rud.is

(Re-posted from 47 Watch).

The State Department, under the stewardship of Secretary Marco Rubio, has just dropped a bombshell determination that’s about as subtle as a foghorn in a library.

You can/should review the Federal Register notice before continuing. There is a markdown formatted version of this on the 47 Watch knot.

In a nutshell, they’ve decided that pretty much everything involving borders, immigration, and international trade should now be considered a “foreign affairs function.”

Why does this matter?

Well, it’s because this administrative magic trick exempts these activities from the Administrative Procedure Act — a law that ensures the government can’t just make sweeping changes without telling anyone. It’s like democracy’s version of “no take-backsies.”

Let’s break down just some of the potential consequences:

1. The “Surprise Border Policy” Scenario: Imagine waking up to find out the rules for entering or leaving the country have changed overnight. It’s like showing up to a potluck and finding out it’s now a formal dinner party — and you’re the only one in flip-flops.

2. The “Your Phone is Our Phone” Situation: Border agents could potentially get more power to access your devices. Hope you’re ready to share your entire camera roll with strangers in uniform (who will all be employees of a private company, soon)!

3. The “Economic Whiplash” Effect: The government could slap trade restrictions on countries faster than you can say “global supply chain disruption.” It’s like playing economic Jenga, but with real people’s livelihoods.

This determination could lead to policies being implemented without public input or oversight. It’s like the government putting on noise-canceling headphones while making decisions that affect millions of lives.

So, what can we do?

Well, it’s time (again) to make some noise.

Write to your representatives, call your senators, and make your voice heard.

Let’s shine a light on this issue before we wake up in a country where border policy is decided by whether the angrily-tossed plate with condiments on it hits the wall ketchup-side up or down.

If you’re looking for something to riff from when contacting your representative, this is what I’m emailing, printing-and-mailing, and calling (on Monday) my reps with:

——

As a [what you do + where you reside], I strongly oppose the determination to classify all efforts related to border control, immigration, and cross-border transfers as “foreign affairs functions” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

This determination poses significant risks to transparency, accountability, and the fundamental principles of democratic governance. By exempting these critical areas from APA requirements, we risk implementing far-reaching policies without proper public scrutiny or input. This is particularly concerning given the complex, nuanced nature of immigration and border security issues.

The broad scope of this determination, encompassing “people, goods, services, data, technology, and other items,” is alarmingly vague and could lead to overreach in areas such as digital privacy and trade. As someone deeply involved in data science and security, I foresee potential abuses in data collection and surveillance that could infringe on civil liberties and hinder technological innovation.

Furthermore, this determination may exceed executive authority and violate the separation of powers. The Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). This sweeping reclassification appears to usurp congressional authority over immigration law.

From a national security perspective, while rapid response capabilities are important, the lack of public input and oversight could lead to poorly conceived policies that actually harm our security interests. Hastily implemented changes could disrupt critical international relationships, intelligence sharing, and cooperative law enforcement efforts.

I urge you to reconsider this determination. Instead, focus on improving existing processes within the current legal framework, ensuring that changes to immigration and border policies remain subject to proper public scrutiny and democratic checks and balances.

I sent this as an op-ed to the Portland Press Herald but have no delusion they will ACK it or post even a small part of it.

As a longtime Mainer and independent voter, I have watched Senator Susan Collins’ career with cautious optimism, hoping her self-branded image as a moderate willing to cross party lines might translate into principled leadership. Instead, the first six weeks of 2025 have crystallized a painful truth: Collins has become a hollow figurehead, enabling the most destructive elements of Donald Trump’s agenda while abandoning the Mainers she swore to represent. Her recent actions—from rubber-stamping unconstitutional power grabs to greenlighting devastating cuts to healthcare—demand either immediate course correction or resignation.

Collins’ vote to confirm Russell Vought as White House budget director epitomizes her moral bankruptcy. Vought, architect of the “Project 2025” blueprint to concentrate unchecked executive power, openly advocates allowing presidents to ignore congressionally approved spending—a direct threat to Collins’ own role as Senate Appropriations Chair. Her justification—“Presidents deserve broad discretion”—ignores that Vought’s ideology undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers. This is not moderation; it is complicity in authoritarian overreach.

Her tepid opposition to Trump’s FBI director nominee, Kash Patel, further exposes her impotence. While Collins criticized Patel’s “aggressive political activity”, her lone dissent failed to sway colleagues, allowing confirmation of a man who published an “enemies list” of federal employees. Maine deserved a leader who marshals bipartisan resistance to such extremism, not symbolic gestures devoid of consequence.

Collins’ support for the Senate GOP’s February 2025 budget framework reveals her allegiance to party over constituents. The bill slashes $300 billion from Medicaid—a lifeline for 400,000 Mainers, including rural hospitals already teetering on collapse. Her vote alongside Josh Hawley to reject amendments protecting Medicaid contradicts her 2024 boasts about healthcare funding. This hypocrisy will have dire consequences: Maine’s elderly, disabled, and low-income families face reduced coverage, while hospitals risk closure under reimbursement cuts.

Equally alarming is her silence as Trump’s administration weaponizes budget processes to dismantle agencies. Despite chairing Appropriations, Collins has done nothing to stop Elon Musk’s illegal shutdown of USAID offices in February 2025—a move that locked employees out of critical systems. When asked about Musk’s unconstitutional spending freezes, she offered only vague hopes for judicial intervention. Mainers deserve a fighter, not a bystander.

