Opinion | Opposing Trump Is Effective. I've Witnessed Its Success.
Here's the essential information you need to understand.
TroibNews 
I have witnessed firsthand how resistance to Donald Trump — both within and outside the government — can halt his unlawful initiatives.
Back in 2017, I was a young lawyer in the National Security Division at the Justice Department. Trump had just taken office, having been elected partly on his promise to impose “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In his first week, he attempted to put this plan into action, resulting in a significant travel ban from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Although a federal court quickly blocked this clumsy order, my office became intricately involved in attempting to create a workable version of the “travel ban.”
From the outset, I believed that the proposed order was illegal because it was clearly discriminatory in intent and impact. Additionally, I thought it was counterproductive; it would likely fuel rage among our Muslim allies and undermine collaboration on counterterrorism efforts. Many in the FBI and the broader intelligence community shared these views, and for months we internally advocated for either narrowing the order’s scope or rescinding it completely.
During this process, I observed numerous individuals demonstrating professional bravery. Lower- and mid-level employees conveyed to superiors why the ban was both legally and operationally disastrous. In meetings aimed at achieving forced consensus, I saw colleagues firmly refuse to consent. Those who spoke out often did not receive further invitations to such gatherings, leaving me to wonder about their fates and the career repercussions they faced.
Although my colleagues and I were unable to prevent the travel ban's implementation, our efforts did succeed in reducing its scope from an extensive list of countries to just a few.
Public protest was crucial throughout this ordeal. While we might have felt isolated within the bureaucracy, the public outrage provided us with both courage and reassurance that we were acting in the public's interest. External advocacy empowered our internal efforts. While protesters, both in-person and online, might not have known it, their actions were incredibly impactful.
The takeaway for me as we navigate another tumultuous period at the beginning of Trump’s second term is the realization that public protest and indignation can genuinely slow or halt unjust or illegal policies from his administration. This is especially important when the opponents of such measures feel weary and overwhelmed. “We’ve marched so much,” one activist told the New York Times. “We’re tired of doing the same thing over and over.” Another noted, quite reasonably: “These people coming to the White House don’t care about petitions. They don’t care how many people sign them. They don’t care what they say.”
In a limited sense, these activists are correct: Those in this White House often seem impervious to protest and may even view defiance as a show of strength. However, the federal government is vast, and although various forms of demonstration may not sway political appointees, they can significantly impact the officials who actualize numerous government policies.
I understand the importance of such demonstrations because I observed their influence in the internal debates surrounding the travel ban. While our “victory” in reducing the order's scope was modest, others have been far more effective in influencing policy.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, the first Trump administration was frequently pressured to abandon unpopular initiatives. Faced with both external and, based on my own insights, potentially internal dissent, the administration scrapped plans to deport seriously ill migrants, impose enormous fines on others, and revoke visas for numerous international students. They also dropped lesser-known proposals, such as plans to close or privatize training centers for firefighters, as well as more prominent ones, like the president’s attempt to halt military aid to Ukraine. Under mounting public pressure, the administration even renounced signature policies; for instance, the president disavowed the practice of separating migrant children from their parents prior to a court order necessitating this action.
These instances illustrate that resistance can indeed yield results. However, my experience indicates that such resistance is most effective when it is well-targeted. Protests should not primarily focus on the administration's top decision-makers, like the president and his political appointees, as they are often already set in their opinions. Engaging in protest may not influence them and could even provoke their antidemocratic tendencies. Yet, virtually every government policy must be shaped and implemented by individuals further down the chain, who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. These public servants can be swayed by public influence, and activism can equip them to challenge unjust or illegal policies, even as Trump seeks to expel anyone within the federal government who does not demonstrate full loyalty to him.
Activists should consider which officials are responsible for creating and executing their most crucial policies, as well as what information may be most beneficial to share with them. For example, which office determines which refugees are exempt from the entry ban? What panel evaluates the availability of Covid vaccines for children? Who oversees the cessation of payments to certain recipients of government funds? For each issue, activists should identify which arguments are most persuasive to decision-makers to slow or prevent illegal proposals, and identify the individuals or groups best positioned to communicate them. Moreover, those already skeptical of problematic plans can be empowered to advocate within the government. Outsiders not only provide insiders with courage, but also equip them with the necessary arguments and framing to make their cases.
