How to Fight Tyranny When the Law No Longer Matters
Trump has already abandoned the Constitution. Democrats must decide whether they will fight back within a broken system—or break the system themselves to save democracy.
We all knew Trump was lawless. That was never in question. But even after years of watching him shred legal norms and defy accountability, his recent actions have managed to stun even those who thought they could no longer be shocked, myself excluded.
Legal experts have sounded the alarm, warning that never in American history has a president so brazenly disregarded the Constitution and the rule of law. They call this a “constitutional crisis.”
That is wrong. Not just because the term is inadequate, but because it fundamentally misdiagnoses what we are living through.
“This is not a constitutional crisis. It is a coup. That is not an exaggeration. It is not hyperbole. It is a plain description of reality.”
First, this is not one constitutional crisis—it is several, each unfolding simultaneously. Trump is not testing the limits of the system in a single way; he is dismantling multiple guardrails at once, overwhelming the ability of institutions to respond.
But more importantly, the terminology of “constitutional crisis” is descriptively inaccurate. This is not a constitutional crisis. It is a coup. That is not an exaggeration. It is not hyperbole. It is a plain description of reality. And if we cannot bring ourselves to say it, we will never do what is necessary to stop it.
Calling this a “constitutional crisis” assumes that the system is still functioning—that the checks and balances designed to constrain executive power are intact but temporarily strained.
That is not the case.
The mechanisms of constitutional government are not just malfunctioning—they are nonfunctioning. The Republican-controlled Congress has already surrendered its role as a check on the executive, and federal agencies are being purged to ensure loyalty to Trump. And now, the courts—the last remaining institutional guardrail—are being openly defied.
With no branch of government left willing or able to constrain him, Trump will no longer be a president operating outside his authority—he will be an unrestrained tyrant, ruling by force rather than law. The Constitution will be extinct. American democracy, in any meaningful sense, will cease to exist. This is not hyperbole. It is an honest description of what is happening.
And yet, in the face of all this, elected Democrats are doing nothing. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already signaled that Democrats will not refuse to raise the debt ceiling—a move that Republicans have routinely used to force concessions and sow chaos whenever they were in the minority. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has all but admitted that Democrats have no real plan because they lack power in Congress or the White House.
The problem with these statements—of which there are several—is that they reflect a fundamental failure to understand the nature of the moment. These Democrats are still thinking within the rules and norms of the constitutional system that existed in America from 1791, the time of the Constitution’s ratification, to January 20, 2025—the day that system ceased to function.
“Democrats cannot respond to an illegal seizure of power by wondering what the Constitution permits them to do. They must ask what it will take to stop Trump—whether the Constitution allows it or not.”
It is true that, under the old order, there is little Democrats can do through constitutional means. They do not hold the presidency or a majority in either chamber of Congress. But their mistake is in assuming that the only legitimate response to Trump’s lawlessness is to stay within constitutional bounds, as if the Constitution still governs how power operates in this country.
Trump did not begin his unlawful takeover by asking what powers properly belonged to him under the American Constitution. He seized whatever power he wanted, whenever he wanted, and dared anyone to stop him. Democrats cannot respond to an illegal seizure of power by wondering what the Constitution permits them to do. They must ask what it will take to stop Trump—whether the Constitution allows it or not.
The foundation of American democracy has always been the explicit social contract embodied in the Constitution—an agreement that all political actors, regardless of party, have observed for centuries. But a contract cannot function if one party unilaterally decides to violate its terms while insisting that the other party remain bound by them. At that point, the contract is null and void.
If Trump is willing to shatter the constitutional order, then Democrats must abandon the assumption that normal political responses will suffice. They must begin considering actions that would have previously been unthinkable in any period of American history outside of the Civil War—the last time the Constitution ceased to function as the governing framework of the nation. That may sound extreme, but it’s the truth of where we are now as a country and, increasingly, where we’re headed.
The American constitutional order is not just a compact between the three branches of the federal government—it is also an agreement between the federal government and the states. James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, famously argued that the sheer size and decentralized nature of the American republic would serve as a bulwark against tyranny. For most of American history, that was only an abstract principle. Now, in the unfolding implementation of Project 2025, we know exactly what he meant.
Right now, the Trump administration is actively centralizing all federal power within the executive branch. The goal is simple: to consolidate the entire machinery of government under the control of the presidency. Trying to fight this from within the federal government—without control of the presidency itself—is a losing battle. And Trump knows that. That is why the fight must shift to the states.
After Trump’s re-election last year, a rumor began circulating online that Gavin Newsom had suggested California would consider withholding federal tax revenue if Trump ignored the rule of law. Though Newsom himself never actually proposed this, the fact that it resonated so widely speaks to a deeper truth.
When I first heard about the tax withholding idea, I was skeptical—not because I doubted that such extreme action might be necessary in the face of Trump’s even more extreme lawlessness, but because I understood exactly what such a move would mean. The only word to describe it is secession—via economic means.
