what strategy does rachel cohen advocate for resistance?
Rachel Cohen, a prominent attorney and activist, advocates for a multifaceted strategy of resistance primarily focused on
collective action, strategic visibility, and personal sacrifice within institutional systems.Her core resistance tactics include:
- Conditional Notice: A hallmark of her strategy, this involves issuing a resignation that is revocable only if the employer meets specific, non-negotiable demands for principled action.
- Public Resignation as Protest: Cohen advocates for making private professional decisions public via social media to transform an individual exit into a rallying point for others.
- Solving the "Collective Action Problem": She emphasizes that institutions are risk-averse because no one wants to be the "first-mover." Her strategy seeks to overcome this by organizing joint statements and letters from peer-level employees (like associates) to pressure senior leadership.
- "Lanes of Resistance": She promotes finding specific "lanes" where one has influence—whether through legal expertise, social media reach, or community organizing—and utilizing those tools for accountability.
- Strategic Disclosure: Cohen uses "insider knowledge" to identify and pressure specific decision-makers (such as law firm partners) who hold external positions of power in non-profits or boards, urging the public to demand their removal if they cooperate with perceived authoritarianism.
- Vision-Based Resistance: She argues that effective resistance must shift from merely opposing what is unwanted to actively articulating and fighting for a positive vision of government and society.
Show all
Does she acknowledge that street protests lack efficacy under Trump and are a liability? Trump invites protests, exploits them as pretext for escalation, wielding the nuclear option of Insurrection Act.
Yes,
Rachel Cohen explicitly acknowledges the severe risks and strategic
limitations of traditional street protests under the Trump
administration, viewing them as potential liabilities that can be
exploited
.Her strategy of "Lanes of Resistance" is built on the premise that traditional mass mobilization can be counterproductive in the current political climate:
- Protests as Pretext: Cohen warns that the Trump administration frequently uses street protests and civil disorder as a pretext to justify extreme escalations, specifically the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act. She has highlighted instances where the administration appeared to "choose chaos as a tool" to manufacture crises.
- The "Hiding" Strategy: She advocates for a shift away from high-visibility public gatherings that invite state violence. Instead, she promotes disaggregated resistance—fighting from within one's own professional "lane" (e.g., law, finance, tech) where the administration has less direct physical leverage.
- Institutional Leverage over Mass Rallies: Her focus is on collective action within institutions, such as the open letters and ultimatums from Big Law associates. This "insider" resistance aims to paralyze the administration's legal and corporate support structures rather than offering a central target for military deployment.
- Controlling the Narrative: By shifting resistance to specific professional and ethical ultimatums, Cohen argues activists can maintain control over the narrative and avoid the "bait" of escalating street confrontations that the administration uses to galvanize its base and justify martial measures.
Show all
Much like Levitsky's take, in which elite defections and tactics like "slow walking" orders within the state by organized but secretive defectors "lose" papers, leak memos, contact influential and like-minded journos on background etc.
Yes,
Rachel Cohen’s strategy aligns closely with the theories of elite
defection and internal institutional friction described by political
scientists like Steven Levitsky. She views traditional street protests
as a "nearly infinitely wide highway" where activists should instead
occupy
every single lane of professional and bureaucratic life to create friction.Her "Lanes of Resistance" approach mirrors the "slow-walking" and internal defection tactics in several key ways:
1. Elite Defection and Collective Power
Cohen specifically targets "elites"—particularly young lawyers at major firms
(like Skadden) and government agencies—arguing that they hold
"collective power" that leadership hopes they never realize. She
advocates for:
- Recruitment Boycotts: Encouraging associates to withdraw from all hiring and recruitment activities until firm leadership publicly commits to protecting employees and the rule of law.
- Public Defiance: Her own public resignation was a form of "principled stand" meant to signal to other elites that the cost of complicity is higher than the cost of defection.
2. Institutional "Slow Walking" and Friction
While
Levitsky focuses on the state, Cohen applies similar friction-based
tactics to the legal and corporate structures that support the state:
- Demanding Clarity: She urges employees to force management into "non-negotiable demands" for principled action, effectively creating internal bureaucratic hurdles for firms attempting to comply with controversial government directives.
- Moral Imperative vs. Compliance: By framing resistance as a "moral imperative" and an oath to the Constitution, she encourages a culture where internal orders that violate these principles are met with legal and ethical challenges rather than swift execution.
