Stop trying to segregate the American founding



Race relations in the United States have unraveled in recent years, not only because of genuine disagreement, but because many Americans now grow up believing the nation is fundamentally unjust — racist to the core, perhaps even irredeemable.

This idea, once fringe, now enjoys institutional backing. Critical race theory and DEI ideology assert that the U.S. was founded on slavery and white supremacy. And they dominate schools, corporations, and government agencies alike.

Don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t divide what should unite us.

As a result, America has seen a quiet comeback of sanctioned segregation. Colleges increasingly host race-based graduation ceremonies. Society encourages people to define themselves first by racial identity, not shared citizenship. That should alarm anyone who once marched for equal rights in the 1950s and ’60s.

When Americans stop thinking of each other as fellow citizens, the glue that holds the republic together dissolves.

Juneteenth and the new segregation

Consider one example of this trend: the push for a separate “independence day” for black Americans.

On June 17, 2021, Joe Biden signed Senate Bill 475 into law, establishing a new federal holiday: “Juneteenth National Independence Day.” The bill commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Texas and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that slaves in the state had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation — two years after it was signed.

Former slaves in Texas celebrated, and in the years that followed, Juneteenth spread across the South. But it never held central importance in the broader civil rights movement.

Juneteenth did not abolish slavery. It merely marked the day slaves in one state learned they had been legally freed. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued in 1863, applied only to states in rebellion — excluding Union-supporting border states like Kentucky and Delaware, where slavery remained legal until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

A false independence narrative

Some activists now argue that Juneteenth should serve as “Black Independence Day.” That’s a mistake.

This view implies that African Americans have no rightful claim to the Fourth of July or to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But those ideas belong to all Americans — not just the descendants of the signers.

It’s true that many historical figures sought to exclude black Americans from the promise of the Declaration. Chief Justice Roger Taney made that argument explicit in the Dred Scott decision. Confederates like Alexander Stephens and John C. Calhoun claimed that “all men are created equal” never applied to African Americans.

They were wrong.

What Frederick Douglass really believed

Some cite Frederick Douglass’ famous 1852 speech — “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” — to support the idea that black Americans should reject the founding. But they ignore the full context.

Douglass, speaking two years after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, condemned the hypocrisy of a country that declared liberty while tolerating bondage. “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” he asked. “A day that reveals to him ... the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

But unlike Taney, Stephens, and Calhoun, Douglass didn’t reject the Declaration. He upheld it.

RELATED: Frederick Douglass: American patriot

  Photo by Carol M. Highsmith/Buyenlarge/Getty Images

Douglass took hope from the principles it proclaimed and called on America to live up to them. He dismissed the Garrisonian claim that the Constitution was pro-slavery. “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

He believed America’s founding held the moral resources to defeat slavery — and it did.

The universal promise of 1776

America’s founders didn’t invent slavery; they merely inherited it. At the time of the Revolution, slavery was a global institution, practiced on every continent and defended by every empire. Slavery, including African slavery, was a manifestation of the argument of the Athenians at Melos as recounted by Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Even Africans sold fellow Africans into slavery.

The Declaration of Independence marked a sharp break from that past. It asserted that all human beings possess natural rights — and that no one may rule another without consent.

Thomas Jefferson famously observed that humanity had long been divided into those born "booted and spurred” and those “born with saddles on their backs.” The founders rejected that model. They established a republic based on equality before the law, not the interests of the stronger over the weaker.

They also knew slavery contradicted those ideals. Many believed the institution would die out — an Enlightenment relic destined for extinction. Still, the political compromises they made to preserve the Union allowed slavery to persist, and it took a war to end it.

Why the founding still matters

The Civil War was not a rejection of the founding. It was a fulfillment of it.

As Harry Jaffa wrote, “It is not wonderful that a nation of slaveholders, upon achieving independence, failed to abolish slavery. What is wonderful ... is that a nation of slaveholders founded a new nation on the proposition that ‘all men are created equal,’ making the abolition of slavery a moral and political necessity.”

The Declaration of Independence lit the fuse that ultimately destroyed slavery.

So let Americans celebrate Juneteenth — gratefully, joyfully, and historically. Let the holiday recall the biblical jubilee it was meant to evoke.

But don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t segment America’s founding. Don’t divide what should unite us.

As Douglass said: “I would not even in words do violence to the grand events, and thrilling associations, that gloriously cluster around the birth of our national independence.”

He went on: “No people ever entered upon the pathway of nations, with higher and grander ideas of justice, liberty and humanity than ourselves.”

