A Governor’s Guide to Protecting Democracy
Massachusetts has defended liberty since the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775. We face such a moment again.
A president who rejects democratic constraints, a Congress that enables executive overreach, and a Supreme Court that has abandoned its role as constitutional guardian now threaten the rights of Massachusetts residents.
The Massachusetts Constitution provides protections broader than federal law—and when federal institutions abandon their duty to protect constitutional rights, that duty falls to the states.
This document outlines the Governor’s obligation to defend those rights, defines the red lines that federal actions must not cross, and recommends immediate measures to protect Massachusetts residents from authoritarian federal power.
The threats enumerated here are real, documented, and accelerating. Massachusetts must act now.
Hayward Zwerling
October 27, 2025
This essay has been delivered to the office of Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
Video explanation (7 minutes)
A much shorter, op-ed version of this essay is available at: Massachusetts’ Final Bulwark: A Proactive Defense Against the Authoritarian Tide
The associated essay is: How to Destroy a Democracy: The Authoritarian Playbook
Traditional legal and political responses will fail to curtail America’s slide into autocracy. The Trump administration acts faster than courts can respond, ignores judicial orders and Constitutional rights, and punishes political opponents. Conventional tools cannot defeat an opponent who has ignored constitutional constraints and whose sole objective is to accrue unchallengeable political power.
- The Governor of Massachusetts has sworn an oath to protect the constitutional rights of Massachusetts residents. (Chapter 1)
- Those rights are now under threat because President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and the current conservative Supreme Court majority have abandoned their constitutional obligations and refuse to abide by the historic norms that have safeguarded our democracy. (Chapters 2, 3)
- In order to fulfill her oath, Governor Healey must begin thinking “out of the box,” (Chapters 4, 5) by defining red lines (Chapters 6) and implemting operational mechanisms (Chapters 7) that were once considered unthinkable, but are now essential to defend the safety, freedom, and due-process rights of Massachusetts residents.
Our generation will either preserve America’s 2.5 century democracy or we will have to explain to our children why we let it die.
The choice is binary: lead the defense of constitutional democracy or watch the authoritarian consolidate his power.
Preface
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Massachusetts Constitution and Governor Healey’s Responsibility to the Residents of Massachusetts
Chapter 2: Trump and the Republicans
Chapter 3: The Supreme Court
Chapter 4: America Is a Democracy No More
Chapter 5: The Old Political Rules No Longer Apply
Chapter 6: Massachusetts’ Red Lines
6.1 Militarization and Use of Force
6.2 Elections and Democratic Governance
6.3 Civil Liberties and Due Process
6.4 Health and Personal Autonomy
6.5 State Sovereignty and Coerced Compliance
6.6 Freedom of Expression and Inquiry
6.7 Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law
Chapter 7: New Mechanisms to Defend Democracy
7.1 Immediate Legal Action
7.2 Rapid-Response Legal and Communications Team
7.3 Legislative and Regulatory Countermeasures
7.4 Refusal of State Cooperation
7.5 Control of State Forces
7.6 Oversight of Federal Agents
7.7 Election Integrity and Democratic Resilience
7.8 Interstate Coordination
7.9 Public Accountability and Mobilization
7.10 Financial Autonomy
7.11 Investigation and Enforcement
7.12 Distinct Constitutional Rights of Massachusetts Residents
Chapter 8: Conclusion
Chapter 9: Author’s Note on Morality vs The Law and Lawyers
Footnotes
Chapter 1: Massachusetts Constitution and Governor Healey’s Responsibility to the Residents of Massachusetts
The Governor has sworn an oath to the state Constitution, which states that the purpose of government, “is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life … and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed that these “natural, essential, and unalienable rights” are enforceable and, in many cases, broader than those provided by the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, these rights are increasingly being curtailed or ignored by the federal government, as President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and the current conservative Supreme Court majority have disregarded their constitutional obligations and refuse to abide by the historic norms that have safeguarded our democracy.
The Governor bears the responsibility to defend these rights, including against threats emanating from the federal government.
Chapter 2: Trump and the Republicans
Donald Trump has repeatedly undermined core democratic institutions such as the judiciary, the free press, and the civil service, while voicing admiration for historic and contemporary authoritarians.
His record—documented in official statements, executive orders, and public acts—reveals a consistent disregard for constitutional checks and norms. A representative, but incomplete, list of his anti-democratic statements and actions is provided in the footnotes of Chapter 2 and 4.
Although a few Republican senators have occasionally signaled their independence from Trump, they have reliably fallen into line when their votes are needed to advance his agenda. Their gestures of dissent are performative; when it counts, they “kiss the ring.”
This pattern of party over country endangers not only Massachusetts but the entire federalist balance envisioned by the Framers. It is unrealistic to expect that current Republican leadership will voluntarily repudiate Trumpism. These realities compel Massachusetts to plan for sustained federal hostility toward democratic norms—potentially for years to come.
This erosion of political accountability has been mirrored by a Supreme Court increasingly aligned with executive power.
The judiciary, once a check on executive overreach, has now become its enabler.
A growing chorus of the nation’s most respected jurists and legal scholars warns that the Supreme Court is drifting away from its constitutional duty as a neutral arbiter and toward a politicized institution that endangers democracy itself.
