by Hannah Schultz, Executive Editor
President Donald Trump, without warning, fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Jan. 31, after she defied his executive order on immigration and ordered the Justice Department not to defend it.
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House statement said.
Trump’s decision to fire Yates could have been retaliation against what he viewed as a disobedient employee; however, a darker alternative narrative is also taking shape. Trump’s removal of dissenters, attacks against the “fourth estate” of journalism, placement of an anti-establishment appointed official in an instrumental security council position and blatant lack of proper briefing and consultation methods for his executive orders could be an attack against the checks and balances that prevent the executive branch of our government from becoming authoritarian.
This narrative becomes more striking when considering Yates’ statements in 2015 when she was being questioned by the Senate in order to become deputy attorney general.
“Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper?” Sessions — the same man poised to take the position of attorney general in Trump’s administration — asked in a C-SPAN video. “If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?”
“Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President,” Yates said. This week, she was fired for following that legal advice and deeming his executive order to be unlawful.
Trump has also placed self-professed chaos-seeker Chief Strategist Steve Bannon on the National Security Council, a spot usually reserved for military generals. While senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials did not see the executive order on immigration until shortly before it was signed, Bannon oversaw the drafting of the order, according to The New York Times. Bannon has amassed a concerning amount of power through the sheer power of his own ambitions.
Trump’s executive order seems to be executed purposefully to throw officials and immigrants alike into disarray. He made the blatantly false claim on Twitter that “bad” people would have rushed into the U.S. if he had allowed immigrants a week of preparation; however, anyone with a computer could check that the immigration, or green card, process can take decades, according to the U.S. immigration website, and the refugee immigration process has 20 steps and can take up to two years, according to the DHS.
What if the chaos of the past week was part of Trump’s design? What if he was using the opportunity to test the checks and balances of the government — of how far he could go in deceiving the American public, forcing government officials to enforce laws that they had no chance to properly vet and removing those who dissented? What if he was using his first days in office to take deliberately inflammatory actions and test who was loyal to him?
The acting attorney general defied him, and she was fired. The DHS originally ignored federal court orders to release detained travelers and stop deportations, according to The Washington Post; it is possible Trump waited to see whether the DHS would support him or the courts before eventually telling the DHS to back down.
“It is a much bigger deal that the DHS felt they could ignore a federal court than that Trump signed an EO blocking green card holders in the first place,” Jake Fuentes wrote for Medium. “It is a much bigger deal that Trump removed a permanent military presence from the NSC than that he issued a temporary stay on immigration.”
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer even admitted that the Trump administration would not tolerate “insubordinate” behavior, saying grievances with Trump’s policies would “call into question whether or not they should continue in that post.”
At this time, it is impossible not to acknowledge a headline from The New York Times in 1973, after the Saturday Night Massacre: “Nixon Discharges Cox for Defiance; Abolishes Watergate Task Force.” Former President Richard Nixon fired his attorney general for pursuing justice against his illegal activities.
“In his nominations, Trump has put forth people who likely will be mostly yes men and who will interact with a sympathetic and protective Republican Congress,” Historian Julian Zelizer wrote for CNN. “Perhaps, Senate Democrats will see Monday night’s events at the Justice Department as a wake-up call to slow down the confirmation of Senator Sessions before there is no one left around to place some restraints on the Trump presidency.”
