Combatting Fascism: Unite in the Fight or Lose!

By Jessie Seigel / March 12, 2025

Democratic institutions are being attacked by the Trump adminstration at breakneck speed and on all fronts: illegal dismantling of agencies; attempted shackling of the free press; and serious threats against private universities, judges and—most recently—against law firms that dare to represent any client who opposes the Trump regime. --Or should that be rephrased as: “anyone the Trump regime opposes.”

The next to lose all legal rights will be anyone whom Trump declares an enemy of the state. And don’t kid yourself—whether a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or MAGA voter—that means you.

DOGE, An Illegitimate Trump Tool

The so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was not created by Congress, and Elon Musk was neither vetted nor confirmed by the Senate to lead it. It should be plain to any court that it has no legal authority to enter agencies, lock out legally elected or hired employees, let alone rifle through any agency’s data or stop congressionally approved funds from being disbursed.

A few courts have required employees to be rehired and the firing is put on pause while the consider the matter, and a some courts found against the Trump administration in various cases yesterday. But in large part the DOGE offensive is being handled backwards.

DOGE should have been kept out of agencies and required to go to court to prove it has any legal right to enter. Instead, it appears that employees are being forced to prove, after the damage has been done, that DOGE is not legitimate and did not have a right to fire them and scuttle their agencies. That amounts to closing the barn door after the horses have left.

In a prior article, I suggested that employees of all federal agencies should have refused DOGE entry and, if necessary, had sit-ins in their offices so they could not be locked out.

One small agency has had the courage to take action along these lines.

Last Wednesday, employees at the 50-person US African Development Foundation (USADF), which Donald Trump unilaterally ordered be closed, refused to allow DOGE operatives to enter its Washington, DC headquarters.

Referencing a letter written by the USADF's president, Ward Brehm, the employees instructed a security guard to deny the DOGE team access when they arrived with Peter Marocco, a State Department official who was to carry out the closure.

Brehm, who was not present, had written that the DOGE team would not be allowed to access the agency’s offices in his absence. He also stated that he would not work with Marocco unless and until “he is nominated for a seat on the board and his nomination is confirmed by the Senate.” Brehm added, “Until these legal requirements are met, Mr. Marocco does not hold any position or office with USADF, and he may not speak or act on the foundation’s behalf.”

According to news reports, the DOGE team returned the next day accompanied by armed US Marshals Service agents and Peter Marocco, and then succeeded in obtaining access to the building.

The agency went to court and a judge stopped the immediate shutdown of the agency. But that is only a temporary reprieve. USADF should not have to go to court to stop the shutdown. DOGE should have had to go to court to prove it had a right to gain entry let alone that it has legal authority to close the agency.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow has raised the question of whether the armed men accompanying DOGE were actually US marshals. Whether they were or not, their participation in this illegal entry is another nail in this democracy’s coffin. If they were not US marshals, Trump’s bullyboys were able to muscle their way in. If they were US marshals, then a portion of law enforcement has been willing to participate in questionably unlawful orders.

It has long been understood that where democracy vs. dictatorship is on the line, whoever the army supports will win. That is, if they stand with the people, democracy survives. If they follow the dictator, democracy dies. And one must include in that category the U.S. Marshals Service, the FBI, and the CIA, along with any other law enforcement agency.

According to The Guardian, the standoff by this tiny government agency “has been cheered by government officials as a mighty act of resistance against Trump and Musk’s war on the federal bureaucracy.” Those officials should not be “cheering” it. They should be joining it. 

Attacks on the Press

On February 11, the Associated Press (AP) issued the following statement:

Today we were informed by the White House that if AP did not align its editorial standards with President Donald Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, AP would be barred from accessing an event in the Oval Office. This afternoon,occur AP’s reporter was blocked from attending an executive order signing.

It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism. Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, but it also plainly violates the First Amendment.

AP’s statement plainly sets out the crisis. It is not just a matter of whether AP has access. The question is whether the government will be permitted to use extortion to control what journalists can or cannot write.

AP took the White House to court. On February 24, a judge allowed the ban to stand. AP has since filed an amended complaint. On this round, it has noted support from other news organs: “Dozens of news organizations signed a letter urging the White House to reverse its policy. The signees included Trump-friendly outlets like Fox News Channel and Newsmax.”

Signatures on a letter—particularly by right-wing news outlets--is a positive development. But it is not enough. At a minimum, the entire White House Press Corps should refuse to attend White House briefings and meetings unless and until AP is again permitted access.

However, in this columnist’s view, the White House Press Corps should disconnect itself from the White House entirely, on a permanent basis.

For many years, I have observed that the White House Press Corps often pulls its punches in order to retain access to presidents and their press secretaries. But what worth to the public is a reporter’s access if he or she only reports president or press secretary spin? Such stenography, commonplace during the George W. Bush administration, has been “on steroids,” as the expression goes, when dealing with Donald Trump.

Furthermore, rather than news organs deciding who on their staffs to assign to Trump, Trump is now making moves to control what reporters are allowed to cover him.

The country would be better served, news-wise and truth-wise, if reporters assigned to cover the administration: (a) did not have offices located in the West Wing of the White House; (b) did not put themselves in a compromising position that innately makes so-called access become more important than critical analysis; and (c) reported on the administration’s actions rather than its self-serving statements—and did so using outside sources or leakers, not administration spokespeople. This would be akin to what investigative reporters do.

