When “Ordinary Ambitious People” Seize Power: How a Nazi Psychiatrist’s Warning Became America’s Immigration Crisis - Part II

Executive Summary

From Nuremberg to 2026: The Historian Who Warned Us That Ordinary Men Could Seize Dictatorial Power Through Immigration Enforcement

The contemporary American immigration enforcement apparatus, as manifested through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations during 2025-2026, demonstrates a systemic pattern of executive power concentration, diminished judicial oversight, and institutional norm erosion that historical and psychological analysis—particularly the framework articulated in Jack El-Hai's 2013 work examining Nazi leadership psychology—characterizes as indicative of authoritarian governance trajectories.

FAF analysis synthesizes archival precedent, institutional capacity studies, and quantitative operational metrics to establish that the Trump administration's immigration enforcement machinery has operated with minimal accountability constraints, resulting in a 91% expansion of detention infrastructure, tripled budgetary allocations, 120% workforce augmentation, and demonstrable patterns of court order non-compliance that federal judges have documented at unprecedented scale.

Introduction

Historical Parallels and Contemporary Institutional Dynamics

The analytical framework undergirding this inquiry derives from Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley's post-World War II examination of Nazi leadership, as chronicled in El-Hai's "The Nazi and the Psychiatrist."

Kelley's pivotal conclusion—that Nazi perpetrators were not pathologically unique but rather "ambitious climbers" lacking distinctive psychological defect—carries profound implications for evaluating contemporary executive institutional capture. Kelley observed that Nazi hierarchy members rationalized atrocity through procedural legitimacy, organizational hierarchy, and emotional manipulation of constituent populations.

Critically, Kelley extended his analysis to American governance, identifying mid-20th century segregationist politicians (Theodore Bilbo, John Rankin, Eugene Talmadge) as exemplifying identical tactical modalities: exploitation of racialized or minoritized categories to consolidate power, leveraging emotional rather than rational appeals, and instrumentalizing governmental apparatus to achieve political dominance.

The contemporary relevance of Kelley's analysis emerges through structural homology rather than direct replication.

Where Nazi consolidation occurred through explicit totalitarian mechanisms, contemporary institutional capture operates through procedurally lawful channels—executive orders, statutory delegation, budgetary reallocation, and judicial deference—that nominally preserve democratic formalism while systematically eroding substantive democratic protections.

History and Current Status

Fiscal, Operational, and Institutional Transformation

The Trump administration's second term has fundamentally restructured American immigration enforcement architecture.

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (HR-1), enacted July 2025, allocated $170 billion over 4 years to immigration enforcement—exceeding the annual budgets of all state and local law enforcement agencies combined. Within this allocation, ICE received approximately $28.7 billion in fiscal 2025 funding, representing a 287% increase relative to prior-year appropriations.

This fiscal expansion catalyzed corresponding operational metamorphosis. ICE workforce expansion of 120% enlarged the agency to over 22,000 officers.

Detention infrastructure increased from 114 facilities to 218 facilities by November 2025, constituting a 91% expansion. Section 287(g) deputization agreements—whereby local law enforcement receives federal immigration authority—surged from 135 to 1,300+ by January 2026.

Detention capacity escalated from approximately 40,000 beds in January 2025 to 66,000 by December 2025, a 75% increase within a single calendar year.

Notably, detention operations expanded beyond conventional facilities: detainees were relocated to military installations (Fort Bliss tent city housing 5,000 beds), Guantánamo Bay, and El Salvador, circumventing standard domestic legal framework constraints.

Operational scope expanded categorically. The "sensitive locations" policy—historically prohibiting enforcement actions at schools, hospitals, places of worship, and courts—was eliminated.

Enforcement activities concentrated in jurisdictions with vocal immigration policy criticism, particularly Minneapolis-Saint Paul, where 3,000 federal agents were deployed in coordinated surge operations beginning January 2026. Congressional oversight mechanisms were deliberately obstructed: federal officials denied congressmembers access to detention facilities and concealed detainee locations to prevent facility inspections.

The fiscal transformation coincided with resource reallocation across federal agencies. The Department of Defense reassigned 600 lawyers (with minimal immigration law training) to processing immigration backlog.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives personnel were transferred to immigration enforcement, reducing capacity for counterterrorism, narcotics interdiction, and organized crime investigation.

Key Developments

Detention Infrastructure Expansion and Privatization

Private sector contracting accelerated dramatically. Cumulative contracts totaling $22 billion were awarded to private firms in 2025. Fisher Sand & Gravel—headed by Trump ally and Republican donor—received $6+ billion for border wall construction.

Private prison operators GEO Group and CoreCivic received $800 million and $300 million respectively.

Data analytics firm Palantir Technologies received $81+ million in ICE contracts, developing surveillance tools enabling algorithmic targeting of specific neighborhoods for enforcement raids.

Detention facility conditions deteriorated systematically. Financial Times analysis identified facilities housing hundreds more detainees than design capacity. Detention standards—previously agency guidance rather than enforceable requirements—were further deprioritized.