Douglass understood something too many have forgotten: The genius of the American founding lies not in who it excluded but in the promise that, one day, it would include everyone.

This Yale professor thinks patriotism is some kind of hate crime



Timothy Snyder has built a career trying to convince Americans that Donald Trump is a latter-day Adolf Hitler — a fascist demagogue hell-bent on dismantling America’s institutions to seize power. Last week, the Yale historian and author of the bestselling resistance pamphlet “On Tyranny,” briefly changed course. Now, apparently, Trump is Jefferson Davis.

In a recent Substack post, Snyder claimed Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg amounted to a call for civil war. He argued that the president’s praise for the military and his rejection of the left’s historical revisionism signaled not patriotism but treason — and the rise of a “paramilitary” regime.

Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

No, seriously. That’s what he thinks.

Renaming Fort Bragg

Trump’s first alleged Confederate offense, Snyder said, was to reinstate the military base’s original name: Fort Bragg. The Biden administration had renamed it Fort Liberty, repudiating General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate ties. Trump reversed the change.

The Biden administration had renamed the base Fort Liberty, citing General Braxton Bragg’s service to the Confederacy. Trump reversed the change. But he didn’t do it to honor a Confederate general. He did it to honor World War II paratrooper Roland L. Bragg, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained.

Snyder wasn’t buying it. He accused the administration of fabricating a “dishonest pretense” that glorifies “oathbreakers and traitors.”

That charge hits close to home.

My grandfather Martin Spohn was a German Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Berlin in 1936. He proudly served in the U.S. Army. He trained with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Bragg before deploying to Normandy. Like thousands of others, he saw the base not as a Confederate monument but as a launchpad for defeating actual fascism.

Restoring the name Fort Bragg doesn’t rewrite history. It honors the Americans who made history — men who trained there to liberate Europe from tyranny.

That’s not fascism. That’s victory over it.

Deploying the National Guard

For Snyder, though, Trump’s real crime was calling up the National Guard to restore order in riot-torn Los Angeles. That, he claimed, puts Trump in the same category as Robert E. Lee.

According to Snyder, the president is “preparing American soldiers to see themselves as heroes when they undertake operations inside the United States against unarmed people, including their fellow citizens.”

Let’s set aside the hysteria.

Trump didn’t glorify the Confederacy. He called for law and order in the face of spiraling violence. He pushed back against the left’s crusade to erase American history — not to rewrite it but to preserve its complexity.

He didn’t tell soldiers to defy the Constitution. He reminded them of their oath: to defend the nation, not serve the ideological demands of woke officials.

Snyder’s claims are as reckless as they are false.

He smears anyone who supports border enforcement or takes pride in military service as a threat to democracy. Want secure borders? You’re a fascist. Call out the collapse of Democrat-run cities? You’re a Confederate.

This isn’t analysis. It’s slander masquerading as scholarship.

The real division

But this debate isn’t really about Trump. It’s about power.

The left has spent years reshaping the military into a political project — prioritizing diversity seminars over combat readiness, purging dissenters, and enforcing ideological loyalty. When Trump pushes back, it’s not authoritarianism. It’s restoration.

The left wants a military that fights climate change, checks pronouns, and marches for “equity.” Trump wants a military that defends the nation. That’s the real divide.

Over and over, Snyder accuses Trump of “trivializing” the military by invoking its heroism while discussing immigration enforcement. But what trivializes military service more — linking it to national defense or turning soldiers into props for progressive social experiments?

RELATED: The real tyranny? Institutional groupthink disguised as truth

  Photo by Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

And Trump isn’t breaking precedent by deploying the National Guard when local leaders fail. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal troops during desegregation. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers. The Guard responded during the 1967 Detroit riots, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and the Black Lives Matter and Antifa upheavals of 2020.

Trump acted within his authority — and fulfilled his duty — to restore order when Democrat-run cities descended into chaos.

A House divided?

Snyder’s rhetoric about “protecting democracy” rings hollow. Trump won the 2024 election decisively. Voters across party lines gave him a clear mandate: Secure the border and remove violent criminals. Pew Research found that 97% of Americans support more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

Yet Snyder, who constantly warns of creeping authoritarianism, closed his post by urging fellow academics to join No Kings protests.

Nobody appointed Timothy Snyder king, either.

If he respected democratic institutions, he’d spend less time fearmongering — and more time listening to the Americans, including many in uniform, who are tired of being demonized for loving their country. They’re tired of being called bigots for wanting secure borders. They’re tired of watching history weaponized to silence dissent.

