My Oath Didn’t Expire. Neither Did Yours.

In January 1994 I raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That oath had no termination date.

I’ve cast my ballot for Republican candidates in local and Federal elections since I was old enough to vote. I’ve defended the Second Amendment when it was under assault and the First Amendment when censorship came from the Left. I served this country in uniform, and I’ve spent my adult life believing that conservative principles—limited government, constitutional constraints, individual liberty—weren’t just political preferences but essential safeguards for everyone’s freedom.

Which is why I’m writing this now with something between urgency and dread. Because we’re making a catastrophic strategic error.

And I get where many of you are coming from. I’ve watched the administrative state grow beyond constitutional bounds too. I’ve seen courts legislate from the bench. I’ve felt the frustration of watching government become unresponsive and unaccountable. I understand the impulse to burn it down… to a point. But there’s a difference between reform and demolition. And in your rush to celebrate a president who “finally gets things done,” you’re dismantling the very constitutional constraints that protect conservative values when Democrats inevitably return to power.

And they will return—not maybe, not if we’re unlucky, but with absolute certainty. That’s how republics work.

And what is being built today won’t stay in our hands.

The machinery, the precedents, the normalized authorities—all of it transfers to the next administration. And when it does, you’ll have no constitutional argument left to make, because you spent these years arguing the president should have exactly these powers.

I’m asking you to think past this moment. Think about what you’re actually building here.

You’re cheering Trump ignoring court orders. Celebrating the Inspector General purge. Applauding agency capture. You think you’re getting a powerful conservative executive who can finally act without obstruction.

What you’re actually getting is a system where no president faces meaningful constraint.

When courts lose legitimacy—when 56% of Americans believe Supreme Court decisions are “mainly politics”—they can’t check a Democratic president either. When agencies are captured and hollowed out, they’re just as easily captured by the other side. When civil service protections are eliminated and the bureaucracy is purged, the next administration can purge it again and install their loyalists.

You’re not building durable conservative power. You’re eliminating the checks that would limit a progressive president you’ll hate.

And what about the deportation infrastructure being built right now? That won’t simply vanish when power changes hands.

Think specifically about what we’re constructing right now: deportation facilities, military transport systems, expedited processing procedures, normalized use of emergency authorities like the Alien Enemies Act, precedents for military involvement in civilian law enforcement.

You’re cheering for this machinery aimed at illegal immigrants today. But what happens when a progressive administration inherits that same machinery and declares a different kind of emergency?

Climate crisis. Gun violence epidemic. Right-wing domestic terrorism.

Same facilities. Same authorities. Same expedited processing. Different targets.

The infrastructure built for one purpose can be rapidly repurposed for another. That’s not speculation—that’s the lesson from every historical case where governments built machinery for “legitimate enforcement” that became machinery for oppression once the target shifted.

You’re building tools that can be turned on you.

But the part I’m begging you to really think through is how this strategic error becomes irreversible.

You think future Democrats will restore norms and play nice? Think about the incentives you’re creating.

Future Democratic administrations will face an impossible choice: Restore constitutional constraints and guarantee their own ineffectiveness (because you’ve proven Republicans will use unchecked power the moment they’re back), or use the same unchecked powers you just legitimized.

Which would you choose in their position?

If Democrats restore constraints, they’re unilaterally disarming while Republicans keep the playbook you just wrote. Constitutional government doesn’t return—it just means one party plays by rules while the other doesn’t. They lose, you win, forever.

If Democrats use the same unchecked powers—and why wouldn’t they, when you’ve spent years proving it works and faces no consequence?—then constitutional constraints are gone for everyone. You’ve permanently normalized autocratic authority across party lines.

Either choice destroys constitutional government. But one choice at least lets Democrats accomplish their agenda.

Which do you think they’ll pick?

You’re not creating “Trump can do what he wants.” You’re creating “every future president can do what they want.”

Including the ones you’ll despise.

You think you’re building a powerful conservative executive. What you’re actually building is a system where the next progressive president—and there will be one, because power always changes hands eventually—inherits unchecked authority, hollowed institutions, and machinery purpose-built for targeting populations.

And you’ll have no constitutional argument against it. Because you spent years arguing the president should have these powers. That courts checking the executive are “obstruction.” That agencies should answer to the White House. That emergency authorities should override normal constraints.

You wrote the playbook. You established the precedent. You eliminated the safeguards.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority? The next progressive president can pack it—you’ve established that institutional norms don’t matter when they obstruct your agenda.

Gun rights? Emergency powers you’re legitimizing today can declare a public health crisis tomorrow.

Religious liberty? The same authorities you’re using to target immigrant communities can target religious communities deemed “extremist.”

Free speech? The same deportation machinery can be repurposed for “dangerous misinformation” campaigns.

I’m not being hyperbolic. I’m being conservative. I’m assuming future administrations will use only the authorities and precedents you’re establishing right now. No further expansion needed. And that’s probably naïve of me.

The ratchet only turns one direction. Once you’ve normalized defying courts, purging oversight, capturing independent agencies, deploying military domestically, using emergency powers to override normal constraints—you can’t un-normalize it.

Conservative celebration today becomes progressive power tomorrow.

“But things will go back to normal when he’s done,”‘you say.

But that’s my point—they won’t.

Normal doesn’t return after you’ve normalized the abnormal. Constitutional constraints don’t restore themselves after you’ve celebrated their destruction. The machinery doesn’t dismantle itself. The precedents don’t expire.

You’re not hitting pause on constitutional government. You’re ending it.

Our children growing up right now are learning that presidents can ignore courts when it’s inconvenient. That emergency powers can override constitutional rights when the cause seems urgent enough. That independent oversight is “obstruction” and purging career professionals is “draining the swamp.” That the machinery of state power can be aimed at populations deemed undesirable.

They’re learning that constitutional government is optional.

And they’re learning it from us.

There’s a simple test of principle versus partisanship: Would you accept this if the other side did it?

If your answer is no—if you’d be horrified by a Democratic president defying court orders, purging oversight, capturing agencies, deploying military domestically, using emergency powers to override constitutional constraints—then you know this is wrong.

You know it.

The question is whether you have the courage to say it.

I know what it feels like to watch your social media feed and think you’re the only one who sees this. To worry that expressing doubt means losing friendships, being called a RINO and worse, of being accused of betraying the movement, of excommunication. I know because it’s already happened to me. All of it, and all because I spoke up. Because I tried to sound the alarm.

But I promise you you’re not alone. There are more of us than the loudest voices would have you believe. We just need to find one another.

Many of you served this country as I have. You raised your right hand and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath didn’t have an expiration date. It didn’t come with a partisan exception clause. It didn’t say “defend the Constitution unless your preferred candidate finds it inconvenient.”

That Constitution we swore to defend is under assault right now—not from some foreign power or fringe extremist group, but from the very people we voted for, with the enthusiastic support of Americans who call themselves patriots while cheering the destruction of every check and balance the Founders created to prevent exactly this.

I understand the frustration with government dysfunction. I understand the appeal of a president who promises to cut through the gridlock and finally get things done. I understand why breaking a system that feels broken has visceral appeal.

But there’s a difference between reforming a system and demolishing the safeguards that make it a constitutional republic rather than an elected dictatorship.

We’re crossing that line. And once crossed, there’s no going back.

So I’m asking you—one veteran to another, one conservative to another, one American to another: Stop celebrating and start thinking.

Think about the system you’re building. Think about who inherits it. Think about whether you’d accept these same powers in the hands of a President you despise.

Because that’s coming. Not maybe. Guaranteed.

Our oath is being tested right now, in real-time. 

The question is will we honor it?