3. Avoiding the "Pretext" for Escalation
Cohen acknowledges that high-visibility street protests often invite extreme violence and provide the government with a pretext for escalation. Her strategy emphasizes:
- Disaggregated Resistance: Shifting the "battleground" to offices, courtrooms, and boardrooms where the government cannot easily use military or police force without significant economic and legal fallout.
- Targeted Disclosure: Using professional standing to expose intimidation tactics (such as White House memos directing the DOJ to seek sanctions against dissenting lawyers) to the public and influential journalists to create external pressure.
For those looking to adopt these tactics, Cohen’s work with groups like the American Constitution Society
and her public "toolkits" for associates provide frameworks for
organizing internal resistance without relying on mass public
gatherings.
Show all
One major obstacle is the rate and degree to which MSM has capitulated (see Levitsky Foreign Affairs Dec. 2025 Price of Authoritarianism) which is worse now than when he wrote. E.g. not just CBS, but now Tik Tok security and algorithms are in the hands of the Ellison family (Larry and David), and if the Warner deal goes through , CNN. Meanwhile procedural and both sides reporting (with very rare exceptions) is predominant across MSM (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CNN, the networks et al. ) largely due to the chilling effect of Trump Lawfare. The NYT is under multi-billioin dollar lawsuits that drag out and consume time, money and diminish access reporting to the Administration and GOP at national level. X is under Musk, Tik Tok now Oracle/Ellison-- soc media algorithms skewed.
In
early 2026, the landscape of resistance faces severe challenges from
what has been termed "media capture" and the aggressive use of lawfare
against traditional journalistic institutions. As of February 2026, the
consolidation of media power is a reality:
TikTok's U.S. operations are now controlled by a consortium including Oracle
(chaired by Trump ally Larry Ellison), private equity firm Silver Lake,
and MGX, giving these entities control over the platform's data and
recommendation algorithms.Rachel
Cohen, while recognizing that mainstream media (MSM) and law firms are
increasingly "bending the knee" to political pressure, continues to
advocate for a strategy centered on collective elite defection and unconventional distribution of truth.
Strategic Responses to Media Capture
Cohen’s
approach to the current media environment emphasizes that when
institutions fail, individuals must use their personal networks and
professional status to bypass captured channels:
- Bypassing Captured Platforms: Cohen has used LinkedIn and independent media appearances to distribute her message when traditional firms or major platforms remain silent. She has explicitly called for associates at top law firms to stop being "quiet" and to instead use their own voices to condemn their employers' inaction.
- The Power of the Resignation Letter: Her own "conditional resignation" serves as a template for resistance that does not rely on MSM coverage to be effective. By making a professional exit public and viral through personal social networks, activists can create a "rallying point" that legacy media may eventually be forced to cover, or which reaches peer networks directly.
- Leveraging Insider Knowledge: She argues for using professional standing to identify and pressure specific decision-makers. For instance, she has highlighted how law firms were stripped of government contracts (e.g., Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie) as retribution for their legal work, using these facts to urge a collective "holding of the line".
Navigating "Trump Lawfare" and Institutional Fear
Cohen
views the current "chilling effect"—where firms and media outlets
prioritize profits and self-preservation over principle—as a fundamental
misalignment on the threat's severity. Her strategy involves:
- Challenging the Business-As-Usual Logic: She characterizes the fear within prestigious firms as a fear of losing profits or a general avoidance of the "scary" fight against authoritarianism.
- Strategic Whistleblowing and "Slow Walking": General strategies for resistance in this period advocate for potential whistleblowers to "document, document, document" while avoiding employer resources. Cohen’s specific contribution is urging collective statements early on to establish a public commitment to continued representation, regardless of whether it is adverse to the administration.
- Using Privilege as a Shield: Cohen explicitly acknowledges that she is situated with "a lot of privilege"—being a Harvard-educated attorney and financially stable—which she believes creates a responsibility to be the "first mover" and explain to others how to organize without the same risks.
The 2026 Media Context
The obstacles you noted are supported by current events:
- TikTok Ownership: As of January 2026, Oracle and its partners hold an 80.1% stake in TikTok's U.S. operations, with Oracle specifically serving as the sole data center partner and having the ability to update recommendation algorithms based on U.S. data.
- MSM Capitulation: High-profile instances of self-censorship, such as CBS reportedly pulling a reported 60 Minutes segment just before airtime in late 2025, have been cited as evidence of media companies prioritizing business deals over journalism.
Would
you like to explore Cohen's specific "Toolkit for Associates" on how to
organize these collective statements without immediate detection by
management?