Snyder invokes Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to condemn Trump. But it was Lincoln who paraphrased scripture when he said, “A house divided cannot stand.

Americans united behind Trump in 2024. Snyder’s effort to cast half the country as fascists or Confederates embodies the division Lincoln warned against.

Here’s the truth: Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

He wants a Union preserved in more than name — a Union defined by secure borders, equal justice, and unapologetic national pride.

If that scares Timothy Snyder, maybe the problem isn’t Trump.

Perhaps, the problem lies in the man staring back at him in the mirror.

An Intellectual Renaissance Starts With Memorizing The Words That Made America

Only by immersing ourselves in the best words of our forbears will we recover something of the culture that made these words possible in the first place.

One day to remember, 364 to prove you meant it



Monday night the grill cools, the flag comes down, and you crash on that “half-off” mattress you never planned to buy. By Tuesday morning, America is already scrolling to the next thing. But the moms in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery aren’t scrolling — and neither should we.

Treating Memorial Day like a red, white, and blue props department proves a sad stat from a poll conducted by the National World War II Museum a few years ago: Barely one in five Americans could explain what the holiday is actually for.

We must teach the next generation to remember on purpose. If your kids can quote Marvel but not MacArthur, that’s on us.

So let’s talk about Tuesday morning in America and the 364 days that follow. What does it look like to honor our war dead all year long?

We must price-check freedom — every day. Scripture is always an appropriate place to start. In John 15:13 the Bible teaches us, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” This verse is memorialized on headstones form sea to shining sea.

President Reagan reminded the nation at Arlington in 1982 that “freedom is not bought cheaply. It has a cost; it imposes a burden.” That burden extends beyond military service. It demands vigilance. It requires raising children who understand why our flag is folded 13 times — not just how many “likes” a TikTok dance racks up.

We must finish the unfinished work. Abraham Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg was delivered five months after that battlefield fell silent, long after the trending topic had shifted. He challenged the living “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.”

Our unfinished work today is cultural: defending truth in classrooms, fostering marriages that can withstand deployment, protecting girls’ sports from idealogues who would erase biological reality, and pushing back when elites sneer at patriotism as passe.

We must guard the souls who come home. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ most recent suicide-prevention report still lands with a thud: An average of 17.6 veterans take their own lives each day. We flunk Remembrance 101.

RELATED: ‘So that others may live’: The true meaning of the holiday

 APCortizasJr via iStock/Getty Images

We cannot claim to honor the fallen if we abandon the brothers- and sisters-in-arms who made it home only to fight invisible wars. That means supporting faith-based counseling (which bureaucrats keep trying to sideline), turning the VA paperwork morass into a mission, helping veterans find meaningful and rewarding post-service careers, and checking on the veteran down the street instead of waiting for Washington to do it.

We must restore the faith they fought for. According to Pew Research, eight in ten Americans now believe religion is losing influence in public life, and roughly half say that’s a bad thing.

The men and women we memorialize took an oath to defend a nation “under God.” When pastors self-censor, when corporate America flies a Pride flag over Old Glory, and when our schools swap the Bible for the 1619 Project, we’re torching the spiritual scaffolding those soldiers died to protect. God bless America.

We must teach the next generation to remember on purpose. If your kids can quote Marvel but not MacArthur (“No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation”), that’s on us. Take them to a war memorial in July, not just on the last Monday in May. Tell them why “Taps” is 24 notes of holy silence. Ask a Gold Star family to dinner and let the conversation run long. The goal isn’t to glorify war; it’s to glorify virtue — courage, duty, sacrifice — so that when the recruiters call, our sons and daughters know what they’re signing up to defend.

We must live gratefully and live out loud. Gratitude is not a Hallmark feeling; it’s a muscle you flex in public. Fly the flag correctly (sunrise to sunset, illuminated at night). Stand for the anthem even when the stadium lump next to you kneels or leaves his hat on. Support companies that still believe in America like Blaze Media and my podcast, “We the People with Gates Garcia.” And pray for our leaders — yes, even the ones making it hard.

We must trade hashtag for habits. Hashtags flicker; habit forges character. Start small: Write a letter to a deployed Marine, sign up for a volunteer shift at the VA hospital, make a family pledge to read one military biography a year; and if you are blessed with means, cut a check to a veterans’ nonprofit organization. Imagine 20 million American households stepping up to do that. The culture would shift faster than Congress could rename the next great American holiday.

