Resistance from within
How those in government might fight the new fascists
I have been thinking a lot about former colleagues in the foreign offices of the world, particularly those in the State Department or NSC in the US. I imagine that they are having a horrible time. Over the weekend they received deeply offensive emails from Musk demanding that they list their accomplishments from the previous week, from a man who has done not one day of public service in his life. Meanwhile, they must adjust to a new administration run by maniac conspiracy theorists, backers of violent insurrection and Putin-sympathisers. The ground must be shaking under their feet.
I also have some sympathy. Given my own resignation over the UK government’s lies over the Iraq War, it would be easy for me to sit on my high horse and judge those who do not resign. But the truth is that it took me a long time to come to that conclusion. I wavered for literally years. I was afraid. I did not resign until a year after the war had begun. Only when my colleague David Kelly had committed suicide because he exposed the government’s dishonesty did I realise that I had to quit, and only then once I had negotiated with the first official inquiry into the war that my evidence would be secret and thus I would be a little bit more protected from reprisal.
I was also newly married and, at that point, childless so my family responsibilities were less than those of someone with dependents to provide for. I was 38, a time of life when I could plausibly construct a new career (which I did with Independent Diplomat). I wasn’t completely dependent on my pension (though I still miss it now). And, perhaps most importantly, I was confronting a government that, while content to tell lies, did not actually murder its opponents. (I do not believe for instance that David Kelly was murdered, but instead driven to suicide by the government’s public persecution, which is almost as bad.). Trump’s Department of Justice has already set up a unit to pursue officials who took part in the prosecution of the January 6th rioters. Trump is clearly motivated by revenge. Actual murder, who knows. But those who dare criticise already face death threats and intimidation from his supporters.
So it would be no small thing to resign. There is a great risk to your livelihood and, perhaps, your very safety. Nevertheless, I still think my colleagues of conscience should do so. But if they choose not to, I do not judge.
Instead, I hope they will consider what might be called ‘resistance from within’. A few years ago, Independent Diplomat ran a 3-day workshop of activists from around the world who had fought dictatorship and authoritarianism, from Egypt to Serbia. We compiled a manual of how those of us elsewhere in the world can support those engaged in the fight on the ground. I will dig it out and circulate it, because it may be relevant for the fight against Trump, which is not only a fight for Americans. Not only must those of us outside the US give the anti-Trump movement our solidarity and support (and perhaps soon, even asylum) but there are also specific actions we can take to fight the regime’s lawlessness, recklessness and emerging tyranny. We must always attend to the views of those on the ground first.
But here are some ideas for officials still inside the system to undermine and fight the administration from within. As ever, I would welcome further ideas and comments on this post:
Unions: a crucial tool to combat Trump and Musk’s war against federal employees. I wonder why federal employees are not already considering a national strike to protest about Musk. This would clearly show the rest of the country how utterly dependent it is on the government for services and security. The implicit and explicit contract between employer and employee has been demonstrably broken. So I suggest US officials and diplomats should dig out their union cards and start discussions with colleagues about how to fight back. Take a leaf from unions past: there are multiple options for action from strikes, to works-to-rule, workplace occupation etc.. This is an unfamiliar path for officials, particularly diplomats, to take. They are used to being the government. But that is no longer the case. There is the Trump mob, and there is everyone else. Union activists should use encrypted communications to protect themselves against the federal authorities, like the FBI, that Trump’s cohorts are already weaponising against perceived enemies.
