The other side of the Rubicon
We aren't coming back from this, and far too many don't want to.
At the 100-day mark, the swagger is unmistakable. President Trump is so buoyed by the havoc he’s wreaked against his perceived adversaries - the press, academia, law firms, “the deep state,” immigrants, political opponents, and “freeloaders” in the international community - that he was willing to sit down and do two expansive interviews with TIME and The Atlantic, two publications that he has excoriated frequently in the past for their coverage of him. He declared in The Atlantic interview that “I run the country and the world.” To TIME, he said, “Last time I was fighting for survival. This time I’m fighting for the world.”
The two publications’ analyses of the interviews—here and here—are worth reading. However, I wouldn’t bother with the interviews themselves unless you want to be exposed to more of Trump’s bluster, falsehoods, and grievances about how the world doesn’t appreciate “honest men like me.”
Frankly, I’ve found it mentally and emotionally taxing to listen to or read about this administration, whether it’s Trump or his sycophants. Their “flooding the zone” has been extraordinarily effective in stunning the people and institutions designed to keep them in check. What’s fascinating is that, while the Democrats campaigned on the possibility of Trump asserting himself as an autocrat, I think even they are flabbergasted by the speed and volume of his actions.
Moreover, he established his authority over an obsequious Congress, which passed only five bills in 100 days while he issued an unprecedented 142 executive orders with all the ceremony and visibility of signing a bill into law. His executive order signings remind me of royal proclamations, with White House staff secretary Will Scharf narrating the content of the orders like the king’s herald as Trump signs them.
Trump has criticized the judiciary for its attempts to stymie his agenda and declared at a celebratory 100-day rally in Michigan, “Nothing will stop me in the mission to keep America safe again.”
That includes the Supreme Court. The moment I realized that we had entered into uncharted waters was when Trump hosted El Salvadoran dictator Nayib Bukele at the White House on April 14th. In full view of the press and the world, he essentially said he would do nothing to “…‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” as the Supreme Court directed.
I won’t repeat the details of Garcia’s case, which are widely known. However, his mistaken deportation to the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) prison in El Salvador set the stage for a disgusting performance on April 14th by Trump, Bukele, and senior Trump administration officials, who not only refused to abide by the Supreme Court’s direction, but manufactured false narratives on the spot to justify their de facto contempt of court. They even suggested that the court ruled unanimously in their favor, which is not even remotely the case.
However, in the TIME interview, Trump said, “I’m not defying the Supreme Court. I never defy the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t do that. I’m a big believer in the Supreme Court, and have a lot of respect for the justices.”
When challenged on that statement, he said:
I leave that to my lawyers. I give them no instructions. They feel that the order said something very much different from what you’re saying … If they want — and that would be the attorney general of the United States and the people that represent the country. I don’t make that decision.
Setting aside for the moment his description of the Attorney General of the United States as one of ‘his’ lawyers, not the chief law enforcement officer of the people of the United States, beholden not to him but the law, his deflection is disingenuous. He has hand-picked subordinates whose primary allegiance is to him and who are doing his bidding. He could tell his lawyers to make it happen if he wanted to comply with the Supreme Court order. However, he doesn’t want to comply, so he won’t. In a recent interview with ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran, he continued to argue that the decision wasn’t his to make:
"I'm not saying he's a good guy. It's about the rule of law. The order from the Supreme Court stands, sir," Moran told the president.
"He came into our country illegally," Trump maintained.
"You could get him back. There's a phone on this desk," Moran told Trump, pointing to the phone on the Resolute Desk.
"I could," Trump conceded.
"You could pick it up, and with all--" Moran began to say.
"I could," Trump said again.
"--the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back right now,'" Moran explained.
"And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that," Trump offered, before saying, "I'm not the one making this decision."
"You're the president," Moran told him.
"I-- no, no, no, no. If-- follow the law. You want me to follow the law. If I were the president that just wanted to do anything, I'd probably keep him right where he is—" Trump said.
"The Supreme Court says what the law is," Moran said.
Many years ago, I speculated on whether the end of the American empire would be Huxleyan or Orwellian in nature. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World imagined a society that sought pleasure and escape to excess, leaving matters of state to a select few leaders to whom they willingly subordinated themselves as technology, sex, and drugs rendered them numb to the cares of the world. Meanwhile, Orwell’s 1984 described a dystopia brought about by force, disinformation, and fear. I used to think we were headed toward a Huxleyan end, but I’m now convinced that Orwell’s vision has more applicability to our times.