The 365-day test: I love a good cookout more than anyone. That’s part of the freedom they bought us. But the measure of our gratitude isn’t how loudly we celebrate on one Monday — it’s how deliberately we lie on all the rest. Reagan’s challenge, Lincoln’s unfinished work, and Christ’s supreme definition of love converge on a single question the fallen silently ask us every dawn: Are you living a life worthy of my sacrifice?

One day a year it’s fine to say, “Happy Memorial Day.” But on those other 364, make sure you live like you’re worth that sacrifice.

Lincoln’s Political Rise Shows Americans’ Indefatigable Pioneer Spirit

As the nation approaches its 250th birthday, that pioneer spirit — of striving and thriving, and of merit overcoming obstacles placed in its path — can provide inspiration for us all.

Mark Levin reveals what liberals DON’T want you to know about slavery and the Constitution



The left is the party that spawned critical race theory — the fundamentally flawed ideology that claims our constitutional framers were influenced by the racist norms of their time and therefore all the systems they created are tainted by those biases.

Mark Levin says it’s a shameful lie.

The truth is many of the framers despised slavery, but they had to make a hard deal with the slave states in order to form the United States. Without that union, there would have been no Civil War and no Abraham Lincoln to bring slavery to an end.

 

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the delegates could not agree on the issue of slavery, so they left the issue to their children and grandchildren, Levin explains.

However, the framers knew that “a nation born out of the Declaration of Independence where all men were created equal” could not coexist with slavery.

Thomas Jefferson, who albeit owned slaves, tried to “put a provision in the Declaration of Independence about slavery,” but “it was withdrawn because they were in the middle of what started a revolutionary war for their own survival. ... They had to come together to fight the [British].”

Ultimately, the fight for independence from Britain and national unity took precedence over the issue of slavery until Abraham Lincoln was elected president and the Civil War thankfully put it to an end.

“[Abraham Lincoln] loved the Constitution of the United States, and he loved the Declaration, and he cited them repeatedly, especially the Declaration, as justification for fighting the [Civil] War to the end and abolishing slavery,” says Levin.

He wouldn’t have done that, though, if our founding documents were inherently pro-slavery and pro-white supremacy, as the left suggests they are.

To hear more of Levin’s analysis, including his take on the dangerous idea of nullification, a pre-Civil War movement that would have shattered the Republic, check out the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump Isn’t Defying The Courts, He’s Defending The Constitution

The courts have an important constitutional role to fulfill. But it’s not to play president.

Trump’s war against the deep state starts with the courts



We are not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be.

For more than a generation, the right has either failed or refused to acknowledge this essential truth. Meanwhile, the left has embraced it with unwavering commitment. As a result, it was on the verge of fulfilling Antonio Gramsci’s vision of a “long march through the institutions” — until the 2024 election stopped the left just short of the goal line.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left’s misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader.

The good news is that after the 2024 election, we’re still in the fight. The bad news? We have 99 yards to march in the opposite direction. Here’s how we got here.

The left understands that politics is ultimately about power — acquiring it and using it — not about process. Leftists start with the policy outcome they want, no matter how extreme or destructive, and then fabricate a process to make it appear “legal.” That’s how judges, with no constitutional authority to do so, can decide that Venezuelan drug lords have a greater right to live in America than unborn babies have to be born.

Meanwhile, the right has typically responded by meticulously adhering to every subsection of every constitutional doctrine in its desperate, fleeting attempts to preserve what remains of sanity. And the right has done so at a glacial pace — while the left sprints toward Gomorrah.

Aggression on many fronts

Enter Donald Trump.

Unconventional quarterbacks rarely score 99-yard touchdowns, but they change the game. The right’s shift in leadership last decade introduced a wild card that made the left feel genuinely threatened for the first time. Instead of a predictable, by-the-book leader — akin to a classic drop-back passer — Trump operates best outside the pocket, forcing opponents to react to him.

His administration shattered the traditional “first 100 days” playbook, which typically focuses on one major campaign promise at a time. Instead, from day one, Trump aggressively took on the left across multiple fronts simultaneously.

This unpredictability has sent the left into a panic, driving leftists to act in ways previously confined to their most fevered fantasies. That’s why Trump faced two coup attempts in his first term. The Russian collusion hoax, orchestrated through the intelligence community, was nothing more than a psychological operation designed to nullify the 2016 election.

The second coup attempt came in the form of COVID-19 — a manufactured crisis weaponized by the bureaucratic swamp, with Anthony Fauci leading the charge. This psyop wasn’t about public health. It was designed to ensure Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.