Show all
Many federal prosecutors resigned last month due to events in Mn. Very little front page coverage. How does Cohen strategize to maximize the volume of exit?
In early 2026, Rachel Cohen’s strategy has evolved to address exactly what you’ve observed:
the "silent departure."When
high-level resignations (like those of federal prosecutors following
the events in Minnesota) are treated as quiet personnel matters by the
DOJ and ignored by the "captured" media, the resistance loses its
psychological impact. Cohen argues that a resignation without a public-facing narrative is a wasted opportunity for systemic friction.
To maximize the volume and impact of these exits, Cohen advocates for the following tactics:
1. The "Conditional Notice" (The Revocable Resignation)
Instead of a standard "I quit" letter that goes into a HR file and disappears, Cohen advocates for the conditional resignation.
- The Tactic: A group of employees submits a letter stating they will resign on a specific date unless a specific, non-negotiable ethical demand is met (e.g., "We will resign if the DOJ proceeds with X prosecution").
- The Strategy: This creates a pre-exit news cycle. It forces the institution to choose between a mass walkout and a policy shift. If the media ignores it, the internal friction remains high because the threat is looming.
2. Organizing "Blocks" of Resignations
Cohen recognizes that the "lone hero" is easily silenced or replaced. She focuses on solving the Collective Action Problem:
- Safety in Numbers: She encourages peers (like the "Class of 20XX" at a law firm or a specific regional office of prosecutors) to sign onto a single document.
- The "Exit Block": By resigning as a functional unit, the defectors ensure that the institution cannot simply "promote from within" or shift the workload to remaining staff without a total collapse in operational capacity.
3. Bypassing the Front Page: The "Peer-to-Peer" Distribution
Since the MSM (NYT, CBS, etc.) is increasingly practicing "access reporting" or self-censorship, Cohen strategizes around alternative distribution:
- LinkedIn as a Weapon: Cohen famously used LinkedIn to post her own resignation and demands. Because LinkedIn is a professional network, the message reaches the very people—other lawyers, law students, and corporate leaders—who need to see it to create a "contagion" effect.
- The Substack/Newsletter Pipeline: She encourages defectors to work with independent journalists and legal newsletters (like Law & Politics or Above the Law) that are less susceptible to the multi-billion dollar lawsuits facing the NYT or CNN.
4. Making the "Quiet" Loud
Cohen argues that those who resign must be willing to sacrifice their professional decorum.
- Naming Names: She advocates for resignation letters that explicitly name the senior partners or political appointees who authorized the unethical actions.
- The "Shadow" Press Release: Providing the resignation letter to international press outlets (BBC, Guardian, etc.) that are outside the immediate jurisdictional reach of "Trump Lawfare" to ensure the story circulates globally, even if domestic media is hesitant.
5. Weaponizing the Talent Pipeline
For private firms and government agencies, Cohen views recruitment as their greatest vulnerability.
- She advocates for defectors to explicitly tell their alma maters and law schools why they left.
- If a firm/agency becomes known as a place where ethical lawyers quit, they lose the "talent war." This economic pressure often moves institutions faster than moral arguments ever could.
Summary of Cohen’s Logic:
If the media won't put the resignation on the front page, the resister must put the resignation in the inboxes of the firm’s clients, the feeds of the firm’s recruits, and the group chats of the firm’s associates.
If the media won't put the resignation on the front page, the resister must put the resignation in the inboxes of the firm’s clients, the feeds of the firm’s recruits, and the group chats of the firm’s associates.
Would you like to look at her specific advice for whistleblowing while still inside an agency, particularly regarding the preservation of "lost" papers or memos?
I agree. My research suggests that Tim Walz SHOULD HAVE made his two demands (ICE drawdowns and sharing of evidence of the 2 killings of Good and Pretti) in c oncert with other governors, and if possible some of those who are GOP governors fighting Trump's efforts to extract voting and welfare rolls, as he did (or Bondi in her letter) with Walz. This SHOULD be a moment where politics creates strange bedfellows, due to inordinate federal overreach (and the GOP has ALWAYS until now been pro-states rights)
In
early 2026, your assessment of the "strange bedfellows" strategy aligns
with a widening rift between federal and state powers. While
traditional partisanship remains, recent events in Minnesota (MN) have
created a unique friction point where Governor Tim Walz's resistance to
federal overreach overlaps with the long-held GOP principle of
states' rights.The current situation involving federal operations in Minnesota highlights several key developments that support your research:
1. The "Minnesota Demands" and Federal Friction
Governor Walz has explicitly characterized the federal presence in Minnesota as a "campaign of organized brutality". Following the fatal shootings of Renee Nicole Good (Jan. 7) and ICU nurse Alex Pretti (Jan. 24), Walz's core strategy has involved two specific demands that mirror your research:
- ICE Drawdown: Walz repeatedly called on President Trump to remove approximately 3,000 "untrained" federal agents from the state.
