At a time when the constitutional foundation of American democracy feels increasingly fragile, Senator Chris Van Hollen’s recent statement cuts through the noise with moral clarity: “Anybody who can’t stand up for the Constitution and the right of due process doesn’t deserve to lead.”
This simple but powerful assertion, made in defense of deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is a much-needed litmus test for leadership in a time of legal disintegration. And it comes in sharp contrast to those—on both sides of the aisle—who continue to equivocate, deflect, or minimize the stakes.
Van Hollen was responding directly to California Governor Gavin Newsom, who dismissed the Abrego Garcia case as “a distraction.”
The Senator wasn’t having it.
“Americans are tired of elected officials or politicians who are all finger to the wind,” Van Hollen said. “What’s blowing this way? What’s blowing that way? Leaders who don’t stand up for the Constitution don’t deserve to lead.”
“Anybody who can’t stand up for the Constitution and the right of due process doesn’t deserve to lead.” – Senator Chris Van Hollen
His message didn’t just aim at Trump’s deportation machine—it was a pointed critique of the broader political culture that has normalized the erosion of due process and the separation of powers.
The Abrego Garcia case itself is emblematic of this erosion.
Garcia, a longtime Maryland resident with pending legal proceedings, was deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration in direct defiance of a federal court order—and later, a Supreme Court ruling.
For days, the administration claimed it was a mistake. Then it reversed course and declared it intentional.
Yet instead of condemning this outright violation of the rule of law, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) took to CNN’s State of the Union to defend it.
“Actually, I think he was afforded due process,” Emmer claimed, using the derogatory term “illegal alien” to describe Garcia, a man who had active constitutional protections and an ongoing legal case.
Emmer brushed aside both judicial orders and basic facts, portraying the deportation as the rightful fulfillment of a campaign promise.
This was not a “policy disagreement.” It was a direct violation of a court order, carried out by the executive branch in willful defiance of judicial authority.
The fact that the deportation was reversed, then reasserted, only underscores the lawlessness of the act.
When elected officials like Emmer insist otherwise—when they distort legal concepts like due process to justify government overreach—they are not defending the Constitution. They are dismantling it in real time.
And the Abrego Garcia case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a larger pattern under Trump’s renewed presidency—one that treats the Constitution as optional and court orders as suggestions. Consider what has happened in just the past few weeks:
- The State Department revoked the passports of transgender Americans under a retroactive executive order, despite prior legal recognition of gender marker changes.
- ICE rounded up Venezuelan migrants for removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, some of whom were deported to El Salvador’s mega-prison system without even the semblance of a hearing.
- Legal student visas were terminated en masse, targeting international students who participated in protests critical of U.S. foreign policy, in a blatant attack on both speech and academic freedom.
Each of these cases represents an assault on core constitutional protections—due process, equal protection, freedom of expression—and each is being carried out through executive fiat. When the courts have intervened, they’ve done so in emergency late-night rulings, often split along ideological lines. And even when the Supreme Court has spoken, as in the Abrego Garcia case, the administration has simply ignored the decision. This is not a policy dispute. It is a full-scale test of whether the rule of law still functions in the United States.
What Van Hollen understands—and what Newsom and Emmer seem unwilling to acknowledge—is that democracy is not only undone by sweeping changes.
It can also be gutted by accumulation: a missed court date here, a deportation flight there, a refusal to comply with a ruling because it’s politically inconvenient. This is how authoritarian systems are built—not overnight, but piece by piece, through normalization and excuse-making.
It is precisely in moments like this—when legal norms are violated and institutions are tested—that elected officials must choose: will they uphold the Constitution or enable its erosion? Too many are failing that test. The courts, while not blameless, have attempted to function as a check on executive power. But without a Congress willing to assert its authority, and without governors and state leaders willing to defend constitutional rights, even court rulings are rendered meaningless.
The problem isn’t limited to the executive branch. The failure of Congress to act—especially when leaders like Van Hollen stand virtually alone in their outspokenness—is an indictment of the political class itself. When the legislative branch won’t respond to illegal deportations, unlawful surveillance, or politically motivated visa cancellations, it sends a message: constitutional rights are conditional, and accountability is optional.
That is why Van Hollen’s clarity matters. It sets a moral baseline in an era when too many are content to drift. It echoes the spirit of past leaders who resisted injustice before it became consensus to do so—those who challenged internment, surveillance, censorship, and presidential overreach in darker times. It reminds us that the Constitution is not self-enforcing. It requires people in positions of power to actually defend it.
This is not about left versus right. It is about whether the basic architecture of American governance—separation of powers, checks and balances, due process—will be allowed to function. If one branch of government can flout the law with impunity, and the other branches either excuse or enable it, then democracy is little more than a façade.
Van Hollen has drawn a line in the sand. Newsom dismissed it. Emmer distorted it. And many others remain silent. But the public should not be fooled. The question is no longer abstract: do our elected leaders stand with the Constitution or with unchecked executive power?
As the 2024 election fallout continues to unfold, and as Trump’s allies in government prepare for another wave of detention, deportation, and surveillance, the stakes could not be higher.
There is still time to act—but only if those in power are willing to follow Van Hollen’s lead and say: enough. We cannot afford to normalize this. We cannot afford to wait.
The coming months will test more than laws. They will test the moral clarity of those who claim to lead us. And as Van Hollen reminds us, leadership without constitutional courage is no leadership at all.
“Van Hollen was responding directly to California Governor Gavin Newsom, who dismissed the Abrego Garcia case as “a distraction.”
I don’t often agree with Governor Newsom.
Senator Chris Van Hollen loves the cameras.
Do you want an autocracy where no one challenges the leader?
Too bad Hollen doesn’t take care of his other constituents like he does an immigrant gang member who physically abuses his wife. Not a good look for democrats.
That’s a non-answer
“an immigrant gang member”
In the absence of due process, you have no proof that he is a gang member.