The current president has a knack for TV, marketing, and entertainment. (See: The Apprentice or pretty much everything else he does.) On top of the casual racism, his ability to turn his authoritarian ambitions into marketing ploys has buoyed him and his harmful views back into power.

Remember “I alone can fix it?” Or the infamous “STOP the steal!” Trump uses this much like someone selling snake oil or a used Chevrolet—catchy is what matters, forget facts and all of that. He is back at it again with the newly dubbed “Big Beautiful Bill.”

The problem, however, is this bill is far from beautiful. Most notably, it cuts healthcare for millions, decreases the income of the poorest 10% of Americans, and takes away SNAP benefits for 5.4 million people. All of these cuts are in service of tax breaks for the rich and further widening the income gap. 

Overlooked in the discourse about the bill is the sneaky and not-so-subtle attack on the courts. On page 562 of the nearly 1200 page bill the administration has hidden a paragraph to make it harder to hold the President accountable—unless you are rich.

 Section 70302 of the bill states

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”

The bill would bar courts from enforcing contempt citations—that is, punishing someone who violates a court order—if a bond (security) wasn’t paid upfront when the injunction or restraining order was issued.

Under current law (Rule 65(c)), judges can issue emergency protections (like a restraining order or injunction) without requiring the person who filed to pay a bond in certain cases. This is especially common when someone is in urgent danger or doesn’t have money to spare.

This bill would undermine those protections—because unless a bond was posted, the potential violator can’t be held in contempt if they don’t follow orders. The result: court orders lose teeth, and powerful people or institutions can ignore them without consequence.

Think of the current context with unjust immigration raids. Or the illegal disappearing of people without due process. In a scenario where advocates sue DHS and/or ICE for conducting these illegal and racially targeted raids, a court could issue an emergency injunction to halt the actions under the understanding of irreparable harms and due process violations. This would likely be done without a bond being paid by the people filing to stop the action.

Under this “beautiful” bill, DHS or ICE could continue the racist raids and disappearances with little to no punishment for violation. Unless someone with unlimited resources were to file and pay a bond, there is nothing to stop them from doing anything they want.  

Right now, federal courts rarely set bonds as a matter of equity, being mindful of disparities in access to resources. This bill tempts that practice by turning the courts into a pay-to-play system. If you’re poor, Black, or brown and don’t secure a bond—your rights are pretty much reduced to the paper they were printed on. This provision would make civil rights enforcement optional for the powerful and conditional for the marginalized.

Adding insult to injury, the provision in the bill is indefinitely retroactive, so this bill could target injunctions from decades ago. For example, court injunctions were used to desegregate schools. Those injunctions either had no bond or a nominal fee. If a school district wanted to go back and disobey that order,who is left to stop them?

The courts have long been a thorn in Trump’s side, from blocking his immigration bans, pausing his efforts to withhold pandemic relief from blue states, and even slapping down his most blatant attempts at political retaliation. While the Supreme Court has handed conservatives major victories on issues like abortion, Trump has grown increasingly frustrated by any judge—liberal or conservative—who doesn’t show total loyalty. In his second term, the gloves are off. He wants control, not collaboration. Submission, not separation of powers.

Nothing about this bill is beautiful, but the entertainer-in-chief says it is. What it really is, is a direct assault on our systems and another attempt to circumnavigate accountability for the privileged and powerful at the expense of the poor and marginalized.