Donald Trump has done it again…donald-trump-again-raises-ethics-concerns. He spoke recently on rising crime in Washington D.C. and discussed his Rule of Law propaganda campaign against presidential power with the 2024 election approaching. In fact, at a recent campaign event, Trump claimed that sending National Guard troops to the nation’s capital has “stopped crime.” This claim is false, and it directly conflicts with data they’ve already released. Alongside this, he characterized the upcoming election as an “irrevocable grant of total power,” raising significant concerns about his understanding of civil rights and governance.
Trump’s rhetoric suggests a belief that winning the presidency in 2024 would exempt him from respecting the rights of American citizens. After all, he has publicly expressed desires to circumvent congressional will and authority. In addition, he could fire civil servants at will and accuse them of potential acts of violence against citizens. This fragile pro-feminist view exposes old attitudes about domestic violence and spousal privilege. It mirrors the gaslighting, punishment, reward cycle of abusive relationships that wreak havoc on so many.
The Trump administration has drawn ire for their failure to combat domestic violence. Notably, it moved to drastically reduce federal grants to nonprofits supporting victims of domestic abuse, reflecting a troubling trend in prioritizing political agendas over vulnerable populations. Approximately 24% of adult American women have reported experiencing severe physical violence or stalking by intimate partners, underscoring the urgency of support services for these victims.
For those critics, Trump’s misapprehension of executive power and women’s rights reflect the legal thinking of centuries past that should have been discredited long ago. For example, 17th-century English jurist Matthew Hale asserted that “the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” That relic of the past has no place in our world today. President Trump’s statements on this issue appear poised to re-introduce attitudes towards entitlement and disregard for personal liberties.
Over the years, Trump has been rightly condemned for his abuse of women and his toxic misogyny. More than two dozen women have accused him of sexual harassment. They describe a spectrum of harmful behavior, from lewd comments to sexual assault. His first wife accused him of rape, though she eventually retracted the claim. Most recently, when the intrepid writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of rape, a court upheld her judgment against him.
Trump’s interpretation of law is a topic of concern among legal experts and advocates for women’s rights. His dismissive attitude towards established legal protections for victims of domestic violence raises alarms about his potential governance style should he regain the presidency. Legal scholars have noted that what Trump is asserting here is a remnant of the old marital entitlement doctrine. These conceptions have been legislatively eroded by modern statutes designed to safeguard victims.
Beyond the domestic violence aspect, Trump’s concept of governance and use of power at large is worth considering. His assertion that he could “fire civil servants at will” and “invade cities” signals a troubling approach to executive power that undermines democratic principles and checks and balances. Critics argue that such rhetoric reveals an autocratic spirit that undermines the very structure of American democracy.
Now, with the 2024 election nearing, advocacy groups are doubling down on their push. Besides arresting offenders, they seek to prevent domestic violence, addressing its root systemic causes. They highlight that decision-makers need to put victims at the center and should acknowledge the burdens of power. The juxtaposition of Trump’s statements with the realities faced by millions of Americans has ignited discussions about accountability and respect for individual rights.