A List of Things I Find Worthy of Revolution (Part 4 of 10)

A running record of how the U.S. is ignoring its own warnings

usa.mom.in.germany

Jun 01, 2025

This series revisits a specific set of grievances from the Declaration and asks: What were the ‘Founders’ warning us about and is it happening again?

This series draws inspiration from
Cortlenfixeseverything
’s Reasons for Revolution, a running series listing the abuses that, even individually, justify revolt. But the list feels endless. His work inspired this series and this particular article’s title.

Authoritarian governments shift from serving the public to serving those already in power. In these authoritarian regimes, laws are often enforced selectively, the scales of justice are tilted to favor the loyal, and positions of service are used as rewards for obedience. The Declaration of Independence warned in its grievances about this and described how King George III used layers of loyal officers, military force, and politicized institutions to silence dissent in the colonies.

Today, these warnings may sound abstract. But when federal agencies are actively utilized to punish dissent, when military power is handed to police, and when legal structures to protect civilian oversight are stripped or ignored, the warnings of 1776 ring true to 2025.

In this installment, we look at Grievances 10 through 12. If you missed any of the first three parts of this series, you can access them here:

The Abuses That Sparked Revolution (Part 1)
How Trump Dissolves Opposition Without Dissolving Congress (Part 2)
We Traded a Crown for Red Hat (Part 3)

10. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Then: This grievance focuses on how the King used government offices as tools of control and punishment. Colonists saw these “swarms of officers” (e.g., new customs offices, tax enforcement bodies, etc.) as agents who sought to disrupt daily life, impose oppressive fees, and strip both wealth and autonomy to suppress colonial dissent and reassert imperial control.

Now: As a large government can intend to serve public needs without infringing liberties, the modern equivalent of this grievance is not just a large bureaucracy. Rather, the original grievance focuses on purposely using governmental expansion and associated enforcement powers to harass the ‘disloyal’ or oppositional. Therefore, parallels arise when government is deliberately weaponized through audits, surveillance, or selective enforcement to target critics or political adversaries.

Trump: In 2025, Trump's administration has significantly restructured federal agencies, as largely influenced by Project 2025. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established to oversee federal agencies under a central authority, is explicitly tasked with aligning federal agencies to presidential directives. Further, an executive order signed in February 2025 mandated that agencies, like the FCC, SEC, and FTC, submit draft regulations for White House review to ensure their strategic plans align with presidential priorities, which reflects an intrusion into agencies meant to serve the public impartially.

Announced in March 2025, the AHA consolidates several public health agencies, including parts of the CDC, into a new entity under HHS political leadership. Shortly after, the HHS abruptly terminated over $11 billion in public health funding, including $1 billion in grants, from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This led to legal backlash. 23 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against HHS which resulted in a temporary order blocking the cuts. By shifting control of independent programs to political appointees and cutting funding, the restructuring has allowed public health decisions to become more political and less based on scientific evidence and expert guidance.

Perhaps most controversially, the newly formed Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism not only investigated political speech on university campuses but also threatened or withdrew over $11 billion in funding from institutions like Columbia and Harvard. For instance, Columbia University faced cancellations of $400 million in federal grants and contracts. Similarly, Harvard University had $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in contracts frozen. In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard's certification to enroll international students, claiming antisemitism and foreign affiliations. This threatened the legal status of about 6,800 international students at Harvard, but a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the revocation which allows these students to remain during the legal proceedings. This is a weaponization of federal enforcement to intimidate dissenters and enforce ideological compliance in academic spaces.

Although federal agents are no longer customs officers boarding ships or tax collectors entering homes, the principle remains. These modern “swarms of officers” operate through both regulatory overreach and financial coercion to compel compliance while punishing ideological opposition. This reflects the core of the grievance against using the government to suppress dissent and centralize control under the executive.

11. “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”

Then: This grievance referred to King George III keeping British soldiers stationed in the colonies during peacetime without the approval of local governments. It felt like a military occupation.

Now: The modern version of this is when federal or military forces are deployed inside U.S. cities against the wishes of local or state leaders, or without proper legal approval.

Trump: While Trump’s actions offer no perfect parallel, there are some troubling similarities. In 2020, during protests in Portland, Oregon, and other cities, Trump sent armed federal forces against the strong objections of local officials. These federal officers clashed with citizens night after night and Oregon’s leaders repeatedly demanded that they leave. Trump relied on 40 U.S.C. § 1315 which permits federal agents to protect federal property and personnel without local consent. However, its use for prolonged street-level crowd control, rather than strictly defensive property protection, which stretched the intended purpose of the statute to bypass local governance.

