No Kings, No Exceptions (Part 6/10)

The abuses named in the Declaration are back, and so is the fight.

If you showed up for or supported the No Kings protests, you already understand we’re facing creeping unchecked, top-down power. Protesters rallied under the simple truth that no one should rule alone or bend the law to their will.

This same belief drove the colonists to write a list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence against King George III. This installment examines how several of those grievances are now echoed in Trump’s approach to economic and immigration policy.

If you missed earlier installments:

• 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)

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

• Militarized Streets, Foreign Hands, and Protected Killers (Part 5)

16. “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”

Then: The King’s policies (like the Navigation Acts) severely limited colonial trade with other nations.

Now: In modern terms, this equates to enacting tariffs or trade barriers that intentionally limit commerce. While a president might impose targeted tariffs for policy reasons, doing so broadly or capriciously can resemble an economic blockade that harms both businesses and consumers.

Trump: Trump has consistently sought an aggressive trade policy that he says protects U.S. American industries. However, it has disrupted U.S. American trade around the world. During his first term, he imposed tariffs on hundreds of products, including steel, aluminium, washing machines, solar panels, and many goods from Chinese. These were the most significant trade actions since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and they sharply reduced trade flows.

For instance, steep tariffs on steel and aluminium, enacted under the pretext of national security, strained trade with allies like Canada, Europe, and Mexico. In retaliation, countries placed tariffs on U.S. exports which caused U.S. American producers to lose foreign markets. By 2019, Chinese imports and U.S. farm exports had plummeted. Economists consistently highlighted how these tariffs were ultimately paid by the U.S. American consumers and hurt U.S. businesses.

Furthermore, in his first term, Trump withdrew from established trade agreements or negotiations. He pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on his third day in office, thereby cutting off many future Asia-Pacific trade opportunities. He also threatened to terminate NAFTA entirely if Congress failed to approve his replacement agreement (the USMCA). During a government shutdown (see Grievance 1), he even threatened to close the entire U.S.-Mexico border, which would have halted billions in daily trade (though he did not follow through). Collectively, these actions signaled that the free flow of trade was contingent on Trump’s approval and could be severed to apply pressure.

One can debate the merits of Trump’s trade policy, but by mid-2019 its effects were clear. U.S. imports and exports both took a hit, supply chains were disrupted, and U.S. companies paid higher costs (tariffs are legally taxes paid by importers, often passed on to consumers). As Cato analysts noted, tariffs are taxes on U.S. Americans and Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs meant U.S. Americans effectively paid more and traded less. This grievance’s phrasing (i.e., cutting off trade “with all parts of the world”) finds a metaphorical parallel in Trump’s global trade wars, which spanned China, Europe, North America, and beyond. By 2019, virtually every major U.S. trading partner faced some tariff barrier.

In Trump’s second term, his trade war has continued. He declared a national emergency in April to address, as he described, a "large and persistent U.S. trade deficit." He believed this would enable him to utilize the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in order to charge a 10% tariff on all imports to the U.S., with additional tariffs reaching up to 50% on 57 nations and territories, announced as part of his ‘Liberation Day.’

However, this was struck down by the U.S. Court of International Trade, ruling that Trump had overstepped his authority. This decision, at least temporarily, halted enforcement of the new tariffs. Still, the actions had already induced long-term consequences as countries work to redefine their trade beyond U.S. influence.

Before the court intervention, the tariff hikes had caused significant disruptions. Notably, U.S. ports such as Los Angeles and Long Beach reported a 44% decline in ship traffic which raised concerns about potential product shortages and economic downturns. Though some tariffs, such as on China, were later temporarily reduced from 145% to 30% as part of a 90-day truce, the trade volume has not yet recovered.

These actions are akin to acting by executive fiat to restrict commerce, reminiscent of King George’s decrees. In summary, Trump’s policies have not wholly “cut off” trade, but they undoubtedly constrained and curtailed trade flows with many nations. The economic “war” Trump has launched, especially with China, led to a de facto partial decoupling, fulfilling, in part, a scenario of trade being cut and ports seeing reduced exchange. Thus, there is a substantive parallel in that Trump employed economic isolationist tools, which, through tariffs and brinksmanship, severed or reduced trade ties rather than expanding them.

17. “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”

Then: Colonists objected to taxes (like the Stamp Act) imposed by Britain where colonists had no say.