Former federal appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, in a July 2024 MSNBC interview, declared that the Court’s decision granting the president broad immunity was “irreconcilable with America’s democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.”
Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, warned that the Court has “reached the point of assuming ultimate power over our entire legal and political system” and of “destroying the framework of checks and balances” that has maintained our political equilibrium “over the course of our history.”
Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and Yale Law School lecturer, cautioned that the Supreme Court risked being “written off as just another political branch of government.” (Justice on the Brink, 2021).
In addition, Stephen Vladeck, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, has written that the Court’s willingness to issue major rulings without writing an opinion (shadow docket) enables it to make consequential political decisions “without full briefing, without oral argument, [and] often without explanation.”
Even within the Court, several justices have similarly voiced alarm about the Court’s trajectory. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the Court’s “complicity in a culture of disdain for lower courts and the law … will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions.” Justice Elena Kagan cautioned, “this Court’s shadow-docket decisionmaking … [is] unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.” Justice Sotomayor wrote “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.”
Retired Justice Stephen Breyer has similarly cautioned that if the public views judges as “politicians in robes,” trust in the courts—and in the rule of law itself—will diminish.
A March 2025 Annenberg poll found that 59% of Americans had little or no trust that the Supreme Court operates in the best interests of “people like you.” Similarly, an October 2025 Associated Press-NORC survey determined that “75% (of Americans) had only some, or hardly any confidence in the people running the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Together, these voices and data portray a Supreme Court detached from precedent, transparency, and self-restraint — a Court whose decisions now protect and amplify executive power at all costs, trampling our separation of powers and normalizing an authoritarian conception of the presidency rooted in the so-called Unitary Executive Theory.
As judicial independence erodes, so too does the foundation of American democracy—and with it, the constitutional rights long bequeathed to the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Chapter 4: America Is a Democracy No More
Anne Applebaum, a journalist and foreign-policy expert who writes for The Atlantic and appears on Washington Week, stated on October 17, 2025, that Trump has transformed America from a nation governed by “‘rule of law’—meaning the law is what it is—to ‘rule by law,’ meaning the law is what the political party or leader in charge says it is; it is an enormous clear break with American tradition that goes back many decades.” She warned that this marks a profound rupture in the nation’s democratic norms.
In their New York Times op-ed, “How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy?“, Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way, and Daniel Ziblatt wrote, “Americans are living under a new regime … [that] has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism.” Many other scholars and analysts have reached the same conclusion.
In their New York Times Op-Ed, “We Should All Be Very, Very Afraid”, Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence H. Tribe, concluded: “If the government can disappear any people it wishes, dump them in a Salvadoran dungeon and prevent any court in this country from providing relief, we all should be very, very afraid.”
As a consequence of this shift from democracy to authoritarian rule, we now witness daily events instigated by the president that are anathema to democracy and foreign to the American experience. (See the Footnotes for Chapter 4.)
Given our present trajectory, America’s authoritarian drift will almost certainly continue for the foreseeable future.
In an effort to cement his authoritarian control, Trump has told us that he will invoke the Insurrection Act when it best suits his needs:
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump said. He added: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”
Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow Trump to legally use the U.S. military against American citizens and, more ominously, to seize control of state electoral processes–making future victories virtually assured. That is the penultimate step in the playbook of contemporary authoritarians.
Unfortunately, the courts’ ability to restrain a president’s use—or abuse—of the Insurrection Act is extremely limited.
Chapter 5: The Old Political Rules No Longer Apply
Our governor is obligated to ensure that the residents of Massachusetts enjoy all the rights and privileges guaranteed by both the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions—especially in the face of a president who has repeatedly flouted laws and political norms in pursuit of his authoritarian ambitions.
In any physical or ideological conflict, if your adversary ignores the rules and relentlessly deploys ever more sophisticated tools against you, while you insist on following old “honorable” conventions, you will inevitably lose. The only way to defeat a dishonorable opponent is to adapt faster—to use every tool available to leapfrog your adversary, as did the founders of America from the Battle of Lexington and Concord to the Declaration of Independence—and reach the endgame before they do.
America’s fight for democracy is not an academic exercise governed by genteel conventions. We are in a struggle that will determine whether our nation remains a democracy or succumbs to a narcissistic, kleptocratic, racist, misogynistic authoritarian. There can be no compromise, for there will be only one winner.
That struggle will likely require rejecting blind obedience to Supreme Court edicts that contravene the rights of Massachusetts residents as guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court has forsaken its proud heritage “as an independent and impartial institution,” as Justice Kagan warned, in its expedited effort to cement a manifestly un-American political philosophy—the Unitary Executive Theory—as a core principle of our government.
In the following sections, we define the legal redlines and concrete measures Massachusetts must adopt to ensure its residents remain protected when federal institutions abandon their constitutional obligations—and to affirm that the Commonwealth itself remains a guardian of democracy.
Chapter 6: Massachusetts’ Red Lines
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has consistently held that the Massachusetts Constitution provides rights that are independent of—and in many instances broader than—those conferred by the United States Constitution.
Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363 (1985), stated: “The test for determining probable cause is stricter under art. 14 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution than under the Fourth Amendment.” ( https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/394/394mass363.html )
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), affirmed: “The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language.” ( https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/440/440mass309.html )
Among other guarantees, the Massachusetts Constitution affirms rights to life, liberty, equality, safety, happiness, due process, free speech, protection from warrantless searches and seizures, free and fair elections, and access to education.
