ICYMI: Atlantic Highlights How Conservative Weaponization Efforts Will Come Back to Haunt Them
Be Careful What You Wish For: Atlantic Highlights How Conservative Weaponization Efforts Will Come Back to Haunt Them
“The president could unilaterally issue subpoenas to almost any conservative-supporting institution—say, political consultants for evangelical-church organizations.”
A new piece in The Atlantic highlights the potential consequences of conservative efforts to weaponize government and how they could come back to haunt them the next time there is a Democratic administration. The goal of this piece isn’t a roadmap to retribution, but should serve to remind everyone that it is better to turn down the temperature than to continue ratcheting up.
Conservatives and the current administration have worked tirelessly to weaponize government to target organizations and speech the administration that it disagrees with, going so far as to try and give the Secretary of Treasury to accuse charities, churches, and community organizations of being a “terrorist supporting organization” without providing evidence.
Paul Rosenzweig writes about how a Democratic president could use powers, “denying federal funding to universities that lack DEI policies, for example, or ousting from federal contracts any conservative law firms that have provided pro bono services to disfavored causes, or whose partners played significant roles in the Trump administration.”
Read key highlights below and the full piece HERE:
“Trump has also been aggressive in using federal funding as a means of encouraging his policy priorities in the private sector. Even when his efforts are resisted by the courts (such as his attempt to defund Harvard), his threats to federal funding have caused other institutions, such as the University of Pennsylvania, to change their policies or, in the case of the University of Virginia, dismiss their leaders. The same is true of his assault on big law firms; although his efforts have been legally stymied, their impact on major firms has already been significant.
“What could a Democratic president do with this power? Most obviously, the president could flip Trump’s agenda on its head—denying federal funding to universities that lack DEI policies, for example, or ousting from federal contracts any conservative law firms that have provided pro bono services to disfavored causes, or whose partners played significant roles in the Trump administration.
Perhaps most dangerous, a Democrat could reverse the changes at the Department of Justice, not in an effort to make it apolitical but in the hopes of serving friends on the left and punishing the Trump-affiliated right. The president could dismiss any pending cases against allies (as Attorney General Pam Bondi recently did for a Utah doctor who issued fake COVID-vaccination cards) and use their power to punish opponents—White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, and others could face the expense of criminal investigation. Conservative states such as Alabama and Texas could be investigated for civil-rights violations. Likewise, corporate officials who have caved to Trump, such as Shari Redstone of Paramount, have already been suggested as investigative targets. And the president could unilaterally issue subpoenas to almost any conservative-supporting institution—say, political consultants for evangelical-church organizations. A president could, perhaps, even attempt to end the nonprofit status of all religious organizations—though one suspects that this Supreme Court would not permit that step on religious-liberty grounds.”