One Orwellian characteristic in particular amazes me: the way Trump and his acolytes so blithely lie to us and expect us to ignore the evidence of our senses. They insult our individual and collective intelligence, exhibiting a barely disguised condescension toward those they are expecting to buy into their lies. This is why Trump is waging all-out war on colleges and universities, scientific inquiry, peer-reviewed research, the press, law firms, et al. - a “war on expertise,” if you will. They need the public to embrace the alternate reality they have created, and anyone who refutes their narrative is “an enemy of the state.” That is Orwell’s dystopia in a nutshell.
Disinformation assumes that lies are knowingly presented as truth for manipulative purposes, and I’ve no doubt that is overwhelmingly the case for Trump and his lieutenants. However, millions of people believe the lies are true and share them with their families, friends, and associates, and they can’t be shaken from their beliefs. Sometimes, it appears that even Trump believes the lies his movement is propagating, and it’s frightening to consider the possibility that a master manipulator may himself be easily manipulated.
Perhaps he believes the lies his appointees tell him because they constantly flatter him, stroking his considerable ego. Trump’s cabinet meetings in front of the media are grotesque bootlicking sessions where they heap praise upon him as the greatest president the nation has ever seen.
“The biggest reason why we’re here is that this is the 100th day of the most consequential, historic first 100 days in the history of this country.” ~ Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
“You’re not just courageous, you’re actually fearless.” ~ Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
“Sir, it’s been a momentous 100 days with you at the helm.” ~ Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
“President, your first 100 days has far exceeded that of any other presidency in this country. Ever. Ever. Never seen anything like it. Thank you.” ~ Attorney General Pam Bondi
If their excessive praise is calculated, they are rank opportunists; if it is sincere, they are delusional. Nevertheless, it’s a display of groveling that would make “Supreme Leader” Kim Jong Un of North Korea blush. Even far-right firebrand Ann Coulter, admittedly not a Trump fan, commented on social media, “Would it be possible to have a cabinet meeting without the Kim Jong Il-style tributes?”, referring to the current North Korean dictator’s late father, whose totalitarian reign lasted 17 years.
Speaking of events rivaling those of North Korea, including “new media” - blogs, podcasts, and social media - in the White House daily press briefings has become an embarrassment to journalism. When called upon to ask the first question, a privilege bestowed upon them by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt as a slap in the face of the mainstream media, these “influencers”:
Fall over themselves to gush about the president, or Leavitt herself (“It’s so refreshing to have a press secretary after the last few years who’s both intelligent and articulate” and “Great job this morning, and as always; you’re really crushing it”)';
Present their latest grievances or conspiracy theories, which coincidentally align with those of the MAGA movement, and;
Skewer the traditional journalists in their presence as liars, far-left “lunatics,” or “enemies of the state.”
This isn’t journalism - it’s propaganda, and in the words of David Smith of The Guardian, it shows that this administration’s press office is “more than capable of going full North Korea.”
In a sobering New York Times essay that I encourage you to read in its entirety, “We Are All Living in George Orwell’s World Now”, Matthew Purdy writes:
Warnings of language as a weapon of manipulation, obfuscation and oppression run through Orwell’s work. It is a reason you could be excused for hearing real-life echoes of scenes from “1984” emanating from Washington. Trump’s airbrushing of the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as a “beautiful day” and the pardoning of violent rioters who, he said, had “love in their hearts” recalls one of Orwell’s quotes: “The past is whatever the Party chooses to make it.” The bureaucrat who gleefully bragged that “we’re destroying words — scores of them, hundreds of them, every day” could have been deployed at Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon on the search-and-delete mission for references to race, but in fact worked at Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in “1984.”
And that abrupt switch of Russia from enemy to ally? That also happened in “1984.” In the midst of Hate Week festivities dedicated to vilifying Eurasia, the enemy of Oceania, the novel’s fictional empire, a general announcement was made without explanation: “Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.”
In “1984,” hate binds members of the Party, reinforced with Two Minute Hate sessions aimed at the televised mythical figure “Emanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People.” In the lexicon of Trump, his many enemies — law enforcement, judges, immigrants, the press — are “scum” and “vermin” and, yes, “enemies of the people.”
Orwell wrote, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” To me, that is tantamount to a rejection of evidential truth, and I’m at a loss to understand how this has become acceptable to a plurality of Americans - yes, despite Attorney General Bondi’s claim at the flattery session née cabinet meeting that Trump was “overwhelmingly elected by the biggest majority,” the evidence tells me that more Americans voted against Trump than for him.
The Scriptures tell us:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
While Paul was addressing Christian doctrine, this verse aptly describes an age filled with conspiracy theories, viral myths online, and various falsehoods that confirm our doubts about the world and those we disdain, and millions of Christians, who follow a Lord and Savior whose reason for coming into the world was to “to testify to the truth” (John 18:37) have succumbed to the lies.