That word carries heavy historical weight and controversy for understandable reasons. The last time states attempted to secede from the Union, they did so in the name of protecting an indefensible system built on the enslavement of human beings. The Civil War forever cemented secession as an inherently reactionary, morally distasteful act in the American imagination.
But this would not be that kind of secession. First of all, this would be entirely nonviolent. It would not be an armed rebellion but a form of economic resistance—a strategic effort to deny an unlawful government the resources it needs to function. In effect, it would be a set of economic sanctions, imposed not by a foreign adversary, but by a coalition of states refusing to finance the destruction of American democracy.
Secondly, unlike the first secession, this would not be an attempt to dismantle democracy but an attempt to preserve it in the face of a leader who has openly declared his intention to rule without limits. It would not be a rebellion against the Union, but a defense of the principles on which it was founded.
To be clear, I am not advocating for this. I am simply pointing out that if Trump continues to act without any respect for the rule of law or the Constitution, we will be forced into a conversation that no one in America ever expected to have again—a conversation about whether states must act independently to protect the democratic order when the federal government itself has become its greatest threat.
How Economic Secession Would Work
The states best positioned to lead this effort are, unsurprisingly, the Democratic-leaning blue states. The federal tax system is fundamentally lopsided—with blue states paying more into the system than they get back, while red states are disproportionately reliant on federal spending. In other words, blue states are the economic backbone of the federal government, while many red states operate at a deficit, dependent on federal aid.
In 2022, for example:
California contributed $83.1 billion more in federal taxes than it received in federal funding, making it the largest “donor state” by a wide margin.
Three of the top five states with the highest balance of payments (BOPs) with the federal government were blue states. (Virginia, New Mexico, Maryland).
On a per capita basis, blue states were the top four “donor states” that paid the most revenue to the federal government. (California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington)
Meanwhile, red states are overwhelmingly dependent on federal funds:
Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Alabama all receive far more in federal spending than they contribute in taxes.
In 2018, for every dollar Kentucky paid in federal taxes, it received $2.61 in federal spending.
Mississippi’s ratio was even higher—getting $2.73 for every $1 contributed.
The biggest logistical challenge to withholding federal tax revenue is that income taxes are paid directly to the federal government, bypassing state control. To stop the flow of funds, states would need to pass emergency legislation instructing employers to redirect federal tax withholdings into a state-controlled escrow account instead of sending them to the IRS. These funds would be held by the state rather than immediately transferred to the federal government, effectively blocking access to billions in tax revenue. Businesses would be caught between conflicting state and federal laws, triggering a legal and political crisis that would force a showdown over Trump’s authority.
The economic fallout from a coordinated blue-state tax revolt would be immediate and severe. The federal government relies on a steady and uninterrupted flow of tax revenue to fund its operations, service its debt, and maintain basic financial stability. In 2020, blue states alone accounted for approximately 60% of all federal tax revenue. If even half of that revenue were withheld, it would cripple federal operations overnight, starving the Trump administration of the funds it needs to function. The consequences would be felt across every sector of government—forcing difficult trade-offs between military spending, social programs, and debt payments.
The impact would extend far beyond Washington. The U.S. bond market would immediately panic, as investors watching the federal government lose a massive share of its revenue would begin dumping Treasury securities. Credit downgrades would follow, making it drastically more expensive for the government to borrow money. Markets would spiral, businesses would pull back on hiring and investment, and the economy would tilt toward a self-inflicted financial crisis—all of it traceable directly to Trump’s lawlessness.
If any of this sounds extreme—and it is—just remember that Republicans in Congress routinely threaten the same kind of economic destruction every time they play games with the debt ceiling. Where they are willing to risk a catastrophic default on U.S. debt just to score political points or force meaningless concessions, we would be doing it to save democracy.
Trump is, at his core, a bully. And bullies only respond to force. You cannot cajole them, negotiate with them, or appeal to their conscience—because they have none. It doesn’t matter if you hate them, judge them, or condemn them. As long as you can’t stop them, they don’t care. The only thing that defeats power is greater power. And the only way to stop a bully is for someone to finally tell them “no”—and have the strength to back it up.
“The most important lesson Trump must learn is that there are consequences for his actions . . . If he continues down this path, he must discover—not through words, but through action—that there are people with the power to do things to him that he will not like.”
Trump has never shown much interest in policy, governance, or the Constitution. But two things reliably get his attention: his precious “ratings” and the stock market. He has tied his political identity to economic performance, routinely pointing to stock market highs as evidence of his success. A financial meltdown caused by his own power grabs would create a powerful disincentive for further authoritarian overreach—one he could not ignore.
The most important lesson Trump must learn is that there are consequences for his actions. Up until now, he has operated with total impunity, convinced that no institution, no court, and no political opposition can actually stop him. That has to change. If he continues down this path, he must discover—not through words, but through action—that there are people with the power to do things to him that he will not like.
