional and right-leaning media support, have embarked on.
I have run out of adjectives powerful enough to describe what happened in the Meet the Press interview as words like troubling, disturbing, and concerning seem too weak when the most powerful man in the world has just said that he does not know if there are any constraints on his power, despite the fact the Constitution he has sworn to uphold clearly says there are. The Founders warned us of demagogues and populists for this very reason because the lessons of history showed them that the elevation of populist leaders is the road to tyranny. We are undoubtedly on that road. For those of us who want to ensure this nation remains a thriving Republic, we must keep the President’s statements and attitudes from these three events foremost in our minds and hearts and draw the fire and inspiration from them we need to thwart this attempt to scuttle our great Republic.
Sources Consulted:
Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post - May 04, 2025, 6:55 PM
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114452026768595225
Trump says he will reopen Alcatraz for the 'most ruthless and violent' prisoners
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5387239/trump-alcatraz-reopen
FULL INTERVIEW | President Trump the First 100 Days: The Interview in the Oval Office
Read the full transcript: President Donald Trump interviewed by 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker
Civics Questions and Answers (2008 version)
Fifth Amendment
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have
Congressional Failure to Address the Border Crisis and Republican Obstructionism
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TtF6XCTApBpKluS4poeHGaRMQQTMDXt6/view?usp=sharing
Here is a montage of Republicans pointing out that the border is not solved because Donald Trump killed the border deal
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1839662135212695649
U.S. Conference of Mayors Denounces Defeat of National Security Package
Immigration bill falters as border communities deal with the flood of migrants
Cerna March 17 Declaration
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25591745-cerna-march-17-declaration/
What is the 1798 law that Trump used to deport migrants?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy871w21d3vo
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES – April 7, 2025
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Judge: 'Probable cause' to hold U.S. in contempt over Alien Enemies Act deportations
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/g-s1-60696/judge-contempt-alien-enemies-act
Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act for swift deportations is illegal, Trump-appointed judge rules
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/01/trump-deportations-court-ruling-00321455
NYT investigation finds no evidence linking many deported Venezuelans to Tren de Aragua
U.S. intelligence memo says Venezuelan government does not control Tren de Aragua gang
Trump’s Lies Blow Up in Shocking Declassified Report (w/ Rep. Jim Himes)
Article II of the Constitution
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
Trump says he took a cognitive test as part of his latest physical
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/11/nx-s1-5361249/trump-physical-cognitive-test
Trump administration argues lower courts wield 'excessive national influence'
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES – April 10, 2025
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
Trump on Upholding Constitution: "I Don't Know" | The Daily Show
Judge After Judge Slaps Down Trump - by Sarah Longwell
https://substack.com/home/post/p-163174035
The News Roundup For May 9, 2025
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/09/1250191998/1a-nru-05-09-2025
Letters from an American – May 16, 2025
Look! A squirrel!
The Trump Administration Could Have Fought to Deport Abrego Garcia in 2019. It Passed on the Chance
https://time.com/7278832/trump-caved-on-abrego-garcia-deportation-move-in-2019/
Donald Trump Truth Social Post – February 15, 2025
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114009179225169296
Let’s leave aside the fact that this idea about rebuilding Alcatraz, from an administration that tells us it is crusading against fraud, waste, and abuse, would be prohibitively expensive and would turn what is now a lucrative National Park Service site into a money pit.
I’m thankful to ABC for keeping Mr. Moran’s reaction in the final video of the interview. It gave an “every man” feel to the piece as Mr. Moran’s genuine puzzlement and disbelief at the answer he was hearing from the President mirrored my reaction, the reaction of those I have asked about it, and about all the commentary I have seen or read about this interview.
For those who may be thinking – “is he accusing the President of the United States of not being able to pass the naturalization test?” My answer is “no,” though I would love to see President Trump take the test. For the actual test, a new citizen is given 10 of the 100 questions and needs only answer 6 correctly to pass. So, President Trump could have gotten this wrong and still passed. I presume that he would get questions such as “Who is in charge of the executive branch?” (the President), and “What is the name of the President of the United States now?” (President Donald Trump) correct.