Now: In a current context, this suggests enacting taxes or similar burdens unilaterally, against the will of the people’s representatives. Normally, the U.S. Constitution requires that taxes originate in Congress (the people’s elected legislature) ensuring consent.

Trump: Trump’s tariffs serve as a modern parallel here as well (See Grievance 16). The U.S. Congress (with representation) passed a major tax law under Trump (i.e., the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), but that was duly enacted by elected lawmakers (albeit with controversy). However, Trump’s unilateral tariffs serve as a modern “tax without consent,” because, as aforementioned, tariffs are essentially import taxes that U.S. Americans pay in higher prices.

While Congress did delegate tariff powers in prior legislation, Trump’s sweeping use of them went far beyond any specific consent for such broad taxation. In his first term, he invoked a vague “national security” justification to put tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum from almost every country. Many in Congress, including normally friendly Republicans, disagreed with these taxes, but Trump proceeded without new authorization. The cost fell on U.S. American manufacturers and consumers, amounting to a multibillion-dollar tax increase by executive action. By mid-2019, U.S. American businesses and consumers had paid billions in tariffs due to Trump’s trade policies, which translated to higher prices on everything from electronics to clothing. This was done not through normal tax legislation, but through executive proclamation, arguably “without our Consent” in the spirit of the grievance.

In addition, when Trump declared a national emergency in 2019, this also helped him use Pentagon funds for his border wall construction (after Congress refused to fully fund the wall). This can be viewed as taxation without proper consent because money appropriated for other purposes (military construction) was diverted to Trump’s pet project that Congress had not consented to fund at that level. Effectively, taxpayer dollars were being spent in a way contrary to the congressionally approved budget, which is akin to an unauthorized tax for a specific goal. Congress even passed a resolution to terminate the emergency, but Trump vetoed it (See Grievance 1), and the diversion continued.

It’s also worth noting that the burden of Trump’s tariffs fell unevenly as farmers in the Midwest bore the brunt of foreign retaliation when China imposed its own tariffs. Those farmers didn’t “consent” to losing their markets and needing federal bailouts, yet the policy was imposed top-down. From their perspective, a trade war tax depressed crop prices, effectively functioning like an external tax on their livelihood imposed by executive choice.

Because U.S. Americans elect the President, there is some indirect consent. But the same was theoretically true for colonists as they were British subjects. The core complaint was the lack of direct say in specific taxes affecting them. In Trump’s case, neither Congress nor the U.S. American public had direct input on his tariff schedules, as these are decided in White House meetings.

This lack of democratic participation is especially evident in his second term’s recent polling. In 2025, a Reuters poll found a large majority of U.S. Americans opposed the newer tariff-tax hikes and feared price surges​. In fact, markets and businesses are often caught off-guard by sudden new tariff announcements, making it the opposite of the deliberative, representative process for taxation. Together, the parallel holds and Trump’s method of raising revenue (tariffs that function as taxes) has bypassed the normal representative consent mechanism.

Tariffs weren’t the only area where taxation was changed or imposed without consent. Additional actions in Trump’s second term also raised concerns about using taxation as a political weapon. For example, Trump has explicitly labeled tax exemption a “privilege” that has been “abused” and has threatened to strip it from organizations that oppose him. Trump now plans to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status, accusing the institution of engaging in actions that are against his political agenda. Additionally, IRS attorneys, under Trump-appointed leadership, have considered new criteria to remove exemptions from groups “deemed terrorist‑supporting.”

Finally, on the international stage, the administration’s withdrawal from the OECD’s global corporate tax deal, which was designed to set minimum taxation standards for multinational corporations, was a major international tax policy decision made without congressional input or public debate.

Trump has repeatedly bypassed the mechanisms of representative consent in tax and spending decisions, just as the colonists accused King George III of doing. Whether through executive tariff hikes, reallocation of funds, or punitive tax threats, Trump imposed financial burdens by decree rather than through the normal legislative process. This conduct aligns strongly with the Founders’ original grievance of “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.”

18. “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”

Then: The King sent some colonists to special Admiralty courts with no juries which violated their right to a fair trial.

Now: Modernly, this means denying people due process. For instance, if an administration advocates for punishment without proper judicial proceedings. The U.S. Bill of Rights, including the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees due process, so any executive attempt to short-circuit these protections is of great concern.

Trump: The right to a jury trial still exists in U.S. criminal law, but Trump’s policies have led to many situations where people, particularly immigrants and even some U.S. citizens, were denied due process. This was especially true in immigration and detention cases.

