Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Trump is my president. Let’s talk

In a democracy, the democratically elected president is the president. Citizens who reject this, promote an agenda against democracy itself.

I am a U.S. citizen and therefore Trump is currently as of October 2025, my president. This is the reality whether I like it or not. Trump is the democratically elected president of the United States. He won an election unanimously that was relatively uncontested by observers, and for the first time ever he is a Republican candidate who would still have won even if all non-voters had voted.

A common slogan in recent anti-Trump protests is “Not my president“. The slogan “Not my president” is a symbolic rejection of democracy. The (mostly Democrat voting) protestors reject the results of a democratic process. The implications of this protest message, are that the protestors would suspend democracy to have a different outcome if they could. The reason that it is ‘OK’ in this case to suspend democracy would be because Trump is “wrong”, “evil” or  “unhinged“. These are the same protestors who bewail the decline of democracy BTW.

The mass January 6th protest against the 2020 election results, and insurrection by those who tried to or forcibly enter the Capitol, is basically the same. It was based on rejection by (the mostly Republican voting) protestors of the Democratic election result of Biden as president. It, like the “Not my president” slogan, was a rejection of the Democratic system itself. Because one group did not like the outcome. The implications are that we should throw out democracy to have a different outcome.

The two sides who are regularly protesting one another because they see democracy as under threat, engage in protest messages and actions that themselves threaten democracy. Protest is a foundational element of democracy – a human right in my opinion. But I a skeptical of these democratic protests that seem to hypocritically suggest we suspend democracy. 

We, the U.S., are in a state of historically unprecedented partisan division. Each side claims moral authority, and in doing so rules out the opinions and preferences of the other side as illegitimate and wrong.

This is not a formula for democracy nor a cohesive society. It eliminates the possibility of communication. And communication is one of two ways to resolve conflict – the other being domination (conflict, elimination of the opposing position).

A necessary condition for successful communication is that all opinions are valid. That each person has a legitimate right to have any opinion. That it is OK to disagree with each others’ opinions, but that it is not OK to claim moral authority that others’ opinions are wrong (nonsense, evil, unethical, stupid, insane, etc.). By ‘not OK’, I mean, not OK to be shared in a communicative setting, leading to communication breakdown and conflict (mobilization, domination, war, etc.).

If someone says that they think black people are dangerous, untrustworthy and criminals; or that women and men should fulfill certain roles in society and families as dictated by genes and chromosomes, or by God; or if they say that children should not be allowed to change gender, especially not take puberty-delaying drugs. I will only effectively communicate with them if recognize their opinions as valid and provide a safe space for them to share these opinions. To try and understand why they have them, and to seek a way forward that doesn’t require them to give up their opinion because I say so.

If someone says that black people have been systematically oppressed, that race is not an essential feature of human beings and is instead socially constructed; or that it is right for the government to promote equality; or that we should ignore gender in social life and treat men and women identically in all situations. I again will only make progress in communication when recognizing these opinions as valid and create a safe space for them to be shared.

If I am not willing to sit that my opinion has no ultimate truth to it, or that it is morally or intellectually superior to others’ opinions, I am not supporting democratic society, but instead my own vision of a society where I dictate opinion for others. That’s not democracy. So I question what we are doing with claiming when we claim that our position is right and others are wrong, and thinking that this is a democratic process.

Image AI credit

The ISA should not ban scientific associations for failing to take political stances.

On June 29th, 2025, just one week before its World Forum in Rabat, Morocco, the International Sociological Association (ISA) leadership banned the Israeli Sociological Society (ISS).

The reason is that the ISS did not take “a clear position condemning the dramatic situation in Gaza.” In other words, that they are not taking a position in direct opposition to and protest of their own government. Although there are reasons that some would want to take such a position, in particular the incredible humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it is not fair to punish a scientific organization for not taking this position. In other words, not fair to try and force a scientific organization to mix itself in with politics. I can think of three concrete reasons.

