This page celebrates the extraordinarily courageous few whose actions go above and beyond what is expected of individuals or organizations in their defiance of authoritarians and well as their henchmen and social media mob enforcers, putting the resister's career, reputation, livelihood, and the personal safety of themselves and their families at risk of retaliation and harassment.
This page includes actions by Other Authoritarians as well as Liars and
(Most Recent Action at the Top)
Prime Minister Mark Carney
Canadian Prime Minister
Resister
August 26, 2026 - In December 2025, the administration formalized its aggressive stance towards Greenland and Canada with the “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine” by right-wing media. This policy asserted American regional dominance, with the president stating, “Under the Trump administration, we are reasserting American power in a very powerful way in our home region.” Initially seen as a response to Chinese influence, recent events have shown that Trump and his advisers interpret the doctrine more broadly, demanding adherence to American economic and strategic preferences from all countries in the hemisphere.
Carney recognized this threat early on, taking Trump’s ambitions seriously and identifying the “Donroe Doctrine” for what it was. In a pivotal speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Carney declared a “rupture” in the world order, urging middle powers like Canada to unite against the dominance of great powers. He criticized the use of economic integration as a weapon, including tariffs, financial infrastructure coercion, and exploiting supply chain vulnerabilities, warning against the illusion of mutual benefit through integration that leads to subordination.
Carney highlighted that the rules-based order, which had fostered global prosperity post-World War II, was being dismantled by America, the supposed protector of that order. He attributed this to a TV personality with limited understanding of global economics, who was dismantling the very systems he had helped create.
Nearly nine months after Carney’s speech, Trump’s actions confirmed the prime minister’s concerns. After undermining much of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, Trump threatened additional tariffs on Canada, prompting trade talks. Although a deal was announced just before the deadline, it collapsed due to last-minute U.S. demands that Canada refrain from unilateral trade deals and alter its domestic policies on language and cultural inclusion in digital and streaming products.
These demands exceeded typical trade agreements, leading Carney to walk away, stating, “Last spring, I warned that America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And I promised: ‘That will never, ever happen.’ We are keeping that promise.” When asked if Canada felt at war with the U.S., Carney replied, “You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked.”
Carney is aware of the stakes and has deliberately drawn a line. Both nations will face economic harm from this trade war, with Canada likely suffering more. However, while the prime minister has the support of his people in defending Canada’s dignity and sovereignty, Trump lacks such backing in America. Americans, like those opposed to the war in Iran, do not desire this conflict.
Although the U.S. and Canada might reach an agreement soon to prevent further economic turmoil, it would only be a temporary ceasefire. The battle lines are drawn, and America is not portrayed as the hero in this conflict. Trump’s actions have alienated the world, including America’s closest neighbors, making the country less safe and economically secure than it has been in a long time.
Carney recognized this threat early on, taking Trump’s ambitions seriously and identifying the “Donroe Doctrine” for what it was. In a pivotal speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Carney declared a “rupture” in the world order, urging middle powers like Canada to unite against the dominance of great powers. He criticized the use of economic integration as a weapon, including tariffs, financial infrastructure coercion, and exploiting supply chain vulnerabilities, warning against the illusion of mutual benefit through integration that leads to subordination.
Carney highlighted that the rules-based order, which had fostered global prosperity post-World War II, was being dismantled by America, the supposed protector of that order. He attributed this to a TV personality with limited understanding of global economics, who was dismantling the very systems he had helped create.
Nearly nine months after Carney’s speech, Trump’s actions confirmed the prime minister’s concerns. After undermining much of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, Trump threatened additional tariffs on Canada, prompting trade talks. Although a deal was announced just before the deadline, it collapsed due to last-minute U.S. demands that Canada refrain from unilateral trade deals and alter its domestic policies on language and cultural inclusion in digital and streaming products.
These demands exceeded typical trade agreements, leading Carney to walk away, stating, “Last spring, I warned that America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And I promised: ‘That will never, ever happen.’ We are keeping that promise.” When asked if Canada felt at war with the U.S., Carney replied, “You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked.”
Carney is aware of the stakes and has deliberately drawn a line. Both nations will face economic harm from this trade war, with Canada likely suffering more. However, while the prime minister has the support of his people in defending Canada’s dignity and sovereignty, Trump lacks such backing in America. Americans, like those opposed to the war in Iran, do not desire this conflict.
