The United States At A Crossroad

The United States At A Crossroad—An Analysis (16 Sept 2026) by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—Texas vs Minnesota

Back in mid-May 2026, a member of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by the name of Christian Castro was charged in a Minneapolis, Minnesota court with “four counts of assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.” [Most quotes from the NY Times article of August 26, 2026 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/26/us/ice-christian-castro-extradite-texas-minnesota.html]. Specifically, he was charged with “shooting through the front door of a Minneapolis duplex on the evening of Jan. 14, while in pursuit of an [an alleged illegal) immigrant.” Mr. Castro’s bullet injured Julio C. Sosa-Celis, the roommate of the fleeing “illegal.” Castro was not present in the Minnesota court to hear these charges. He had absconded to Texas. 

Nontheless, in response to accusations against him, Mr Castro made up a cockamamy story.  He had “fired the shot in self-defense after enduring a sustained assault that involved a broom and a shovel.” ICE administrators backed his story without checking its veracity. Thus, soon “after the shooting, Mr. Sosa-Celis  and his roommate, who are both from Venezuela, were charged in federal court with assaulting a law enforcement officer [that is, Mr. Castro].” This story soon fell apart because there was video of the entire encounter and no broom, much less a shovel, was seen. Mr Castro had lied (also a crime) and so prosecutors dismissed the “assaulting a law enforcement officer” charge. 

Soon thereafter, Minnesota authorities asked for Mr. Castro’s extradition back to Minneapolis to answer their charges of assault and lying. At this point, Castro was taken into custody by Brownsville Texas authorities under the assumption that Texas governor Greg Abbott would sign the extradition request and Castro would be returned to Minnesota. But, that is not what happened. Governor Abbott of Texas refused to sign the extradition request. Why did he refuse? It seems that Abbott, who is a close ally of President Trump, and a firm supporter of his draconian immigration policy, had made up his own cockamamy story. 

Abbott claimed that he did not trust Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, who is a Democrat. He referenced quite flimsy and “unrelated fraud accusations” pending against Minnesota state officials. None of this had anything to do with the extradition of Mr. Castro, who was subsequently released from Texas custody and was expected to flee to Mexico. Mr. Abbott seemed not to care. 

Finally, in one of those surprise moves, seemingly out of character, Mr. Castro did not flee Mexico. Rather, he turned himself in to federal authorities after a federal grand jury charged him with six counts of “making materially false statements to investigators.” Why did he do so? Well, the grand jury charges did not mention assault with a deadly weapon, which is a big step up in seriousness from fibbing. And, they did not mention a trip to Minnesota. 

Part II—Ongoing Divisiveness 

Why is this story important? Because, presently, it is a template for the rest of the nation. It is a symptom of growing divisiveness that treats the law as irrelevant. For a very long while significant numbers of White citizens in the American south and mid-west have been disaffected with what felt to be a wealthy east coast (i.e. New York City) monopoly of economic and political power. After the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s many of these same Americans resented federal monies going to Black restoration projects. Republicans have been organizing this discontent since the 1980’s and this has led to a shift in political power to the right. Over the next fifty years, with exceptions, the executive and legislative branches were dominated by conservatives. The overall result was that the country has started to fracture—a process that has lately sped up with President Donald Trump’s personal [law and evidence be damned] vendettas against Democratic (Blue) states. 

This brings us to what has been described as a “quiet civil war” (https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/are-we-headed-for-another-civil-war) and perhaps a process leading to a “soft secession” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_secession). 

There is now prima facia evidence that what the vast swath of Republican voters has spawned is a dangerous, narcissistic and allegedly unamerican would-be dictator. The signs seem to point that way: the creation of a “Brown Shirt”*  militia with a cover name of “ICE;” the use of private for-profit prisons where any immigrant (with or without a visa) can disappear; the unbridled use of “executive orders” which reminds one of history’s long list of tin-pot dictators.

At Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in September 2025, Trump said, “He [Kirk] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them.” Trump was telling the truth and almost every Democratic state nationwide has experienced his wrath. 