Many of these rights are already being undermined by federal actions. If and when President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, he is likely to claim authority to suspend or override these protections—a direct assault on the constitutional guarantees that define the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It is the responsibility of the Governor of Massachusetts to defend both Massachusetts and United States constitutional rights of all residents of the Commonwealth.
To fulfill this duty, the Governor must clearly delineate the “red lines” that mark a significant violation of residents’ constitutional rights. Should federal actions or Supreme Court rulings cross these lines, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to act to safeguard those rights.
The following red lines define specific categories of federal action that would compel the Commonwealth to assert its constitutional authority to protect its residents.
Massachusetts’ Red Lines
6.1 Militarization and Use of Force
- Deployment of U.S. military or federalized National Guard forces against Massachusetts residents outside a clear constitutional or statutory authority.
- Occupation, blockade, or other coercive military or paramilitary actions within the Commonwealth.
6.2 Elections and Democratic Governance
- Federal interference with free and fair elections conducted under Massachusetts law.
- Attempts to override, invalidate, or replace legitimate state election results.
- Efforts to coerce, remove, or replace duly elected or appointed state or local officials.
6.3 Civil Liberties and Due Process
- Enforcement or endorsement of discriminatory federal laws, policies, or orders that conflict with Massachusetts civil-rights statutes or with constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
- Detention, deportation, or surveillance of residents without due process, judicial warrants, or access to counsel.
- Mass or warrantless surveillance conducted without lawful authorization or judicial oversight.
6.4 Health and Personal Autonomy
- Federal actions criminalizing or restricting healthcare that is legal and medically appropriate under Massachusetts law, including reproductive and gender-affirming care.
- Efforts to compel Massachusetts healthcare providers, facilities, or insurers to enforce or participate in federal mandates that harm the health or safety of residents.
6.5 State Sovereignty and Coerced Compliance
- Federal mandates compelling state officials or agencies to act in violation of constitutional limits or state law.
- Punitive or discriminatory withholding of duly appropriated federal funds intended to coerce or punish the Commonwealth.
- Financial coercion, retaliation, or punitive actions targeting Massachusetts academic institutions, businesses, or individuals for lawful conduct.
6.6 Freedom of Expression and Inquiry
- Federal or judicial actions that restrict academic freedom, suppress free expression, or undermine the independence of the press or higher education.
6.7 Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law
- Intimidation, threats, or retaliation against state or federal judges for executing their duties.
- Supreme Court rulings that abrogate or usurp the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Massachusetts Constitution.
Crossing any of these red lines would require the Commonwealth to exercise its constitutional authority—and, when appropriate, coordinate with other states—to protect the rights and safety of its residents.
Chapter 7: New Mechanisms to Defend Democracy
Having defined the constitutional thresholds in Chapter 6, this chapter outlines the operational mechanisms required to uphold them.
Both the federal government and the Supreme Court have already crossed numerous red lines that undermined or effectively abolished constitutionally guaranteed rights of Massachusetts residents. The situation is deteriorating and will continue to do so unless the Commonwealth adopts bold, untested, and assertive strategies proportionate to the threat.
As discussed in Chapter 3, public trust in the Supreme Court has eroded—with more than half of Americans now believing the Court has become politicized.
If Massachusetts and other pro-democracy states attempt to defend constitutional governance merely by adhering to the historic norms that once served as our political guardrails, the outcome is preordained. The nation will continue its slide toward authoritarian rule, possibly even fascism.
The Governor must therefore respond aggressively and creatively, using every constitutional and administrative tool within her authority. This includes asserting the Commonwealth’s sovereignty whenever federal actions or court rulings violate the Massachusetts Constitution—particularly when such mandates threaten the health, safety, or fundamental rights of our residents.
Examples of federal edicts that the Commonwealth should refuse to enforce include those that:
• Ban abortion or otherwise deny bodily autonomy;
• Force Massachusetts to honor out-of-state gun or open-carry laws;
• Restrict, impede, or suppress voting participation; or
• Prohibit the teaching of science or historical fact.
The following strategies represent both immediate defensive actions and long-term structural measures designed to preserve democracy, constitutional governance, and the rule of law within Massachusetts.
A. Legal and Institutional Defense
Adapting Trump’s own legal strategy, Massachusetts should use the courts to delay, impede, and expose authoritarian overreach; thus, direct the Attorney General to file pre-emptive and emergency lawsuits to enjoin unconstitutional federal actions, block illegal deployments, and compel judicial review.
Petition the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to determine whether federal governmental actors may be restrained under the Massachusetts Constitution for violations of an individual’s state-constitutional rights. A prompt declaratory ruling would clarify the Commonwealth’s authority to shield its residents from unconstitutional federal actions and establish the legal foundation for subsequent executive and legislative measures.
Issue a state executive order requiring all federal law-enforcement personnel operating in Massachusetts to wear visible identification badges and prohibiting face coverings intended to obscure identity. Violations would be subject to incarceration, as monetary fines will not provide a significant deterrent.
Amend Massachusetts law to ensure that ICE or any other federal agency may not detain individuals without a warrant signed by a Massachusetts judge.