This bears a related question for government employees: When should they take independent action against the administration's policies? Each person's answer to this question will vary. However, I believe political appointees should have significant latitude to pursue their plans, even those I might deem unwise or deeply problematic. The bureaucratic apparatus should not counteract the will of democracy. Nonetheless, each government employee swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. For me, that oath mandates opposition to policies that are clearly illegal, discriminatory, or corrupt. In the coming months, those remaining in government should carefully reflect on their own responsibilities and how best to fulfill them.
For those who determine that their oath compels them to resist, there are numerous avenues for action.
By simply refraining from providing contrived consent in meetings, officials can require political appointees to confront the flaws in their proposals. Employees can document the legal concerns surrounding initiatives so that appointees cannot later claim ignorance of potential legal violations. Consistent with the Whistleblower Protection Act, these individuals can voice their concerns to the public as well, and organizations like Whistleblower Aid can provide legal assistance. If necessary, employees can also choose to resign publicly, as I did last month in opposition to Trump’s pardon of individuals involved in the January 6 insurrection. Government employees, like activists, should not underestimate their own power.
An exhausted activist might argue that such actions are inconsequential since the new administration could simply dismiss those who oppose it. Perhaps. However, three important points counter this assertion.
First, the new administration has experienced mixed results in purging its perceived adversaries, and certain offices have successfully resisted unlawful mass firings. Second, while court orders prohibiting such illegal dismissals may not carry much weight for someone like Elon Musk, they hold significant consequences for lawyers who risk disbarment or individuals who face imprisonment for ignoring them. Lastly, to implement its agenda, the administration will need to rely on existing federal employees. From deportations to trade disputes to prosecutions of perceived enemies, the success of the president’s plans hinges on the capabilities of those employees, who can prove to be quite influential.
For those of us wishing to prevent our government from becoming increasingly lawless, corrupt, or discriminatory, these are indeed troubling times. In recent days alone, the president has proposed banning transgender individuals from military service, significantly limiting foreign aid, and deploying the military within U.S. borders for the deportation of migrants. However, a closer examination reveals that the administration’s directives are frequently poorly reasoned and ineptly drafted. The new administration has already rescinded a freeze on trillions in government spending and retreated from a threatened trade conflict with North America. The effectiveness of its initiatives often depends on the perception of their momentum. If that momentum is hindered, the potential damage from certain orders may be contained, and some may even collapse entirely.
While it's reasonable for protesters to feel fatigued, they shouldn't feel powerless. I have witnessed it firsthand: They are more powerful than they realize.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
Back in 2017, I was a young lawyer in the National Security Division at the Justice Department. Trump had just taken office, having been elected partly on his promise to impose “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In his first week, he attempted to put this plan into action, resulting in a significant travel ban from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Although a federal court quickly blocked this clumsy order, my office became intricately involved in attempting to create a workable version of the “travel ban.”
From the outset, I believed that the proposed order was illegal because it was clearly discriminatory in intent and impact. Additionally, I thought it was counterproductive; it would likely fuel rage among our Muslim allies and undermine collaboration on counterterrorism efforts. Many in the FBI and the broader intelligence community shared these views, and for months we internally advocated for either narrowing the order’s scope or rescinding it completely.
During this process, I observed numerous individuals demonstrating professional bravery. Lower- and mid-level employees conveyed to superiors why the ban was both legally and operationally disastrous. In meetings aimed at achieving forced consensus, I saw colleagues firmly refuse to consent. Those who spoke out often did not receive further invitations to such gatherings, leaving me to wonder about their fates and the career repercussions they faced.
Although my colleagues and I were unable to prevent the travel ban's implementation, our efforts did succeed in reducing its scope from an extensive list of countries to just a few.
Public protest was crucial throughout this ordeal. While we might have felt isolated within the bureaucracy, the public outrage provided us with both courage and reassurance that we were acting in the public's interest. External advocacy empowered our internal efforts. While protesters, both in-person and online, might not have known it, their actions were incredibly impactful.
The takeaway for me as we navigate another tumultuous period at the beginning of Trump’s second term is the realization that public protest and indignation can genuinely slow or halt unjust or illegal policies from his administration. This is especially important when the opponents of such measures feel weary and overwhelmed. “We’ve marched so much,” one activist told the New York Times. “We’re tired of doing the same thing over and over.” Another noted, quite reasonably: “These people coming to the White House don’t care about petitions. They don’t care how many people sign them. They don’t care what they say.”
In a limited sense, these activists are correct: Those in this White House often seem impervious to protest and may even view defiance as a show of strength. However, the federal government is vast, and although various forms of demonstration may not sway political appointees, they can significantly impact the officials who actualize numerous government policies.
