Timothy Snyder’s “On Tyranny” has become a pocket-size gospel for progressives in the age of Trump — a secular catechism of 20 rules to resist looming fascism. It’s pitched not just as a historical analysis but as an urgent survival guide, borrowed from the dark lessons of the 20th century. The message is clear: Authoritarianism is always just one election away, and Donald Trump is its orange-faced harbinger.Such moral urgency unmoored from historical context tends to collapse into political theater, however. “On Tyranny” is not a serious book. It is an emotive pamphlet that relies less on the actual historical complexities of rising tyranny than on the reader’s willingness to conflate MAGA hats with brownshirts.Snyder believes a tyrant is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.Such historical flattening is the first and most obvious flaw in Snyder’s argument. He leans heavily on the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to suggest that Trump’s rise follows the same trajectory. But this is not serious analysis — it’s emotional manipulation. It’s one thing to warn against patterns; it’s another to flatten every populist movement into a prequel to genocide.Snyder, a Yale historian, surely knows better. But “On Tyranny” depends on your feeling like you're living in 1933 — whether or not such historical parallels are actually true. And they’re not. A democratic mandateSnyder warns against the rise of a single leader claiming to represent the will of the people and establishing a one-party state — equating the 2016 Republican sweep of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Hitler’s consolidation of the Third Reich. Such a comparison isn’t just blatantly false; it’s a cruel dismissal of the democratic will of the people for merely voting in Republican candidates. Surely Snyder didn’t accuse Barack Obama of fascist one-party rule when he and the Democrats swept the White House and Congress in 2008. Such electoral outcomes aren’t a harbinger of fascism. No, no! That was a mandate from the American people, democratically spoken, demanding change from the status quo. Voters sent that message loud and clear in 2008 — as well as in 2016 and 2024. Snyder’s false equivalency counts on fear rather than critical thinking — any semblance of which would entice Democrats to pause for a moment of self-reflection and listen to what the American people are saying through the electoral process. But Snyder’s one-sided alarmism silences the electoral voice — merely because it rallied behind Trump.Civic theater Snyder’s advice to citizens reads like a secular sermon: “Defend institutions.” “Stand out.” “Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.” On the surface, it sounds noble — defiant, even. But strip away the aesthetic of resistance, and what’s left is a deeply superficial understanding of civic virtue.What exactly are we defending when we’re told to “support the press” or “protect truth”? In practice, Snyder’s rules amount to an uncritical loyalty to legacy institutions that have forfeited public trust — media outlets that gaslight, bureaucracies that bloat, and experts who contradict themselves while silencing dismissive voices.Snyder dismisses the possibility that institutions can rot from within, that the loudest defenders of “truth” are often its gravest opponents. Instead, he offers something simpler: the feeling of resistance while catering to the institutional elites. The real culpritsThe irony of “On Tyranny” is that the tactics Snyder warns against — censorship, moral panic, political conformity — have not come from MAGA rallies but from the very institutions Snyder holds up as guardians of democracy. It wasn’t Trump who quashed dissenting speech on COVID-19 or colluded with social media companies to throttle viewpoints that didn’t conform with the government’s narrative. It was the political elite and their complicit peddlers in the mainstream media and social media companies.Unfortunately for Snyder’s brand, tyranny doesn’t always wear a red hat. Sometimes it comes in the name of “safety,” or “science,” or “social justice.” Sometimes it cancels you over a social media post, not because you’re dangerous, but because you’re not sufficiently obedient.If Snyder were genuinely concerned with authoritarianism in all its forms, he might have warned against this progressive impulse to control thought and punish deviation. Instead, he gives it cover — because the real threat, in his mind, is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.Less performance, more courageSnyder is right about one thing: democracies don’t die overnight. But they do die when fear replaces thought, when virtue becomes branding, and when citizens outsource their moral judgment to bureaucracies and mainstream news.“On Tyranny” offers the illusion of courage but none of the substance. It is performance art disguised as resistance. To preserve freedom, we should defend institutions and champion truth. But that requires holding corrupt actors in such institutions accountable, whether it be within the federal government or legacy media. That was the democratic mandate communicated loud and clear in 2024, and if Snyder were genuinely concerned about defending democracy, he would listen.