7.2 Rapid-Response Legal and Communications Team
Establish a 24/7 crisis unit composed of the Governor’s Counsel, the Attorney General, constitutional experts, and communications specialists. This team should prepare emergency filings, synchronize public messaging, and engage the press in real time to counter misinformation and federal intimidation.
7.3 Legislative and Regulatory Countermeasures
Work with the Massachusetts Legislature to pass emergency statutes reinforcing state control of elections, regulating cooperation with federal authorities, and imposing penalties on federal officials who endanger residents. These measures should unmistakably demonstrate the Commonwealth’s resolve to defend its people.
B. Refusal of Cooperation and Control of State Forces
7.4 Refusal of State Cooperation
The Governor should instruct all state agencies, departments, and law-enforcement bodies to withhold cooperation from any federal operation that may violate the rights of Massachusetts residents or exceed lawful federal authority. No state data, facilities, personnel, or resources should be provided unless the legality of the request has been reviewed and confirmed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court or another appropriate state tribunal.
This policy rests on the non-commandeering principle affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York v. United States (505 U.S. 144 [1992]) and Printz v. United States (521 U.S. 898 [1997]), which hold that the federal government cannot compel state officials to implement or enforce federal programs. Massachusetts therefore has both the authority and the obligation to ensure that its personnel and institutions are not used to violate constitutional rights, consistent with the Supremacy Clause and subject to judicial review.
Maintain operational control of the Massachusetts National Guard unless properly federalized, as required by law. Implement legal and logistical measures to delay or challenge any unauthorized federal activation. Assign Guard members to essential state missions to ensure they remain under state authority and unavailable for unlawful federal deployment.
Reactivate and rebuild the Massachusetts State Defense Force (MSDF)—inactivated in 2016—as a state-controlled military body that operates solely under the Governor’s command. Under federal law (32 U.S.C. § 109), the MSDF cannot be called into federal service. It should be trained and equipped to protect the rights, safety, and civil liberties of Massachusetts residents. When necessary, its members could be positioned as a protective presence between protesters and federal agents to safeguard lawful demonstrators and prevent violence.
C. Oversight and Accountability of Federal Agents
7.6 Oversight of Federal Agents
The Commonwealth must ensure that all federal law-enforcement activity within its borders complies with both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions. To protect residents’ rights and maintain transparency, the Governor should implement the following measures:
- Identification: Mandate that all ICE and other federal law-enforcement personnel operating in Massachusetts wear body cameras and visible identification badges, and prohibit masks or facial coverings intended to obscure identity
- Operational Disclosure: Require federal agencies—including ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and others—to file operational plans with state authorities in advance for appropriate oversight and coordination
- Accountability: Authorize Massachusetts law enforcement to detain or arrest any federal agent acting without lawful authority or a valid warrant issued by a Massachusetts court.
- Reporting Systems:
- Video Reporting System: Establish a secure, state-managed platform for residents to upload video or photographic evidence of potential civil-rights violations by federal officers.
- Telephone Reporting System: Create a 24-hour hotline for reporting illegal or abusive ICE activity, linked directly to state and local police for immediate response.
- ICE Location Reporting System: Develop and maintain a public database and interactive map showing verified ICE or other federal enforcement operations in real time. This transparency will deter misconduct, promote accountability, and reassure residents that their state government is actively monitoring federal behavior and protecting their rights.
D. Democratic Infrastructure and Civic Mobilization
7.7 Election Integrity and Democratic Resilience
Fortify—and publicly reaffirm to build public confidence—every aspect of Massachusetts elections. Require paper ballots, enforce secure chain-of-custody procedures, conduct post-election risk-limiting audits, and ensure physical security at all voting locations. The Commonwealth must not, under any circumstances, share voting data or voter-identification information with the federal government except where constitutionally required.
All-party primaries. All candidates competed in a single primary and the two candidates with the greatest number of votes compete in the general election. https://coalitionforhealthydemocracy.org/
Rank-choice voting: If no candidate wins a majority in the election thenthe last-place candidate is dropped and their votes transfer to the next choice until someone has a majority.
A greatly expanded House of Representatives: 8,300 House of Representatives Will Help Fix America’s Democracy
Democracy Docket recommends that every blue state also adopt these laws.
- Enact a statutory right to vote for every eligible citizen.
- Ban signature matching of mail-in ballots.
- Count all ballots postmarked by Election Day.
- Guarantee voters they will not have to wait more than 30 minutes in line.
- Ban third-party voter challenges and other forms of vigilantism.
- Provide criminal and civil remedies for voter intimidation.
- Revise and strengthen election-certification laws.
Establish both formal and informal alliances with other pro-democracy states to share legal resources, coordinate litigation, and issue joint public statements defending constitutional governance. Collective state action reduces the risk that a single compliant governor could enable federal overreach affecting all others.
To institutionalize this cooperation, Massachusetts should help create a Coalition of Pro-Democracy States that meets regularly to exchange legal strategies, intelligence, and updates—magnifying the visibility, credibility, and impact of every coordinated action while reinforcing legitimacy and deterrence.
7.9 Public Accountability and Mobilization
Public confidence and broad civic engagement are essential to resisting unlawful federal power. The Commonwealth must ensure residents are informed, that truth prevails over propaganda, and that every act of federal overreach is met with transparency and organized response.