Anticipating the Response
If blue states were to take any of these actions, they would immediately face legal challenges. The courts would almost certainly rule—unanimously and without hesitation—that states withholding federal tax revenue is unconstitutional. Federal judges, including those appointed by Democratic presidents, would reaffirm the supremacy of federal authority, citing constitutional provisions and precedent that prohibit states from waging economic war against the federal government.
In any other era, this would be the end of the discussion. But binding judicial authority only exists in a system where all sides agree to abide by the courts’ rulings. That was the norm under America 1.0—before Trump 2.0 rewrote the rules of governance.
“If one side in a constitutional order unilaterally declares itself above the law, the other side is not bound to remain shackled by it.”
Trump’s team has already made clear that they do not believe he is bound by court rulings that go against him. His administration has openly stated that he would ignore judicial decisions that constrain his power, particularly on issues like immigration and the prosecution of his political enemies. Figures like Elon Musk and JD Vance are openly normalizing the idea that Trump should ignore judicial rulings, amplifying posts that encourage his administration to simply disregard the courts.
If the sitting president refuses to respect the authority of the courts, then why should Democratic states feel obligated to do so, especially when doing so only serves to reinforce Trump’s unchecked rule? If one side in a constitutional order unilaterally declares itself above the law, the other side is not bound to remain shackled by it.
Of course, if blue states were to follow through on an economic rebellion against the federal government, no one would expect Trump to simply take it on the chin. Dictators generally do not tolerate resistance to their dictatorship. Trump has already spoken openly about shooting protestors and invoking the Insurrection Act to crush domestic opposition.
If Democratic states were to withhold tax revenues or block federal control over assets within their borders, Trump would almost certainly label it an illegal insurrection or rebellion—a deeply ironic accusation from the man who incited an actual insurrection. His response would be swift and aggressive. The first move would likely be to arrest and detain Democratic governors, state officials, and other political leaders under the pretext of restoring “law & order.” Federal troops could be deployed to seize control of key infrastructure, military bases, and state capitols. If state-level resistance escalated, Trump could escalate further, using overwhelming military force to suppress any opposition.
Blue states must anticipate this and be prepared to counteract it. At the moment they decide to launch an economic boycott against the federal government, they must also be prepared, if necessary, to take immediate steps to neutralize the coercive power of the federal government within their borders. This means seizing control of military bases, blockading federal buildings, and cutting off logistical support to federal law enforcement. It means preventing federal troops from mobilizing, obstructing the movement of federal resources, and making it logistically impossible for Trump to reassert his authority. If blue states wait for Trump to weaponize the full force of the federal government against them, it will be too late.
None of this is what I hope for or want for the country. I personally do not advocate for any of these extreme measures. But if Trump succeeds in dismantling the Constitution and consolidating authoritarian rule, we have to ask ourselves what we, as Americans, are prepared to do about it.
It is important to emphasize that while we are not yet at the point where these drastic actions will be necessary, we are speeding toward it. That is why we must start thinking about these questions now. No matter how unpleasant, no matter how previously unimaginable, we have to confront them before they become reality.
The idea that we can simply wait for the next presidential election, or even the midterms in two years, is a comfortable but dangerous illusion. The assumption underlying that thinking is that Trump’s rule will be constrained by normal political cycles, that his presidency will operate within the framework of elections and institutional checks.
That assumption is false.
The most alarming aspect of the past few weeks is that none of Trump’s most blatantly illegal actions have required congressional approval. He has not waited for Congress to pass laws enabling his power grabs; he has simply done what he wanted, without regard for legal or constitutional constraints. The traditional levers of legislative opposition—the ability to retake Congress, the idea of passing new laws to block Trump’s agenda—are meaningless if Trump governs by executive fiat and refuses to acknowledge any limits on his authority.
If this continues, then Democrats winning Congress in 2026 will accomplish nothing. As long as Trump controls the executive agencies, federal law enforcement, and the military, he will act as if he is the sole source of power in the country. And if there is no force capable of stopping him, then for all intents and purposes, he will be right.
Jason Chukwuma (@truthispeaking) is the creator of TRUTH IS SPEAKING on YouTube and the TRUTH SPEAKS newsletter on Substack, delivering sharp commentary on politics, news, and culture. His work reaches audiences across Instagram, Twitter (never X), Medium, and more, and has been featured on MSNBC and The Daily Beast, establishing him as a rising voice on politics and culture. He is a student at Harvard Law School and a graduate of Harvard College.
Thank You to My Patrons!
A huge shoutout to my Patreon subscribers who help keep this platform alive. Special thanks to Chance McKimmy, a TRUTH SPEAKER, and Deb Way, a TRUTH KEEPER, for their support. The more this channel is powered by fans like you, the more independent I can remain—free to keep speaking truth without filters, without fear, and without compromise. If you want to support my work and help amplify this message, you can subscribe to my Patreon here.