Note: Because immigration courts are not Article III courts, they have no juries and are run by the Department of Justice (DOJ), under the Executive Branch.

In his first term, the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy and focus on rapid deportations meant asylum-seekers and even some U.S. residents were swept into detention without adequate judicial review. Trump’s DOJ imposed quota pressures on immigration judges and limited their ability to pause cases which aimed to accelerate removals. In the rush, multiple U.S. citizens were erroneously detained or deported by ICE. They were denied timely hearings, legal counsel, or a fair opportunity to prove their citizenship. For example, a U.S.-born Texas man was detained for weeks as an immigrant. He was misidentified as undocumented and had no access to a criminal trial, despite pleading that he was a U.S. American. Because the system had classed him as a civil detainee, not a defendant, he was at the mercy of an administrative system that failed to verify and uphold his rights.

Furthermore in Trump’s first term, the administration attempted to expand expedited removal, a process that lets immigration agents deport individuals without any hearing if they could not prove they have resided in the U.S. for over two years. This would have potentially applied deep into the geographic interior of the USA, depriving even long-term residents of any court hearing. Courts halted some of these expansions (in his first term), but the intent was already clear that the administration desired to remove people by revising judicial processes through policy.

In another arena, Trump already advocated in his first term for trying terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, where juries are not constitutionally required for criminal procedures. He even suggested sending the Uzbek-born perpetrator of a 2017 New York truck attack to Guantánamo for military trial. “I would certainly consider that…Send him to Gitmo,” Trump said. Had that occurred, an individual arrested on U.S. soil would have been transported overseas and tried by military commission, which typically has no civilian jury directly (See Grievance 18).

But in 2025, in Trump’s second term, all of this is actually happening.

In his second term, the Trump administration has expanded its immigration agenda, now formalized through executive orders and new legislation. Expedited removals have been broadened nationwide, asylum pathways cut off, and the discretion of immigration judges widely removed, even further deepening the “zero tolerance” approach in the first term. The detention system has again erroneously detained U.S. citizens. ICE arrests migrants at immigration courts and the Laken Riley Act have collectively eroded due process further, replacing individual hearings with automatic detentions.

Trump has reopened Guantánamo’s Migrant Operations Center and began detaining migrants offshore. Reports indicate about 500 migrants were held for at least some period of time in military-style confinement without due process. As of June 2025, the Trump administration is planning to send at least 9,000 more people to the center.

Further, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the deportation of alleged gang members, primarily Venezuelans, to El Salvador's high-security prison, CECOT (See Grievance 7). Many of these individuals lacked criminal records, and deportations proceeded even after federal judges issued orders to halt them. This approach bypassed due process which denied migrants the opportunity for proper hearings before removal.

As legal challenges continue, the Trump administration continues to seek ways around these rulings by citing emergency authority, issuing English-only notice letters, and executing foreign transfers (e.g. to CECOT in El Salvador) aimed at staying outside U.S. jurisdiction to evade judicial scrutiny. These actions reflect a broader pattern of undermining the legal protections afforded to individuals, drawing parallels to historical grievances about the denial of fair trials.​

Subscribe to see the upcoming review of Grievance 19, Trial Beyond Seas.

Recently, the administration has publicly considered suspending the constitutional right of habeas corpus for detained migrants which would allow deportations without judicial review (See Grievance 7).

Vulnerable groups have already seen Trump attempt to route around or redefine due process. While the colonists’ grievance was about being subject to judges without juries, the essence of this grievance (i.e., the denial of impartial and fair judicial proceedings) finds resonance in Trump-era practices. Trump has either expanded or expressed a preference for systems where both jury trials and due process are absent and outcomes often pre-ordained by policy. Put simply, U.S. American and non-citizen populations have been denied full judicial rights.

Conclusion

To everyone who showed up for the No Kings protests, thank you. If you’re interested in learning more about how the Trump administration aligns with the grievances in the Declaration of Independence, still more is coming.

Hit subscribe to follow the next entry in the series going over the next three grievances including:

• How people are sent far away to face unfair trials

• How the rule of law in U.S. territories and allied democracies is undermined

• How the U.S. Constitution, the electoral system, and civil service protections are eroded

We were warned about what unchecked power can look like. Let’s see how much of history is repeating itself.

Photo (public domain) by Santuit Studio via Flickr, uploaded April 19, 2025.