- The Governor should hold regular public briefings—modeled on Governor Cuomo’s daily COVID-19 conferences—to provide timely updates, counter misinformation, and demonstrate transparent leadership. These briefings will strengthen public trust and help coordinate civic participation in real time.
- Massachusetts should support and champion local journalists, civic monitors, and independent reviewers to document federal misconduct and report violations to the Commonwealth.
- State and local law enforcement must be trained in de-escalation techniques and constitutional compliance, to protect public safety without giving the federal government a pretext to claim that Massachusetts is “unwilling to maintain order.”
- Finally, the Commonwealth should establish public reporting channels that allow residents to submit information on federal actions as they occur, as discussed in Section C-6. These systems must be coordinated with state and local law enforcement to ensure prompt investigation and transparent response. The information should be shared with other sympathetic states.
E. Financial and Strategic Countermeasures
The Commonwealth must also consider financial and economic strategies to safeguard its autonomy.
As the federal government has vindictively withheld funds legally allocated to the state, municipalities, academic institutions, and business entities, Massachusetts should establish a federal tax escrow account into which all federal tax remittances collected from Massachusetts residents and businesses would be deposited. These funds could be used to sustain federally supported programs whose grants were rescinded or unlawfully defunded by the federal government. Once lawful federal distributions resume, any remaining balances in the escrow account would be returned to the federal government.
To maximize the impact of this policy—and to protect participating states from federal retaliation—the Commonwealth should ensure full transparency and coordinate implementation with like-minded states.
7.11 Investigation and Enforcement
In May 2024, Donald J. Trump was convicted in New York State on 34 counts of falsifying business records—a verdict that raises serious questions about the legality and transparency of his business operations. The Governor should direct the Attorney General and relevant state regulators to investigate any Trump-affiliated properties or enterprises operating within Massachusetts for potential violations of state law. These investigations should apply the same standards of transparency, taxation, and regulatory compliance that govern all entities operating in the Commonwealth, ensuring equal enforcement of state law and public confidence in its impartial application.
7.12 Distinct Constitutional Rights of Massachusetts Residents
The Massachusetts Constitution grants rights to its residents that are broader or entirely absent from federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and that are not preempted by either.
These include:
- The right to seek and obtain happiness, safety, welfare, and health.
- The right to equality regardless of sex, race, color, creed, or condition.
- The right to reform, alter, or abolish government when safety, prosperity, or happiness require it.
- Protection from cruel or unusual punishment, ensuring humane and proportional treatment.
- The Commonwealth’s constitutional duty to cherish education, ensure the diffusion of knowledge, and promote the arts, sciences, agriculture, and public virtue.
For example, if the Trump Administration were to mandate that schools, museums, or universities suppress the teaching of African-American history, as they tried to do in their “Dear Colleague Letter” of 2/14/2025, the Governor of Massachusetts could invoke the state Constitution to reject or override that directive.
The Governor may rely on these distinct constitutional guarantees as a legal and moral foundation for protecting Massachusetts residents from authoritarian federal actions or mandates.
Summary
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot rely on outdated political conventions to confront unlawful federal power. The Governor must instead lead a multifaceted defense—legal, institutional, civic, and financial—rooted in constitutional duty and executed with moral clarity. Through transparency, coordination, and steadfast adherence to state sovereignty, Massachusetts can protect its residents and set a model for democratic resilience across the nation.
Massachusetts has a long and distinguished history of defending freedom. Now is the time to rise once again to that challenge—fearlessly, creatively, and deliberately.
We must set aside outdated rules, hierarchies, and political conventions and forge new strategies to defeat authoritarianism.
We must act decisively to re-establish democracy in America.
Some may argue that the harm inflicted on the Commonwealth by the federal government would be lessened if we remained silent. Yet experience has shown that anything short of unquestioning loyalty to Trump’s authoritarianism offers no protection from his vindictive retribution. He must be confronted at every turn, and defeated, or authoritarianism will be America’s future.
We must not be the generation that allows democracy to die in America—nor the one that bequeaths autocracy to our children and grandchildren.
Chapter 9: Author’s Note on Morality vs The Law and Lawyers
A Higher Calling Than the Law
“…let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony, be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.” Common Sense, Thomas Paine, 1775
If your child were gasping for air in the backseat, you would not wait at a red light. You would act—because protecting life outranks obeying rules.
In 1775, King George III imposed laws that served tyranny, not justice. The colonists understood they bore a moral duty to defy those laws and defend their freedom—and that defiance gave birth to the oldest continuing democracy in history.
The United States is no longer a democracy (Chapter 4). When law becomes a tool of oppression rather than protection, it forfeits its moral authority.
Obedience is not integrity—it is complicity.
Those who cherish liberty now face the same moral test as the patriots of 1775. Restoring democracy will not come from uncritical compliance but from principled action guided by conscience and the common good.
A Word of Caution about Lawyers
Had the inventors of the wheel or electricity consulted lawyers, they would have been told to desist—for people would surely die as a consequence of their inventions. Yet civilization advances not by eliminating risk but by balancing it against the potential for progress.
