Three More Warnings from History (Part 7/10)
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences...”
The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances against King George III, which were the charges that justified revolution. Nearly 250 years later, these grievances have re-emerged under modern U.S. executive power. From wrongful deportations of citizens to threats of jailing in foreign prisons, the Trump administration has tested the boundaries of the constitution.
This is part 7 of a 10-part series. 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)
Militarized Streets, Foreign Hands, and Protected Killers (Part 5)
No Kings, No Exceptions (Part 6)
This installment continues to explore how these old grievances have found a dangerous new life in contemporary policy under the Trump administration. Here, we examine the disturbing modern parallels to Grievances 19, 20, and 21.
19. “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:”
Then: Colonists protested being forcibly removed from their own courts and sent overseas to stand trial for politically motivated or false charges (i.e., offences declared by the Crown but never proven in a local court).
Now: The modern parallel may not involve literal overseas trials, but it increasingly reflects the government bypassing judicial process entirely to remove individuals, including U.S. citizens, from U.S. jurisdiction under the label of “offences” that were never properly adjudicated.
Trump: In Trump’s second term, perhaps an even more extreme version of this grievance has taken shape. Instead of transporting individuals abroad for sham trials, the administration has, in multiple cases, skipped proper judicial processes altogether and removed people from U.S. soil under unverified or unconstitutional authority.
For example, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March 2025, even though a court had ordered the government not to remove him. This showed a serious disregard for judicial authority. The administration later admitted that this was an "administrative error," but refused to disclose key facts in court, invoking the “state secrets” privilege to block oversight (See Grievance 5). After several rulings against the government, including a unanimous Supreme Court decision, Abrego was finally returned to the USA. But, instead of being freed, he was jailed and charged with federal human smuggling, which he denies. A judge has now ordered his release, with protections in place to stop ICE from deporting him again without proper legal review.
Similarly, in April 2025, V.M.L., a 2-year-old born in Louisiana, was deported with her mother to Honduras. A federal judge expressed deep concern that the government deported a U.S. citizen “with no meaningful process,” pointing to further potential constitutional rights violations.
Further, ICE deported two more U.S. citizens, ages 4 and 7, with their mother to Honduras. The 4-year-old, who was receiving treatment for stage 4 cancer, was deported without medication or medical planning, despite lawyers notifying ICE of his urgent condition. In each of these cases, the deportation proceeded without confirmed legal findings or full procedural review.
Reports indicate that more than a dozen U.S. citizens have been caught up in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, being detained or deported due to aggressive enforcement practices that somehow overlook or disregard citizenship status.
Moreover, the Guantánamo Migrant Operations Center was expanded by the administration to detain another 30,000 migrants, some indefinitely and without access to legal counsel. New policies have accelerated deportations with minimal notice and no guaranteed opportunity for appeal, including for legal residents.
Maybe most concerning, Trump has now threatened to (purposely) deport U.S. citizens to foreign prisons, specifically El Salvador's CECOT facility. In 2025, he proposed sending suspected gang members, including U.S.-born individuals, to the mega-prison, regardless of nationality. These actions would likely be unconstitutional, as the U.S. cannot lawfully expel its own citizens beyond the reach of its courts. If carried out, such a move would place U.S. citizens in foreign detention facilities where no U.S. authority could issue relief.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned of precisely this danger:
These actions not only echo the original grievance of being removed from the protection of one’s own courts for questionable charges, but also go even further by eliminating any proper judicial process. The issue remains that the government asserts the right to remove individuals from legal protections without providing sufficient evidence to support its case. That principle, born under a monarchy, has now re-emerged under the guise of security.
20. “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:”
Then: In 1774, Britain passed the Quebec Act, which applied to the territory it had taken from France. The law let Quebec keep French civil laws and the Catholic religion instead of switching to English laws. It also gave Quebec no elected assembly, as its governor and officials were chosen by the king. The Act expanded Quebec’s borders into land claimed by colonies like Virginia. Many U.S. American colonists saw this as a threat. They worried Britain could similarly take away their right to vote and rule them without their consent, just like in Quebec. To them, it looked like Britain was planning to control all the colonies with absolute power.
Now: A modern U.S. equivalent might be if Congress abolished local elections in Washington, D.C. or Puerto Rico to replace them with federally appointed officials and extended this unelected governance to neighboring jurisdictions. This would effectively override local laws, budgets and fundamentally change the operation of democratic institutions. While unconstitutional today, such a move would mirror how the Quebec Act replaced local control with imperial command and extend arbitrary rule by expanding boundaries.
Trump: In 2025, there is no direct case of Trump abolishing or replacing an entire legal system. But in practice, his actions in Puerto Rico and toward Greenland reflect each part of this grievance in that they seek to undermine existing systems, substitute federal decisions for local governance, and use territorial control as a precedent for broader power.
For example, Trump has repeatedly bypassed Puerto Rican officials, feuded with elected leaders, and allowed aid delays despite Congressional approval. His administration imposed tighter restrictions on disaster funds than those placed on states and withheld key resources. In 2020, Trump even suggested “selling” Puerto Rico or trading it for Greenland, showing disregard for its political status and residents.
In 2025, Trump redirected $365 million in renewable energy funding away from Puerto Rican toward fossil fuel plants, effectively overriding local priorities. Simultaneously, FEMA policy changes have reduced federal funding and cost-sharing, further ensuring Washington’s discretionary control over the island’s recovery and functionally limiting its ability for self-rule by making it dependent on the federal executive’s favor.