As a consequence, here are some of the defensive preparations states under Democratic governance are pursuing. They add up to an assertion of “blue state sovereignty” (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/09/trump-impeachment-democrats-impeach-blue-states.html). 

— These states are taking up a “states rights” political position, much like Republican states did during the mid 1950s. For instance, The state of Illinois is establishing “digital sovereignty.” This means “controlling the state’s digital borders—specifically, ensuring that the technology used by Illinois residents and state agencies is secure, locally accountable, and protected against external [federal] threats.”

— “Governors are holding emergency sessions on encrypted apps.” They are working under the assumption that the Trump administration is spying on them.

— “Attorneys general filing lawsuits within hours of Trump’s executive orders.”

— Democratic state legislators are passing local laws and taking state-wide action to “nullify” mandates coming from the Trump administration. For instance, “Oregon is stockpiling abortion medication.”

—Democratic states are looking for ways to “withhold financial resources from the federal government.” This reflects the fact that “for decades, blue [Democratic] states have subsidized poorer red [Republican] states, functioning as the federal government’s welfare engine.”

An important problem with this approach is that it relies on a constitutional/legal environment that is being systematically taken apart by Trump and his allies.

Part III—Eisenhower in 1956

There once was a time when law-abiding presidents (of both parties) forced Supreme Court decisions on Southern states in an effort to desegregate the country. This was not in 1867. It was in 1956.

As a response, Southern legislators (19 senators and 82 representatives) signed a “Southern Manifesto” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto) which denounced the Supreme Court’s decision, Brown vs. Board of Education (https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education). That decision declared the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. The Southern Manifesto went along with “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court decision.

This resistance led President Eisenhower (a Republican) to send the army (the 101st Airborne Division) into Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the law—to counter the state’s Governor, Orval Faubus’s order for the state national guard to “surround Central High School in Little Rock to prevent the attendance of the black students who became known as the Little Rock Nine.” 

Part III—The Precedent

Eisenhower was a mentally stable, competent president who respected the Constitution and the law. The 101st Airborne Division was not sent into Little Rock to run around like a bunch of Brown Shirts. Today the situation has changed. President Donald Trump is not a stable, law-abiding president. He is a loose cannon operating beyond rules and laws.

Consider the following: 

— Both executive policy and “national interests” have become synonymous with Donald Trump’s personal worldview and interests.

—Trump’s personal interests seem to fixate on his present and future public image. The foundation of that image is a series of fantasies—the fantasy of one who never loses a fight, the fantasy of one who always knows what is right, who always guesses correctly. His successful (albeit illegal) intervention in Venezuela boosted these delusional beliefs.

— The delusions are so securely held that it is hard to see Trump letting them be successfully challenged, at home or abroad. This is where Eisenhower’s action in 1956 becomes relevant. It becomes a precedent for Trump’s possible intervention in Democratic Blue states. This connection may come to magnify our present danger.

Part IV— Conclusion—At A Crossroad

The country has always been partitioned into multiple cultural regions. These roughly correspond to rural/urban, North/South. Trump has rallied to his side many Whites in the South and even more in the generally rural areas (both North and South). This is so despite his “wars of choice” designed to boost his macho image (it is an open question what effect Iran’s defiance will have on Trump’s psyche), but also resulting in a national debt above a trillion dollars.

Moving in the general direction of authoritarian rule, the possibility of seeing the army back on the streets grows. Of course, there is always the possibility of less ominous outcomes: Donald Trump might die or suffer the same fate as Woodrow Wilson (an incapacitating stroke). Someone of stature in the military might decide to say no. To cut the chances of this Pete Hegseth, our under-qualified “Secretary of War” is firing one general after another, and replacing them with “reliable” men. The Republican politicians in the trenches might rebel—this is likely only among those who have a real sense of responsibility to their constituents. These are possibilities. How likely they are is hard to know.

What is certain is that the country is at a crossroad and Donald Trump is forcing the issue.

• “The Sturmabteilung  ’Storm Division’ or loosely ‘stormtroopers’), or SA, was the original paramilitary militia under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany. The SA were colloquially called Brownshirts (Braunhemden) because of the color of their uniform’s shirts.” (Source is Wikipedia)