The Rubicon
July 25, 2025
by Garrett Moorman
exclusively for Fried Green Tomato Media
In 49 BCE, Julius Caesar made a decision that would change the course of human history; he decided to march on Rome and take it for himself. To do so, he had to cross The Rubicon, a shallow river in northeastern Italy. In doing so, he deliberately broke the law of imperium, which meant that armed conflict with Rome was now inevitable. According to historians, Caesar exclaimed "ālea iacta est" ("The die is cast") to signify the moment. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he crossed the point of no return, a concept reflected in the modern idiom "crossing the Rubicon.”
I bring up this idiom because the US has finally crossed The Rubicon. More specifically, our current President, Donald Trump, has finally crossed it. The die has been cast, and now is the moment to act. And so I write this essay to keep a promise I made to myself: that when I felt we as a nation had crossed this threshold, I would act and try my best to inform others of what is going on. I do not write this out of malice or as an attempt to start a fight; I write to have the conversations that I believe are important to have and to stand up for what I believe is right. The reader can choose to disagree with the claims of this essay. They can choose to argue with me about it. They can even choose to disregard this essay and never bring it up again. All are fair options. I write this not to elicit a particular response but to keep my promise to myself and act in accordance with my values.
The question of when we have crossed the Rubicon is one we must all ask ourselves at various points in our lives. When do things go too far? Where is the line? Was what I said too harsh? Do I still agree with the person I voted for? Is my disagreement something I'm willing to accept, or do I now find myself in opposition to this person? When can we say that enough is enough? I've spent a lot of time over the last few months pondering these questions as I've watched Trump implement his agenda since his inauguration. But why now? Why take the time to type this out? What changed?
On January 28, I watched a YouTube video that posed the question at the heart of this essay: when would we, as a nation, cross the Rubicon? When would Trump cross a threshold that marks the point of no return? When does the conversation shift from approaching authoritarianism to living in an authoritarian state? The video in question provided no definitive answer for this, as he pointed out that it was not a question anyone could answer with certainty. Instead, it is a question we all must decide for ourselves. To remedy this, he proposed writing down what his "Rubicon moment" would be and defining the situation or action that tells him they have crossed the point of no return. So, I did.
“…when would we, as a nation, cross the Rubicon? When would Trump cross a threshold that marks the point of no return? When does the conversation shift from approaching authoritarianism to living in an authoritarian state?”
I thought for a while about what moment would work for me. There was a lot to choose from, and eventually, I settled on something I had heard about from a former Russian journalist who discussed some of the warning signs they had missed when Putin began his takeover of Russia in the early 2000s, which was when he shut down an independent news outlet. It took him a while, but in 2022, he succeeded in shutting down the last independent news outlet left in Russia. Putin's actions make sense, given that all authoritarian figures need to limit the press to ensure that the public receives only information that aligns with the leader's agenda. We saw it with the Nazis, we saw Victor Orban do it, and we saw Putin do it.
The "Rubicon Moment" that I wrote out all those months ago was: "Donald Trump moves to get rid of Independent Media Organizations."
The reason I picked this as my line is because I view the news as a watchdog for accountability, imperfect as it can sometimes be. The moment the government dictates what information we are allowed to access is the moment I believe our democracy has ceased to function.
Of course, many things contribute to the death of a democracy, but this is something that remains consistent across all authoritarian takeovers in recent memory. Freedom of speech, after all, is supposed to be an inalienable right to all Americans, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and there's a reason that the founders were specific in enumerating Freedom of the Press as part of the First Amendment.
On May 2, 2025, Trump finally crossed the line I had set in January by signing an Executive Order to end Federal Funding for PBS and NPR, two well-known, publicly funded, and independent news organizations. Both have been around for upwards of 60 years and never in that time has any president attacked them this brazenly. You could argue that Donald Trump is only trying to eliminate them at the current moment. My response to you would be that Trump has now signaled his intent to do the very thing I feared by signing this order, and I would rather act now than wait till it's too late.