With democracy so imperiled, our greatest danger lies in mistaking legality for legitimacy and caution for wisdom. Inaction will cede the field to authoritarianism—and, in time, to fascism.
Now is not the time to abide by the counsel of cautious lawyers.
Lest some believe I am advocating anarchy, Judge William Young, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 to United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and is now a senior judge. In his opinion of Case 25-10685-WGY, he wrote: “lawyers seem to have a penchant for telling you what you can’t do.”
The Ballot Is Not Enough
Many believe that America’s authoritarian drift can be reversed in future elections. They argue that if pro-democracy factions simply choose the right candidates, Trump and authoritarianism will fade into history.
This view misunderstands Trump, Project 2025, and authoritarianism.
Modern autocrats initially rise to power as a result of a valid election, as did Trump. But once in power, they weaponize the machinery of government to distort the electoral process and make themselves effectively unbeatable—this is referred to as competitive authoritarianism.
At the end of his first term, Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol as Congress prepared to certify the election results. Had Vice President Mike Pence complied with Trump’s demand on January 6, 2021, Trump might never have left office.
There is no reason to believe Trump will act differently at the end of his second term. He has spoken of invoking the Insurrection Act, which could allow him to suspend an election under the pretext of “restoring order” and has stated that “there are methods” by which he could serve (if not run for) a third term.
Even if the election proceeds and he or his successor loses, Trump commands an immense military apparatus—ICE, the National Guard, and the U.S. military—that he might employ to retain power. And there always remains the specter of the Supreme Court, à la Bush v. Gore (2000), nullifying the election results and simply awarding the presidency to Trump or his chosen successor.
When an authoritarian controls the state, elections rarely restore democracy.
Rebuilding democracy in America will require people, governors, and institutions to place moral duty and the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness above blind obedience to the law.
Hayward Zwerling
11/5/2025
Hands-Off rally, Washington D.C., April 5, 2025
Chapter 2: Trump and the Republicans
- Trump called the press “the enemy of the American People”. The Washington Post, February 17, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/17/trump-calls-the-media-the-enemy-of-the-american-people/
- Executive Order 13780 (2017 – “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”) — The so-called “travel ban,” barring entry from several Muslim-majority countries, asserted sweeping unilateral power over immigration. Federal Register, March 9, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/09/2017-04837/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states
- Executive Order 13933 (2020 – “Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence”) — Directed federal law enforcement to target protesters and authorized deployment of military personnel to protect monuments, expanding federal police power. Federal Register, July 2, 2020. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/02/2020-14509/protecting-american-monuments-memorials-and-statues-and-combating-recent-criminal-violence
- Executive Order 13950 (2020 – “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”) — Banned diversity and inclusion training deemed “divisive,” restricting free expression and imposing ideological conformity in federal workplaces. Federal Register, September 28, 2020. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping
- Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” to overturn the 2020 election results. The Washington Post, January 3, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
- Trump said he “would not be a dictator … except for Day 1,” implying intent to exercise extraordinary executive authority. Associated Press, December 6, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72
- Trump told Christian voters that if he won, “in four years you don’t have to vote again,” undermining the principle of continuing democratic elections. Reuters, July 27, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-vote-after-this-election-2024-07-27/
- Executive Order 14148 (2025 – “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”) — Revoked dozens of prior executive orders in a single sweep, centralizing policy power in the presidency and bypassing legislative oversight. Federal Register, January 28, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/28/2025-01901/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions
- Executive Order 14168 (2025 – “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”) — Directed agencies to eliminate transgender recognition in federal programs, using executive authority to impose a rigid social ideology. Federal Register, January 30, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/30/2025-02090/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal
- Trump posted the quote “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” suggesting law is secondary to his own perceived national mission. Reuters, February 16, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-if-it-saves-country-its-not-illegal-2025-02-16/
- Trump said, “Maybe we like a dictator … I’m not a dictator,” a rhetorical normalization of authoritarian rule. Time, August 26, 2025. https://time.com/7312196/trump-americans-maybe-we-like-a-dictator/
Chapter 3: The Supreme Court
- Justice Elena Kagan warned that the Court’s use of the emergency or “shadow” docket “erodes public trust in the Court as an independent and impartial institution.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
- Retired Justice Stephen Breyer cautioned that when the Court appears politically driven, “there’s a loss of faith in the Court and in our democratic system itself.” NPR, September 9, 2022. https://www.axios.com/2022/01/27/democracy-justice-breyer
- Former federal appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, in a July 2024 declared that the Court’s decision granting the president broad immunity was “irreconcilable with America’s democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.” https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20240701_200000_Deadline_White_House/start/1587/end/1647?q=sotomayor