When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President Trump last Sunday whether illegal aliens have due process rights, he hedged.“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” Trump replied on “Meet the Press.”That’s not even close to good enough. Trump should have responded clearly and forcefully: While everyone enjoys due process before being criminally punished, deportation is not punishment. It’s an administrative action that flows from national sovereignty.Illegal aliens do not possess the same due process rights as citizens. They can make their case to immigration officials — but those officials retain full discretion to deny their request and carry out removal. We’re not jailing these people; they are free to return home on their own. If they refuse, we remove them — just like any homeowner would remove a trespasser.The analogy is simple. If a burglar breaks into your home, you can’t torture or imprison him without a trial. But you absolutely can — and should — force him to leave.That’s why deportation proceedings don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law is clear: “In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge ... the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel.”The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.Trump’s hesitation creates the impression that illegal aliens do enjoy full due process under immigration law — but implementing it would just be too hard. That argument doesn’t persuade. The American people don’t want laws ignored simply because enforcing them is difficult.Welker pushed further: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”But we should never confuse what the Supreme Court says with what the Constitution requires. The court has long recognized that immigration law operates under different standards. The power to exclude or remove aliens lies entirely with Congress and the executive branch, not the judiciary.What the founders, Supreme Court, and Constitution sayThe constitutional, statutory, and philosophical basis for removing aliens without full judicial due process is overwhelming. The historical record speaks for itself:1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention debates (1787):“Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”2. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (2nd edition):“In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.”3. Chief Justice John Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”4. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892):“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):“Self-preservation is the highest right and duty of a Nation.”The right to deport is an extension of the right to exclude7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):“The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”8. Justice James Iredell, Charge to Grand Jury (1799):“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.”9. Emer de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” (1797):“Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.”Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):“The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):“The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes. … The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”12. Fiallo v. Bell (1977):“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):“We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. ... Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treatymaking powers. We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.”Due process does not guarantee entry or residency14. Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895):“As to such persons [non-citizens wishing to remain in the U.S.], the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by [C]ongress, are due process of law.”15. Galvan v. Press (1954):“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government ... that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded ... as any aspect of our government.”16. Justice Robert Jackson (dissenting), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”Deportation is not punishment17. Turner v. Williams (1904):“No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens. ... But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial.”18. Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893):“The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied. ... It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions.”Trump never should have equivocated on immigration law — or deferred to his lawyers. The Constitution, the courts, America’s founders, and common sense all say the same thing: Noncitizens do not enjoy an absolute right to remain in the United States. Deportation does not violate due process because deportation is not punishment. It is the lawful exercise of sovereignty.The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

President Donald Trump named Jeanine Pirro, a former prosecutor and current Fox News host, as the interim attorney general of Washington, D.C., after failing to nominate Ed Martin. Pirro has been a stalwart Trump supporter and a host on "The Five" on Fox News. She previously worked as the Republican district attorney of Westchester County, N.Y. 'During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime.' The president announced the appointment via social media on Thursday. "I am pleased to announce that Judge Jeanine Pirro will be appointed interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia," he wrote on Truth Social. "Jeanine was Assistant District Attorney for Westchester County, New York, and then went on to serve as County Judge, and District Attorney, where she was the first woman ever to be elected to those positions," he added. "During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime."The 73-year-old has been a friend to Trump for decades. The president had capitulated to opposition in the U.S. Senate against the nomination of Martin, especially to that from Republican Sen.Thom Tillis of North Carolina. "Most of my concerns related to January 6," said Tillis to reporters. "Where we probably have a difference is I think anybody that breached the perimeter should have been in prison for some period of time. Whether it's 30 days or three years is debatable, but I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6."The president said in a separate post that Martin would be moved to the Department of Justice as part of three groups meant to investigate the weaponization of the government under the Biden administration. "Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself. Congratulations Jeanine!" concluded the president on Thursday. Pirro was condemned by both the left and the right in 2019 after she ridiculed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for wearing a hijab, which she said was against the principles of the U.S. She was suspended from appearing on Fox News for two weeks following that incident. "We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro's comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network, and we have addressed the matter with her directly," read a statement from Fox at the time. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If you live in Texas and have school-age children, then there’s some good news. The first Texas GOP priority bill is on its way to the governor’s desk after clearing both chambers — and it bans explicit sexual content in libraries at your children’s schools. Currently, there are broad exemptions within Texas law that shield school officials, librarians, and other authority figures from prosecution for distributing material seen as harmful to minors, as long as their goal was to educate the children. The bill will allow only law enforcement and judicial officers to use this defense when charged under obscenity laws. Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” couldn’t be happier, but House Democrats do not share her high spirits. “We’re really excited a law protecting children from sexually explicit materials is heading to the governor’s desk,” Gonzales says, adding, “The bill removes any sort of groomer’s defense that they might have in the school system.” “And the Democrats were totally up in arms because, you know, they are now the party of illegal gang members and violent criminals and thugs and also groomers,” she continues. “These people really think that it’s the government’s job to teach children about sensitive sex matters, to teach children about all sorts of personal sensitive topics.” Erin Zwiener is one of those angry Democrats, who cried “book banning” in response to the new rule. “Many of the books that get targeted again and again are books that depict sex, and there is nothing I want more than for our young people to be exposed to what sexual assault can look like so they can avoid it,” Zwiener said. “Our kids need books where they learn about sex without experiencing it in their real lives,” she added. “I cannot even express to you how sick to my stomach these statements make me. Pretty grossed out,” Gonzales comments. “That’s cute that you want to talk about what you want for my children, not ‘our’ children. This is not collective.” Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.