Although the U.S. and Canada might reach an agreement soon to prevent further economic turmoil, it would only be a temporary ceasefire. The battle lines are drawn, and America is not portrayed as the hero in this conflict. Trump’s actions have alienated the world, including America’s closest neighbors, making the country less safe and economically secure than it has been in a long time.
Governor J. B. Pritzker
Governor of Illinois
Resister
August 27, 2025 - Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker delivered a stern warning and message to President Donald Trump on Monday. This came after Trump threatened to deploy the National Guard to Chicago to combat crime.
In his remarks, Pritzker urged the president not to visit Chicago. He warned that if Trump harmed his people, nothing, not even time or political circumstances, would prevent him from ensuring that Trump faces justice under the rule of law.
On Friday, Trump announced his intention to send the National Guard to Chicago as part of his efforts to curb violence in several U.S. cities. This move follows similar measures taken in Washington D.C. The president has recently focused on public safety, particularly in Democratic cities.
Trump asserted that he aims to eliminate crime in Chicago within a week, possibly even less time. He called the city a “killing field” and criticized the governor of Illinois for not seeking help.
Regarding the timing of such measures, Trump stated that they may be delayed or implemented immediately. He expressed his preference for being asked to call in the National Guard.
Trump expressed his reluctance to invade a city and be treated poorly by corrupt politicians, particularly mentioning Governor Pritzker. He criticized Pritzker’s lack of fitness and called him a “disaster.”
Pritzker responded to Trump’s request in his remarks, accompanied by prominent lawmakers and leaders, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, and Father Michael Pfleger, among others.
For months, Trump and Pritzker, a Democrat, have engaged in verbal sparring matches. The president has labeled Pritzker as an “alarmist” and a “slob,” while the governor has referred to Trump as a “wannabe dictator” who is undermining American democracy. Additionally, the president has criticized the city’s Black mayor as “incompetent and grossly incompetent.”
In his remarks, Pritzker urged the president not to visit Chicago. He warned that if Trump harmed his people, nothing, not even time or political circumstances, would prevent him from ensuring that Trump faces justice under the rule of law.
On Friday, Trump announced his intention to send the National Guard to Chicago as part of his efforts to curb violence in several U.S. cities. This move follows similar measures taken in Washington D.C. The president has recently focused on public safety, particularly in Democratic cities.
Trump asserted that he aims to eliminate crime in Chicago within a week, possibly even less time. He called the city a “killing field” and criticized the governor of Illinois for not seeking help.
Regarding the timing of such measures, Trump stated that they may be delayed or implemented immediately. He expressed his preference for being asked to call in the National Guard.
Trump expressed his reluctance to invade a city and be treated poorly by corrupt politicians, particularly mentioning Governor Pritzker. He criticized Pritzker’s lack of fitness and called him a “disaster.”
Pritzker responded to Trump’s request in his remarks, accompanied by prominent lawmakers and leaders, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, and Father Michael Pfleger, among others.
For months, Trump and Pritzker, a Democrat, have engaged in verbal sparring matches. The president has labeled Pritzker as an “alarmist” and a “slob,” while the governor has referred to Trump as a “wannabe dictator” who is undermining American democracy. Additionally, the president has criticized the city’s Black mayor as “incompetent and grossly incompetent.”
Transcript of Pritzker's Address in Response to President Trump's Threat to Send Military Troops to Chicago
Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD)
A coalition of lawyers united in the defense of our democracy
Resister
April 26 - Over 1,500 lawyers have condemned the Trump campaign’s legal team’s efforts to overturn the election results in an open letter. They urged the American Bar Association (ABA) to investigate the team’s conduct, particularly that of its leader, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
The letter argues that President Trump’s litigation is a pretext for a campaign to undermine public confidence in the 2020 election outcome, which could potentially subvert constitutional democracy. It emphasizes that the President’s primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers who are obligated by their oaths and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law.
This letter escalates concerns raised by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), who on November 20 filed complaints with ethics boards in five states. Pascrell called for Giuliani and other team members to be investigated and disbarred. This criticism has been echoed in op-eds and letters by attorneys who have criticized the team for filing frivolous lawsuits and tarnishing the legal profession.
Deborah Rhode, a Stanford Law School professor and one of the leading American legal ethicists, expressed surprise at the formation of such a coalition calling for disciplinary action. Rhode noted that many of these letters have crossed political boundaries, which suggests both the egregiousness of the conduct and its seriousness for the rule of law and the democratic process.
The signers include a bipartisan coalition of former ABA presidents, state bar presidents, retired federal judges, retired state Supreme Court justices, and attorneys in private practice.
