Gov. Phil Scott continues to tiptoe the line when it comes to the rank berserkitude of the Trump administration. He got a lot of press coverage for his refusal to approve Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s request for Vermont National Guard personnel for administrative assistance. Since then, it’s been pretty much prudence slash appeasement.

Frankly, I don’t give him much credit for the ICE decision. They only wanted 12 people to basically do secretarial work. (I guess someone’s got to fetch the coffee.) It was such a small-stakes request that I wondered why ICE even bothered. Were they trying to get a foot in the door for bigger asks down the line? Or were they doing Scott a favor by making a request he could safely refuse?

Whatever, Scott’s subsequent actions make it clear that we shouldn’t be giving him a membership card in The Resistance anytime soon. In context, the ICE decision looks more like a brief tactical pivot than a sign that he takes Trump seriously as an existential threat to democracy.

The most notable event since the ICE rejection was the Scott administration’s decision to give the feds “the sensitive personal information of tens of thousands of Vermonters receiving federal nutrition assistance benefits,” per Vermont Public’s Peter Hirschfeld. Scott’s office released a statement asserting that the feds had a clear legal claim to the information and accusing critics of creating “political drama” and “chaos” for no good reason.

Yeah, well, this puts the administration, once again, at odds with Attorney General Charity Clark. A group of Democratic AGs has filed suit against the order, and Clark says she “absolutely” would have taken part except that Scott is “approaching this in a way that prevents me from being able to join a lawsuit.”

Democratic and Progressive political leaders spoke out against Scott’s decision. Former lieutenant governor David Zuckerman said that Scott “chose to cooperate with a federal administration bent on weaponizing benefits data for political gain.” Progressive Party chair Anthony Pollina wrote that “yet again, Governor Phil Scott has proven his willingness to disregard the most vulnerable Vermonters.” Treasurer Mike Pieciak made sure he was near the front of the line — although his statement never once mentioned the governor by name.

Fascinating. Not an encouraging sign for those who wish to see Pieciak run for governor in 2026. (For what it’s worth, Pieciak’s statement was released not by his office, but by his campaign adviser Natalie Silver. Tell me quick, which 2026 campaign is she running? A walkover re-election bid for treasurer, or a direct challenge to that unnamed guy in the corner office?)

Then, on Sunday, Scott held a “roundtable discussion about issues impacting agriculture” at a farm in Fairlee with Trump’s EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin. All indications are that the event was not announced in advance. After it was over, Scott’s Facebook page offered several photographs from the event and a one-paragraph summary. Our three TV news operations produced very brief stories that depended entirely on the Facebook content for images and information. If the TV stations had had advance notice, surely they would have dispatched cameras to get some guaranteed content for their Sunday evening newscasts.

I have to imagine that Scott wanted to avoid a large protest outside the meeting, á la Vice President J.D. Vance’s ski trip to the Mad River Valley. One also has to wonder (and we’ll never know, will we?) if anyone at the confab mentioned Trump tariffs or the persecution of migrant workers. It’s not in Zeldin’s direct remit, but if the subject was “issues impacting agriculture,” well, tariffs and the immigrant crackdown are the top issues of the day, aren’t they?

I can understand the desire to avoid open conflict with a vengeful wannabe dictator. But Scott is treading a very fine line, and Trump is busily moving the line on an almost daily basis. Sooner or later, Scott is going to have to opt for total capitulation or take a stand against federal overreach.

For instance: the Trump administration has just released a shorter, more targeted list of sanctuary jurisdictions. Vermont is on the list, along with New York — which has already been sued by Trump’s attorney general Pam Bondi. The original sanctuary list included more than 500 states and cities. The new list has less than 40 names, so the threat is much more tangible. Vermont is not, in fact, a sanctuary state, thanks largely to Phil Scott’s opposition to such a move. But that’s not going to stop the Trump bulldozer, is it?

When it happens — and that’s not an “If,” it’s a “when” —what is Scott going to do? Cooperate with AG Clark’s efforts to fight back, or take the coward’s way out? As a certain Nobel laureate once said, “it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”