As Americans gather to celebrate the Fourth of July—with fireworks, family cookouts, and declarations of liberty—we do so under the shadow of a deepening crisis. The traditional pageantry of the holiday is on full display, but the principles it’s meant to honor—freedom, democracy, equal protection under the law—are rapidly being hollowed out.
Last month, Brad Lander, New York City’s Comptroller and a Democratic candidate for mayor, was arrested by ICE agents at a Manhattan immigration court. He had come to observe a hearing and accompany a man facing deportation. When Lander linked arms with him and requested to see a judicial warrant—something required by law for ICE to make an arrest inside the courthouse—he was forcibly separated and taken into custody by masked federal agents.
His arrest wasn’t an aberration. It was the latest in a string of escalations under the Trump administration’s second term. Lander joins a growing list of elected officials—including California Senator Alex Padilla and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka—who’ve been detained or harassed for standing up against the administration’s increasingly lawless immigration enforcement. The administration has weaponized ICE not just to detain migrants, but to punish dissent.
Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, another New York mayoral candidate and a vocal critic of ICE, was recently targeted by Donald Trump himself. The President threatened to have Mamdani arrested, stripped of his citizenship, and deported—not because Mamdani had broken any law, but because he refuses to stay silent while ICE terrorizes immigrant communities. Mamdani called it what it is: an authoritarian intimidation campaign.
This is not just about Trump. It is about a system of expanding executive power that has outgrown democratic constraint. As I’ve written before, Trump is not the architect of American authoritarianism. He is its accelerant. He exploits the powers and precedents already embedded in our institutions—many of which were constructed long before he ever ran for office.
The roots of this authoritarian turn trace back decades. After 9/11, the United States launched the War on Terror, passed the PATRIOT Act, and created a legal architecture of indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, and executive impunity. The prison at Guantánamo Bay remains open to this day—a zone of legal exception that foreshadowed what would soon become acceptable domestic policy. As historian Jonathan M. Hansen documents in Guantánamo: An American History, the use of that naval base as a liminal space where constitutional protections do not apply dates back to the early 20th century. First used to control Cubans, then Haitians, and later alleged terrorists, Guantánamo exemplifies how American legal norms have always included loopholes for the marginalized and the unwanted.
That logic has come home.
ICE raids are now routine. Masked agents stalk immigration courts and sweep up individuals—sometimes U.S. citizens—without warrants or public accountability. Trump’s allies defend this approach by pointing to a supposed “690% increase” in assaults on ICE officers. But a closer look reveals the deception. The raw numbers show only 79 assaults nationwide in the first half of this year—about one every other day. The fear-mongering statistics are a justification, not a reality check. And they are being used to legitimize practices that violate basic civil liberties.
Meanwhile, Trump has renewed his push to end birthright citizenship, floated detaining naturalized citizens in mass facilities, and proposed a new prison camp in Florida to house thousands of immigrants and political dissidents. This is not theoretical. The infrastructure for mass repression is being built now.
But again, to understand this moment only through the lens of Trump is to misunderstand its true scope. The bipartisan failure to hold Wall Street accountable after the 2008 financial crash shattered public trust. Millions lost their homes and livelihoods while corporate elites walked free. That betrayal helped fuel the populist wave that Trump rode into power. The COVID-19 pandemic further normalized emergency powers and surveillance, deepening the erosion of civil liberties.
As Martin Wolf writes in The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, “When capitalism no longer delivers shared prosperity and democracy no longer gives people a voice, voters turn to those who promise to smash the system.” Trump is the beneficiary of this breakdown, not its sole author.
What makes this moment so dangerous is that the legal and political architecture of authoritarianism has already been constructed. The ability to indefinitely detain, deport without due process, and override state and local resistance—all of it has been made possible by decades of precedent. Trump merely applies these tools without shame or restraint. And even if he leaves office tomorrow, the system he’s exploited will remain, ready for the next autocrat with better discipline and worse intentions.
