Are we witnessing the unraveling of the union? Yet another episode in the Trump Show, to be superseded by a new drama next week? Or a legal disagreement to be carefully and bloodlessly settled in court?
Whatever the outcome, the letter sent by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Aug. 13 to Gov. Bob Ferguson, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell and more than 30 governors, mayors and other leaders across the nation was meant to attract attention. It did just that.
Now, every citizen will have to determine how to respond in their own way.
Bondi threatened that officials who disagreed with the Trump administration’s approach to illegal immigration “may be subject to criminal charges.”
“You are hereby notified that your jurisdiction has been identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement to the detriment of the interests of the United States. This ends now,” Bondi wrote.
The lawmakers who received the letter reacted along the spectrum of mild rebuke (New York Mayor Eric Adams’ two-paragraph letter via counsel) to a full-throated news conference (see video below) and pushback (Boston Mayor Michelle Wu).
Ferguson made an appropriate response.
Certain in the state’s position, deliberate in his words, Ferguson addressed the media and did not raise his voice, stating: “Let me be very clear. Washington state will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.”
Bondi has vowed to get tough with local and state governments that pushed back.
“We’re going to work with our other agencies to cut off their federal funding. We are going to send in law enforcement, just like we did during the L.A. riots, just like we’re doing here in Washington, D.C.,” she told Fox Business this week. “And if they’re not going to keep their citizens safe, Donald Trump will keep them safe.”
Were there legitimate legal threats contained in Bondi’s letter?
The attorney general pledged to prosecute officials who use their position to “obstruct federal immigration enforcement” and facilitate illegal immigration. Retired University of Washington law professor Hugh Spitzer told the editorial board that Bondi was unlikely to find anyone in the state who matched that description.
The White House could try to claw back federal funds, but the money would have to be related somehow to immigration, such as law enforcement grants, he said.
President Donald Trump cited protests over immigration raids when he announced a decision in June to put California’s National Guard under federal control in Los Angeles. Whether the Evergreen State could end up seeing armed forces patrolling the streets is anyone’s guess, said Spitzer.
“Do I think they’re going to send in troops? I don’t know. They could do anything these days. (Trump) just likes breaking things and destroying institutions.”
Ferguson has reason to be concerned. The average Washingtonian has reason to be concerned.
As to what to do about it, Spitzer agrees with those who call for constant, mass demonstrations.
“With the Trump people, they do not care about any of the traditional norms of our political system. And you can have all the constitutions you want and all the laws you want, but if the people who have power ignore norms and ignore the Constitution and the laws, you’re in deep doo-doo and you have to resist it.”
Situational awareness is an essential prerequisite to taking appropriate action. With each passing week, it becomes incumbent on citizens to gather the facts, ascertain whether the nation in which they live has indeed changed and take whatever peaceful action their conscience demands.
Ferguson and Harrell may be in the crosshairs, but for average Washingtonians, everything is at stake.