This reflects the same arbitrary governance the colonists feared. Puerto Rico’s rights under Trump are inconsistently respected. Despite being a U.S. territory governed under Congress via the Territorial Clause, it lacks full constitutional protections and voting representation. Trump’s actions, especially when withholding or conditioning aid and ignoring elected officials, undermines democratic norms.
Meanwhile, Trump’s push for control over Greenland demonstrates another parallel. In 2025, his administration pursued a Compact of Free Association (COFA) that would give the U.S. strategic control over Greenland’s defense and foreign policy, while significantly reducing its autonomy. When Danish and Greenlandic leaders refused, Trump refused to rule out military force, stating the U.S. would take Greenland “one way or the other.”
Further, the “Make Greenland Great Again Act” was introduced to authorize the President to acquire Greenland, with a 60-day congressional override period. Shortly after, the “Red, White, and Blueland Act” proposed renaming the island and mandating all federal maps reflect the change. These bills together would install U.S. governance mechanisms, impose naming conventions, and potentially override Greenlandic and Danish opposition to effectively construct a new external territory governed not by democratic consent but executive prerogative.
In truth, however, this grievance is one of the more specific to 1770s geopolitics and, thus, the parallel is limited. Trump has not overthrown any U.S. state government. However, his treatment of Puerto Rico and Greenland shows how territories can be transformed into political experiments for executive power. Just as Britain used Quebec as a precedent to impose royal power without elections, Trump’s administration has tested how far U.S. authority can go when applied outside the mainland.
21. “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:”
Then: This grievance accused the British Crown of dismantling colonial self-rule and undermining the legal frameworks that structured local governments.
Now: Today, this would be like someone trying to weaken the U.S. Constitution, change how elections work, or remove protections for public workers, which are all things that are key to how we ensure the government runs fairly.
Trump: Trump didn’t cancel the Constitution or any state governments. But he has relentlessly tried to break the foundational rules that protect how the U.S. government is supposed to work. He has attacked the U.S. election system and has attempted to stay in power after losing an election. He has also pushed people not to follow court rulings or laws, which are all actions that go against the way U.S. democracy is set up. And finally, he has sought to alter the functions of the judicial branch, all amounting to an assault on the “Forms of our Governments.”
The clearest example of this was Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He tried to block the normal, legal way power transfers after a vote. He asked state officials to “find votes” and pressured his Vice President to reject certified electoral votes. This went against the basic idea of how a fair government works, in which leaders are chosen in honest elections and power changes peacefully. The attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was the violent peak of this effort. It interfered with Congress’s ability to do its duty of counting the electoral votes, as the Constitution requires (see Grievance 27, as forthcoming). Even into 2022, Trump posted online that parts of the Constitution should be thrown out so he could be put back in office. Trump posted on Truth Social that parts of the Constitution should be “terminated” to reinstate him, stating: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Indeed, Trump has often shown contempt for checks and balances. He repeatedly stated that, as President, Article II of the Constitution meant “I can do whatever I want.” He joked (half-seriously, as always) about serving more than two terms, which has continued into 2025. He praised President Xi’s abolition of term limits in China (See Grievance 13).
Trump has also pushed his supporters in state governments to weaken how those governments normally work. After the 2018 midterm elections, Republican leaders in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina moved to strip powers from newly elected Democratic governors. While Trump didn’t directly initiate these efforts, his way of talking (in claiming elections were rigged and that winning is all that matters) provided cover and encouragement for such anti-democratic actions.
During COVID-19, Trump tweeted against Democratic governors who used emergency powers to keep people safe. He told people to “LIBERATE” Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, basically calling on people to rise up against their own state governments. This encouraged people to ignore “valuable Laws”, like health rules, and to reject the authority of elected leaders.
In 2025, Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders that have stretched the bounds of law from travel bans to challenging birthright citizenship. These actions signal a desire to concentrate power in the executive and weaken other branches, effectively attempting to “alter” the form of the U.S. government from a system of separated powers to one-man rule.
Trump has also worked to take more control from the Justice Department. For example, he fired government watchdogs who were looking into wrongdoing by members of his Cabinet. By doing this, he got rid of important checks that help keep government officials honest. One could say he tried to tear up the informal “charter” of norms that ensure a functional government under law.
Finally, in March 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that sought to limit the power of lower federal judges in issuing nationwide injunctions. The administration argued that only the Supreme Court or courts handling class actions should have the authority to issue these kinds of blocks. And in June 2025, the Supreme Court partly granted this request, narrowing the scope of who nationwide injunctions can apply to, but leaving some exceptions.
Trump has not formally “abolished” the Constitution or dissolved any state governments, but he has consistently attempted to hollow them out from within. His attempts to overturn the 2020 election, his open disdain for judicial oversight, his efforts to weaken state-level checks on executive power, and his push to politicize federal law enforcement all amount to an ongoing attempt to undermine our very “Forms of our Governments.” Trump seeks to bend rules until they break and to strip systems of their function. This may be less visible than tearing up parchment, but it is no less dangerous.
The Old Wounds Reopened
Across these three grievances, the pattern continues. Executive power grows, laws are bent to serve the Trump administration’s will, and people are removed, both physically and politically, from government protection. Through forced deportations, weakened local governance, and efforts to overturn elections, the foundational fears outlined in the Declaration remain relevant. Yes, the methods have changed, and not all hold a deep parallel to today’s administration, but the underlying logic remains intact. Indeed, these grievances were about any leader who places themselves above the law.
To follow this series through all 27 grievances and to see how history warns us still, subscribe for the next installment.