I understand the importance of such demonstrations because I observed their influence in the internal debates surrounding the travel ban. While our “victory” in reducing the order's scope was modest, others have been far more effective in influencing policy.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, the first Trump administration was frequently pressured to abandon unpopular initiatives. Faced with both external and, based on my own insights, potentially internal dissent, the administration scrapped plans to deport seriously ill migrants, impose enormous fines on others, and revoke visas for numerous international students. They also dropped lesser-known proposals, such as plans to close or privatize training centers for firefighters, as well as more prominent ones, like the president’s attempt to halt military aid to Ukraine. Under mounting public pressure, the administration even renounced signature policies; for instance, the president disavowed the practice of separating migrant children from their parents prior to a court order necessitating this action.
These instances illustrate that resistance can indeed yield results. However, my experience indicates that such resistance is most effective when it is well-targeted. Protests should not primarily focus on the administration's top decision-makers, like the president and his political appointees, as they are often already set in their opinions. Engaging in protest may not influence them and could even provoke their antidemocratic tendencies. Yet, virtually every government policy must be shaped and implemented by individuals further down the chain, who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. These public servants can be swayed by public influence, and activism can equip them to challenge unjust or illegal policies, even as Trump seeks to expel anyone within the federal government who does not demonstrate full loyalty to him.
Activists should consider which officials are responsible for creating and executing their most crucial policies, as well as what information may be most beneficial to share with them. For example, which office determines which refugees are exempt from the entry ban? What panel evaluates the availability of Covid vaccines for children? Who oversees the cessation of payments to certain recipients of government funds? For each issue, activists should identify which arguments are most persuasive to decision-makers to slow or prevent illegal proposals, and identify the individuals or groups best positioned to communicate them. Moreover, those already skeptical of problematic plans can be empowered to advocate within the government. Outsiders not only provide insiders with courage, but also equip them with the necessary arguments and framing to make their cases.
This bears a related question for government employees: When should they take independent action against the administration's policies? Each person's answer to this question will vary. However, I believe political appointees should have significant latitude to pursue their plans, even those I might deem unwise or deeply problematic. The bureaucratic apparatus should not counteract the will of democracy. Nonetheless, each government employee swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. For me, that oath mandates opposition to policies that are clearly illegal, discriminatory, or corrupt. In the coming months, those remaining in government should carefully reflect on their own responsibilities and how best to fulfill them.
For those who determine that their oath compels them to resist, there are numerous avenues for action.
By simply refraining from providing contrived consent in meetings, officials can require political appointees to confront the flaws in their proposals. Employees can document the legal concerns surrounding initiatives so that appointees cannot later claim ignorance of potential legal violations. Consistent with the Whistleblower Protection Act, these individuals can voice their concerns to the public as well, and organizations like Whistleblower Aid can provide legal assistance. If necessary, employees can also choose to resign publicly, as I did last month in opposition to Trump’s pardon of individuals involved in the January 6 insurrection. Government employees, like activists, should not underestimate their own power.
An exhausted activist might argue that such actions are inconsequential since the new administration could simply dismiss those who oppose it. Perhaps. However, three important points counter this assertion.
First, the new administration has experienced mixed results in purging its perceived adversaries, and certain offices have successfully resisted unlawful mass firings. Second, while court orders prohibiting such illegal dismissals may not carry much weight for someone like Elon Musk, they hold significant consequences for lawyers who risk disbarment or individuals who face imprisonment for ignoring them. Lastly, to implement its agenda, the administration will need to rely on existing federal employees. From deportations to trade disputes to prosecutions of perceived enemies, the success of the president’s plans hinges on the capabilities of those employees, who can prove to be quite influential.
For those of us wishing to prevent our government from becoming increasingly lawless, corrupt, or discriminatory, these are indeed troubling times. In recent days alone, the president has proposed banning transgender individuals from military service, significantly limiting foreign aid, and deploying the military within U.S. borders for the deportation of migrants. However, a closer examination reveals that the administration’s directives are frequently poorly reasoned and ineptly drafted. The new administration has already rescinded a freeze on trillions in government spending and retreated from a threatened trade conflict with North America. The effectiveness of its initiatives often depends on the perception of their momentum. If that momentum is hindered, the potential damage from certain orders may be contained, and some may even collapse entirely.
While it's reasonable for protesters to feel fatigued, they shouldn't feel powerless. I have witnessed it firsthand: They are more powerful than they realize.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