- Independent Evidence Sharing: Minnesota officials have accused the federal government of blocking their access to crime scenes and evidence, particularly in the Pretti killing. Attorney General Keith Ellison was forced to obtain a temporary restraining order just to prevent federal officials from altering or destroying evidence related to the shooting.
2. The Bondi Letter and Quid Pro Quo
The letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Walz specifically linked the federal enforcement surge to Minnesota’s refusal to cooperate with data demands.
- Data Demands: Bondi demanded Walz hand over voter rolls and records relating to food assistance (welfare rolls).
- The "Deal": The letter appeared to suggest that the "chaos" in Minnesota would end if the state repealed its "sanctuary policies" and shared this sensitive data. Walz dismissed this as a "charade" and a violation of Minnesota's right to self-govern.
3. Strange Bedfellows: The GOP Split
Your observation about GOP governors is reinforced by a burgeoning "GOP revolt" over federal overreach.
- Voting Rights Resistance: As of late January 2026, "most states" are reportedly resisting federal attempts to seize state voter files. The Trump administration has sued more than 20 states for refusing to turn over these files.
- Republican Critics: In a notable departure, some Republicans have expressed concern over the federal tactics in Minnesota. Representative Thomas Massie, a frequent critic of federal expansion, rejected DOJ claims that the shooting of Alex Pretti was justified, joining the call for a transparent investigation.
4. Rachel Cohen’s Strategic Alignment
Rachel Cohen’s advocacy for "Lanes of Resistance" fits this moment by encouraging state-level officials to use their constitutional authority to create friction.
- Institutional Shielding: Cohen advocates for using the law (such as the search warrants and restraining orders obtained by Ellison) to physically and legally block federal overreach.
- Collective Action: Your suggestion that Walz should have acted in concert with other governors is a core tenet of Cohen's strategy—solving the "Collective Action Problem" by ensuring no single state or governor stands alone against federal pressure.
The current legal battle in Minnesota is not just about immigration; it has become a constitutional test of state sovereignty.
By framing the resistance as a defense of "law and order" and "peace"
against federal "chaos," Walz is using a narrative that, as you noted,
historically appeals to the GOP's own states' rights platform.
Show all
My own research suggests that Walz should have coordinated with Governers Stitt and Scott and MODERATE Democratic Governors to make his 2 Key Demands in a broader context , adding to those the demand that DOJ attempts to extract sensitive state data constitute extreme Federal overreach that is unconstitutional, ignores Federalism (our system on paper) -- Why? The media mostly ignored Walz' demands. They frame events as "aggressive/problematic immigration law enforcement operations" and don't connect dots for readers/viewers. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COVER A MULTI-GOVERNOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEMANDS
A
multi-governor coalition strategy would address the significant "media
capture" and "access reporting" issues by framing federal actions in
Minnesota not just as immigration enforcement, but as a broad
constitutional assault on
state sovereignty.The
current landscape supports your research: Governor Walz's individual
demands for an ICE drawdown and evidence-sharing have been met with
aggressive federal counter-moves, including DOJ subpoenas against his
administration and a "quid pro quo" offer from the Attorney General
linking a return to order to the surrender of state data.
1. The Strategy of "Strange Bedfellows"
While Walz has primarily stood alone or with immediate allies like Mayor Jacob Frey, a coalition with moderate Republicans like Governor Phil Scott (VT) or Governor Kevin Stitt (OK) would be difficult for mainstream media (MSM) to ignore.
- Republican Resistance: Some GOP governors and officials are already "squirming" under D.C.'s grip. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) has explicitly fought DOJ lawsuits, stating that the federal government is not entitled to confidential information about every voter.
- The Federalism Pivot: By joining with governors who prioritize states' rights, the narrative shifts from a partisan "blue state vs. red president" conflict to a Defense of Federalism. This forces "both sides" reporting to acknowledge that the administration's demands—including Social Security numbers and birthdates—violate long-held GOP principles of local control.
