I’ve seen firsthand how resistance to Donald Trump — both inside and out of government — can stop his illegal plans.

In 2017, I was a young lawyer in the National Security Division of the Justice Department. Trump had just been elected, in part on his promise to impose “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In his first week in office, Trump tried to do exactly that, largely halting travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. That ham-handed order was quickly blocked by a federal court, but by bad luck, my office in the Justice Department became deeply involved in crafting a workable version of this “travel ban.”

I believed that the proposed order was illegal: It was obviously discriminatory in both intent and effect. I also believed it was counterproductive: The order would serve only to enrage Muslim allies and hurt cooperation on counterterrorism efforts. Many other people in the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community agreed, and for months, we argued internally for narrowing the scope of the order, or rescinding it entirely.

In that effort, I saw a number of people display professional bravery. Low- and mid-level employees explained to those far above them why the ban was legally and operationally disastrous. In meetings that strove for a forced consensus, I watched people loudly refuse to give their consent. Those who stood up, it seemed, were not invited back, and I wondered what happened to them, and what harm they experienced to their careers.

The travel ban was eventually implemented--showing that it was NOT illegal. Yet the Justice Department expended enormous resources fighting against career government employees who refused to follow legal orders from elected representatives. 

Note the way he describes the travel ban: "I believed that the proposed order was illegal: It was obviously discriminatory in both intent and effect. I also believed it was counterproductive..." His opinion on the first point was debatable and turned out to be wrong, but a lawyer objecting on legal grounds is at least not insane--not that it was his decision in the first place. The Justice Department represents the government and should fight for the president's position, even if it turns out to be a loser. 

But the second (and reason) for his #resistance? He didn't like or agree with the decision, so he decided that he, not the president, should make policy. 

First, the new administration has had mixed success purging its perceived opponents, and some offices have thus far been able to resist illegal mass firings. Second, while court orders to stop such illegal firings might not mean much to someone like Elon Musk, they can mean a lot to the lawyers who can be disbarred — or the lackeys who can be jailed — for ignoring them. Third, to the extent the administration wants to do more than simply cut the size of government — an issue that, notably, does not seem to particularly interest the president — it will need to rely on existing officials to carry out its agenda. From deportations to trade wars to prosecutions of perceived enemies, the president’s plans will rely on federal employees, and these employees can be powerful.

For those of us who do not want our government to become more lawless, corrupt, or discriminatory, these are distressing times. In the past few days alone, the president has proposed to ban trans people from the military, largely shutter foreign aid and deploy the military on U.S. soil to deport migrants. But the administration’s orders are, on inspection, generally poorly reasoned and poorly written. Already, this new administration has rescinded its freeze on trillions in government spending, and backed down from a threatened North American trade war. The success of his initiatives depends on the perception of their own momentum. If that momentum is slowed, the damage of some orders will be contained; others may collapse completely.

The writer, Brendan Ballou, is a former federal prosecutor. He carefully walks up to the line of admitting actual insubordination, but his continual reference to courage and a higher responsibility to the "Constitution" makes clear that he is encouraging it. After all, except in exceptionally clear cases, federal employees are in no position to determine such matters. That is what courts are for, and there are plenty of outside groups who take the federal government to court to stop potentially illegal actions. Lots of lawsuits have already been prepared or filed opposing Trump's actions. 

It's perfectly obvious that the Civil Service considers itself the fourth branch of government--and the most important one. Unelected bureaucrats thwart the will of elected officials every day--such as when all these agencies renamed their DEI departments to defy the president. 

Whenever you hear a liberal talk about "democracy," they are defining it as the bureaucracy. 

It's good that Trump has them frightened for their jobs. Maybe they will get back to doing what they were hired to do--follow the lawful orders of the elected president.