Many self-identified Christians are complicit in spreading misinformation that reinforces their own biases and grievances. I prefer to be charitable and assume they are sharing what they genuinely believe to be the truth. However, I have observed that their beliefs remain unshaken by empirical evidence, which they often dismiss as fabrications from those they perceive as enemies. This unwavering loyalty has tied Christians, particularly white evangelicals, to Trump more than any other group in America.
While most 100-day polls show Trump’s approval ratings below those of his predecessors at this stage, prompting him to rage about “fake news” and suggest that the pollsters should be investigated for “election fraud,” people who identify as Republicans still seem to be behind him, and one poll indicates only 2% of those who voted for him “regret their choice and would ‘vote differently’ now if they could.”
Within that group, white evangelical Christians have remained steadfast in their support from 2016 to the present, regardless of the incompetence and malevolence of Trump’s actions. A recent Pew Research poll puts his approval rating among white evangelical Protestants at 72%. A Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll finds that, “White Christian groups are the most likely to approve of the job that Trump is doing as president, including three in four white evangelical Protestants (76%), compared with one-third or fewer of other religious Americans.”
I have struggled with this conundrum for a decade. Friends who have been disillusioned by the church ask me to explain what is going on, and I tell them I can only offer my assumptions because it confounds me also.
Were all the speeches and proclamations that emerged during the Clinton administration about how good character was non-negotiable for anyone in leadership suddenly null and void? “We’re electing a president, not a pastor-in-chief” became the new standard. What happened to Jesus’ warning that “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:18), or Paul’s warning that “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Corinthians 15:33)?
He gets things done,” we’re told. So the ends justify the means? Did Christ ever commit sin to achieve His Father’s ends? And are we not called to be more like Christ as we mature in our faith? Paul said, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” - some translations read, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). John, the apostle Jesus loved, said “Whoever claims to abide in Him must walk as Jesus walked” (1 John 2:6). Peter declared:
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
“He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:21-23)
“He’s our King Cyrus,” they assert, invoking the pagan king who allowed the Jews under his captivity to return to their homeland and suported them in rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. Are we God such that “In the LORD’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him” (Proverbs 21:1)? Do we have the power to redirect an authoritarian leader should they go down a bad path? It was the Lord who raised up King Cyrus and instilled in him the tolerance and mercy he showed throughout his reign to non-Persians subject to his rule.
As Americans, we have a blessing that millions of Christians around the world and throughout history don’t and didn’t have - the opportunity to select the men and women who lead us. No one is perfect, but Jesus taught us that what is in the heart always manifests itself in one’s words and behavior, so we have the tools to discern someone’s character, especially in a free country where information is readily available to us to avoid being misled or manipulated. If someone of bad character is raised up because of us, and since we lack the omnipotence to channel the king’s heart like a stream of water, we have full ownership of whatever happens, not the Lord.
We have done what God’s people have done throughout history, taken the reins for ourselves because we didn’t trust Him. Whatever the issue or issues that led us to fear for America’s future, we concluded that God expected us to intervene on His behalf for His will to be done. His insistence that all we need to do is love Him and show love to others, and leave the rest to Him (Romans 12:17-21), didn’t assuage our fears, so we took matters into our own hands:
"But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices (Psalm 81:11-12).
“Come, make us gods who will go before us,” the Israelites cried because they grew impatient waiting for Moses to return from the summit of Mount Sinai, where he was meeting with the Lord (Exodus 32:1).
They demanded of the prophet Samuel, “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Samuel 8:19-20).
The crowd in Jerusalem, frustrated that Jesus wasn’t the conquering Messiah they desired, shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” (Luke 23:18).
Like so many before them, this particular cohort of Christians doesn’t want just a Savior who will forgive their sins and grant them an eternity with God; they want a warrior who will strike down their enemies and give them dominion over the land. However, their enemies are not the Lord’s, nor is his Kingdom of this world:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12)
Fighting evil doesn’t mean destroying people; any one of us can be targeted by “the powers of this dark world,” and time and again, Jesus tells us to “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). Too often we confuse man’s laws with God’s holiness, and if we pursue the law without bringing the righteousness and mercy of the Lord with us, we are not doing what the Lord requires of us, “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Even secular scholars like Dr. Arthur Dobrin of Hofstra University can connect the dots:
It is essential for a judge to have a sense of empathy in order for the law to serve its ultimate purpose—to further human dignity. The law—a just law—is rooted in ethics and the impetus for ethics is empathy. Without empathy the law is merely a tool for the strong to rationalize their position, not an instrument for social justice in the service of all.