In 2025, Trump expanded ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) dramatically. In just the first 50 days, ICE arrested 32,809 people, almost as many as the total number of arrests for the entire year before. This police force is now growing through a revived program called 287(g) that has gone from 139 local agreements in late 2024 to over 456 by April 2025. Further, the “Task Force Model” of 287(g), phased out by DHS in 2012 after DOJ investigations and civil rights concerns, was also brought back under Trump. These programs allow local police to engage in immigration enforcement under ICE supervision, including having the power to stop, question, and detain people in regard to their immigration status.

But most pointedly, Trump’s executive order, “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” requires the Department of Defense and Justice to give military equipment, training, and even personnel to local police. This mixes military and civilian law enforcement in ways that resemble a standing army operating inside the U.S. American communities. This same order also promises legal help and protections to officers accused of wrongdoing, which could encourage excessive force and weaken accountability.

Now, the administration says it would like to deport citizens, too.

Altogether, Trump’s actions do not amount to a literal standing army in the historical sense described by the Declaration of Independence. However, they represent a trend of expanding federal enforcement presence and militarization of local law enforcement, which often overrides state and local leaders. The use of federal personnel and resources in ways that blur the line between civilian policing and military force upsets the balance of power and respect for local governance. It strains the intended limits of federal authority and, in some ways, echoes in modern form the core grievance of occupation without consent.

12. “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

Then: The grievance accused King George III of making the military operate above the authority of civilian governments. Essentially, British troops in the colonies acted without having to answer to local civilian leaders or courts which allowed the military to enforce the king’s will over the rights of the people.

Now: The U.S. system is built on civilian control of the military. The President serves as Commander in Chief, but Congress, the courts, and state governments impose legal and constitutional limits. A modern violation would occur if military leaders ignored lawful civilian orders or if a President used the military to bypass or override civilian legal systems and elected local officials.

Trump: In his first term, Trump took steps that worried experts about control of the military. His administration had an unusually high number of retired generals in top civilian posts (e.g. making Gen. James Mattis Defense Secretary and appointing three other generals to senior roles). This “militarization” of the cabinet was “unusual” and risked politicizing the officer corps. Additionally, Trump repeatedly sought to override military justice decisions. For example, the administration intervened to stop the Navy from disciplining SEAL Eddie Gallagher despite military leaders’ objections, which blurred traditional lines between civilian oversight and military autonomy. And in 2020, he threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty military against protesters, over the objections of state governors and civilian officials (See Grievance 11). While ultimately not executed, the threat itself alarmed civilian and military leaders.

In 2025, these patterns have intensified. In April, he authorized the U.S. military to assume control over the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide strip of federal land along the southern border, effectively placing it under military jurisdiction. This allowed active-duty troops to detain individuals, including migrants, who 'trespass' on this land. These troops were granted expanded surveillance and detainment powers, raising constitutional concerns about Posse Comitatus violations, which prohibit federal military involvement in domestic policing. In May 2025, a federal judge dismissed charges against 100 individuals arrested for trespassing in this new “National Defense Area,” due to unclear boundaries and lack of adequate public notice. Establishing these new physical boundaries has led to an erosion of the existing legal boundaries designed to separate military power from domestic governance.

Additionally, Trump's Pentagon reorganization undercut civilian control by handing more power to politically appointed military liaisons rather than career civil servants. Civilian positions within the Department of Defense have been eliminated or go unfilled, which focuses power in the hands of uniformed leadership committed to the president's agenda. Military loyalty screening that vets candidates for top intelligence and law enforcement positions, including questions about their views on the January 6 Capitol riot and the 2020 presidential election, has been reported. These practices politicize personnel and oversight structures which threatens the constitutional balance between civilian leadership and military power.

While Trump has not fully dismantled the constitutional structure of civilian control, his administration has taken steps to actively weaken and test this safeguard. This departure from U.S. norms demonstrates the growing normalization of military involvement in domestic and political affairs. The historic grievance warned of military power eclipsing civilian authority. The present trajectory does not reflect a complete takeover, but it has undeniably moved closer to the sentiment expressed in this grievance.

usa.mom.in.germany’s Substack

Discussion about this post