You can understand the Trump administration as, in its essence, a cargo cult devoted to the illiberal tradition in American politics.
At every turn, it seeks to instantiate a society where, as historian Steven Hahn writes, “rights-bearing may be defined or limited by specific rulers or be based on communities of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender” and where “civil and political standing tend to be marked by social and cultural exclusions.” To this end, it uses power “in its most naked and aggressive forms,” including outright violence.
What makes this a cargo cult is the extent to which the administration is preoccupied with summoning the image of a consolidated authoritarian state, versus taking the concrete steps needed to unravel liberal democracy as such. It is less concerned with passing laws than it is with projecting an image of dominance over civil society, whether or not there is a durable settlement. It does this through dramatic action whose central purpose is to menace, threaten and otherwise send a message.
The Department of Homeland Security’s recent raid on the Washington, D.C., home of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is a striking example of all of the above. The pretext of the raid is immigration enforcement. The White House asserts that Omar obtained her citizenship under false pretenses after she arrived to the United States from Somalia as a child, brought over by her father, who filed the required paperwork.
The specific charge is that Omar was listed as being 17 — and thus eligible for automatic citizenship through her father — when she was actually 18 and a legal adult who would have to obtain citizenship on her own. The raid was a fishing expedition — an attempt to build a case, any case, using materials seized from her home, including her cellphone, notebooks, personal computers and her passport. The goal appears to be to denaturalize Omar and then remove her from the country as an “illegal alien.” As the so-called border czar Tom Homan told Fox News on Saturday, “If you lie during the naturalization process, there is a process to denaturalize somebody. We’ve done it before … and certainly, if the evidence points that way, that could happen.”
Both the charge and the case are obvious nonsense. There is no evidence that Omar lied or otherwise misled the federal government to obtain citizenship. The idea itself comes from the fetid swamps of the online far right — an expression of the anti-Somali bigotry that President Donald Trump has elevated to the equivalent of state ideology. And in turn, the government’s hunt for evidence to wield against Omar is less about combating fraud and more about the president’s racist crusade against Somali Americans as well as his specific disdain for Omar, a vocal (and visible) political opponent of his administration.
It is because the investigation seems likely to fail on the merits — and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to intimidate a political opponent — that the spectacle carries the flavor of cargo cult activity. And yet, it still represents a shocking escalation of the president’s reactionary dominance politics, as well as an assault on a set of basic constitutional guarantees.
It should be said that the drive to denaturalize Omar is, by itself, a startling attack on the liberty of all Americans. It’s a move that harks back to the worst of the nation’s past — those moments when the government sought to shape, define and ultimately choose who would be “the people” of the United States.
“The United States has regularly revoked the citizenship of native-born and naturalized citizens alike,” legal historian Amanda Frost observes in “You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers.” At its core, she continues, “citizenship stripping embodies the view that society can cast out its unwanted and use that process to redefine itself and all those allowed to remain.”
The effort to denaturalize Omar is reminiscent of the federal government’s pursuit of Emma Goldman, the Lithuanian-born anarchist and activist who was hounded out of the United States for her political views. One of millions of émigrés from the Russian Empire, Goldman escaped poverty and state-supported antisemitism as a teenager, reaching New York City in 1885. By the turn of the century, she was making her mark on American society as a powerful and magnetic proponent of human rights — of workers, of women, of immigrants — against hierarchies of all kinds.
In 1906, in the midst of mass immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, Congress passed the Basic Naturalization Act, which gave the government the right to denaturalize American citizens. Denaturalization was permitted, writes Frost, “ ‘on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured’ — standards that could lead to denaturalization for minor errors in naturalization applications filed long in the past.” And the government, in Frost’s telling, focused its scrutiny on those immigrants who were a thorn in its side, like Goldman.
Goldman’s citizenship came through her former husband, Jacob Kershner, a fellow immigrant and naturalized citizen. But a handful of minor mistakes in his journey to citizenship were grounds to denaturalize him and, more important to federal officials, void Goldman’s claim to citizenship. She was arrested in 1917 for agitating against America’s involvement in World War I, in violation of the Espionage Act. A young J. Edgar Hoover, then leading the government’s crusade against radicals, traveled to New York City to witness her deportation.
Most Americans who know this history look back at these episodes with shame and regret. Not so the Trump administration and its allies. For them, these moments of authoritarian abuse — when the federal government used its power to target opponents, harass dissidents and hunt disfavored groups — are proof of concept.
The White House seems to think that if it goes through the motions of repression, it can get the same results. Hence the cargo cult quality of its actions here and in other arenas. Not only is there broad and deeply felt opposition to the administration’s attempts to persecute and ostracize its critics, but there is little about the politics of the moment that favor the White House and its allies. The president, after all, is more unpopular than he has ever been.
If the Trump administration has one trick, it’s this: to abuse its power in increasingly draconian and autocratic ways, in the hope that it will establish the authoritarian dominance it tried to project. It is terribly destructive. It also doesn’t work. Looking at the growing odds of a Republican electoral catastrophe in November, I don’t think it will.
But if we can be certain of anything, it’s this: They won’t stop trying.
