Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Deportation Rhetoric Reveals a Culture of State Punishment

The celebration of deportation and public humiliation signals a dangerous erosion of democratic norms.

Opinion

Trump’s Deportation Rhetoric Reveals a Culture of State Punishment
File:Mass deportations-
en.wikipedia.org

“’ I love the smell of deportations in the morning…’ Chicago is about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.” President Donald Trump, September 6, 2025

This statement, made by President Trump on Truth Social, referencing protests against ICE and mass deportation, draws attention to a problem that is not discussed often enough -- the politics and culture of punishment in our country. The administration’s central use and public celebration of punishment is alarming and highlights the harms of centering punishment as policy.


It's no secret that the Trump administration aggressively punishes those seen as its opponents. Perhaps at the top of the list is its weaponization of federal authority to punish immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees. As of January 26, 2026, over 70,000 immigrants were being held in detention, separating families and disrupting local and national economies. The extent of the sweeps should be no surprise, given the unprecedented billions of dollars of funding directed to building and filling new detention centers - which, should they outlast the current administration, will be filled with the bodies of others deemed undesirable.

The rush to publicly punish also extends to those deemed to hold views contrary to the administration. This has taken the form of high-profile legal actions for damages and criminal penalties, for example, against cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities in order to preserve the safety of all residents. The administration has similarly leveraged threats against prominent law firms, institutions of higher education, the media, public officials, and even states that voted in disfavored ways.

Although punishment has been used by our government throughout history, the public and revelatory manner in which the government metes out punishments is something we’ve not seen from the highest ranks of government in recent history.

The president’s post on deportation quoted above illustrates the point. The first segment, “I love the smell of deportations in the morning,” delights in the success of the punishment and invites the country to join the appreciation. This shared joy in punishing people in harsh and public ways elevates punishment to the level of a cultural value: We carry out the punishment with the raised arms of victory!

The second part of the statement, “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” has the appeal of a line you might shout at a sporting event. You want your side to annihilate the opponent. But we should ask ourselves, what does it mean that our federal government has named its citizens as adversaries, or even enemies, when they exercise their right to protest? The specter of the president publicly and proudly threatening to punish the exercise of free speech should shock the conscience of all who believe in democracy.

The elevation of state-sponsored public humiliation has always been - and must continue to be - a red flag. Think about what rings true in the punishment scenes portrayed in any dystopian novel you might have read. The Hunger Games, in which the government controls every facet of people’s lives and environments, comes to mind. Gallows take pride of place in the center of every district, and whipping posts are scattered throughout the towns. Those fictional details are drawn from American history, from the Puritan use of stocks to hangings on the Boston Common, to public lynchings throughout the Antebellum South. Are we really willing to move back toward those chilling scenarios?

We know from other countries that dangerous changes follow once cultures begin to celebrate punishment. On a policy level, if we are busy celebrating the downfall of those cast as unworthy, we aren’t paying attention to the effects of punishment-centered governance on the country as a whole.

For example, the loss of due process in immigration enforcement and detention proceedings sets precedents for loss of due process in other contexts. And these precedents are poised to diminish rights most people in our country take for granted. As warrantless search and seizures proceed on a new and dangerous interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, and shootings of targeted individuals, protesters, and bystanders rise, our progression toward a dystopian reality becomes ever more evident.

Government reliance on punishment negatively impacts our lives in many ways. To name but a few:

· High incarceration or policing costs divert funds from other areas, like education, healthcare, and infrastructure budgets.

· Public punishment sows fear; because of it, people stay closer to home, spend less money, and the economy wanes, often felt first by small businesses.

· Punitive policies erode trust in government, leading people to disengage from the political process, when engagement is key to a thriving democracy.

· Punishment doesn’t work as a means of accountability or deterrence; if we are truly concerned with addressing violence and harm in our communities, instead of exacting revenge and performing political theatre, we should expand and support the many effective alternatives to detainment and punishment that are making a difference.

This administration’s reliance on punishment should raise alarms in every community. While it may seem familiar because it builds on our country’s history and practice of punishment and detention, this moment gives us an opportunity to see it even more clearly and to critically consider its impact.

Governments can and should do more than threaten, punish, and harm. We need to name governance by punishment for what it is and press our legislators to adopt policies that demand safety rather than terror in our country.

Charlene Allen Esq. is an author, activist, and Lawyers Defending American Democracy volunteer. She works with community-based organizations to build new approaches to justice that center healing, accountability, and human connection.

Julie Goldscheid is Professor of Law Emerita at CUNY School of Law and an Adjunct Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. She teaches courses on gender violence and has taught courses including civil procedure, legislation, gender equality and lawyering. She is a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Read More

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) testifies during his confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

Since arriving in Congress in 2013 Sen. Markwayne Mullin has been known for disappearing for a few weeks to Afghanistan in a putative effort to rescue Americans still there after withdrawal and tried to draw the president of the Teamsters into a fight during a hearing. Ironically, or possibly appropriately, Sean O’Brien, that same president of the Teamsters, endorsed Mullin’s nomination. He has written several laws supporting Native American communities and pediatric cancer research. A Trump loyalist, on January 6, 2021 in the hours after the riot at the Capitol, Mullin voted to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by omitting Arizona and Pennsylvania’s votes for Joe Biden.

His work experience prior to his political career was primarily in running his family’s plumbing business after his father became ill. He spent four months as a mixed martial arts fighter with a record of three wins. (He’s also gotten a lot richer while in Congress.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people signing papers.

A deep dive into the growing uncertainty in the U.S. legal immigration system, exploring policy shifts, backlogs, and how procedural instability is reshaping the promise of lawful immigration.

Getty Images, Halfpoint Images

When Immigration Rules Keep Changing, the System Stops Working

For generations, the United States has framed legal immigration as a kind of social contract. Since 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act ended the national-origin quota system, the U.S. has formally opened legal immigration to people from around the world without racial or national-origin preferences. If people from across the globe sought to reunite with family or bring needed skills to the American economy, they were told they would be welcomed. If they sought U.S. citizenship, the country would provide a clear route to reach it.

Follow the procedures, submit the forms, pay the fees, pass the background checks, and your time will come. Legal immigration has never been easy or quick. But the promise has always been that the path exists.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

Travelers wait in a TSA Pre security line at Miami International Airport on March 17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Travelers across the country are enduring long airport security lines as a partial federal government shutdown affects the Transportation Security Administration officers working the security lines.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/TCA)

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

If you’ve ever traveled to France, chances are you’ve come up against this all-too-common phenomenon. You get to the train station and, without warning, your train is out of service. Or a restaurant is oddly closed during regular business hours.

“C’est la grève,” you may hear from a local, accompanied by a shrug. It’s the strike.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep ReadingShow less