As Benjamin Franklin stated “We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately,” which is great motivator for unity.
The full video and transcript are available here.
No, you do not need to be a lawyer to know that citizens and non-citizens deserve due process. You don’t even need to be an adult or a citizen to understand. It is taught in basic civics classes. Question 12 from the naturalization test is also related:
What is the “rule of law”?
Everyone must follow the law.
Leaders must obey the law.
Government must obey the law.
No one is above the law.
It doesn’t even say “as much,” it says that exactly: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
As many have noted, and courts have upheld, it says “person,” not citizen, and is meant to apply to anyone in our country. If a person is not afforded due process, then our laws should not apply to them, it is a package deal.
There’s no “might” about it. It says that. See the footnote above.
Not to quibble, but if we’re talking about deportations, they are administrative hearings, not trials. In any event, it’s irrelevant how many there are. Due process is a Constitutional right, so no matter how many hearings there are, all get due process until we change the Constitution. That said, there is a lot that Congress could do to streamline the process and add capacity so that deporting people in our country illegally, especially if they were violent offenders, could be done more expeditiously but still done in concert with our Constitution and our values.
As I documented here, the saga of Congressional, especially Congressional Republican hypocrisy on this issue is stunning, but its culmination was in allowing then private citizen Donald Trump to torpedo a bipartisan border bill that would have, among many other good things, streamlined the deportation process and added capacity to enable swifter deportations. Don’t take my word for President Trump’s role in killing this bill, though, the Harris campaign put together this montage of prominent Republicans blaming then citizen Trump for torpedoing this once in a generation bill and their colleagues for being so craven to knuckle under pressure from then Mr. Trump.
The bill favored the conservative position on immigration reform, which is why it was soundly rejected by the far left, and why it was also rejected by anti-immigration groups (showing it fell somewhere in the center-right). It was widely endorsed by many groups. Please read this letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, one of three they sent to the Senate to try to persuade Congress to pass this bill, or this interview with one the mayors, Republican John Giles of Mesa, AZ.
There is only one truth here – the main reason we are not 15 months into an improved, streamlined immigration and deportation process with greater capacity to deal with illegal migrants and border security is because Donald Trump told Republicans to kill the legislation that would have done that solely so that he could keep immigration alive as a campaign issue.
This is not true. Even if he had been elected with more than 49.8% of the popular vote, no one is elected to violate the Constitution, though I am sure there are some who voted for President Trump who are fine with him doing that if it serves their ends. That is not the way our system works, though. If someone doesn’t like what the Constitution says or they don’t want to follow it, then they need to move elsewhere or they need to get up and start the political process of amending the Constitution. Until they are successful, it is the law of the land, and they can complain about it all they want, but they must follow it or be in violation of the law.
While I don’t know anyone, me included, who doesn’t want violent criminals deported, we need to bear in mind that the Trump administration has not been careful in this regard. Robert Cerna, an ICE official, submitted a court filing in March, after the deportation flight with Venezuelans who the government said were Tren de Aragua (TdA) was challenged, and said the following:
“While it is true that many of the TdA members removed under the AEA [Alien Enemies Act] do not have criminal records in the United States, that is because they have only been in the United States for a short period of time. The lack of a criminal record does not indicate they pose a limited threat. In fact, based upon their association with TdA, the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose. It demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.”
Chilling. He admits that the lack of evidence against these men, to include the 137 deported under the AEA, was sufficient reason to deport them to a maximum-security prison with violent offenders, in a country not their own, for an indefinite term of imprisonment. We are now finding out that they were deported not because the government had conclusively proven they were gang members, but because they were Venezuelans. Since that deportation flight on March 15th, the following has occurred:
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling found that the administration could resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), but that “detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal,” in other words, those being deported are entitled to due process.