The letter alleges that the Trump campaign attorneys have abused the judicial process by making baseless claims of voter fraud in public. They then abandoned these claims in the courtroom in favor of wildly speculative and unsupported claims. Before appeasing Trump, they once again doubled down on dishonest arguments in public.
The letter argues that President Trump’s litigation is a pretext for a campaign to undermine public confidence in the 2020 election outcome, which could potentially subvert constitutional democracy. It emphasizes that the President’s primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers who are obligated by their oaths and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law.
This letter escalates concerns raised by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), who on November 20 filed complaints with ethics boards in five states. Pascrell called for Giuliani and other team members to be investigated and disbarred. This criticism has been echoed in op-eds and letters by attorneys who have criticized the team for filing frivolous lawsuits and tarnishing the legal profession.
Deborah Rhode, a Stanford Law School professor and one of the leading American legal ethicists, expressed surprise at the formation of such a coalition calling for disciplinary action. Rhode noted that many of these letters have crossed political boundaries, which suggests both the egregiousness of the conduct and its seriousness for the rule of law and the democratic process.
The signers include a bipartisan coalition of former ABA presidents, state bar presidents, retired federal judges, retired state Supreme Court justices, and attorneys in private practice.
The letter alleges that the Trump campaign attorneys have abused the judicial process by making baseless claims of voter fraud in public. They then abandoned these claims in the courtroom in favor of wildly speculative and unsupported claims. Before appeasing Trump, they once again doubled down on dishonest arguments in public.
Open letter published by LDAD warning 170 law firms of the consequences of capitulating to Trump
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson II
Federal Appeals Court for the District of Maryland and Eastern District of North Carolina
Resister
April 22 - The Fourth Circuit panel has rebuked Trump over the Abrego Garcia case, framing the constitutional showdown in an opinion written for the American people, the Supreme Court, and Trump.
The stakes in the Abrego Garcia case, pending before Judge Paula Xinis, are high. Judge Xinis has ordered the Trump administration to participate in discovery to understand why the government has refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return.
The Trump administration appealed Judge Xinis’s discovery order to the Fourth Circuit, repeating the government’s bad-faith arguments to justify its refusal to comply with Judge Xinis’s and the Supreme Court’s orders.
Trump then requested that the 4th Circuit halt the discovery proceedings aimed at uncovering the “who, why, and how” of the government’s disobedience to the court’s order.
A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stop the discovery proceedings before Judge Xinis.
In denying the Trump administration’s request to stop the discovery ordered by Judge Xinis, the Fourth Circuit issued an extraordinary opinion that effectively encapsulates the core conflict of the Abrego Garcia case and describes the impending constitutional crisis that would arise if Trump continues to disregard the orders of Judge Xinis and the Supreme Court.
The opinion by the Fourth Circuit effectively frames the impending crisis while emphasizing the underlying constitutional and democratic values at stake.
The stakes in the Abrego Garcia case, pending before Judge Paula Xinis, are high. Judge Xinis has ordered the Trump administration to participate in discovery to understand why the government has refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return.
The Trump administration appealed Judge Xinis’s discovery order to the Fourth Circuit, repeating the government’s bad-faith arguments to justify its refusal to comply with Judge Xinis’s and the Supreme Court’s orders.
Trump then requested that the 4th Circuit halt the discovery proceedings aimed at uncovering the “who, why, and how” of the government’s disobedience to the court’s order.
A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stop the discovery proceedings before Judge Xinis.
In denying the Trump administration’s request to stop the discovery ordered by Judge Xinis, the Fourth Circuit issued an extraordinary opinion that effectively encapsulates the core conflict of the Abrego Garcia case and describes the impending constitutional crisis that would arise if Trump continues to disregard the orders of Judge Xinis and the Supreme Court.
The opinion by the Fourth Circuit effectively frames the impending crisis while emphasizing the underlying constitutional and democratic values at stake.
Written Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson II in regards to Abrego Garcia v Noem | No. 25-1404 | April 17, 2025
Harvard University
The first college in the American colonies. A private Ivy League research university, founded in 1636
Resister
Harvard, the nation’s wealthiest university, made history by becoming the first institution to refuse to comply with the administration’s requirements. This bold move sparked a showdown between the federal government and the esteemed university. By the evening, federal officials announced their decision to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants to Harvard, along with a $60 million contract.