It's also not just NPR and PBS either. Consider The Associated Press, which was barred from accessing the White House press briefing for using the term "Gulf of Mexico" instead of the "Gulf of America" that Trump had renamed it (The AP later clarified its reasoning in a disclaimer on its website). Typically, the White House Correspondents Association is responsible for determining which journalists to include in the White House's press pool. However, the Trump Administration signaled a significant departure from this when they, not the Correspondents Association, decided to ban the AP. The reader can draw any conclusion they like regarding the reason behind this action.
Still, it is a straightforward matter of the AP being penalized for its non-compliance with the Trump Administration. Currently, a Federal Judge has ruled that the Trump Administration's actions here were unconstitutional, saying, "The Government offers no other plausible explanation for its treatment of the AP. The Constitution forbids viewpoint discrimination, even in a nonpublic forum like the Oval Office" in a 41-page ruling mandating the administration reinstate the AP. Compliance with the court's orders has been an ongoing issue in this case, as well as in others, which is yet another alarming development.
As a quick caveat, a Google search reveals that federal funding accounts for less than 1% of NPR's budget and 15% of PBS' budget, so you may be inclined to ask: why is this a big deal? My answer for you, dear reader, is that I view this action as symbolic of Trump's war on the media. First, it's worth noting that it remains unclear whether the White House is aware of the specifics regarding these organization's budgets. However, more important is this: every small thing the administration does can be dismissed with a wave of the hand. This deniability is by design. It's always easy to say, "Well, he only did that; I can live with it. I don't see the harm". Then the following action comes, and you push the goalpost in your mind a little further, and a little further, and further still, until slowly but surely you've ceded complete control. After all, the push toward authoritarianism rarely comes with a dramatic lurch but rather manifests as a series of small, almost imperceptible nudges. If you move too fast, you risk losing public support while they still have the means to hold you accountable.
I do not wish to wait until Trump shutters media organizations when we can prevent the dismantling of our freedoms before it happens.
* * *
As I believe the moment has arrived, I would like to take a moment to review some of the notable actions taken by Trump during his time in office so far, as I believe it is time for us all to face the reality of what is happening to our democracy. So far, Trump has:
Withdrawn from the US from the WHO and Paris Agreement
Terminated all D.E.I initiatives in the federal government and went on to remove or limit dozens of words like identity, climate crisis, and feminism from official government memorandums and research
In research, the government has mandated that independent individuals and organizations holding government contracts revise pending manuscripts and all future manuscripts to reflect these changes, which places a stark limit on freedom of speech within the scientific community.
Additionally, some of the restrictions include words that are integral to scientific data and analysis, such as "systemic," "sex," "female," "bias," "exclusion," and "diversity," among others. Some of these may seem unnecessary at first glance. Still, words like 'biodiversity,' definitions of systemic infections, or descriptions of methodology that include details about female mice would be rejected for publication, making many studies un-publishable.
Threatened to prosecute local officials who obstruct immigration enforcement
The administration then followed this up with the recent arrest of a judge in Wisconsin whom the administration claimed obstructed their efforts at immigration crackdown.
Said California should not receive federal aid for its wildfires unless it changed an environmental policy he had criticized.
Fired more than a dozen inspector generals, who act as nonpartisan watchdogs tasked with rooting out abuse and illegality within federal agencies
Suggested FEMA should be shut down, thus preventing states like West Virginia and North Carolina from accessing the aid they need
Signed an Executive Order ending birthright citizenship in America, despite the Constitution explicitly protecting it in the 14th Amendment (it is worth noting that the Supreme Court reaffirmed this reading of the text in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark).
Paused federal grants and loans across the federal government, putting things like disaster relief, education funding, and transportation funding at risk.
I should note that traditionally, Congress controls the budget, but the GOP has a majority in both houses and has made no steps to curtail Trump's power of the purse.
Raised our tariff rate to the highest in history
The GOP also inserted language into their budget blueprint that would "prohibit the House, until at least September, from forcing a vote on legislation to rescind Trump's national emergencies authority." Their actions effectively prevent the House from voting to end Trump's use of tariffs, which he can enact via emergency authority granted to him from The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977
Has announced and rescinded various tariffs on different countries
Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs were announced on April 2, 2025, resulting in a 3% drop in the S&P 500 and a sell-off in the bond market.