The Laken Riley Act, enacted January 29, 2025, mandated detention for any individual arrested (not convicted) of theft-related offenses, eliminating judicial discretion in custody determinations.

A July 2025 internal ICE memorandum reclassified all undocumented immigrants as "arriving aliens" subject to mandatory detention under Immigration and Nationality Act § 235(b), irrespective of whether the individual had resided in the United States for years or decades.

Detention cohorts expanded beyond traditional enforcement targets. ICE accelerated arrests during benefit adjudications at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services offices, targeting individuals applying for marriage-based green cards, asylum screenings, and naturalization appointments.

Courts—civil, state, and municipal—became enforcement sites. Boston municipal courthouse data documented 54 ICE arrests in 2025 alone.

October 2025 "Freaky Friday" operations specifically targeted unaccompanied immigrant children ages 14 and older, encouraging withdrawal of pending applications and waiver of Trafficking Victims Protection Act safeguards.

Latest Facts and Concerns

Judicial Non-Compliance and Democratic Norm Erosion

Federal judiciary responses bifurcated markedly along appellate geography and judicial appointment cohort. District-level judges appointed during Democratic administrations issued preliminary injunctions and contempt warnings.

Judge Kate Menendez (Minnesota) issued preliminary injunction in January 2026 restricting ICE agents' authority to arrest, detain, or pepper-spray peaceful protesters absent probable cause.

Judge Angel Kelley (Massachusetts) criticized ICE for relocating a Salvadoran woman to evade a retention order, characterizing ICE's justification as "signing its own permission slip." Judge Sunshine Sykes (Los Angeles) threatened contempt sanctions for "continued defiance" of class-action relief orders.

Judge Donovan Frank (Minnesota) documented systematic ICE practice of transferring detainees to states with presumptively more favorable judiciary, characterizing the pattern as institutional obstruction.

Conversely, appellate courts appointed during Republican administrations—and particularly the Supreme Court with its 6-3 conservative supermajority—deferred substantially to executive authority.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued full stay of Judge Menendez's restrictions on January 25, 2026, permitting ICE agents broader enforcement authority during protest confrontations. The 7th Circuit reversed Judge Alice Ellis's order requiring ICE director attendance at contempt proceedings, ruling that judicial supervision of executive personnel management violated separation of powers.

The Supreme Court, without issuing reasoned opinion, lifted a California judge's order restricting investigative stops predicated on appearance, language, or location characteristics.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence indicated that factors considered in aggregate could establish "reasonable suspicion" for investigative stops, effectively green-lighting racial and ethnic targeting in enforcement.

Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz (appointed by President George W. Bush, thus a conservative jurist) documented 96 court orders violated by ICE since January 1, 2026. Judge Schiltz stated that ICE violated more judicial directives in January than "some federal entities had disobeyed throughout their entire existence."

Critically, Judge Schiltz's observations suggest that non-compliance operated systematically rather than incidentally. Multiple district judges noted that Trump administration representations to court—particularly regarding protest violence and law enforcement capacity—were "unsupported," "misrepresentations," and "untethered to the facts."

The pattern of non-compliance paralleled institutional incapacity. U.S. Attorney office personnel in Minnesota, handling enforcement-related litigation, acknowledged receiving inadequate resources and attempted compliance with contradictory judicial directives and executive enforcement quotas.

The Justice Department noted that career civil service attorneys "struggled mightily" to manage volumetric caseload surges while navigating conflicting institutional directives.

Cause-and-Effect Analysis

Mechanisms of Democratic Erosion

The institutional transformation operates through concatenated mechanisms eroding democratic accountability.

First, executive power concentration proceeded through statutory delegation and supplementary executive orders.

The February 2025 Executive Order "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" subjugated independent regulatory agencies to White House supervisory control via the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Office of Management and Budget authority expanded to dictate independent agency operations, budgetary allocations, and regulatory content.

This effected subordination of independent agencies' traditional institutional autonomy—themselves designed as structural checks on executive concentration.

Second, judicial deference catalyzed executive unilateralism. Appellate courts, particularly the Supreme Court, applied maximalist constructions of executive immigration authority while minimizing congressional and judicial constraints.

The Court declined to undertake rigorous Administrative Procedure Act review of executive immigration determinations. Statutory provisions restricting judicial review of immigration decisions—originally designed for narrow expedited removal proceedings—were interpreted to permit sweeping executive prerogative.

The reclassification of all undocumented immigrants as "arriving aliens" (thereby subject to mandatory detention) proceeded without meaningful judicial scrutiny despite overturning longstanding regulatory interpretation.

Third, legislative authority erosion diminished congressional oversight capacity. While Congress retained appropriations authority, the Trump administration demonstrated willingness to violate congressionally-established priorities. Congressional members were physically denied access to detention facilities ostensibly under federal jurisdiction.

Appropriations riders historically used by Congress to constrain executive action were circumvented through emergency declarations and executive order authority grounded in National Emergencies Act provision.