Collins’ failures are not newfound. Her 2020 defense of Trump’s catastrophic COVID-19 response—claiming he “did a lot right”—ignored his months of denial that left Maine vulnerable. Her 2022 vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite his role in overturning Roe v. Wade, shattered trust with pro-choice Mainers. Now, as constituent letters flood newspapers pleading for accountability, Collins remains aloof, refusing town halls for over two decades.

Her 2025 appropriations role compounds these betrayals. While securing $5 million for wood heaters, she overlooks existential threats: the Kennebec River dredging project, critical for Navy destroyers, remains underfunded, jeopardizing Bath Iron Works jobs. Meanwhile, her committee advances Trump’s deportation raids and education cuts, policies anathema to Maine’s values.

Collins faces a choice: justify her actions with substance or step aside. If she believes slashing Medicaid strengthens Maine, let her hold a town hall in Biddeford and explain it to families relying on insulin coverage. If Musk’s USAID shutdowns align with constitutional duty, let her debate Angus King on live television. Absent such accountability, her continued presence in office insults Mainers’ intelligence.

The 2026 election looms, with forecasters already labeling her seat a toss-up. But Maine cannot wait. We need leaders who prioritize people over political survival, who confront power rather than coddling it. Susan Collins has forfeited that mantle. It is time for her to reclaim it—or make way for someone who will.

Today, my Senator — Susan Collins — failed in her oath and duty to uphold the Constitution. She voted for the appointment of a traitor to head national intelligence, and is supporting someone for director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) who openly wants to dismantle the foundations of American government. She has done nothing to oppose the Administrative coup we’ve been witnessing since POTUS 47 took office. She is now, fully, a willing collaborator. The Executive branch is now nigh irreparably and wholly corrupted, and the Congress is — effectively — on a leash wielded by the POTUS.

The American system of government was designed with multiple layers of protection against the concentration and abuse of power. While we typically focus on federal checks and balances, states play a paramount role as independent sovereigns in our federal system, particularly when federal safeguards falter. Understanding these state powers is essential for maintaining constitutional governance.

The architects of American federalism deliberately created a system where states retain significant independent authority. This includes control over their law enforcement agencies, National Guard units, and the ability to refuse state resources for federal actions. Perhaps most importantly, states maintain the power to prosecute federal officials who act outside their legal authority and violate state laws. These powers weren’t accidents of history — they were deliberately preserved to prevent federal overreach.

Individual states become even more effective when they work together. Through formal interstate compacts and informal coordination, states can create powerful counterweights to federal overreach. This might involve sharing intelligence about illegal federal activities, coordinating legal responses, or pooling resources to resist unconstitutional actions. When multiple states stand together, their collective influence often exceeds the sum of their individual powers.

States control critical infrastructure and resources that federal authorities rely upon to function effectively. This gives states significant practical leverage through their ability to withhold cooperation on federal programs or impose economic consequences on entities that support illegal federal actions. While these powers should be used judiciously, they provide states with concrete tools to resist federal overreach.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of state resistance to federal overreach depends on democratic legitimacy and public support. State officials must be willing to uphold their constitutional oaths, local law enforcement must maintain order under state authority, and citizens must engage in civil resistance to support legitimate government. This democratic foundation is what transforms state powers from theoretical authorities into practical tools for preserving constitutional order.

It’s important to note that state resistance powers come with significant responsibilities. States must exercise these authorities carefully and only in response to genuine constitutional violations, not mere policy disagreements. The goal is to preserve constitutional order, not to create chaos or unnecessarily disrupt legitimate federal operations.

The distributed nature of American governance remains one of our strongest protections against tyranny. While a corrupt federal official might attempt to misuse power, success would require complicity from state and local institutions across the country. By understanding and preserving state powers to resist federal overreach, we maintain essential safeguards for constitutional governance.

The system of checks and balances becomes most critical precisely when it appears to be failing at the federal level. In these moments, state powers of resistance — exercised responsibly and with democratic support — provide crucial backup systems for preserving constitutional order. Understanding these powers helps ensure they remain available when needed most.

Unfortunately, the “Trump 25” states form a solid base of support across four geographic regions:

• Southern states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas
• Outer South/Industrial Midwest: Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana
• Plains/Agricultural Midwest: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri
• Mountain states: Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah
• Plus Alaska
   

Several states are taking concrete actions to support federal initiatives:

• Texas has signed agreements allowing National Guard to make immigration arrests
• Indiana and Nebraska have directed law enforcement to cooperate with ICE
• Tennessee approved measures creating state immigration enforcement positions
• Florida, Texas, and Nevada governors indicated readiness to mobilize National Guard units
   

Republican-led states are advancing legislation to:

• Expand cooperation with federal immigration enforcement
• Support deportation efforts
• Enable information sharing between state and federal agencies
• Create new state-level enforcement mechanisms
   

This is just the beginning of their willing capitulation to a corrupt regime. It will only get worse.

I call on Maine’s Governor, Janet Mills, to work with the remaining states to do whatever it takes to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law. Without such a coalition, we will most certainly lose our Republic.