- Laurence H. Tribe stated that the Court’s conservative majority has “transformed itself into an unelected super-legislature claiming ultimate power over the nation’s legal and political system,” undermining checks and balances. The Guardian, July 17, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/supreme-court-reform-biden
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that “the state of our democracy … keeps me up at night,” warning that recent rulings threaten the rule of law. CBS News, July 10 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-state-of-democracy/
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting in Trump v. CASA (2025), wrote that the Court’s “complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts … will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
- Stephen I. Vladeck observed that the current Court rulings sometimes have no written opinion nor was the case argued in Court. Southwestern Law School Montgomery Lecture, March 2025. https://www.swlaw.edu/2025MontgomeryLecture
Chapter 4: America is a Democracy No More
- Federal forces to U.S. cities (Portland), Federal officers deployed to Portland during 2020 protests; a later settlement followed allegations of excessive force., July 2020 (deployments); Feb 2025 (settlement), https://apnews.com/article/c5423a5ca7c78d0458b4467a39bf9d2f
- Out-of-state National Guard deployments to Washington, D.C., Guard units from multiple states were sent to D.C. under federal authority during protests and later security operations., June–July 2020; Aug 22 2025 (policy), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/22/dc-national-guard-weapons-trump-takeover/
- COVID data routed away from CDC, The Trump administration diverted hospital COVID reporting from CDC to HHS Protect, sparking transparency concerns., July 15 2020, https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/white-house-hospitals-bypass-cdc-report-covid-19-data-directly-hhs
- Georgia “find 11,780 votes” call, Trump pressed Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” votes sufficient to overturn the 2020 election; full transcript released., Jan 2 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
- Judge sanctions Sidney Powell for bad-faith litigation, Judge Linda Parker sanctioned Sidney Powell and co-counsel for filing election-fraud suits “in bad faith and for an improper purpose.”, July 12 2021, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-blasts-ex-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-over-lawsuit-overturn-us-election-2021-07-12/
- Rise of Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”, Congress’s research arm documented the Court’s growing use of emergency orders with limited explanation in significant cases., Aug 27 2021, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10637
- Supreme Court taking cases before appellate judgment, SCOTUS expanded use of “certiorari before judgment,” deciding major disputes before lower-court review completed., Jan 25 2022, https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/the-rise-of-certiorari-before-judgment/
- Trump and attorney sanctioned for frivolous RICO suit, Judge Donald Middlebrooks sanctioned Donald Trump and Alina Habba nearly $1 million for filing a politically motivated RICO case “in bad faith for an improper purpose.”, Jan 19 2023, https://www.cbsnews.com/video/judge-sanctions-trump-nearly-1m-for-hilary-clinton-lawsuit/
- Mar-a-Lago classified documents stored in public areas, DOJ photos show boxes of classified material in a bathroom, ballroom, and storage rooms at Trump’s Florida resort., June 9 2023, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/photos-from-trump-indictment-show-boxes-of-classified-documents-stored-in-mar-a-lago-shower-ballroom
- Giuliani defamation and discovery misconduct, Rudy Giuliani held liable and later in contempt for defaming Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss after “continued lies” and defiance of discovery orders., Aug 30 2023 (liability); Jan 10 2025 (contempt), https://www.apnews.com/article/74fa6e8e5543363dc45266ce453dcaa0
- Supreme Court presidential-immunity ruling, The Court recognized broad immunity for a president’s “official acts,” prompting warnings about unchecked executive power., July 1 2024, https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-trump-broad-immunity-for-official-acts-placing-presidents-above-the-law
- Judge sanctions Trump-aligned lawyers for meritless lawsuits, Federal court imposed penalties for frivolous post-election filings described as “filed in bad faith” and “a profound abuse of judicial process.”, June 4 2024, https://www.truthout.org/articles/lawyers-penalized-for-filing-meritless-lawsuits-that-trump-won-2020-election/
- Expanded expedited-removal policy, DHS moved to expand fast-track deportation nationwide, permitting removal without immigration-judge hearings unless asylum fear expressed., Jan 24 2025 (notice); Aug 29 2025 (injunction), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/24/2025-01720/designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal
- Court blocks expanded expedited removals, Federal judge temporarily halted expanded fast-track deportations on due-process grounds., Aug 29 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/08/29/trump-deportation-expedited-removal/
- Climate and scientific data removed from federal sites, Watchdogs documented continued removal and obstruction of public-access scientific datasets from federal websites., Feb 6 2025, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/climate-change-transparency-project-foia/2025-02-06/disappearing-data-trump
- John Eastman recommended for disbarment, California Bar judge recommended disbarment of Trump attorney John Eastman for actions that “undermined democracy and violated professional ethics.”, Jun 13, 2025, https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/john-eastman-state-bar-court-review-decision-in-disbarment-recommendation-remains
- Executive Order “Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP”, Order suspended security clearances for Perkins Coie attorneys and barred federal contracts, widely seen as retaliatory political coercion., Mar 6 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/
- Executive Order targeting WilmerHale rescinded after compliance, Order cancelled after firm pledged pro bono work and hiring-policy changes, seen as precedent for coerced law-firm compliance., Mar 27 2025, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/27/trump-wilmerhale-executive-order-00256030
