Dangerous times

I’m hearing from a lot of people concerned about the upheaval in the federal government. They want to know what they can do. They want to know what I’m doing as an elected official.

The most alarming excesses—Trump’s lawless tests of the limits of executive power—are going to play out in the courts. The Republican-dominated Congress is not going to intervene with an inquiry, much less an edict. Nor is the federal Justice Department going to push back on the actions of the Trump administration. A critical leadership role therefore falls to the attorneys general of the states to initiate actions in federal court. Our Attorney General Andrea Campbell is among those pressing lawsuits that will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. We may then find out whether the Trump administration will accept limits from the courts.

Another immediate flashpoint is immigration policy. My position has always been that immigration policy is a federal matter. The federal government decides who to let into the country. Once people are here in Massachusetts, it is morally right and generally in the public interest that we provide them with basic services. It is not the role of state or local law enforcement to enforce immigration policy any more than it is our role to enforce copyright policy or any other federal regulatory law. State and local involvement in immigration enforcement reduces community trust —and so our ability to fight crime. However, I do not think that state or local government can or should actively interfere with federal agents enforcing immigration law. My expectation is that federal immigration enforcement activity within Massachusetts will be limited due to resource constraints: The main changes will occur at the border—with the rate of new entrants declining.

The Trump administration has followed through on Trump the candidate’s promises to reverse decarbonization policies—cutting back on wind development and enhancing fossil fuel production. These changes do have an effect on the Commonwealth’s ability to achieve stated climate goals. We were already running behind these goals for a combination of reasons, but we are going to have to do some honest reassessment of what’s achievable as the extent of the administration’s actions become clearer.

I am confident that we will be able to protect in Massachusetts the personal civil liberties that we have gained over the past half century—access to contraception, the right to choose, freedom to love, freedom to marry, and freedom to parent. Although the Supreme Court of the United States is backing away from the idea that the U.S. constitution protects those freedoms, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has sent no such signal. And the Massachusetts state legislature has passed a series of laws to protect those freedoms demonstrating the strong consensus support for social freedoms in Massachusetts.

I find it unlikely—even with Republican control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate—that the federal government will attempt to directly legislate against social freedoms. What is more likely is that they will use the power of the purse to attempt to limit access to health care services such as reproductive health or gender affirming care. As important as these services are, they are not big ticket items, so I am confident that Massachusetts will find a way to fill any gaps created by withdrawal of federal support. Another concern is that other states or the federal government will attempt to interfere with care for people who travel to Massachusetts. This is a prospect we’ve already addressed with legislation, but one that we will continue to closely monitor.

I am hopeful that the state will not face broader cuts in funding for housing, education, transportation, or the health care safety net. “Blue” states may make heavier use of available funding due to greater willingness to meet matching requirements for these investments. But all of the big-money programs are used throughout the country and I have some faith that even a Republican Congress will not go along with wholesale cuts. Instead, we are more likely to see smaller but significant policy adjustments, for example, the recent cut in overhead rates for federal health research grantees. Some of these may be resolved in the courts, some may require state legislative action to backfill. We will have to respond to these changes one at a time and do the best we can.

From early in his first candidacy, I have been concerned that the president is eroding norms of civility and respect in public discourse. It has only been getting worse. To my mind, the presidential order declaring that trans people do not exist may be the saddest example. Young trans people all too often face difficult transitions and struggle with depression and even suicidality. Whatever the direct consequences of the order, and I expect them to be limited, the official erasure of a vulnerable minority from public recognition does real harm. I think that one of the most important things people can do right now is to go way out of their way to support all those who are on the receiving end of presidential unkindness.

Despite the shock of the initially broad and rapid changes, I believe that America is much bigger than one or two or even a few billionaires. Without minimizing the real and immediate harms to many, or dismissing the possibility of even greater harms, I do believe we will find ourselves looking back on early 2025 as a turbulent low point, not the beginning of the end.