It is one thing to regret a vote. It is another to regret complicity in the unraveling of democracy. In 2025, as America stands at a constitutional crossroads, those who once celebrated or enabled the rise of Donald J. Trump must confront the brutal reality that remorse alone will not be enough. The time for reflection has long passed. Now is the time for resistance—defiant, unapologetic, and grounded in the rule of law.

Joe Rogan, one of the most listened-to voices in modern media, has recently made headlines for distancing himself from Trumpism. While Rogan never explicitly endorsed Trump with the fervor of a campaign surrogate, he did for years give oxygen to the rhetoric, cultural resentment, and anti-institutional sentiment that made Trump’s authoritarian vision palatable to millions. In July 2022, Rogan admitted that he turned down Trump’s request to appear on The Joe Rogan Experience, calling the former president “an existential threat to democracy” (Weaver, 2022). That pivot is meaningful. But it is not sufficient. Regret without resistance is complicity by another name.

Meanwhile, the man himself is openly declaring war on the Sixth Amendment. In a Truth Social post that should horrify every constitutional originalist and civil libertarian alike, Trump stated plainly: “We do not have the time, money, or resources to provide everyone with a trial.” He was referring to his plan for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers, primarily Venezuelans, under the revival of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This act, born of war hysteria during the Adams administration, has now become the legal tool of choice for expelling entire populations—without trials, without hearings, without justice.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. On April 10, 2025, a federal judge in Colorado blocked aspects of the Trump administration’s enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act, issuing a 37-page ruling in Abrego Garcia v. Noem. The court found that the administration’s intent to deport Venezuelan migrants without adequate notice or access to legal counsel violated fundamental due process principles. The ruling mandates that:

• Each individual must be given at least 21 days’ written notice of deportation;
  
• The notice must be provided in a language they understand;
  
• They must be informed explicitly of their right to consult legal counsel;
  
• They must be permitted to contest removal in court.
  

The ACLU had requested a 30-day notice period. This was to account for the reality of locating counsel and filing legal challenges. However, the court’s 21-day requirement still struck a critical blow against executive overreach (American Civil Liberties Union, 2025).

To the casual observer, this may seem like a procedural win. But it is more than that. It is a firewall against fascism.

Let us be perfectly clear: The U.S. Constitution protects persons, not just citizens. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment “applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent” (p. 693). That means Trump’s proposal to eliminate trials for noncitizens is not only morally repugnant—it is patently unconstitutional. Furthermore, in Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court reaffirmed that undocumented immigrants are “people in any ordinary sense of the term” and therefore entitled to constitutional protections (p. 210).

So when Trump says there will be no trials, no lawyers, and no due process for millions of people, what he is really saying is that he does not recognize the binding authority of the Constitution unless it serves his personal goals. That is not immigration policy. That is tyranny with a patriotic mask.

And where are the former enablers now?

Some, like Rogan, are beginning to pull away. Others—politicians, faith leaders, cable news commentators—continue to carry water for a man who has made clear he would dismantle the rule of law if given the chance. The American right, once the self-proclaimed guardian of constitutional originalism, now finds itself silent in the face of a frontal assault on the Bill of Rights.

That silence is not neutral. It is betrayal.

When the Alien Enemies Act was last used in mass form, it led to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II—a decision the Supreme Court infamously upheld in Korematsu v. United States (1944). Though later denounced by the Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the precedent had already cost thousands of lives and livelihoods. That stain on our history was justified in the same language Trump now echoes: urgency, national security, and racialized fear.

The Colorado court ruling is a momentary reprieve, but it is not a solution. Legal victories without public vigilance are like sandbags against a tsunami. What we need is cultural resistance, media resistance, civic resistance—everyday Americans standing up to say that due process is not a bureaucratic speed bump. It is the bedrock of liberty.

Regret must evolve into resolve. If you were once seduced by Trump’s populism, you must now denounce his autocracy. Do not claim to love freedom while supporting a man who mocks trials. Do not claim to uphold American values while defending the mass expulsion of human beings without even the pretense of justice.

To those who say, “They are not citizens,” we reply: That is exactly when the Constitution must be strongest. Because if rights are only for those we like, they are no longer rights—they are privileges, doled out by the powerful.

And if Trump is allowed to erase those privileges for one group, he will soon erase them for others. History guarantees it.

Personal Close

In a courtroom in Colorado, one Venezuelan migrant—let us call her Rosa—stood before a judge last week with tears in her eyes. She had never been in a courtroom before. She did not speak English. But she knew what justice looked like. She asked for time to find a lawyer. Thanks to the ACLU’s motion and the judge’s ruling, she now has it. Rosa’s story may never trend. But it matters. Because what is at stake in her case is not just her future—it is ours.

So let the message be clear to those who regret their vote, their silence, or their platform: you are welcome in the fight for justice, but only if you fight. Do not apologize with your head down. Speak with your eyes forward. Make it impossible to return to silence.

Because if we abandon due process now, there may be no process left to defend.

References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2025). Brief in support of Venezuelan migrants facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. https://www.aclu.org
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Weaver, C. (2022, July 5). Joe Rogan distances himself from Trump: “An existential threat to democracy.” Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com