While other universities have pushed back against the administration’s interference in higher education, Harvard’s response was particularly noteworthy. The university declared the Trump administration’s demands illegal, marking a significant shift in tone for the most influential institution in the nation. This stance comes after recent criticism of Harvard for capitulating to Trump administration pressure.
On Friday, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard, demanding several changes. These included reducing the power of students and faculty members over university affairs, reporting foreign students who commit conduct violations immediately to federal authorities, and bringing in an outside party to ensure that each academic department is “viewpoint diverse.” The administration did not define what it meant by viewpoint diversity, but it has generally referred to seeking a range of political views, including conservative perspectives.
In response, Harvard’s president emphasized the university’s commitment to independence and constitutional rights. He stated that neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.
Harvard’s forceful posture on Monday was widely applauded across higher education. This response came after universities had faced criticism for failing to resist Mr. Trump’s attacks more aggressively.
Harvard’s response has been hailed as a “road map” for how institutions can oppose the administration’s incursion into institutional decision-making.
While other universities have pushed back against the administration’s interference in higher education, Harvard’s response was particularly noteworthy. The university declared the Trump administration’s demands illegal, marking a significant shift in tone for the most influential institution in the nation. This stance comes after recent criticism of Harvard for capitulating to Trump administration pressure.
On Friday, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard, demanding several changes. These included reducing the power of students and faculty members over university affairs, reporting foreign students who commit conduct violations immediately to federal authorities, and bringing in an outside party to ensure that each academic department is “viewpoint diverse.” The administration did not define what it meant by viewpoint diversity, but it has generally referred to seeking a range of political views, including conservative perspectives.
In response, Harvard’s president emphasized the university’s commitment to independence and constitutional rights. He stated that neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.
Harvard’s forceful posture on Monday was widely applauded across higher education. This response came after universities had faced criticism for failing to resist Mr. Trump’s attacks more aggressively.
Harvard’s response has been hailed as a “road map” for how institutions can oppose the administration’s incursion into institutional decision-making.
Harvard University's Letter in Response to Threat of Funding Cuts by the Trump Administration
Danielle R. Sassoon
Interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York
Resister
Danielle R. Sassoon, a highly accomplished conservative prosecutor, resigned from her position as interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Her departure was prompted by the Trump administration’s request to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a case Sassoon had previously supported. Sassoon’s decision underscores her commitment to prosecutorial independence and her refusal to compromise her principles.
Danielle R. Sassoon, Manhattan’s interim U.S. attorney, built a life on conservative values and amassed a daunting resume. She took a stand against the Justice Department where she had made her career.
Ms. Sassoon, in a remarkable letter addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, said that Mr. Bove’s order to dismiss the case was “inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts.”
“I have always considered it my obligation to pursue justice impartially, without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office, or harsher treatment for the less powerful,” she said. “I therefore deem it necessary to the faithful discharge of my duties to raise the concerns expressed in this letter with you and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss them further.”
Ms. Sassoon, 38, made a startling accusation in her letter. She wrote that the mayor’s lawyers had “repeatedly urged what she said amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.”
She said that Mr. Bove had scolded a member of her team for taking notes during the meeting and ordered that the notes be collected at the meeting’s end.
Ms. Sassoon also wrote that her office had proposed a superseding indictment against the mayor that would have added a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice. The charge, she wrote, would have been “based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the F.B.I.” It would also have included additional accusations about his “participation in a straw donor scheme.”
Danielle R. Sassoon, Manhattan’s interim U.S. attorney, built a life on conservative values and amassed a daunting resume. She took a stand against the Justice Department where she had made her career.
Ms. Sassoon, in a remarkable letter addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, said that Mr. Bove’s order to dismiss the case was “inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts.”
“I have always considered it my obligation to pursue justice impartially, without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office, or harsher treatment for the less powerful,” she said. “I therefore deem it necessary to the faithful discharge of my duties to raise the concerns expressed in this letter with you and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss them further.”
Ms. Sassoon, 38, made a startling accusation in her letter. She wrote that the mayor’s lawyers had “repeatedly urged what she said amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.”
She said that Mr. Bove had scolded a member of her team for taking notes during the meeting and ordered that the notes be collected at the meeting’s end.
Ms. Sassoon also wrote that her office had proposed a superseding indictment against the mayor that would have added a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice. The charge, she wrote, would have been “based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the F.B.I.” It would also have included additional accusations about his “participation in a straw donor scheme.”
Danielle Sassoon's Cogent and Fearless Resignation Letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi:
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website