Leaking: a riskier option and care must be taken. It is much, much easier to trace the origins of particular documents these days, particularly if they are sent electronically (actual paper is safer). But many journalists now advertise publicly how to reach them through encrypted means. And make sure you trust that journalist. A further problem is that the sorts of newspapers that might publish damaging leaks about the administration are themselves the declared target of the regime. The Trumpists are already marginalising what they perniciously call ‘legacy’ media by excluding them from, for instance, Air Force One or the Pentagon (they’ve done this to AP!). Moreover, there’s a political calculation too: how much can you hurt an administration that is utterly heedless of basic standards of probity, honesty and America’s security? The need for leaking or speaking out usually arises when a government says one thing in public and does or knows something else in reality - see the Iraq War or the Pentagon Papers. This administration clearly doesn’t care, not least since the president himself reverses his policies on a dime. So what would a leak achieve? Therefore, any leaker would have to consider how the leak might undermine the administration. If it sold national secrets might be one possibility, for instance. But right now the new idiots are already giving them away. I think it’s all too likely that new pro-Putin appointees (perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, the new director of national intelligence) have already told the Russians which of their communications the NSA is tapping (and thus ensuring that they won’t be able to in future). For goodness sake, the US is now voting with Russia at the UN! (I will post separately about this shortly.)
The Law - there is a touching faith in the constitution in the US. That the courts will come to the rescue when someone like Trump sits in the White House. Anthony Romero of the ACLU, in this New Yorker interview, seems confident that the law will hinder if not stop some of Trump’s most egregious measures, such as ending birthright citizenship which, ostensibly, is guaranteed by the constitution itself. Romero is an expert and I am not. But I am far from confident. It’s well-known that Trump has been encouraged and enabled by the Supreme Court’s decision that a sitting president is immune from any prosecution for actions they take as president (yet another example, btw, of the dangers of the politically-appointed Supreme Court in not defending, but undermining, the rule of law). Furthermore, if he and his minions ignore the law, as Musk is demonstrably doing, who will stop them? They will also be able to do enormous damage both domestically or internationally before any law suits take effect - if indeed they do. Lastly, I think it’s entirely likely that Trump will at some point declare a state of emergency which would suspend all applicable laws in the name of ‘national security’, as defined of course solely by the administration. This is a typical dictator’s play. He has already declared such, and deployed the army, at the US’s southern border. Mass deportations are underway. After 9/11, the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act and, with it, enabled massively increased surveillance, as well as very significant limitations on civil liberties and legal protections under the law. The US went on to set up illegal torture centres around the world. There has been no accountability, either legal or political, for these crimes. How many Senators voted against the Patriot Act? One. We can expect no better from the Republican majority in both Houses.
Disruption/Sabotage - if the techniques above don’t work, what’s left? Romero says that if the courts don’t stop Trump, we’ll have to ‘shut down’ the country. That’s assuming the country agrees to be ‘shut down’ which is not at all clear. The evidence from other authoritarian countries is that ringleaders are rounded up and activists intimidated. Surveillance will be ubiquitous. Nevertheless, active resistance to unjust or inhumane actions is entirely justified. This might mean disruption of those actions, or sabotage. Easy to say, a lot harder and riskier to do. I was never put in this position. This is not the same as trying to prevent government actions that are worse than the ones underway or mitigate those policies. I know government officials who convince themselves that things would be ‘much worse’ if they weren’t there eg that arms exports to Israel would not be constrained at all instead of partially limited. (From Foreign Office insiders, I know that there were secret petitions signed by multiple officials within the government challenging this policy. Effect? Precisely zero.) Obviously, it depends on the policy. But I’m not convinced by the ‘it could be worse if I weren’t there’ justification. I judge governments, and the officials who comprise them, by what they do, not what they might have done.
Resignation - the resignation of officials over America’s supply of huge quantities of arms to Israel while it committed war crimes in Gaza did not stop the policy. And this was the Biden administration. Some have resigned in the UK over the same thing. And yet the supposedly law-respecting Labour government continues to supply F-35 fighter parts as well as conduct secret surveillance flights over Gaza to help Israel (MPs are not even allowed to ask about this in parliament, I gather). ‘Principled’ resignations will have little impact with an administration that has no principles. Resignations also in some odd way seem to count for less than they used to, even with more ‘normal’ governments. Officials give up their livelihoods, career and pensions. Governments sail on serenely. So I think we can discount the political effect of resignations, even of senior officials, generals etc., or even cabinet members. Within hours of such acts, Trump will be on Truth Social denouncing the resignee as treacherous, dishonest etc; Musk will have insulted them as ‘paedophiles’, ‘criminals’ or whatever. Their personal safety will thus be put at risk. Nevertheless, if you do choose to resign, you will have my respect and support and that of others. (Btw, I think foundations should now be setting up some kind of fund and legal service for whistleblowers and resignees from the government, a very concrete way of mounting ‘resistance’).