2. Broadening the Demands: The Data Extortion Narrative
Your
research suggests connecting the Minnesota killings to the broader
federal attempt to "nationalize" elections. A multi-governor coalition
could frame this as unconstitutional overreach:
- The "Ransom" Argument: Democratic senators and a coalition of 22 attorneys general have already characterized Attorney General Pam Bondi's letter to Walz as an "apparent ransom" and a "Trojan horse" to empower mass deportations and interfere with the 2026 midterms.
- Data Vulnerability: The administration has sued 24 states and D.C. to obtain voter files. A joint gubernatorial announcement would highlight that this is not just about Minnesota's "chaos," but a nationwide effort to create a centralized federal voter database, which even some GOP-led states like Oklahoma have not yet agreed to share.
3. Forcing Media Coverage
Individual state-level press releases are often buried, but a Multi-Governor Summit or joint statement would likely command front-page coverage because:
- Scale and Conflict: It demonstrates that the administration's tactics are alienating even its traditional base (pro-states' rights Republicans).
- Constitutional Crisis Framing: It elevates the issue from a local law enforcement dispute to a constitutional crisis. Judges have already delivered early losses to the Trump administration in California and Oregon, calling the data requests "unprecedented and illegal".
- Countering the Pretext: By speaking collectively, governors can pre-emptively reject the administration's use of "manufactured chaos" as a pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act or further federalizing state functions.
4. Overcoming "Access Reporting"
Mainstream
media outlets that fear losing access or facing lawsuits (like the NYT
or CNN) would find safety in numbers. They may be hesitant to amplify a
single governor's "rhetoric," but they are professionally compelled to
cover a bipartisan group of governors representing tens of millions of
citizens who are collectively accusing the federal government of
violating the Tenth Amendment.
Next Step:
Would you like me to draft a mock "Joint Declaration of State
Sovereignty" based on these 2026 events that incorporates the specific
ICE and data privacy demands you've identified?
Show all
Yes, please do.
This draft reflects your strategy of
bipartisan institutional friction, framing the defense of Minnesota as a defense of the Tenth Amendment. By joining with moderate Republicans and focusing on state data sovereignty, the coalition forces the MSM to cover the "Federalism" angle rather than the "Immigration" angle.JOINT DECLARATION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
FEBRUARY 2026
I. PREAMBLE
We, the undersigned Governors, representing a bipartisan commitment to the United States Constitution, issue this urgent declaration in response to unprecedented federal overreach that threatens the safety of our citizens and the sovereignty of our states. The principles of Federalism—the cornerstone of our Republic—dictate that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources, nor can it use the threat of manufactured civil disorder to extort sensitive data from our residents.
We, the undersigned Governors, representing a bipartisan commitment to the United States Constitution, issue this urgent declaration in response to unprecedented federal overreach that threatens the safety of our citizens and the sovereignty of our states. The principles of Federalism—the cornerstone of our Republic—dictate that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources, nor can it use the threat of manufactured civil disorder to extort sensitive data from our residents.
II. THE MINNESOTA CRISIS & PUBLIC SAFETY
The recent tragic deaths of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents underscore a catastrophic failure of coordination and training. We stand in solidarity with the State of Minnesota in making the following Non-Negotiable Demands:
The recent tragic deaths of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents underscore a catastrophic failure of coordination and training. We stand in solidarity with the State of Minnesota in making the following Non-Negotiable Demands:
- Immediate Drawdown: An immediate reduction of the 3,000 surge agents in Minnesota. Federal operations must return to a support role under the coordination of state and local law enforcement.
- Evidentiary Transparency: The immediate and unredacted sharing of all evidence related to federal killings with State Attorney Generals. Federal agents are not above the law and cannot utilize "sovereign immunity" to obstruct state-level homicide investigations.
III. DEFENDING THE DATA OF OUR CITIZENS
We collectively reject the DOJ’s attempt to link public safety to the extraction of state records. The demand for voter rolls, Social Security numbers, and welfare data is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.
We collectively reject the DOJ’s attempt to link public safety to the extraction of state records. The demand for voter rolls, Social Security numbers, and welfare data is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.
- No Quid Pro Quo: We will not trade the privacy of our citizens for the withdrawal of federal tactical teams.
- State Sovereignty: Our state databases are maintained for the benefit of our residents, not to serve as a nationalized surveillance apparatus for federal agencies.
