As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, law professor Claire Finkelstein draws alarming parallels between King George III's grievances and Donald Trump's actions, warning that Americans must again reject monarchical rule. In an opinion piece for the Guardian, Finkelstein, the Algernon Biddle professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that Trump's consolidation of power through military and judicial control echoes the tyranny that sparked the American Revolution.
Historical Grievances Resurface
The Declaration of Independence listed multiple complaints against King George III, including taxation without representation, quartering of troops, and using the military to suppress civilians. Finkelstein notes that today, Trump has deployed ICE and CBP officers to harass people, federalized the National Guard and Marines in US cities, and used federal troops over objections of Democratic governors. She cites protests in Portland in 2020 and Minnesota in 2026 as examples where federal force was portrayed as necessary against violent unrest.
According to Finkelstein, Trump's campaign to press federal troops into service against political opposition has required removing top Pentagon lawyers and pressuring those who object to Department of Defense policies. This undermines integrity in the military and encourages compliance with legally questionable policies, such as strikes on drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
Judicial Checks Under Attack
The Declaration also criticized King George's attacks on the judiciary. Finkelstein points to the Supreme Court's December decision in Trump v Illinois, where the court ruled that Trump violated the law by federalizing the Illinois National Guard to control civil unrest in Chicago. The court found the administration exceeded its authority under 10 USC §12406. However, Finkelstein warns this was likely a temporary setback, as Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act, which civil rights groups warn may be an unassailable assertion of presidential might.
Finkelstein, who takes a more tempered view of the Insurrection Act, notes it is generally more supportive of a president's ability to federalize troops over state objections than any other law. She speculates Trump may be saving it for a 'break-glass moment' such as the midterms.
Military Involvement in Elections
Finkelstein warns that Trump may use federal troops to influence the midterm elections. She recalls that after losing the 2020 election, Trump entertained a plan with Michael Flynn and Mike Lindell to use the army to seize voting machines. Although he was talked out of it, he has recently expressed regret. She notes that Trump's incentives to tamper with the midterms are high, as a Democratic-led House could impeach him or conduct investigations leading to prosecution.
The administration has already attempted to seize voter roll data and filed lawsuits to enforce demands, though several district court rulings have found these actions unlawful. Trump has also positioned himself to contest election results, declaring fraud in California elections and stating the state's voting mechanisms are under investigation.
Legal and Military Resistance
Finkelstein argues that while using the military to interfere with elections would likely be a crime, the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Trump v United States grants presidents immunity for official acts. This could insulate Trump from prosecution for domestic deployments. She questions whether troops would follow illegal orders, noting that orders could be accompanied by an Office of Legal Counsel opinion asserting legality, making it challenging for enlisted troops to second-guess. Military lawyers are not emboldened to speak up against illegal orders, on pain of removal or prosecution.
If Trump deploys the National Guard to control voting, Finkelstein believes opposition would be greater than for previous actions, given legal norms forbidding troops at polls. Resistance could come from military leadership and Congress. She emphasizes that immunity for the president would likely not trickle down to others in the chain of command, such as the Secretary of Defense or Northcom commander. However, the president could dangle pardons to secure allegiance.
Protecting Democracy
Finkelstein concludes that the fight for state control over the National Guard is a battle for federal checks and balances and for military fidelity to the rule of law. She urges Americans to reclaim their sovereignty and reject the corruption of government institutions to shield presidents from consequences. 'The willingness of the people to insist on the protection of their most critical political right – the right to political representation – will be a test of the country’s commitment to the ideal that spawned the Declaration of Independence: the idea that no person is above the law,' she writes.
