Emerging splits
The Trump-Musk breakup was predictable. The petty, self-interested, vindictive, cruel, and childish behaviors that characterize their public actions have burst into open conflict. Economist Robert Reich provided an apt summary of the affair saying, “That any of us have to care about the messy breakup of these two massive narcissists—and that they both individually wield such massive power—is an indictment of our political system and further proves the poisonous influence of Big Money on our democracy.”
Their alliance resulted in death and destruction. In the few short months that both men dominated the public world, they upended long-standing democratic principles and practices and displayed a level of cruelty and corruption that was unparalleled in the office of the presidency. The damage that DOGE/Trump has done to basic governmental functions, from weather prediction to care for our most vulnerable is incalculable. Boston University health researcher Brooke Nichols has crunched the numbers, estimating that DOGE cuts have led to 300,000 deaths — five times the death toll of U.S. service members in the Vietnam War.
Their breakup is welcome. It's more than a clash of personalities. It is the result of the persistent refusal to cooperate with evil.
As Waging Nonviolence has helped us understand, Musk’s retreat from power is “a massive, unplanned retreat by the richest person on the planet due to relentless noncooperation.”
They go on to explain:
Workers are ignoring Musk's orders. Institutional resistance to DOGE. Tesla Takedown. Pension letters. All these efforts beat back the salesmanship of Donald Trump hawking Teslas on the White House lawn and the richest man attempting to insulate himself from the people’s will. This is a collective achievement.
Understanding the emerging splits within the authoritarian movement is essential for us to build effective strategies of resistance.
This high-drama breakup completely overshadowed other strains that are emerging.
In the midst of accelerating anti-immigrant efforts and the expansion of police powers to extend control, unlikely groups are offering resistance.
While Trump and Musk exchanged barbed comments, the administration announced that it planned to increase the number of arrests and deportations of people, bringing pressure on both federal and local law enforcement. In response, some federal agents are expressing concern that this is taking resources away from other areas essential for public safety and national security.
At the same time, many local jurisdictions are objecting to being pressured into making anti-immigration arrests a priority. Last week, in attempting to enact the executive order increasing ties with local police departments, Homeland Security (DHS) generated a list of “sanctuary” jurisdictions it considered uncooperative and suspect. DHS was forced to take the list down after the National Association of Sheriffs strongly objected. The president of the association, Kieran Donahue, slammed the list as an “unnecessary erosion of unity and collaboration with law enforcement.”
Like much of the data produced by Trump-Musk, the list was filled with inaccuracies, assumption, and distortions. At the same time, the objections reveal something about the long-standing efforts of people to build a local consensus around the protection of immigrant rights as essential to public safety.
Years of efforts at the local level have produced both moral and pragmatic reasons for non-cooperation with punitive federal directives to play politics with people’s lives.
These emerging cracks in the authoritarian wall point to the critical role of local organizing to develop a strong perspective rooted in the protection of people and place. Such local organizing is key to not only combating fascist policies but to developing a foundation of safe, strong communities for us all.