I think what breaks my heart the most is the the callousness and cruelty emanating from this regime, especially from those who profess to be of Christ, and the white evangelical community’s apparent indifference to their maliciousness. Russell Voght, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and a primary architect of the Heritage Foundation’s infamous Project 2025, is a graduate of Wheaton College, founded in 1860 by evangelical abolitionists. Wheaton served as a stop on the Underground Railroad and advanced one of Illinois’ first Black college graduates. Wheaton was an example of God’s holiness prevailing over the laws and customs of man.
However, Vought, an outspoken Christian, has publicly declared that in the interest of reducing the size, cost, and influence of the federal government, he seeks to inflict “trauma” upon federal civil servants:
We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down … We want to put them in trauma.
Surely, it can be said that he has succeeded in that objective, with the firing of tens of thousands of federal employees, the forced retirements of tens of thousands more, federal agencies being shut down without warning, and the threat of more terminations looming over those who remain. A federal worker labor union official said, “Morale is about as low as it’s ever been,” and these workers, the vast majority of whom believed their work in the federal government was a high calling to serve others, are being pilloried as enemies who are “destroying the country” by the man who we elected to lead them: “They’re crooked people, they’re dishonest people. They’re going to be held accountable.” History tells us that crookedness and dishonesty are actually what led to the creation of a non-partisan, career federal civil service that prioritized merit and public service over cronyism and self-dealing. But that is a topic for next time.
Jesus’ brother James wrote, “Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be” (James 3:11). However, Karoline Leavitt, with a gold cross dangling from her neck, not dissimilar to one of her predecessors, Kayleigh McEnany, stands at the podium in the White House press room and, out of the same mouth, spouts unconditional praise for her boss and unrelenting vitriol for his perceived foes, especially the traditonal media she briefs regularly.
Her necklace is intended to tell the world she is a Christian, but Jesus eschews the trappings of religion as evidence of Christlikeness; “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:13). In this context, “sacrifice” refers to the rituals of the faith, not the virtue of sacrifice, and His mercy is for those humble enough to recognize their need for it, not those who think they’ve “made it.” Young people, many of whom are religiously unaffiliated because of what they have witnessed in the church during the course of their lives, are particularly effective at discerning between a ritualistic or reformed life to determine the extent of one’s faith. So is the Lord:
I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! (Amos 5:21-24)
I offered the following thought recently:
Several Trump Administration officials adorn themselves with crosses, some in the form of a necklace or a tattoo, presumably to let the public know they identify as Christians. Perhaps the adornment is necessary because it would be impossible to ascertain their Christianity by their words and actions. Lies that flow from their mouths like tap water, insults and “unwholesome talk” (Ephesians 4:9) directed at anyone who disagrees with them, rejection of the “Imago Dei” in people they scorn to justify unprecedented acts of callousness and cruelty - none of these things strike me as good fruit.
Rather than relying on accoutrements to declare our faith, Jesus offers a better way:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
A transformative faith doesn’t need artifacts or talismans to make its presence known. The evidence is in the fruit you produce. Jesus said, “This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples” (John 15:8). “[L]ove, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23) - the fruit of the Holy Spirit is a sign to the world of who is truly a new creation in Christ.
History tells us that Julius Caesar led his army from the northern Roman province he governed across the river Rubicon into the province controlled by Rome and its armies, an act that sparked a civil war and eventually led to Caesar’s reign as dictator perpetuo - “dictator for life.” Since that time, the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” has meant passing a point of no return. Depending on who you ask, we are already on the other side, and only the Lord knows what’s next. Many others hold out hope that we can endure the next 1,362 days and return to “normal” after that, whatever they perceive “normal” to be.
I don’t think we are returning to anything that resembled government before Donald Trump; there are too many Americans who are pleased with what he’s done, even if some - not enough, in my opinion - are uncomfortable with how he’s done it. Don’t buy into the lie that those who oppose him are for “criminals, rapists, and murderers” or “fraud, waste, and abuse” in government. Good stewardship of government resources and protecting people from crime doesn’t require taking a chainsaw to the federal workforce or dehumanizing entire people groups while violating their human rights.
I don’t know what’s ahead now that we’ve crossed the river. I know my mission remains unchanged - “act justly,” “love mercy,” and “walk humbly.” Volunteer for causes you believe in. Give money to people and organizations who serve the needy, the marginalized, and the oppressed. Speak and act kindly to everyone, friend or stranger. And show yourself some mercy and occasionally disengage from the flood of fear, venom, and grievance emanating from the shores of the Potomac. You can’t pour into others from an empty vessel, so take the time to fill up with things that are good, true, and beautiful. “Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness” (Lamentations 3:22-23).