Preserve your conscience - this is perhaps the most important thing. There is something deeply insidious about working for government. Atrocity is very quickly normalised. Illegality becomes the new legal, simply because the government does it. Around you, your colleagues are busy implementing and not questioning the policy. The office looks the same as it did before. Your mental space is shaped by the papers passing across your computer. You begin to adopt the vocabulary and arguments of the new tyrants, because your job obliges you to. Just imagine being a US diplomat yesterday voting with Russia against (not just abstaining on) a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and thereby opposing America’s oldest allies in Europe (including the UK). It’s unbelievable, yet they did it. I scrutinised the faces of the diplomats sitting behind the US ambassador, wondering what on earth they were thinking. They were blank as usual. Perhaps some of them approved of America’s betrayal of Ukraine and indeed of international law and the UN charter itself. Perhaps their minds were busy accommodating themselves to their new political reality. Perhaps they simply felt alone, as no one else around them was speaking up. And this is the most dangerous risk. Resistance is atomised. It’s essential in these circumstances to maintain some mental distance from your work and remind yourself of your core moral principles. This is very hard to do alone. My wife Karmen was incredibly important to me as I went through my resignation, both as an emotional support and acute political adviser, but also as a moral compass. She reminded me what was important. This mattered because I was surrounded by people, my work colleagues whom I mostly liked, who had forgotten. So to current officials, I suggest consulting those whose moral judgement you respect - it might be a friend, a parent or a spouse. Ask them what they would do. Do not be alone.
To conclude, I don’t think blanket condemnation of those who remain in an administration like Trump’s is helpful. But to those who do, I would say that there are things you can do, short of resignation itself. And if you find yourself implementing morally indefensible policy, locate your centre, gather your family and friends around you, and get the hell out. History - and your grandchildren - will judge you kindly.
And feel free to contact me. I will share my encrypted email and we can talk.
There are some wise words of advice in this post Carne. The stuff about preserving one's conscience resonated with me. I'm someone who calls themselves an anarchist, but I work for an arm of government (a local council).
I'm lucky not to have a job that involves enforcing the wishes of the state on anyone - at least not directly. Neither do I have any positional authority - I am nobody's boss.
I have a family to support, so I can't afford to quit. Instead, I look for opportunities to do stuff that aligns with my values (anarchist or otherwise), and try and make small changes in my tiny corner of the universe.
For example, I'm in a union. I use whatever small influence I have to encourage colleagues to give more power to local communities. I challenge hierarchical ways of working, trying to cultivate curiosity about things like self-managed teams, distributed decision-making, etc. I sow seeds to try and get people interested in things like complexity and systems thinking (which were some of the strands that led to me having anarchist views). I'm a 'green champion'. I challenge as much as I can without risking getting sacked (I won't be able to change anything if I do).
All this stuff is quite benign compared to what some of the public servants in the US must be going to. But I felt maybe there is some value to this comment in sharing the small things public servants might be able to do to make small differences, or even to simply maintain one's sanity!
I think there is another form if resistance that is more long term and constructive, which entails the actual building of the alternative structures that are needed when this experiment in dictatorship inevitably collapses. Over on Chris Smaje's 'a small farm future' we're actively discussing the structure and skills base of these Refugia. This is a tough call for the professional managerial class who are, as you say, used to BEING the government. Who will also being hoping, at best, that this is just a blip, or at worst if they can find a cosy place in the new fascist corporations where they won't have to actually get there hands dirty. I can assure them, this is the corporate identity playing out, Trump, Musk, Putin, all the rest are just convenient place holders for a machine in motion.
The resistance is rural. Learn a craft, be actually useful to your actual community.