Trudeau and Trump

It’s ok when “we” do it.

I ran across a quote the other day that resonated with me. I found it cynical, witty, and dishearteningly accurate. It is something that if taught to grade school children, might prevent much of the simpleminded political analysis we see today.

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

-- Terry Pratchett

It is a particularly useful quote when looking at what Trump is attempting to do in California. No, this is not a “orange man bad article.” Nor is it a justification for his actions. If you must label it, call it a shout into the hurricane winds of partisan stupidity.

Unlike many (most?) people when Trump does something outrageous my first thought isn’t “I hate/love Trump therefore what he’s doing is wrong/right.” I also don’t turn to my favorite media outlet to tell me what to think. Perhaps it’s arrogance, but I’m 99% sure I’m smarter than most of them and can make up my own mind about what is going on in the world. It just takes a little time and effort. Take the mess in California as an example. Trump federalized the national guard without a request from Governor Newsom. Is that bad? Of course it’s bad. When is using military force on your own citizens good? That’s the wrong question though, the correct question is: is it legal? Unfortunately, we don’t have an answer yet.

On June 12^th U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s order to federalize the California National Guard was illegal stating that it “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment” and that “[t]he protests … fall far short of ‘rebellion.’” However, just hours later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay on Judge Breyer’s order, allowing the Guard to remain under federal control while the Court reviews the appeal. A hearing scheduled for June 17^th.

In the absence of a clear answer, or just never needing one in the first place, partisans on both sides have already made their decisions. In fact, regardless of what the courts finally decide, few will be convinced that they are wrong; most Republicans will see Trump’s actions as justified and most Democrats will see them as authoritarian overreach. This reminds me in many ways of Trudeau’s use of the Emergency Act (EA) to disperse the Convoy Protests in Canada in 2022.

For those unfamiliar with it, the EA gives the federal government the power to create new rules and new offenses in an emergency without having to go to Parliament to pass a new law. Trudeau use of the EA and Trump’s actions are not identical but there are many parallels:

Trigger

Trudeau - Beginning January 2022, truckers protesting COVID restrictions blocked areas of downtown Ottawa and some border crossings.

Trump – On June 6–7, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted raids targeting undocumented workers in Los Angeles County which sparked widespread protests, some turning violent with reports of property damage and confrontations with law enforcement

Justification/Legal Basis

Trudeau –argued the “blockade” was a national emergency beyond provincial and police capacity and thus warranting federal involvement and new powers necessary for dealing with the emergency.

Trump – A memorandum issued June 7 under Title 10 U.S.C. § 12406 described the protests as a “form of rebellion” and cited “incidents of violence and disorder” justifying federal intervention.

Actions

Trudeau – mobilized additional police (about 2,200, from RCMP, OPP, and municipal forces), created “No-go zones” which were legally restricted, froze protesters’ bank and corporate accounts and leveraged Anti-Money Laundering and counter-terrorism rules to block funding.

Trump –June 7 memorandum federalized approximately 2,000 California National Guard troops, with the possibility of up to 4,000 more later, and activated 700 U.S. Marines to “protect federal personnel and property” during ICE operations.

Objections/Legal Challenges

Trudeau - Leading critics like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and Cato Institute argued have argued that:

1. Threshold was not met — regular policing methods weren’t exhausted before escalation.

2. Excessive powers — account freezes and financial orders far exceeded acceptable bounds.

3. Charter violations — overly broad legal orders infringing on rights and due process.

Trump – Gov. Newsom and AG Bonta filed suit (“Newsom v. Trump”), arguing Trump bypassed state authority, violating the Tenth Amendment, statute, and the Posse Comitatus Act.

No significant mainstream constitutional or legal experts have publicly supported Trump's actions. Comments include:

· Elizabeth Goitein (Senior Director at the Brennan Center’s Liberty & National Security Program) - “completely unprecedented under any legal authority.”

· Hina Shamsi (Director, ACLU National Security Project) - “unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power.”

· Laura Dickinson (Professor at George Washington University Law School) - the broader statutory interpretation “appears breathtakingly broad” and could permit “unchecked power to deploy troops without state consent.”

Current Legal Status

Trudeau - While Trudeau’s invocation followed legal protocol (consultation, parliamentary approval, time-limits, judicial review, etc.), the Federal Court later ruled that his government overshot the Act’s legal limits, infringing Charter rights and failing to justify the level of disruption. The outcome remains uncertain as the government is appealing.

Trump - On June 12^th U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s order to federalize the California National Guard was illegal stating that it “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment” and that “[t]he protests … fall far short of ‘rebellion.’” However, just hours later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay on Judge Breyer’s order, allowing the Guard to remain under federal control while the Court reviews the appeal. A hearing scheduled for June 17^th.

The actions of Trudeau and Trump aren’t exact but to paraphrase Mark Twain, they do rhyme. One of the main differences is that Trudeau did not involve the military, an action that is permitted if civilian forces cannot handle the emergency. However, this hardly diminishes the authoritarian nature of his use of the EA. Procedures exist which would have enabled the Ottawa police force to request assistance from other municipalities, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the RCMP without invoking the EA. The EA was invoked to:

· Compel tow truck companies to assist in removing big rigs.

· Freeze bank accounts of protest organizers and supporters.

· Establish no-go zones with legal penalties under federal regulation.

· Enable rapid nationwide police coordination under federal authority (sounds a lot like federalizing the police, doesn’t it?)

In contrast, While Trump has used federal agents and military to enforce curfews and “federal protection zones” around ICE facilities and courthouses, he has not frozen accounts or targeted financial networks linked to protest organizers.

Conclusion

Despite what you may read, Trump’s actions are not examples of fascism, but neither are they unquestionably justifiable given the situation on the ground. I think he’s on solid ground when it comes to protecting federal buildings and escorting ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement activities. Beyond that I don’t know, but I am inclined to believe he’s overreached. I thought Trudeau’s actions during the Trucker protests were dangerously authoritarian and I think Trump’s actions “rhyme” with Trudeau’s. In both instances I think the underlying issue is neither had to do what they did. It is interesting that while Trudeau is a creature of the left and Trump nominally, if not literally, one of the right, both felt a similar need to escalate. Was the issue that there was a real problem or that people on the opposite side of the political debate were defying them?

Sometimes I write because I have an opinion, sometimes it’s because I want to explore and understand a topic. Sometimes it’s both. As previously stated, I can make up my own mind about what is going on in the world. It just takes a little time and effort. I wonder how many people reading this think the same way. Will you read, research, and decide for yourself, or will you take your marching orders from one or the other group of bad people who just happen to be on opposite sides?

---

Phil (Hoisttheblackflag) is a writer and classical liberal who, when not complaining about the Ottawa Senators, writes about politics, individual rights, government corruption/abuse and free speech. He resides in Vancouver, British Columbia.

You can read more of his work at Philip O'Reilly.