  1. Science itself should prioritize inquiry, not political action. We conduct research and develop theories, that is science. Sociology is the science of society and social interaction. Therefore, sociologists should (continue to) engage with the war and humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. They should try to present facts to answer the questions: What is happening there? Who is affected? Are the actions of the Israeli military in violation of the Geneva Convention? Is this a genocide? To blackmail other scientists to force them to take political action or face consequences to their participation in science and scientific exchange, runs counter to prioritization of inquiry in science.
  2. Scientists taking political positions could be in danger. In particular in authoritarian, or martial law settings, scientists who stand up against their government put not only their scientific enterprise at risk, but also their lives and their families’ lives potentially at risk. The ISA is demanding that members of the ISS take actions that could lead to their Society facing funding cuts or being cancelled altogether. Even worse, the ISA is demanding that Israeli sociologists take a position counter to their government in the middle of one of a radically politically charged historical moments – it is asking them to potentially put their lives as risk.
  3. Where do we draw the lines of where to take political action? If a humanitarian crisis and what appears to some scholars as a genocide are conditions for taking political action on part of the ISA, where do we draw the line? Why does the ISA not ban all Myanmar sociologists from participating because of the situation of the Rohingya? Perhaps even more perplexing are the odd exceptions: The ISS is banned, but what if an Israeli sociologist is not a member, can they participate? Perhaps someone forgot to pay their membership dues this year but was a member before. Can they participate? What about the United States and Germany? These are the greatest allies of Israel, why are they not banned? What about Russia invading Ukraine? These questions are rhetorical, because this is a Pandora’s box that is infinite and quickly digresses into everyone getting banned.

In fairness, there is a humanitarian disaster going on in Gaza. It is tragic for all the innocent bystanders swept up in it. Those who have been kidnapped, killed, harmed by bombing. Its awful to watch. But I am not writing this in regards to any political movement or government. I am writing this to defend science, which I see as my responsibility.

Amy Coney Barrett, Science and Democracy

Democracy is a system of governance that protects a society against tyranny. It prevents mob rule. It does so through rule of law. A democracy is only as strong as its legal enforcement mechanisms. Every democracy is imperfect, like the people living in it and governing it. But if laws hold firm, a democracy empowers its own citizens and guarantees their right to elect their own leaders, take part in politics and freely express their opinions.

US Constitution

The rule of law is not guaranteed. During times of war, democracies often experience marshal law, a suspension of some or all democratic rights. This also happens during emergencies like a massive economic collapse or domestic disturbance. As any AI or historian will tell you, rule of law is almost always removed due to actions from the executive branch of government. Executive orders that suspend democratic rule for some ‘valid’ reason, can lead to permanent suspension.

For example, economic depression hit Weimar Germany leading to executive orders suspending democratic rule, and an attempted coup in Turkey led to executive removal of many democratic institutions. The list is long. I recommend an AI prompt like “Give common reasons for the suspension of democratic rule either temporarily or permanently using as many historical examples as possible. Please categorize them by causes (e.g., war, economic shock, etc.)” for a quick history lesson.

The end of democracy is a new buzz concept in the United States. It became prominent in the media during the first Trump presidency. Media profit is driven by fear, and a potential end of democracy is freakishly scary. These fears ramped up dramatically after the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. The scariest part perhaps was that it was insinuated by President Trump, the leader of the executive branch. I have had conversations with many people, including extremely knowledgeable professors, that are riddled with these fears. On the other ‘side’ are radical media messages about a ‘cultural Marxist‘ takeover whose goal is ending democracy and replacing it with socialism, and this also promotes fear. Not only does fear sell media, it also motivates people to vote.

The direct attack on the U.S. capitol building could be seen many ways. Although attacking a U.S. government building is illegal, it had elements of protest and assembly that Americans understand as their Constitutional right. But even if we ‘excuse’ this event as a social movement, there are more recent efforts that could be seen as putting democracy at risk. The current executive orders to gut government is a move to consolidate power which is a key step in most previous successful ends of democratic rule. Trump also recently indicated he planned to declare protesting on college campuses illegal, a contradiction of the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly. So maybe these fears are founded. Maybe Trump wants to end democracy.

I see the question of whether Trump wants to end democracy as irrelevant in comparison to a more important question:

Although history teaches us that anything is possible, this seems unlikely. Consider that the judicial branch of government is responsible for the rule of law, and law is democracy. This makes the judiciary the primary protector of democracy. The top of this branch in the U.S. is the Supreme Court. Any action that ends democratic rule of law, would have to pass a Supreme Court ruling.

A judiciary is supposed to be a non-partisan branch, but there is a perception that this Court is increasingly partisan. A perception fueled by fear-mongering profit-hungry media cashing in on ideas that the U.S. is being taken over by ‘Nazis’ or ‘socialists’ or even ‘alien child molesters‘, and banking on the tiny share of people who seek chaos, to ‘burn everything down’ and ‘troll‘ social interactions online by tricking, heckling and shaming others.

Of course Justice’s have political ideologies and position themselves on certain sides of issues. They are citizens and humans. Their positions lead to interpretations of laws that tend to support their own ideologies. This was crystal clear in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), where the conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, in line with their anti-abortion ideologies. People, including justices and scientists, have bias. The question is:

Enter Amy Coney Barrett, the newest Supreme Court appointee and the deciding vote in the Roe v. Wade decision ending a woman’s right to have an abortion (the winning 5-4 vote would have been 4-5 if Ginsberg with her very different ideology had instead voted). Barrett is a Justice Republicans rave about for her extreme conservative ideology.

