A Database Is Not the Point. Power Is

Let’s slow this down and be exact, because the people proposing this are counting on confusion.

Tom Homan says a database is coming. A list of “Democrat radicals.” Arrests will be logged. Names will be compiled. Employers will be notified. And we’re told there’s nothing to see here because arrest records are public information, so this isn’t doxxing.

That argument collapses under its own weight.

The Constitution does not ask whether information is public. It asks how the government uses its power.

The First Amendment problem is obvious. The government may not retaliate against citizens for speech, protest, or political opposition. When officials announce that political dissent will be cataloged and consequences will follow, that is not law enforcement. That is intimidation. It is designed to make people think twice before exercising their rights. And that is exactly what the First Amendment exists to stop.

But this does not stop there.

There is also a Fourth Amendment problem, and it’s a serious one.

The Fourth Amendment is not just about doors being kicked in. It is about preventing the government from building surveillance mechanisms aimed at citizens without cause, warrants, or judicial oversight. Creating a centralized database to aggregate arrest data for the purpose of identifying, tracking, and pressuring political opponents is not neutral recordkeeping. It is surveillance by another name.

Aggregation matters. Intent matters. Purpose matters.

An arrest record sitting in a courthouse file is one thing. A government-run list designed to single people out, label them, and circulate their identities to employers is something else entirely. That is investigative. That is coercive. And it is happening outside the safeguards the Constitution demands.

Arrest is not guilt. Arrest is not a conviction. Arrest is the beginning of a process that is supposed to end in a courtroom, not in an HR office.

The government does not get to impose punishment without trial. It does not get to stigmatize citizens without convictions. And it does not get to turn political opposition into a data point.

Calling this transparency does not make it constitutional. Calling it public information does not make it lawful. And calling it “not doxxing” is a distraction.

This is not about a database.

It is about whether the government is allowed to use its power to surveil, intimidate, and economically pressure citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.

The answer to that question is supposed to be no.