While AP is busy fighting for freedom of the press, others are capitulating willy-nilly.

Katherine Graham, the original owner of the Washington Post, must be spinning round and round in her coffin. Not only did the current owner, Jeff Bezos, prevent the Post from endorsing Kamala Harris in November's presidential election, he now is limiting what opinions can be voiced in the paper’s op-ed columns.

According to National Public Radio (NPR), Bezos wrote in a memo to Washington Post staff, "We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free market…We'll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others."

Bezos claimed: "I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. And a big part of America's success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else."

By “personal liberties,” I expect Bezos means his liberty to shill for this administration in order to keep and enrich his pocketbook. And “free market” has always been a euphemism for unfettered, unregulated corporate power.

Former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron suggested on MSNBC that Bezos is afraid of Trump’s retribution against his other commercial interests—Amazon and Blue Origin—that Bezos wants to stay out of Trump’s “crosshairs.” Fear for one’s enterprises does not excuse joining the other oligarchs in cowtowing to Trump or turning a newspaper once known for its integrity into an organ for propaganda.

According to Mother Jones, one of the Post’s editors sent a reassuring memo to its newsroom stating: "The independent and unbiased work of the Post's newsroom remains unchanged, and we will continue to pursue engaging, impactful journalism without fear or favor."

But, a contrary prediction: the Post’s op-ed page is just the beginning. The Post’s masthead adage “Democracy dies in darkness,” should now be reversed to read: “Darkness descends upon democracy.” And Bezos is helping it along.

Attacks on Private Entities

The Trump regime has begun trying to enforce its war on diversity against private institutions.

Ed Martin, Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (a 2020 election denier who led the "Stop the Steal" movement resulting in the January 6 insurrection), has opened an investigation into whether Georgetown law school, a private Jesuit institution, is or is not eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from its curriculum. He has threatened that his office will not hire the law school’s students if it does not eliminate DEI.

Georgetown Dean William Treanor stood up to Martiin,writing to inform him that the First Amendment prohibits the government from dictating what Georgetown’s faculty teach or how to teach it:

Given the First Amendment’s protection of a university’s freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution. 

Attacks on Law Firms

The New York Times has reported that, last month, Trump issued a memorandum seeking to strip the law firm Covington and Burling of security clearances and federal contracts that firm had with the government. This was apparently done because the firm has conducted pro bono legal work for Jack Smith who, as special counsel, pursued two separate indictments of Trump.

On March 6, Trump went even farther, signing an executive order specifically stripping the lawyers of the firm Perkins Coie not only of security clearances but of access to federal buildings and officials. It is quite clear from the order's text that the firm has been targeted because, eight years ago, it handled what ultimately became an F.B.I. investigation to determine whether anyone in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign conspired with Russian agents to influence that election's result. 

The Times has suggested that Trump’s executive order against Perkins Coie “could cast a chilling effect over the entire legal profession.” The Times should have substituted the word “will” for “could.”

If Trump’s executive order is permitted to stand, companies that wish to do business with the government will avoid firms that cannot even enter federal buildings. The order will discourage lawyers and law firms from taking the cases of anyone who challenges the legality of a governmental decree. These actions by Trump, if not countered wholesale, will expand and end in a totalitarian legal system like Vladimir Putin’s—in which defendants are not even allowed to have lawyers but, rather, all lawyers must represent the state.

The Bottom Line

Those leaders who purport to care about saving democracy had better get organized. It is not sufficient to let one small agency like USADF, one press outlet like AP, one university like Georgetown, or one or two law firms like Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling carry the water for whole groups and industries.

All the federal agencies should be organizing to do what USADF is doing.

The media should not only be sending letters in support of AP but refusing to cover or air Trump’s events that do not constitute news but propaganda opportunities.

The Association of American Law Schools should be publicly backing Georgetown in every way possible—including filing friend-of-the-court briefs if the Georgetown matter ends up in court. The American Bar Association should be backing Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling in similar fashion.

Some Democrats are doing their part to fight for democracy (eg. Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren). And credit must be given to U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Democrats. They have filed a professional misconduct complaint with the D.C. Bar against Acting US attorney Ed Martin. (Rather than Ed Martin responding to the complaint, Attorney-General Pam Bondi’s brother is trying to take over the D.C. Bar, presumably to quash the complaint for Martin.)

But generally speaking, the Democrats in the House and Senate need to step up. It is shocking that 10 Democratic representatives voted with Republicans to censure Representative Al Green for speaking against Trump’s lies when they should have been standing up beside him. This betrayal demonstrates the weakness of their leadership. Put plainly, the Democrats need to get their act together and act in concert. They need--with one unified voice--to oppose this fascist administration at every level and in every non-violent way possible.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if these vaious organizations do not hang together—most assuredly, we, the people, shall all hang separately.

If you like what you read at My Washington Whispers, please feel free to subscribe below. It costs nothing, requires solely your email address, and will result only in a bi-weekly email announcing the latest issue. Feel free to pass articles on to your friends and acquaintances! And if you have thoughts, pro or con, about what is written here, please leave a comment below. (Subscribing, sharing, and commenting are greatly appreciated.)