The Office of the President of the United States

Some see Barrett as a plant. That she will do whatever Trump wants.

Let’s pause for a second and consider the following: Ending democracy would violate at least three aspects of the Constitution that Barrett and every Justice have sworn to uphold: 1) direct elections of legislators, 2) indirect election of the executive through the Electoral College, and 3) it would likely take away freedom of speech and assembly. The third is an educated guess. We never had a non-democratic form of governance in modern human history that allows free speech and assembly.

What would lead a Justice to end democracy? They could be offered enormous personal gains. But these would be so high that it would be impossible to transfer such power and capital to them without being noticed and prosecuted as unethical and illegal for someone in a judicial role. Also, if they were offered an enormous sum of money or power, there is no guarantee they can keep it one democracy ends. Justices are highly educated persons, they would be able to make this rational calculation.

The other way a Justice would end democracy is on accident. Perhaps they pass laws whose consequences and risks are not clearly understood. The case of Citizens United v. FEC (2010) for example, ruled that citizens, corporations or special interests can spend unlimited money on political campaigns. This was argued by the majority as protecting free speech, that free spending on politics is equivalent to freedom of speech and expression. This has consequences that were unforeseen. For example, if other countries, corporations or persons combine their efforts they can have a larger influence on U.S. politics than any American or American interest. For enemies of the U.S., this ruling is a legal pass to undermine American politics, business interests and power.

This is where the importance of science comes in. Science means “a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject” (Oxford Online Dictionary). Every judge, clerk and lawyer is a scientist by this definition. They systematically investigate and understand the laws of the United States. This requires usually 7 or more years of studying law and passing an exam to earn the right to practice law. Every Supreme Court Justice is a scientist of law. We often do not use the word “science” when talking about them, but that is what they do. They work with systematic, organized and historical knowledge of laws, events and how the two are related.

Amy Coney Barrett seems to have little experience practicing law. She was a Professor of Law at Notre Dame for over 15 years, but has only 3 years experience working at a law office and some clerking experience at the beginning of her career. But a lawyer and a professor of law do much the same things. Both have to know their subject deeply and then make arguments about it. The lawyer tries to win a case and the professor tries to publish scientific articles and books, they do so through logical argumentation based on their research.

To argue a case or decide on a case requires a scientific investigation of the law. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), it was necessary to understand the neuroscience of adolescent brain development. Because juveniles have less impulse control and decision-making capacity, executing them is cruel and unusual punishment. The better scientific research that justices do, the better the chance that the Constitution will be protected. If they are sloppy and do not do enough scientific research, that is when they risk unforeseen consequences like with Citizens United v. FEC (2010) which introduces a serious security risk to the government of the United States.

Although Justices may be of different opinions about how much political power is allowable to single individuals or corporations, they would all agree that if all of the power were in the hands of one individual that it would no longer be a democracy – a word that literally means decision making power in the hands of the people rather than just one of them.

This makes Amy Coney Barrett among the fittest defenders of democracy on the court. She and John Roberts are extremely experienced scientists of law. Roberts was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, an academic journal, one that is based on scientific research, analysis and interpretation of law. He has the most practical experience of any Justice and when he worked as a lawyer he won 25 of 39 cases argued before the Supreme Court. To do that, he had to do extensive research and construct logical (scientific) arguments based on this research.

Barrett on the other hand has less ‘practical’ experience. But look at her CV or read one of her science of law publications. She spent just as much time as Roberts (adjusted for her age) analyzing law, systematically developing a knowledge and logical interpretation of law. This is what every scientist does and what ideally every person in a judicial career does. The stronger their scientific work, the better the protection of the laws themselves, and the lower the risks a ruling will introduce a threat to democracy. For this reason, science is at the center of protecting democracy. Science has to be a priority if the U.S. is to remain a democracy.

Whether abortion is legal or not will not matter anymore if the United States becomes an autocracy like Russia. The right to argue and fight for our preferences regarding race, money in politics, intergenerational trauma resulting from several wars and a system of slavery, abortion, or whether felons have the right to vote are luxuries that we have because we are a democracy, and we will remain a democracy if we prioritize science. Amy Coney Barrett is a scientist, and when she follows her scientific practices, will not vote to end democracy. This puts her in a crucial role in case Trump does have such intentions.

Barrett already has upheld the sanctity of contracts in Trump’s attempt to refuse to pay government workers. Contracts are a crucial aspect of democracy which cannot function if any party is free to void a preexisting contract. For me, this is evidence of her scientific, legal mind.

It should prevail regardless of my lack of agreement with her conservative ideology.