The recent Supreme Court decision in DHS v. D.V.D., issued through the so-called “shadow docket,” quietly narrowed the ability of individuals to challenge unlawful deportations in federal court. This is a coordinated legal strategy to insulate executive overreach from judicial oversight. It is not just immigrants who are at risk. It is the entire legal framework of accountability that is under assault.
And the response from establishment Democrats like Mayor Eric Adams has been complicity, not courage. Trump has praised Adams for supposedly helping him avoid legal accountability. That praise alone should disqualify Adams from office, yet he remains silent in the face of ICE raids and federal repression on New York’s streets and in its courts.
Lander and Mamdani, by contrast, are modeling the kind of moral clarity this moment requires. Their arrests and targeting are not signs of failure—they are badges of honor. They remind us that democracy is not maintained by symbolism, but by sacrifice. It is not protected by fireworks and flag-waving, but by standing up to power, even when it is dangerous to do so.
“What is presently at stake,” Justice John Paul Stevens warned in Rasul v. Bush, “is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.” That was 2004. The question still hangs over us.
So as we mark another Independence Day, we must do so not with complacency, but with resolve. Trump may be the spark, but the tinder was laid long ago. If we want to reclaim the promise of July 4th, we must dismantle the legal frameworks that make authoritarianism possible. That means restoring due process. That means curbing executive power. That means reforming an immigration system that treats human beings as threats rather than neighbors.
We cannot vote our way out of this without also organizing, resisting, and imagining something better. Because the greatest threat to American democracy isn’t just Trump—it’s the belief that removing him will be enough.
It won’t be. The fire has already started. The time to fight back is now.
“The President threatened to have Mamdani arrested, stripped of his citizenship, and deported—not because Mamdani had broken any law, but because he refuses to stay silent while ICE terrorizes immigrant communities.”
I ran this statement through AI and it appears to be false according to ChatGPT:
“The statement you’ve shared appears to be a political or activist claim and needs context and verification. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Who is Mamdani?
The reference is likely to Zohran Mamdani, a New York State Assemblymember representing District 36 (Astoria, Queens), known for his advocacy for immigrants and criticism of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He is a U.S. citizen, originally born in Uganda and of South Asian descent.
2. Presidential Threats?
There is no credible public evidence or mainstream report confirming that any U.S. President—current or former—threatened to have Mamdani arrested, stripped of his citizenship, or deported for speaking out against ICE. Such an act would be:
Unconstitutional (U.S. citizens cannot be deported for political speech).
Legally untenable (citizenship cannot be revoked for criticism of government policy).
Highly publicized if it occurred, especially since Mamdani is an elected official.
3. Rhetorical or Hyperbolic Context
This statement may originate from activist rhetoric or a misinterpretation of a confrontation or policy disagreement. Sometimes, public officials or activists use strong language to highlight what they see as authoritarian trends or abuses of power, even if the literal events did not occur.
If you have a source or quote in mind, I can look it up or verify it for you. Otherwise, this claim seems to be either unfounded or metaphorical in tone, rather than a record of an actual presidential action or threat.”
One of the problems with ChatGPT is that it really hasn’t been updated since October, so unless you actually upload stories to it, it has trouble. For example, it doesn’t know that Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for NY mayor.
Okay, so I asked ChatGPT if Mamdani is running for mayor of New York (this all sounds up to date):
Yes — Zohran Mamdani is indeed running for mayor of New York City. Here’s the latest on his candidacy:
Mamdani officially announced his 2025 mayoral campaign back in October 2024
He won the Democratic primary on June 24, 2025, securing about 56% of the vote through New York City’s ranked-choice system to become the party’s nominee
The campaign centers around progressive policies like rent freezes, fare-free public transit, universal childcare, deep tax hikes on the wealthy, and a $30 minimum wage by 2030
He will face a three-way race in the November 4, 2025 general election against:
Eric Adams (incumbent mayor running as an independent)
Curtis Sliwa (Republican)
Possibly Andrew Cuomo (running on an independent line)
You notice that didn’t show up in the initial result. Just the limitations of it right now and why I use a proprietary program rather than the freeware ChatGPT
There is also this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/technology/chatgpt-ai-chatbots-conspiracies.html
So where’s your proof that Trump “threatened to have Mamdani arrested, stripped of his citizenship, and deported—not because Mamdani had broken any law, but because he refuses to stay silent while ICE terrorizes immigrant communities?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/01/trump-threatens-deport-zohran-mamdani/
Did you read the article? Even the WashPost admitted hat what Mamdani claimed was false.