- Trump administration pressures law firms, Legal organizations warned that executive actions targeting firms representing adversarial clients were “an attempt to intimidate professionals … from engaging in protected legal work.”, Apr 14 2025, https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/16/seattle-legal-organizations-perkins-coie/
- Trump announces pro bono “agreements” with major law firms, Administration claimed four major firms would provide $600 million in pro bono work to causes aligned with Trump policies—viewed as coerced settlements., Apr 11 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/11/trump-law-firms-deals-orders/
- Harvard University sues over frozen federal research funds, Harvard sued after the administration froze $2.2 billion in research grants for refusing to alter admissions, hiring, and diversity policies., Apr 21 2025, https://www.apnews.com/article/f098f55c6986b37e1227e7bcf8967a46
- University of Wisconsin–Madison research funding cut, Trump administration cut $12 million in research funding; Wisconsin and 15 states sued alleging ideological interference., Apr 10 2025, https://www.wpr.org/news/uw-madison-research-funding-cut-trump-administration
- University of California employees and unions sue federal government, UC plaintiffs alleged $584 million in grants were withheld and that officials demanded data access and ideological conditions for funding., Sep 17 2025, https://www.highereddive.com/news/uc-employees-unions-sue-trump-administration-over-financial-coercion/760452/
- States sue DHS over cuts to blue-state anti-terror grants, States challenged DHS for diverting security grants from Democratic to Republican states, alleging political retaliation., Sep 29 2025, https://www.courthousenews.com/states-sue-dhs-again-over-cuts-to-anti-terrorism-grants-for-blue-states/
- Federal judge blocks Trump DHS from cutting N.Y. transit funds, Judge ruled the administration’s denial of $34 million in transit-security funding to New York City “arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.”, Oct 16 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/16/trump-new-york-transit-security-money/
- Trump administration diverts anti-terror funds from blue to red states, DHS redirected Homeland Security Grant Program money away from Democratic-leaning states toward Republican states, drawing bipartisan criticism., Oct 16 2025, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-diverts-anti-terror-funds-democratic-strongholds-republican-states-2025-10-16/
- Mid-cycle redistricting trend expands, Several states pursued redistricting between censuses, a historically rare practice increasing since 2020., Aug 28 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/28/redistricting-between-censuses-has-been-rare-in-the-modern-era/
- North Carolina mid-cycle redraw push, NC Republican legislators advanced a new House map ahead of 2026 elections, part of a nationwide redistricting surge., Oct 13 2025, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/13/north-carolina-gop-announce-plans-to-vote-on-new-house-map-amid-nationwide-redistricting-battle-00606773
- Senate bulk confirmations, Senate Republicans confirmed 107 Trump nominees in a single bloc with minimal debate, the largest such vote in modern history., Oct 7 2025, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/oct/7/senate-confirms-107-trump-nominees-clearing-bulk-backlog/
- We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days., Oct 16, 2025, https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will
- DOJ lawyers have intentionally misled and lied to judges., Fired Justice Department lawyer says he refused to lie in the Abrego Garcia case, 10/19/2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/erez-reuveni-justice-department-whistleblower-kilmar-abrego-garcia-60-minutes/
- CBS News Chicago reporter had a projectile fired at her vehicle by an ICE agent, Criminal investigation launched after feds fire pepper ball at CBS Chicago reporter’s truck., 9/28/2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/feds-fire-pepper-ball-at-cbs-chicago-reporters-truck/
- Eighty-five percent of high level DOJ lawyers believe DOJ’s guardrails of non-politization have all but fallen away. 10/6/2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/06/magazine/legal-experts-trump-justice-department.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
- Protester Who Played ‘Star Wars’ Song Arrest in Washington, 10/23/25, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/us/politics/protester-who-played-star-wars-song-sues-after-arrest-in-washington.html?unlocked_article_code=1.v08.DymD.2Hf7Wb7oSxgb&smid=em-share
- Unfettered and Unaccountable: How Trump Is Building a Violent, Shadowy Federal Police Force, 10/18/2025, https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-dhs-ice-secret-police-civil-rights-unaccountable
- Are We Losing Our Democracy 10/31/2025, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/31/opinion/trump-autocracy-democracy-report.html?smid=url-share
- Federal Judge, Warning of ‘Existential Threat’ to Democracy, Resigns, 11/11/2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/09/us/politics/mark-wolf-federal-judge-resigns.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
- Judge Orders Trump Not to Threaten (extort) Academic Funding, 11/14/25, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/us/trump-university-of-california-funding.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1U8.jjoj.GqswdsZniTlq&smid=em-share
- Donald Trump’s plan to Subvert the Midterms is Already Under Way, 10/28/25, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/12/2026-midterms-trump-threat/684615/?gift=ZsHhgpkrA0h2FywU3gdjs1KTeHw6bRVePFsCTjOZF9Y
- The Trump Administration’s Favorite Tool for Criminalizing Dissent, 11/18/2025, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/favorite-statute-section-111-ice/684961/?gift=ZsHhgpkrA0h2FywU3gdjs5KMZUy2-5Bb-M5J8-8I_1I
- Trump Action Tracker. https://www.trumpactiontracker.info/?
Revisions:
10/26/2025: added section 7.12 10/30/2025: added reference to "Dear Colleague Letter" in section 7.11 10/31/2025: add reference 54 11/3/2025: revised Chapter 9 11/5/2025: revised Chapter 9 11/7/2025: editorial revisions to the Executive Summary 11/10/2025: added reference 55 11/15/2025: added reference 56 11/21/2025: added reference 57, 58 11/29/2025: added Democracy Docket voting law changes in Section 7.7 12/1/2025: added reference 59 1/16/2026: added sentence about Judge William Young
A much shorter, op-ed version of this essay is available at: Massachusetts’ Final Bulwark: A Proactive Defense Against the Authoritarian Tide
The associated essay is: How to Destroy a Democracy: The Authoritarian Playbook