The Perils of Unchecked Power (Image Credits: Unsplash)
Progressives are advocating for congressional Democrats to create a specialized caucus dedicated to compiling evidence of alleged abuses by Trump administration officials, drawing inspiration from post-World War II justice efforts.
The Perils of Unchecked Power
South Korea recently sentenced former President Yoon Suk-yeol to life in prison for declaring martial law in 2024, a stark reminder that nations serious about democracy hold leaders accountable.[1]
Peru followed suit with an 11.5-year term for ex-President Pedro Castillo over a coup attempt, while Brazil imprisoned Jair Bolsonaro for similar actions. These cases highlight a global trend: impunity breeds authoritarianism. In the United States, critics argue that past Democratic hesitancy – such as Attorney General Merrick Garland’s reluctance to pursue election interference probes after Trump’s first term – paved the way for escalated abuses today. Concentration camps, targeted strikes, and widespread corruption now define the landscape, officials claim.
Blueprint for the Nuremberg Caucus
The proposal, inspired by author Cory Doctorow, envisions a public platform where Democrats catalog every incriminating statement, video, or document from Trump officials and their enforcers. Each piece of evidence would receive an exhibit number, along with annotations detailing criminal and civil violations. Trials could be scheduled for after January 20, 2029, complete with assigned courtrooms for officials at all levels.
Doctorow emphasized the structure’s power: “Each fresh outrage, each statement, each video-clip – whether of Trump officials or of his shock-troops – could be neatly slotted in, given an exhibit number, and annotated with the criminal and civil violations captured in the evidence.”[1]
This approach mirrors the Nuremberg trials’ methodical denazification, ensuring perpetrators grasp the consequences of oath-breaking.
Strategic Edge and Deterrence
Politically, the caucus would compel Republicans to defend against comparisons to historical atrocities, as Doctorow noted: “The minute you can get your adversary to say, ‘These are the ways we’re not Nazis,’ they are implying that there are a bunch of ways in which they are.” Such framing could reshape voter narratives ahead of elections.
Deterrence forms the core rationale. Trump allies operate with brazenness because prior administrations overlooked Bush-era war crimes and Wall Street excesses. A caucus would signal real risks, potentially curbing violence through fear of prosecution. Elites, from corporate leaders to bureaucrats, might reconsider collaboration when audits and inquiries loom.
Innovative Tactics to Disrupt the Regime
Beyond documentation, the initiative includes targeted actions like prolonged reviews of Trump-approved corporate mergers and aggressive IRS audits of the ultra-wealthy tied to graft. Most provocatively, it suggests $1 million bounties for ICE officers providing evidence of human rights violations by colleagues, fostering internal paranoia.
Progressive nonprofits could launch a parallel “Nuremberg Project,” akin to the Commission for International Justice and Accountability’s work on Syria and Myanmar. Doctorow argued that violators of public oaths remain “categorically unfit” for power, underscoring the moral imperative.[1]
- Public evidence assembly with exhibit numbering
- Pre-scheduled trial dates post-2029
- Bounties for whistleblowers in enforcement agencies
- Regulatory scrutiny on mergers and finances
- Nonprofit-led evidence gathering as backup
- Impunity enabled Trump’s return; accountability can prevent repeats.
- A caucus forces evidence-based debates, sidelining vague rhetoric.
- International precedents prove prosecution restores democratic norms.
Impunity erodes democracies like a persistent cancer, allowing mafia-like governance to thrive unchecked. By embracing a Nuremberg Caucus, Democrats could dismantle this cycle, signaling to officials and collaborators alike that crimes against the republic demand justice. What steps should lawmakers take next? Share your thoughts in the comments.
