Merkley's Conspiracy Theories

As a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Oregon, challenging incumbent Jeff Merkley in the 2026 election, I have watched with growing alarm as my opponent peddles what can only be described as a baseless (nutty) conspiracy theory about President Donald Trump.

At his town halls and through distributed materials, Senator Merkley has promoted a so-called "ten-point plan" that he claims outlines Trump's alleged strategy to seize complete control of the government, transforming our democracy into an autocracy (become a King). 

This narrative, framed as an "authoritarian playbook," is not grounded in evidence or reality but rooted in Merkley's deep-seated hate and animosity toward President Trump. It is fear-mongering designed to scare uninformed voters into supporting his re-election, promoting division and hate at a time when Oregon needs unity, love and practical solutions.

As a common-sense conservative and U.S. Marine veteran, I reject this harmful rhetoric outright, as it undermines our constitutional safeguards and sows unnecessary distrust and hate in our institutions. There is zero possibility of any American president becoming a "King." 

Let us examine Merkley's ten points one by one, not as a roadmap to dictatorship—as he alarmingly suggests—but as a collection of exaggerated, irrational, unsubstantiated claims that ignore the realities of our government's checks and balances. He doesn't seem to understand how the government structure works with checks and balances.

The U.S. Constitution's separation of powers ensures no president can become a "king," as executive actions are routinely checked by Congress, the judiciary, and the states. History proves this: presidents from both parties have pushed boundaries, but our system endures because of these built-in protections.

Merkley's portrayal of Trump as an aspiring tyrant is not only without proof but also a demented ploy to energize his base by demonizing the opposition to promote hatred and judgmentalism. Only the uninformed would fall for this dishonest manipulation of voters. 

Fire the government’s referees (e.g., inspectors general and nonpartisan officials who enforce accountability).

Merkley accuses Trump of purging oversight officials to evade scrutiny. In reality, presidents have the authority to appoint and remove executive branch personnel, a power exercised by every administration, including those of Obama and Biden. These actions are subject to Senate confirmation and judicial review, preventing unchecked abuse. This claim is nonsense. 

Pack your government with loyalists (e.g., appointing unqualified allies to key positions to ensure obedience).

Here, Merkley implies Trump installs cronies to subvert institutions. Yet, loyalty in appointments is standard practice—presidents surround themselves with aligned advisors to implement their agenda. Qualifications are debated in confirmation hearings, and Congress has rejected unfit nominees in the past.

This point ignores that Trump's appointees, like those before him, face accountability through impeachment, lawsuits, and elections.

Grab the power over the funding of programs from Congress (e.g., bypassing legislative appropriations through executive actions).

Merkley claims Trump usurps congressional purse strings. Executive actions like emergency declarations are constitutional tools, often challenged in court—as seen in successful lawsuits against Trump's border wall funding. Congress retains ultimate control through budget laws and overrides. Portraying this as a power grab dismisses the judiciary's role in maintaining balance.

Go after centers of power (e.g., targeting independent institutions like universities, law firms, or agencies).

This vague accusation suggests Trump attacks independent entities. In truth, executive oversight of federal agencies is legitimate, and criticisms of universities or firms often stem from policy disagreements, such as on affirmative action or antitrust issues. Free speech protections and judicial independence ensure no president can "target" these without repercussions, making this claim hyperbolic and dishonest. 

Push influence over the press (e.g., attacking media outlets, revoking credentials, or using government resources to discredit critics).

Merkley paints Trump as suppressing the media. While Trump's rhetoric toward the press has been sharp, the First Amendment safeguards journalism, and no widespread suppression has occurred. Revoking credentials is rare and often reversed, as courts uphold press freedoms. This ignores that presidents like Obama and Biden also clashed with media, yet democracy persisted without censor or someone being named a "king." 

Disregard due process (e.g., detaining or deporting individuals without legal proceedings).

Alleging violations in immigration enforcement, Merkley overlooks that deportations follow legal protocols, with appeals available through the courts. Past administrations, including Democratic ones, have enforced similar policies. Without proof of mass, unconstitutional actions under Trump, this is fear-based distortion trying to undermine the president. Merkley's attacks on ICE agents is also inflammatory, partisan and harmful to Americans serving their country. 

Attack and diminish dissent by weaponizing the Department of Justice (e.g., prosecuting political opponents or perceived enemies).

This point evokes images of political persecution, but the DOJ operates under strict guidelines, with independent prosecutors and judicial oversight. Claims of "weaponization" cut both ways—conservatives have accused prior administrations of similar tactics. Evidence of Trump directing baseless prosecutions is absent; instead, this seems like projection amid ongoing debates over justice system impartiality on both sides. 

Use the military to suppress domestic dissent (e.g., deploying troops against protesters or in civilian contexts).

Merkley references events like federal agents in Portland during 2020 unrest. However, such deployments are authorized under laws like the Insurrection Act, with congressional and judicial checks. Troops are not used routinely for suppression, and any overreach faces immediate legal challenges. This ignores the context of protecting federal property amid violence and protecting ICE officers from domestic harm. 

Use the power of the government to spread propaganda (e.g., filling official channels with partisan messaging).

Accusing Trump of turning government into a propaganda machine overlooks that all administrations use communication tools to promote policies. Partisan messaging is inherent in politics, but laws prohibit using federal resources for electioneering. Without evidence of illegal propaganda, this is an overreach and promotion of hate if not outright lying about what is happening. 

Rig future elections (e.g., manipulating voter rolls, districts, or processes to favor one party).

Another inflammatory claim, suggesting Trump plots to steal elections. Yet, election integrity is managed by states, with federal oversight limited. Reforms like voter ID laws are debated policy, not rigging, and courts have upheld or struck them based on evidence. Baselessly accusing a president of this is itself divisive, eroding trust without any proof. He is accusing the president of treason against the country with zero evidence. 

These points, distributed at Merkley's town halls as a "manifesto" with "RESIST" flags urging opposition to the current president, amount to a tin-hat conspiracy theory devoid of concrete evidence. They rely on inference and innuendo, drawing from selective interpretations of past events rather than demonstrable intent to overthrow the government.

As I have stated in my campaign writings, Merkley's judgments are clouded by an irrational hatred of Trump, leading him to oppose beneficial policies simply because of their association with the president. This isn't about protecting democracy; it's about stoking fear to secure votes in 2026.

Such tactics are unethical and harmful in Oregon. They promote hate by framing political differences as existential threats, dividing Oregonians along partisan lines when we face real challenges like high energy costs, fentanyl crises, and wildfire risks.

There is no possibility of an American president becoming a "king" due to our Constitution's robust separation of powers—executive actions are checked by Congress's legislative authority, the Supreme Court's rulings, and the people's vote.

Merkley's unsubstantiated claims and distortions border on accusing Trump of treasonous acts, which is extremely reckless in an election year. As a centrist Republican committed to common-sense solutions, I object strongly to this false narrative and promotion of hate. No one in his position should be so hateful and intolerant of a duly elected president. 

It is damaging to Oregon and the country, eroding public trust and distracting from issues that matter to families. Instead of crazy conspiracy theories, let's focus on results: securing borders humanely, supporting Israel while pursuing peace, and boosting energy production to lower costs—all without the poison of Merkley's personal vendettas.

Oregon deserves better than fear-mongering. In 2026, voters will choose progress over paranoia - love over hate - truth over lies.