“Mamdani issued a statement in response to the president’s comments, calling them an attack on democracy and an intimidation tactic — “””””though the mayoral candidate included specific accusations that Trump didn’t make in his Tuesday remarks.””””””
Here was Mamdani’s false statement:
“The President of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported. Not because I have broken any law but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city.”
It looks like they corrected the article since I read it and noted it earlier this week: “ A previous version of this article incorrectly said President Donald Trump threatened to deport Zohran Mamdani. Trump said he would have Mamdani arrested if he blocks Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in New York, and Mamdani characterized Trump’s comments as a threat to deport him and strip him of his citizenship.”
Characterized? More like lied about what Trump actually said.
Mamdani was trying to stoke the fire and had to lie to do it.
It gets into a gray area – Trump didn’t directly threaten Mamdani, but at the same time Mamdani was saying this – the administration was in fact floating this idea – https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement
LOL
Give it up, you’re really stretching. Just admit your article made some false statements and BarackPalin called them out.
“One of the problems with ChatGPT is that it really hasn’t been updated since October”
That’s actually quite dated. A few months ago it was months behind, but has been improved markedly, so that I can now look up today’s news on a regular basis using that brand of A.I.
“When Lander linked arms with him and requested to see a judicial warrant—something required by law for ICE to make an arrest inside the courthouse”
Again using ChatGPT, was ICE Required to Have a Judicial Warrant?
“No. According to legal experts and fact-checkers (e.g., PolitiFact and AP), ICE does not need a judicial warrant to arrest individuals in public spaces like a courthouse.
Instead, they typically rely on internal administrative warrants, or can act on probable cause if there’s reason to believe an individual is removable
ICE agents can intervene in courthouses because they’re considered publicly accessible unless restricted.”
You should use ChatGPT legal for this.
Alright so I ran the same statement though LegalGPT and it was also declared to be false:
“❗ Why it’s misleading:
ICE agents do not need a judicial warrant (i.e., issued by a judge) to make an immigration arrest in a public space or courthouse. Instead, they typically use an administrative warrant—signed by ICE personnel, not a judge—or may rely on probable cause that someone is in the U.S. unlawfully and likely to flee
A judicial warrant is only required when ICE seeks to enter or search private property not open to the public
nilc.org
What actually happened:
Lander asked to see a judicial warrant during the confrontation. An ICE agent showed him a piece of paper (the administrative warrant) and then arrested him on alleged obstruction charges
⚖️ Bottom line:
✔️ If Lander said ICE needed a judicial warrant to arrest someone in the courthouse hallway, that was wrong.
❗️Legally, ICE just needs an administrative warrant or probable cause for a civil immigration arrest in public spaces—even inside courthouses.
So, the statement that judicial warrants are “required by law for ICE to make an arrest inside the courthouse” is false.”
So what other curve are you going to try and throw?
Two points. First, courthouses are not necessarily public spaces – there is a good deal of case law on this. Second, the legal authority for civil immigration arrests without a judicial warrant is not settled but rather is contested.
Dang – Keith is doing some fact-checking (including some follow-up fact-checking).
If only this occurred for every Vanguard article.
” . . . the system he’s exploited will remain, ready for the next autocrat with better discipline and worse intentions.”
Isn’t that a tacit admission that Trump isn’t too terrible? :-| And what makes you think someone with ‘worse intentions’ that Trump would be elected. I mean if Trump is Hitler, as many claim, what is worse, The Gorn?
“Trump has praised Adams for supposedly helping him avoid legal accountability. That praise alone should disqualify Adams from office.”
Wait, WAIT? Since when does someone else’s praise earn the recipient of that praise condemnation? What control does the recipient have? Didn’t Beth Bourne once say something nice that the Vangaurd reported on her? Does that mean the Vangaurd should be condemned?