'Resist': A Slogan of Opposition to Democratic Outcomes

Dr. John Eastman questions the purpose of and potential damage by the latest outbreak of 'resistance' to President Trump and his administration.

The latest wave of “RESIST” yard signs appearing in neighborhoods across America reflects more than ordinary political disagreement. As the above photograph illustrates, the signs are often displayed alongside slogans such as “No ICE” and “Resist Fascism,” suggesting that opposition to immigration enforcement has become a defining rallying cry of the political left.

Yet the message raises an important question: What exactly is being resisted?

The “RESIST” signs are the grassroots counterpart of the broader “Resistance” movement that organized nationwide “No Kings” demonstrations and counter-events to the recent White House UFC celebration, all premised on the notion that President Trump’s exercise of authority is somehow inherently illegitimate.

Yet Trump was elected after making immigration enforcement one of the central themes of his campaign. Voters were not left guessing about his intentions. He promised stricter border security, increased deportations of individuals unlawfully present in the country, and renewed enforcement of existing immigration laws. Whether one agrees with those policies or not, they were presented to the electorate openly and repeatedly.

In a constitutional republic, elections have consequences. Citizens debate competing visions, cast their ballots, and then accept the outcome—even when their preferred candidates lose. That principle lies at the heart of democratic self-government.

The “Resist” movement appears to reject that understanding. Rather than accepting the legitimacy of policies enacted through democratic processes, its adherents often portray enforcement of duly enacted immigration laws as inherently illegitimate. The implication is that a president elected on a promise to enforce those laws should nevertheless be prevented from doing so.

That position is difficult to reconcile with the traditional democratic principle that policy disputes should be resolved at the ballot box. If voters disagree with immigration enforcement, they are free to elect different representatives and a different president. What they are not entitled to do is treat the outcome of a lawful election as presumptively illegitimate simply because it produced policies they dislike.

Who are the Real Fascists?

The rhetoric surrounding the movement also reveals a striking irony. The signs frequently invoke “fascism,” accusing immigration authorities and the Trump administration of authoritarian behavior. But the accusation often amounts to a projection of tactics historically associated with authoritarian movements.

Fascism was characterized not merely by strong government action, but by the refusal to accept political opposition as legitimate. Fascist movements sought to delegitimize elections they lost, suppress dissenting viewpoints, and mobilize extra-political pressure to prevent opponents from governing. They treated political adversaries not as fellow citizens with differing views, but as existential threats whose exercise of lawful authority could not be tolerated.

Take, for example, this little ditty by the once great Bette Midler. Her performance was part of a “resistance” event last weekend to counter the president’s UFC extravaganza at the White House:

What in the world?

By contrast, enforcing immigration laws enacted by Congress and signed by elected presidents is a routine function of constitutional government. Immigration officers carrying out statutory duties are not acting outside the law; they are executing it. Courts remain available to review unlawful actions, Congress retains authority to amend the law, and voters remain free to change course at the next election.

The distinction matters. A constitutional democracy depends on citizens recognizing the difference between opposition to a policy and opposition to the legitimacy of the political system itself. The former is healthy and necessary. The latter can become corrosive.

Ten Years of Resistance and All I Got Was This Lousy Ensemble

None of this means Americans must support President Trump’s immigration policies. Vigorous debate over border security, deportation priorities, asylum procedures, and immigration levels is entirely appropriate. But debate is different from resistance to the lawful operation of government.

The image of “RESIST” signs planted in front yards may be intended as a declaration of civic virtue. Yet it also conveys something deeper: an unwillingness to accept that millions of fellow Americans voted for a different set of policies and expected those policies to be implemented.

More from the “Riseupsingout” spectacle:

The impulse behind the modern “Resist” movement bears an uncomfortable resemblance to South Carolina’s reaction to Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860. South Carolina did not merely oppose Lincoln’s policies; it rejected the legitimacy of allowing those policies to be implemented after a lawful election. Today’s immigration “resisters” similarly insist that policies openly promised during a presidential campaign should not be carried out even after voters endorsed them at the ballot box. The stakes and circumstances are obviously different, but the underlying principle is the same: a refusal to accept that electoral defeat carries political consequences.

Democracy requires more than winning elections. It also requires accepting the results when one loses a lawfully-conducted free and fair election. A movement dedicated to perpetual “resistance” against policies endorsed by voters risks undermining that principle. And when its participants label ordinary law enforcement as “fascism,” they may be obscuring rather than illuminating the real lessons of history.

The challenge for a free society is not to resist democratic outcomes. It is to persuade fellow citizens, win the next election, and govern in turn. That is how constitutional self-government works—and always has. The Left’s latest “Resist” propaganda campaign risks destroying that vital principle.

Meanwhile, here is Julia Roberts from the same event:

Dr. John Eastman is a Senior Fellow at The Claremont Institute, and former professor of constitutional law and law school Dean. He represented President Trump in several challenges to illegality in the conduct of the 2020 election.