Congressional investigations faced executive privilege assertions and resource obstruction. Reorganization of immigration agency leadership in Minnesota (after federal judge skepticism emerged) exemplified executive displacement of congressional oversight.

Fourth, norm erosion and institutional capture proceeded through personnel displacement and loyalist installation. "Inspectors general"—offices statutorily established to investigate executive misconduct—were removed or marginalized.

Career civil service protections were weakened through reclassification of positions as "Schedule F" (at-will employment), enabling dismissal of employees resistant to unlawful directives.

The fusion of immigration enforcement with law enforcement across federal agencies (FBI, DEA, ATF) transferred institutional autonomy and competing mission priorities, subordinating these agencies to immigration enforcement objectives regardless of congressionally-authorized mandates.

The effect cascaded through institutional systems. Immigration judges, capped at 800 despite 3.8 million case backlog, faced conflicting directives: expedite removals (executive priority) while ensuring due process (statutory and constitutional requirement).

Detention facility inspections—historically conducted by the Office of Detention and Oversight—could not enforce standards absent congressional funding and judicial enforcement. Habeas corpus relief became attenuated as courts deferred to executive determinations regarding detention necessity and duration.

The International Criminal Court framework, while inapplicable to domestic U.S. enforcement (absent atrocity crimes), establishes evidentiary standards for institutional accountability that remained unmet.

The ICC principle of complementarity—prioritizing domestic prosecution for serious crimes—presumes functioning domestic judicial systems capable of independent factual determination and due process adjudication.

The erosion of U.S. judicial independence and due process protections undermined the institutional premise of complementarity.

Future Steps and Systemic Reform Requirements

Restoring democratic accountability mechanisms requires structural intervention across multiple institutional domains. Congressional reconstitution of oversight authority demands legislation explicitly authorizing facility inspections, detainee access, and investigative powers.

Appropriations legislation should include "limitation riders" specifying prohibited enforcement modalities and mandatory compliance provisions with conditions-of-confinement standards. Criminal sanctions for knowing violations of judicially-issued court orders—historically rare for executive entities—warrant consideration and prosecution.

Judicial activism through rigorous Administrative Procedure Act review, heightened scrutiny of racial classifications in enforcement operations, and enforcement of constitutional detention standards offers incremental reform pathway.

Some district judges have begun refusing to defer to executive immigration determinations absent adequate factual record and constitutional analysis. However, appellate reversal and Supreme Court non-intervention suggest judicial remedies face surmountable barriers absent doctrinal recalibration.

Executive branch reform—including reinstatement of "sensitive locations" policy, restoration of judicial discretion in detention determinations, and separation of immigration enforcement from national security and law enforcement agencies—would require either legislative mandate or presidential policy change.

Congressional passage of legislation such as the Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act of 2026 (proposed by Senators Gallego and Kelly) would establish use-of-force standards, mandatory body cameras, and accountability mechanisms currently absent.

International human rights monitoring and coordination with ICC Office of the Prosecutor could establish external evidentiary record should systematic detention and enforcement practices constitute atrocity crimes. While politically contentious, engagement with external accountability mechanisms may establish pressure and documentary record constraining future executive unilateralism.

Conclusion

Democratic Capacity and Institutional Resilience

The convergence of fiscal expansion, operational scope enlargement, judicial deference, and congressional capacity erosion establishes pattern consistent with authoritarian institutional capture.

Douglas Kelley's observation that totalitarian systems operate through bureaucratic rationalization and procedural legitimacy—rather than explicit coercion—applies with analytical force to contemporary American immigration enforcement.

The apparatus functions through lawful institutional channels; it does not violate law through transparent constitutional amendment but rather through interpretive expansion, statutory delegation, and norm erosion.

Federal judges appointed across administrations have noted inconsistency between executive representations and factual conditions—a capacity for judicial truth-telling that partially constrains executive unilateralism. Congressional appropriations authority, while attenuated, remains constitutionally grounded. Independent media documentation of facility conditions and enforcement practices creates evidentiary record potentially constraining future institutional capture.

Whether democratic institutions possess sufficient resilience to arrest erosion remains contested.

The Brookings Institution Democracy Playbook (2025) identifies the U.S. as "backsliding democracy."

The Century Foundation's Democracy Meter rated American democracy at 57/100 in January 2026, reflecting authoritarian trend acceleration.

Yet historical precedent—including Poland's retention of independent media despite Orbán-like democratic erosion in Hungary—suggests that institutional redundancy, cross-sectoral coordination, and sustained civil society mobilization can constrain authoritarian consolidation.

The trajectory is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Institutional capacity for democratic restoration depends upon legislative reconstitution of oversight authority, judicial reinvigoration of rights-protective jurisprudence, and sustained civil society resistance to norm erosion.

The historical distance between American democracy and authoritarian governance is narrowing; whether that distance regenerates depends upon institutional actors' capacity and political will to reconstruct accountability mechanisms that 2025-2026 systematically dismantled.