The decline caused by the tariffs reversed itself when Trump reversed his stance on the tariff policy on April 9, 2025.
Blamed Zelensky for the war in Ukraine and that they had started the war with Russia.
He then pressured Zelensky to make a deal on a natural resources agreement.
All Military aid to Ukraine was then paused on March 3, followed by a pause of intelligence sharing.
On March 10, he said Ukraine would need to give up territory to Russia for peace, which heavily favors Russia in the peace talks.
Trump's foreign policy toward Russia marks a significant shift in US policy.
He made controversial picks for his cabinet, like Fox News contributor Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense and RFK for Secretary of Health.
Hegseth has since been implicated in two separate controversies related to the disclosure of confidential military information on Signal, which have raised security concerns.
RFK has since forced out top scientists in charge of developing new vaccines and evaluating the safety of medicines, fired 10,000 employees, and devoted resources to the widely debunked theory linking vaccines and autism. He has also paused NIH grant reviews and canceled active contracts for NIH grants, thus hampering the US's scientific stature on the world stage (i.e., eroding the "brain trust")
Announced 84% staff cut for Office of Community Planning and Development, which pays to rebuild homes and other recovery efforts after the country's worst disasters
Laid off 6,700 employees at the IRS, which may make it harder for them to eliminate tax fraud and collect revenues for the government
Froze foreign aid through the U.S.A.I.D leading to vulnerable populations in places like Africa not getting the critical assistance they needed
Has sought to expand executive power over agencies Congress made independent.
Blocked funding for biomedical research
Looked to end the federal government's Narcan program by terminating the $56 million annually in a budget draft, which provides Narcan for first responders
Ordered the Pentagon to stop offensive operations against Russia
Deleted hundreds of claims from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency's mistake-plagued "Wall of Receipts"
Canceled $400 million in grants to Columbia University for its "failure to protect Jewish students from harassment during protests last year over the war in Gaza."
Columbia later agreed to a list of demands by the Trump administration, including banning students from wearing masks at protests, hiring 36 new campus security officers (who can arrest students), and appointing a new senior vice provost to oversee the Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.
Punished a law firm that had worked with Democrats by stripping its lawyers of security clearances and access to government buildings and officials
Moved to deport a permanent legal US resident who was a public face of a protest against Israel named Mahmoud Khalil
Khalil was arrested on March 8, 2025, after ICE officers followed them into his apartment building in Columbia University housing.
Deported people in the US without due process to a prison in El Salvador
The most notable example is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the administration has admitted it mistakenly deported as an "administrative error" and gone on to claim is a member of the MS-13 gang.
Abrego-Garcia had a protective order from 2019 when courts declared that there was an active threat to his life in El Salvador, which protected him from deportation. He has since been here legally under an asylum claim.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on April 10 ordering the Trump administration to work to bring back Garcia.
As of May 2, 2025, Trump has failed to return Abrego Garcia to the US despite the Supreme Court's order to facilitate his return.
Trump initially said he lacked the power to bring Garcia back, but in a recent interview with ABC, he indicated that he "could," only that he did not want to
[Editor’s Note: Abrego Garcia has been returned to the United States and has been charged federally with conspiracy to commit human trafficking amongst other crimes]
Deported 3-year-old American citizen children (including one 2-year-old and one metastatic cancer patient) to Honduras along with her mothers without due process
He said he is exploring ways to detain and deport US citizens to prisons in El Salvador.
He said he was unsure about whether or not US citizens are allowed due process, despite the 5th and 14th Amendments, which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled ensures due process rights for all individuals on US soil in Mathews v. Diaz in 1976.
That list is by no means comprehensive or unbiased, and therefore, it is possible that I have missed things or presented them out of context. However, I have seen a president openly defy the Constitution by attacking birthright citizenship, ignore the due process rights guaranteed to all people in America (regardless of citizenship), and engage in attacks against universities, law firms, and media outlets that he disagrees with, renege on his promises to cut Medicaid, appear to side with Russia over Ukraine in their ongoing conflict, and looked to expand the powers of the executive branch rapidly. To me, that's too far, and I won't stand for it.