Judge James Boasberg, who ordered the return of flights to El Salvador’s CECOT prison carrying deportees on March 15th, has since determined there is “probable cause to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court for violating his order… to immediately pause any deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.”
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling reauthorizing the use of the AEA, a Trump appointed judge, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., found that the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport these men was “unlawful” because President Trump had “improperly invoked the law” as the country is not at war or facing “an armed organized attack” by a hostile power.
The New York Times has done significant reporting around the deportation flights under the AEA and in this PBS interview one of the journalists related that only 32 of the 238 men deported on March 15th had a “serious criminal record” and only a small number of them had any verifiable association with TdA. NYT reporters did searches “in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Peru, Ecuador, Chile, [and] Colombia” looking for evidence of violent crime or gang affiliation for these men but could find little. They did determine, after talking with experts, that the process used by federal agents to classify men as TdA and deny them their due process rights is deeply flawed and subjective.
Now we have discovered that the very basis used to invoke the AEA, the contention that TdA gang members were part of an irregular warfare force sent here by the government of Venezuela to kill our citizens and destabilize our Republic, is a lie. As reported by NPR and as discussed here by commentator Tim Miller, of The Bulwark, and Representative Jim Himes, the Intelligence Community has assessed that TdA is just a criminal organization that is not being directed by Venezuela’s Maduro regime.
Jon Stewart’s reaction on the Daily Show to the President’s “I don’t know” response – “HOLY SHIT NO THIS IS NOT OK” – summed up my immediate response as well:
That said, there was a lot to unpack from the President’s “I don’t know,” as it was far from a simple response.
For all the talk of “Sleepy Joe Biden” and the constant disparagement of the former President’s cognitive functions (whilst also claiming that he was a mastermind able to run a vast illegal criminal enterprise and rig votes in ways that were completely undetectable), it is staggering to think that the answer to this simple and direct question from anyone, let alone a sitting President of the United States, is “I don’t know.” Have no doubt that if any other President had said this, particularly if that President had been a Democrat, we would not only still be talking about it, but there would also probably be calls for impeachment by many prominent Republicans. Had former President Biden responded as President Trump did, the talk of Biden’s cognitive decline would have been deafening and paralyzing to the nation.
It is especially amazing when I consider the fact that President Trump is a second term president. So, did he go through his entire first term in office not knowing the answer to this question about his fundamental responsibility as President of the United States? To be honest, I need to answer that question I just asked with an “I don’t know…but it would certainly explain a lot.”
As a refresher for the President, it says in Article II: “Before he [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It was the oath he took with Chief Justice Roberts just weeks ago. So it is hard to understand how the President’s response to the question “…don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” is “I don’t know,” unless he is saying he fundamentally does not understand or remember what his oath of office says.
While I am sure the President’s defenders will say “well, his mind was still on the last [softball] question he was asked. He was just repeating the fact that he didn’t know if due process applies to non-citizens and, had he really been paying close attention to what Kristen Welker was saying, he of course would have said something different.” All I can say to that is – you can’t have it both ways. By his own admission President Trump is a “stable genius” who has done better on cognitive tests in ways that just amaze the test givers because he is so good at them. So, it is one of three options. He is that person and fully understood what he was being asked. He is experiencing cognitive decline (which is only natural for a man of his age and does not mean he’s incapable of doing his job). The most likely explanation, though, is that he was deflecting, as he does so often. Rather than take responsibility he puts the onus on someone else (“brilliant lawyers”) because the President knows that answering the question correctly (and there is only one correct answer to that question) puts him in a bind.