When that failed, leftists tried to imprison him, hoping to prevent his return. When that, too, didn’t work, they even attempted to assassinate him. That, by sheer providence, also failed.

Now, with its back against the wall, the ruling class has deployed its ultimate weapon — the most powerful psyop of all. The one that, for decades, has made Republicans surrender without a fight the moment they hear four dreaded words: “The courts have spoken.”

Injunctions as weapons

Trump has served as president for just 18% of the 21st century, yet he has been the target of nearly 70% of all federal injunctions issued against a sitting president in that time. An overwhelming 92% of those rulings came from Democrat-appointed judges. In February alone, Trump faced more federal injunctions than Joe Biden has during his entire presidency.

The same Biden who opened the borders to drug cartels and human traffickers, mandated controversial COVID-19 vaccines as a condition for employment, and pressured Big Tech to suppress dissenting views. In a just and rational world, such corruption would be unthinkable — but it was where we lived until just a couple of months ago.

Trump has thrown the Democratic Party into chaos, but the swamp’s power structures remain intact. The intelligence community, the administrative state, and activist judges continue their work, shielding the establishment from accountability. Hardly a day passes without a leftist judge fabricating authority the Constitution never granted, imposing new “rights” and obligations as phony as a country called “Palestine.”

Just as the Russia collusion hoax and Fauci-funded COVID hysteria were used to derail Trump’s first term, the judiciary is now the left’s weapon of choice against his second. Leftists will not stop unless they are forced to stop.

Beat the system

The right has little experience — let alone success — challenging judicial supremacy. For too long, conservatives have played by the left’s rules, expecting fair outcomes in a system rigged against them.

But one example proves it can be done. I know it well because it wouldn’t have happened without me.

In 2010, Iowa made history as the first state to remove state supreme court justices through a retention election, holding them accountable for their rulings. I was one of the movement’s leaders. No one expected us to succeed. The Republican Party wanted no part of it. We had no support from GOP candidates for governor or Senate. Republican-aligned trial lawyers stayed out of it. We were an underdog coalition taking on a judicial leviathan.

On election night, we won by 10 points. All three justices we targeted received higher percentages of “no” votes than the Republican gubernatorial nominee — who had refused to support us.

We accomplished this with just $1 million, a small sum for a modern statewide campaign. Not only did we convince voters to take a stand, but we also got them to turn over their ballots and vote in a way they never had before.

For months, my three-hour radio show — broadcast on the state’s largest media platform — focused on the retention vote, providing invaluable in-kind support. After the victory, key backers of our campaign approached me with an offer to fund a national expansion of my show. They knew we wouldn’t have won without that messaging effort, and that’s how I ended up where I am today.

Opportunity of the century

That campaign taught us several lessons — lessons the Trump administration would do well to apply now.

First, this is not a debate over legal theory or constitutional interpretation. It’s a battle over authority — not just between branches of government but over whether we still have a government that operates with the consent of the governed. Who is truly sovereign in America? The people or the judges? No branch of government — especially an unelected one — should be above the will of the people.

Second, the foundation of this fight is the source of law itself. Democrat-appointed judges reject “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” acting as if they are a law unto themselves. They do not see themselves as just a Supreme Court but as supreme beings. Whatever they decree must be enforced, with no questions asked, despite their lack of any inherent enforcement power. This is the essence of dictatorship.

Third, exposing this reality is crucial. These judges must be drawn into open confrontation where they admit their unchecked power. Voters — particularly those even remotely sympathetic to us — will be infuriated by their smug entitlement.

Finally, the people need a galvanizing issue that forces them to reject the myth of judicial supremacy. Their current outrage over an urgent cause must outweigh their long-standing deference to the courts.

We haven’t had a president challenge judicial overreach since Abraham Lincoln defied the Supreme Court’s heinous Dred Scott decision by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote America’s mission statement, spent much of his public life warning about the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. He feared that if left unrestrained, corrupt judges would twist the Constitution into “a mere thing of wax.” He argued that the other branches must do their duty to prevent judicial usurpation.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left’s misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader. Now, he faces a moment that could define his presidency. Stripping illegitimate power from unelected judges and returning it to the people who rightfully govern stands as the ultimate act of populism.

For the last 50 years, the left has imposed its most destructive policies on the country by judicial fiat. If Trump takes bold action now, he has a chance to cement his place in history alongside Lincoln and Jefferson.