Even if you agree with Trump's policy objectives, which you are certainly entitled to do, the rules must count for something. Democracy is not a given; it's something that generations of Americans have fought and died to protect. It would be a critical error to take our systems for granted and assume they will always protect us because we are watching in real time as the executive branch continues to exert more and more power and control over the other sectors of government and the people it seeks to govern, all the while the guardrails holding our democracy together further erode.
Imagine for a moment, dear reader, if Kamala Harris had campaigned on banning all guns in the US and had signed an executive order on her first day declaring the possession and sale of all firearms in the US to be illegal without calling for a constitutional amendment or congressional approval. Imagine she deployed federal agents to track gun owners down and arrest them if they resisted. Imagine if she displayed obvious contempt for courts ordering her to cease and, in some cases, outright defied them. Would that be okay with you? If not, why? You have a choice to make – either the Constitution and the checks and balances it guarantees are worth preserving, or they are not. We cannot simply decide that it is okay sometimes to disregard the rules of due process that we are all afforded. We cannot afford to waive off attacks on our protections because of the existence of checks and balances when those in power seek to remove those safeguards entirely. We cannot claim to endorse a system with three branches of government and be okay when one branch continues to ignore the authority of the other two.
You must decide, dear reader, if you would rather have a president limited in their capacity by the checks and balances of a three-branch government or a king. If none of what I have said has swayed you, it is certainly your right to be unmoved. If that's the case, I challenge you to write down your own "Rubicon Moment" right now and what it would take for you to decide things have gone too far, and it's time to act. Would it take a recession? A declaration of martial law? More due process denials? The shuttering of a news agency? Denying funds to a college because they spoke out against the President? Is someone you know being labeled a "radical-left lunatic" and being deported to a foreign prison? Please find your line and stick to it, as I have tried to do with this essay. If, after everything, you decide that you are okay with what Trump and the GOP are doing, then that's your right. You should own your stance and consider the implications of what that means for you and your beliefs.
The reason it is so important to write down what your "Rubicon Moment" is is that by the time it happens, you won't be surprised; it will feel like the logical next step. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Germany didn't fall to fascism in one, either. Instead, it took 53 days of careful planning and reform for Hitler to go from an elected official to a dictator. For places like Russia, El Salvador, or Hungary, it has taken their leaders considerably longer (and all have achieved varying degrees of control). Still, they were rewarded for their efforts with decades in power, at the cost of being branded dictators by almost the rest of the world. Except, of course, for Donald Trump, who appears to see them as allies.
If I have managed to depress you, dear reader, then I apologize. As much as I would like to keep things light and fun, sometimes we have to take things seriously, and it will take all of us to get through it. However, I also want to offer a word of hope. Nothing is permanent. We defeated the Nazis, The Soviets fell, and we were able to overcome segregation in the south. Even as I watch American democracy slowly slide towards authoritarianism, I take solace in the fact that this will not last forever. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel and a ray of sunshine behind storm clouds. I also find it pertinent to remind you, dear reader, that if you fall more into the camp of those who support Trump's policy objectives but disagree with his approach, I am not asking you to abandon your values or principles and embrace my left-leaning worldview, far from it. I am asking you to stand by your values and principles with conviction. At this moment, a kind of solidarity can emerge that is both strange and remarkable if we are willing to extend a hand to one another. Remember, dear reader, that disagreement will always be a part of America's identity, and it is through disagreement and the coalitions we build that we have been able to accomplish great things.
I encourage you, dear reader, to check my claims for accuracy and delve deeper into the issues we are facing on their own, to come to conclusions on the state of our nation, and to feel free to reach out to me with any feedback (including questions, comments, or new information that may challenge my perspective). If my words did reach you, dear reader, then you must ask yourself an even more complicated question than "When have we crossed The Rubicon?" You must ask yourself:
"What am I going to do to stop this?"
Thank you for your time.
* * *
Garrett Moorman is a former Republican who contracted the woke-mind virus from his (very patient) friends. When he's not doomscrolling the news, you can find him at his local Dems meeting, canvassing on the weekends, or absolutely dominating at Mario Kart.