In this response, the President states that he will follow what the Supreme Court says, but then also makes it clear that he has not read the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Abrego Garcia case. This is the case of a man deported back to El Salvador and to the infamous CECOT prison despite the fact the government admitted he was deported mistakenly (because a court had ordered he could not be deported to El Salvador due to safety concerns). The Supreme Court’s opinion is only four pages long and is quite clear – “The [lower court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”
It also needs noting that the President says “they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said,” the implication being, like his press secretary has said, that lower courts cannot “usurp the executive authority of the President.” Yet even the President was being disingenuous here, as Kristen Welker began asking about the case of Mr. Garcia. The administration, despite being ordered in a 9-0 Supreme Court decision to facilitate Mr. Garcia’s return to the United States, has still not complied with that Supreme Court order. Even though President Trump has not explicitly said “I will ignore the Supreme Court on this,” all indications available to the public is that is precisely what has happened.
For the record, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. The accusation is true, my criticism of Democrats was muted, and a lot of that had to do with January 6th, which was perpetrated by Republicans, Trumpists, and those aligned with their movement. Yes, I saw the use of Executive Orders to put in place things like DACA and Student Loan Forgiveness as usurpations of Congress’s responsibilities under the Constitution. So it is a fair critique. Even if I agreed with those policies, I now realize I should have been more vocal in my opposition and the threat to the Constitution they posed. That said, I do not believe anything the Democrats have done was part of a comprehensive assault on our Republic and our Constitution, which is what the Trump authoritarian project clearly is. The actions of the Trump administration are different in scope and intent in ways that will truly break, not just damage, our Republic.
Apparently the show 24, which I found very entertaining, at least for the first few seasons, made more of an impression on me than on others. I originally just had this mocked up like an ad for the series, but my wife did not get what was, to me, and obvious reference to the show 24. She said, “that’s a funny image, but what does the 35,064 have to do with anything. I thought about doing “35,064” and putting the words “I am your retribution” or “The longest day ever” under it, but unless you first got the 24 reference, then none of that would have meant anything. So, that’s why the explicit tie to the show 24, which seemed ham-handed, but was better than the alternative of no one having any understanding why I had these pictures of President Trump displayed with some seemingly random number.
I find it curious though, that if the President truly believes these things about the Constitution – that he can do what he wants, that he cannot violate any law, and that the Constitution should be terminated if it works against him – then why didn’t he answer “no” when Ms. Welker asked about whether he needed to uphold the Constitution as President? In the President’s mind, it seems there is this conception that the Constitution imbues the presidency with absolute power, yet his first term proved to him that was not the case. By now he must fully realize, this far into his second term in office, that even with a handpicked crew of loyalists to do his bidding, there are still significant limits on his power. So, maybe his answer was honest, maybe he doesn’t know, because maybe he’s confronting the fact that his conception of the powers the Constitution gives the President are not matching his lived experience. Rather than just go back to the text to personally discover it will give him an answer he does not want, he’ll punt the question to “brilliant lawyers” in the hope they will enable him to act in the way he wants to act or at least provide some specious justification for doing so.
Yes, I realize that many of us may wish both were fictional, some have even remarked that this Trump presidency has made them feel as if we are all fictional beings who are living in a simulation. The truth is President Trump is our President and our situation is all too real, which should motivate us to rise to the occasion, to speak, and to act to ensure our Republic survives.
Some additional Jack Bauer quotes as evidence:
“You can look the other way once, and it's no big deal, except it makes it easier for you to compromise the next time, and pretty soon that's all you're doing; compromising, because that's the way you think things are done. You know those guys I busted? You think they were the bad guys? Because they weren't, they weren't bad guys, they were just like you and me. Except they compromised… once.”
and
Speaking to FBI Agent Renee Walker: “You took an oath. You made a promise to uphold the law. When you cross that line, it always starts off with a small step. Before you know it, you're running as fast as you can in the wrong direction just to justify why you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, I know that these laws have to be more important than the 15 people on the bus [that I will try to save at all costs]. I know that's right. In my mind, I know that's right. I just don't think my heart could ever have lived with that. I guess the only advice I can give you is… try to make choices that you can live with.”
I am sad, angry, sad, confused, sad.