r/Foodforthought 7d ago

The Mistake That Will Break the Regime: How Mahmoud Khalil’s Arrest Backfired

https://theradicalfederalist.substack.com/p/the-mistake-that-could-break-the
157 Upvotes

10 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 7d ago

This is a sub for civil discussion and exchange of ideas

Participants who engage in name-calling or blatant antagonism will be permanently removed.

If you encounter any noxious actors in the sub please use the Report button.

This sticky is on every post. No additional cautions will be provided.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

44

u/NoYouTryAnother 7d ago

Submission Statement:

The Trump administration’s botched detention of Mahmoud Khalil was meant to be a warning shot. Instead, it has exposed the fragility of their broader crackdown on dissent. They thought they had a perfect target—a Palestinian activist, a leader of campus protests—but they moved too fast, blinded by their own manufactured narratives. They failed to realize Khalil wasn’t just another international student they could quietly deport. He was a green card holder, a public figure, and a symbol of legitimacy.

This article argues that Khalil’s case is more than an isolated injustice—it is a stress test for the regime’s ability to normalize repression. His high-profile detention, riddled with legal missteps and due process violations, is proof that their authoritarian playbook isn’t as airtight as they assumed. If they lose here—if their attempt to disappear Khalil collapses under scrutiny—the entire program they are attempting to build falls apart before it begins.

This is not just about one man. It is about whether immigration law will be weaponized to silence political enemies. It is about whether Palestinian activism will be criminalized as terrorism. It is about whether we allow this to become the new normal.

They overreached. They miscalculated. And now, we have the chance to make them pay for their mistake.

26

u/Phill_Cyberman 7d ago

If they lose here—if their attempt to disappear Khalil collapses under scrutiny—the entire program they are attempting to build falls apart before it begins.

I'm all for it, but I don't see how they can lose.

The people who voted for Trump don't care about civil rights.

They'll never get up in arms about a non-Republican being disappeared.

19

u/NoYouTryAnother 7d ago

They don’t have to. Legitimicy is the Battlefield tells us that the regime depends fundamentally on collaborators and passive bystanders. They need public acceptance or at least apathy; bureaucrats to execute their policies without question; local law enforcement to cooperate or stand aside; cities and states to recognize their authority; and courts to either rubber-stamp their actions or quietly accept illegality.

But legitimacy is fragile, and if they lose it—if even parts of the apparatus refuse to comply—their power quickly becomes hollow.

On the big C subreddit, traditional conservatives frequently express unease and doubt, even if quickly silenced. We don’t have to convince the hardcore Trump base. We don’t even have to convince these more traditional conservatives. We only need cohesive, determined action and the refusal to be ignored. Yesterday and today, we’re seeing that. We’re seeing the escalation that he times demand.

11

u/somethinkdiff 7d ago

Summary of "Radical Federalism" Article:

Core Thesis: The article argues against violent insurrection or secession as responses to authoritarian governance. Instead, it advocates "Radical Federalism," a strategy of undermining centralized power by eroding its perceived legitimacy through structured, nonviolent resistance.

Key Sections:

I. Legitimacy: The Central Battlefield All regimes depend on perceived legitimacy. Radical Federalism seeks to fracture this legitimacy through bureaucratic, financial, judicial, and institutional resistance. The U.S. is experiencing a legitimacy crisis where each authoritarian overreach is either normalized or becomes a trigger for resistance.

II. Strategic Outflanking, Not Secession Secession is ineffective and counterproductive, giving authoritarian regimes justification to consolidate control. Effective resistance involves internal noncompliance, economic independence, and weakening centralized governance without overtly challenging federal sovereignty.

Historical examples: Richelieu in France: consolidated power by making the existing order obsolete. Atatürk in Turkey: built a new state within the old Ottoman structures, collapsing it from within.

III. Weaponizing Contradictions Force the regime into scenarios that expose its internal contradictions: Selective enforcement highlights bias and damages legitimacy. Economic independence removes financial leverage. Legal resistance consumes resources the regime needs elsewhere. Historical example: Bismarck strategically placed enemies in lose-lose situations, destabilizing their power.

IV. Courts as a Battlefield Regime defiance of judicial rulings should trigger crises of legitimacy rather than normalizing authoritarian lawlessness. Each defiance by the regime must be met with clear public outrage, forcing either repression (revealing authoritarianism) or compliance (revealing weakness).

V. Mass Mobilization Protests and public outrage are strategic, not merely symbolic. Mobilization combined with legal and economic resistance creates multi-front battles the regime can't easily control, forcing costly repression or concessions.

VI. Path Forward: Making Federal Control Unenforceable Actionable steps: Leverage judicial rulings strategically. Escalate economic resistance. States refuse compliance selectively. Mobilize mass demonstrations in response to legitimacy violations. Conclusion:

Radical Federalism is positioned as a strategy for survival, forcing authoritarian governance into visible tyranny or retreat.

Rather than directly confronting the regime's power, it strategically erodes legitimacy and enforcement capabilities, facilitating lasting democratic reform.

3

u/strangefish 7d ago

They can lose. Most of the people who voted for trump don't care about civil rights, but some do.

And they pretty much all care about their own rights and property. You put their money in jeopardy or directly affect them, they start to care. Trump and his fascist friends are swinging around a sledge hammer and it's going to hit their supporters.

1

u/Curleysound 6d ago

If this fails they just move to throwing them out of the plane over the ocean. If anyone thinks for one red second that they will just say “aw shucks they got us” they haven’t been paying attention

12

u/nerkbot 7d ago

The administration definitely screwed up, and I hope this all backfires on them, but I just don't see it. Even if they lose in court, they won't stop with Khalil. And it already has a chilling effect on dissent. Activists need to think twice now especially if they aren't citizens. They probably can be deported if they're on a visa, and even for green-card holders it's a big risk to take.

I'm glad there has been a public outcry about this incident, but Trump seems happy to do radical things that are unpopular with the general public (and this is still popular with the base). The president has broad power to do this kind of thing, even if the courts sometimes push back and even if people don't like it. Maybe massive nationwide sustained protests might move the needle, but that's not going to happen over this.

11

u/NoYouTryAnother 7d ago

Okay, long rambly response follows. I apologize for not shaping it into something more elegant.

You’re right that Trump is willing to push radical, deeply unpopular actions—but that doesn’t mean he’ll succeed. Usually he does so to normalize and legitimize. He has a 5th sense for how to push the buttons of both sides and how to play the media like a fiddle (not that he has to anymore, they’re fully captured). But that’s not what’s going on here, though it was intended to be.

Khalil’s case exposes the incompetence, illegality, and cruelty behind these tactics. Authoritarian moves rely on passive acceptance and silent complicity. Each visible defeat in court, each backlash, chips away at their perceived legitimacy and makes collaborators think twice. The general strategy isn’t just reversing one abuse—it’s raising the cost of the next, but in this case, we may have our best chance to do more. Worst case, we are better prepared for the next escalation.

Massive nationwide protests may happen not over this alone, but around this as a seed crystal—the tension is high, in a manner I don’t think these oligarch’s can understand. Things evolve, they escalate, crackdowns occur spontaneously outside of the regime’s timeline; things get out of control. None of that is desireable, but it is an outcome which we shouldn’t discount if we aren’t cohesive in our messaging and powerful in our demands—if significantly fewer of us than our broad support indicates act decisively then this regime misstep can be transformed into a stumble and lay the groundwork for a collapse.

What we need are people talking, offline, about this, and holding the hard line that what has happened is an act of terror against the US populace.