How Abraham Lincoln set the precedent for Trump’s deportation authority



Across the United States, Americans of all backgrounds recognize Juneteenth on June 19, commemorating the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Confederate-held Texas learned of President Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

The same legal reasoning that ended slavery also supports a president’s authority to remove foreign nationals designated as domestic terrorists. President Donald Trump has the constitutional power to act in the interest of national security by deporting those who threaten the country.

When we celebrate Juneteenth, we implicitly acknowledge broad presidential national security powers.

Lawyers and judges study statutes and decide cases, but they rarely confront the true scope of executive power. The Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, but it provides little detail on the extent of that authority.

The closest legal precedent on executive power is Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Supreme Court upheld the race-based internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In 1983, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel overturned the decision as applied to Fred Korematsu and others, but the broader question of presidential national security powers remained unresolved.

President Trump does not need to justify his actions under the much-criticized Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Instead, he should invoke the same principle that underlies Juneteenth: the federal government’s power to secure liberty by enforcing the law and protecting the nation.

At the time of the Civil War, slaves were considered the property of their owners, and the Fifth Amendment dictated that the government could not emancipate them without due process and just compensation paid to their owners. Additionally, the execrable 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision and the Fugitive Slave Act reinforced legal support for slavery.

Despite those legal obstacles, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves only in the Confederate states at war with the Union. Those in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri remained enslaved because their states were not at war with the country.

As a skilled lawyer, Lincoln understood that his national security powers, implied within his role as commander in chief, superseded constitutional rights in times of war. He did not seek congressional approval, compensate slaveholders, or seek the approval of the courts. In essence, when we celebrate Juneteenth, we implicitly acknowledge broad presidential national security powers.

Historical precedent reinforces this principle. During the Whiskey Rebellion, President George Washington used force to suppress dissent without formal wartime authorization, arresting rebels without warrants. Congress authorized a militia for Washington but did not grant him wartime powers. In his efforts to quell the uprising, he ordered door-to-door searches and forcibly arrested suspected rebels without warrants, bringing several to the Capitol for trial.

The most compelling legal validation of these powers came in United States v. Felt. Mark Felt, the FBI associate director best known as Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal, was later prosecuted for authorizing warrantless searches to track terrorist groups like the Weather Underground and the Palestinian Liberation Organization following the 1972 Munich Olympics attacks.

At his trial, five former attorneys general, President Richard Nixon, and Felt himself testified that presidents and their agents are not always bound by the Bill of Rights when national security is at stake. Their argument underscored a long-standing reality: The executive branch has exercised extraordinary authority to protect the country in moments of national peril.

Felt’s controversial prosecution led to the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, which established that national security searches intended to prevent terrorist attacks need not adhere to standard constitutional rights. FISA effectively codified a national security exception to otherwise conflicting constitutional mandates.

Taken together, the Whiskey Rebellion, Juneteenth, FISA, and United States v. Felt demonstrate that national security concerns can, at times, take precedence over constitutional protections.

How does this apply to President Trump’s deportation policy? As commander in chief, he has determined that the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs pose a national security threat. He classified these groups as terrorist organizations, recognizing that they entered the United States with organized criminal intent.

Most Americans would agree that, before a formal declaration of war against Germany, President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ordered the assassination of Adolf Hitler. Similarly, few would argue against detaining Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before 9/11. The United States need not wait for an atrocity to occur before acting decisively.

We elect the president to make tough national security decisions, not to be second-guessed by judges from another branch of government. The limits of this power remain open to debate, however. While courts may take a restrictive view, the subject is rarely taught in law schools or settled in case law.

Historical and legal precedent suggest that when national security is at stake, terrorists are not entitled to lawyers or pre-deportation hearings. As counterintuitive as it may seem, Juneteenth itself sets a precedent. Again, slaveholders were not granted due process hearings before the Emancipation Proclamation, nor did they receive Fifth Amendment compensation for the loss of enslaved labor.

When dealing with foreign criminal organizations, we should not analyze these disputes through the lens of antiseptic legal theory. National security demands a more hardheaded approach. As the saying goes, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — swift deportations may be part of that price.

FACT CHECK: Did Trump Replace A Portrait Of Abe Lincoln With A Jewish Leader?

A post shared on X claims President Donald Trump replaced a portrait of President Abraham Lincoln with a portrait of a Jewish leader. 🚨BREAKING 🚨 Donald Trump has replaced the Abraham Lincoln portrait, painted by Edward Dalton Marchant in 1863, with a portrait of the chabad lubavitch rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson. THIS IS WHAT I VOTED FOR! […]