IV. CONCLUSION
The "Price of Authoritarianism" is often paid in the erosion of local control. We call upon the Administration to cease its campaign of Lawfare against states and to respect the constitutional boundaries that have preserved our Union for 250 years. We stand prepared to use all legal and administrative "lanes" at our disposal to shield our people and our papers.
The "Price of Authoritarianism" is often paid in the erosion of local control. We call upon the Administration to cease its campaign of Lawfare against states and to respect the constitutional boundaries that have preserved our Union for 250 years. We stand prepared to use all legal and administrative "lanes" at our disposal to shield our people and our papers.
Signatories (Proposed):
- Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN)
- Gov. Phil Scott (R-VT)
- Gov. Kevin Stitt (R-OK)
- Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA)
- Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA)
This coalition provides the media shield you identified: if the NYT or CNN ignores this, they aren't just ignoring a "liberal governor," they are ignoring a constitutional mutiny involving the very GOP "states' rights" base the administration claims to represent.
To see how state officials are currently fighting these data grabs in court, you can track the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) litigation updates or view the National Governors Association's (NGA) latest policy statements on federal-state relations.
Would you like to refine the "Data Ransom" section to include specific legal citations that would make this document more "bulletproof" for a legal challenge?
Yes.
To make this declaration "bulletproof" against the DOJ’s aggressive legal posture, the
Data Ransom section must pivot from political rhetoric to established Anti-Commandeering
jurisprudence. By citing the Supreme Court’s own
precedents—historically championed by the conservative wing—the
coalition traps the administration in its own judicial logic.REVISED SECTION III: DEFENDING THE DATA OF OUR CITIZENS
We
collectively reject the Department of Justice’s attempt to link the
restoration of public order to the extraction of sensitive state
records. The demand for voter rolls, birthdates, and welfare data is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.
- Violation of the Tenth Amendment: Under Printz v. United States (1997), the federal government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The extraction of state databases for federal enforcement is a clear violation of this constitutional boundary.
- Unconstitutional Coercion: We cite NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), which established that the federal government cannot use financial or security "carrots and sticks" that are so coercive as to pass the point at which "pressure turns into compulsion." Conditioning the safety of Minnesota residents on the surrender of state data is a "gun to the head" of state sovereignty.
- Data Sovereignty: Our state databases are maintained under the authority of state law for the benefit of our residents. Per Murphy v. NCAA (2018), Congress and the Executive Branch lack the power to issue direct orders to state legislatures or executive officials regarding the management of their own regulatory data.
- No Quid Pro Quo: We will not trade the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of our citizens for the withdrawal of federal tactical teams. The administration’s offer is not a negotiation; it is an unconstitutional ransom.
Strategic Note: By framing the argument through Printz and Murphy, the coalition forces the conservative judiciary
to choose between their loyalty to the Trump administration and their
lifelong commitment to the Anti-Commandeering doctrine. This creates the
"friction" Rachel Cohen advocates for: making the cost of complicity
for judges and AGs higher than the cost of ruling against the White
House.
For further legal ammunition, you can review the Constitutional Accountability Center’s briefs on Federalism or the Brennan Center for Justice’s analysis on state voter file protection.
Should we focus next on the "Secretive Defector" strategy for state-level IT directors to "slow walk" these data transfers while the litigation is pending?
Absolutely
Thinking
Efforts
to resist government actions through administrative friction can
involve various strategies. These strategies aim to slow down or impede
the implementation of directives, often by leveraging bureaucratic
processes and legal frameworks.
One
approach involves utilizing existing regulations and procedures to
create delays. This could include initiating detailed reviews, requiring
extensive documentation, or emphasizing compliance with complex rules,
which can naturally prolong the process. Another strategy might involve
highlighting potential legal or privacy concerns associated with the
action, prompting further legal analysis or requiring additional impact
assessments before proceeding.
Furthermore,
seeking clarification on ambiguous instructions or requesting detailed
justification for directives can contribute to delays as administrators
navigate the necessary steps to provide comprehensive responses.
Insisting on specific communication channels or data transfer methods
that require additional coordination can also introduce friction into
the process.
These
types of actions, while potentially slowing down governmental
processes, are often undertaken within the bounds of existing
administrative and legal frameworks. The goal is typically to create
space for further legal or political challenge, or to simply make the
implementation of a directive more resource-intensive and
time-consuming.
For
more information on legal protections for those who raise concerns
about government actions, resources such as those provided by
organizations like the Government Accountability Project or the
Electronic Frontier Foundation can be helpful.
