This week in Trumplandia, the hue and cry of “Constitutional crisis” got significantly louder. I touched on this in last week’s column, but it deserves further examination. At first, it was primarily left-leaning scholars, journalists and politicians. You can find the various legal arguments for why in this week’s New York Times article, “Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say.” The dean of UC Berkeley law school, Edwin Chemerinsky, lists the various executive actions, including efforts to end birthright citizenship, shuttering USAID seemingly overnight, firing the heads of independent agencies, and apparently canceling federal grants and spending authorized by Congress. Though many of these moves have been temporarily blocked by judicial injunctions, that has in no way quieted the storm.
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis and historical perspective.
The elephant in the room is Trump’s apparent appetite for power. Many see Jan6 as a flaunting of the constitution for individual power grabbing. He never argued he was fighting for freedom or the country, only that HE should be president.
Fast forward to 2025 and he seems interested in centralizing his power and building his dynasty - Greenland will be ours, Canada a US state, Panama Canal will be ours, the world economy will bow their knees to Trump’s agenda, he can dispatch the military wherever he wants to impose his agenda, if you oppose him in any way you’ll be fired or arrested or worse. For goodness sake, he said the US will take over and occupy Gaza under the “authority of the US”.
I’m glad to hear you have faith in the US constitution and the separation of powers we enjoy, but Trump’s comments and actions indicate he sees both as an obstacle to his dynastic, autocratic agenda.
It may not be a crisis now, but if he succeeds with centralizing power enough that future presidents (if he allows an election) have complete control then history will look back and wonder why we didn’t treat this time like a crisis.
Rational points, but the scariest part of all this for me is that Elon Musk is setting the US up as a giant lab experiment for his AI software. By the time courts rule , it may be too late. It doesn't take long to hoover data from all major governent institutions. Once that has happened, we are in the hands of the richest man on earth, and all restraint will be lost. Trump may become disillusioned with him at some point, but that, too, will be too late.
Trump is not simply "exerting his power over the executive branch" (where he already holds almost total power). He is attempting to exert executive power over the legislative branch (by refusing to enforce legislation duly passed by Congress) and the judicial branch (by threatening to defy the Court's decisions). Given the ongoing consequences -- tens of thousands of federal workers fired, thousands of research projects and medical trials halted mid-stream -- arguing that this does not constitute a crisis frankly strikes me as ridiculous.
My first reaction was not good since I thought you were just defending Trump et al. As I read on I realized that your position is one of rationally looking at the current situation without reaction. This, I believe, is to stop the struggling and step back, slow down and talk.
I hope this approach is what will happen over time. My concern is that in the rush to make change happen doors may be slammed shut.
Yes, aore measured approach instead of a sledgehammer. Also, I'm all for people making money, but not purposely soaking the federal government, we taxpayers. And the income inequality is troubling, as well as the disparagement of minority groups.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” wrote Orwell. This article is naive and ignores the fundamental character difference between Lincoln, FDR, and Truman, all of whom were said to be causing Constitutional crises. To equate FDR and Lincoln with the current president is the worst kind of Kremlin-inspired What Aboutism. I would urge your readers to seek out what Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben Ghiat, and Anne Applebaum, who all have decades of expertise in studying authoritarianism dictators from the left and the right. Waiting to be alarmed until it is too late is the luxury of the chattering classes who can afford to say, “Oops.”
Francis, you, Snyder, Ruth etc all quite entitled to rebut and sound the klaxons of crisis and alarm. But do not make comments like "Kremlin-inspired" on this site again. That is quite out of bounds, unhelpful and unwarranted.
That’s very disappointing that you think that or would speak to a reader in this way. I’ve always admired you and The Progress Network. For my first interaction with you to be so unpleasant and lacking in civility is really disillusioning. In terms of what is out of bounds this seems quite tame to express ideas that are not violent in any way toward anyone. The sharpness of your response implies my criticism of your argument (not you) hits a bit too close to home for you. As the child of holocaust survivors and a former U.S. diplomat who worked for years in authoritarian police states, I feel it is highly warranted, helpful, and necessary to help our fellow citizens understand what is going on. I’m sorry for offending you with remarks. I would continue to urge your readers to also see what true experts on authoritarianism have to say.
Kremlin-inspired is a direct verbal assault stating literally that what I have written is a result of Putin and Russian autocracy. Pls explain why you think that is an acceptable way to criticize something? “True experts” do not have a monopoly on thoughtful insights, nor are they immune from being blinded by their own lens. I responded as I did because using the language you did is not acceptable on this site. The rest of your critique of course is welcome.
And civility requires certain mores of engagement. I am surprised you are disillusioned that someone who has steadfastly worked to shift the tone of discourse (and no, I am not at all perfect and make my own missteps) simply and forcefully states when and why language crosses over a line. A subjective line for sure.
FDR's Executive Order 9066 imprisoned American citizens, who had done nothing except be of Japanese descent, in military internment camps for four years. I hate Trump, but I'm really, really sick of this idea that the presidency was held by honorable men until he came along.
You're right. It's not a "Constitutional crisis." It's an auto-coup, a legally elected single person using the levers of power to gain autocratic control of the government. It may not succeed due to some of the factors you mention, but it well might. I don't have an answer, except to do what little I can to resist and oppose, but I' running low on hope.
Yeah, good luck with this nuanced approach. The federal government is NOT doing well. It's being eviscerated. Judges are making rulings which Trump and Musk and their ilk are ignoring.
FDR ought to have been impeached and removed from office over his Court packing threats. But what Trump is doing is even worse: he is baldly asserting that the executive is totally above the law and that no executive action is legitimately subject to judicial review at all.
His latest rhetorical flourish to this effect, from earlier today, was to quote Napoleon to the effect that "he who saves his country does not violate any law". How much further will you bend over backwards to sanewash this kind of thing? How much more evidence do we need that a guy who openly and explicitly said during his campaign that he wanted to be a dictator is, in fact, attempting to rule as a dictator? And if the President openly attempting to rule as a dictator isn't a constitutional crisis, what is?
Until that rhetoric is reality - which is absolutely is not now - then being hysterical about what he says is a waste of time and energy. The courts are currently reacting and acting on a series of tangible actions whose legality and legitimacy are in question. That’s how it should be. And impeaching FDR for attempting to change the balance of power in his favor would have been a serious misuse of the impeachment power.
I would point out also that 20th century history makes clear just how dangerous it is to downplay evil rhetoric like Trump's. Many, many ordinary mainstream liberal-minded people like you in the 1920s and early 1930s sanewashed Hitler by saying that the things he said about Jews were rhetorical bluster and he hadn't yet turned that rhetoric into reality. The proper time to stop him was before any of it turned into reality!
Of course that was true in the 1920s and 1930s. That doesn’t make it true or untrue today. Bring mindful of parallels is of course vital. But so is bring mindful of real differences between now and then.
The point of the impeachment power is to restrain the president from taking dictatorial and/or criminal actions. It ought to have been used much more through our history, since the Presidency has been dangerously overpowered from day one. At this point it has become so imminently dangerous that, if we manage to survive the Trump years with the country intact, we ought to amend the Constitution to replace it either with an executive council or a parliamentary system. No single person should ever again be allowed to wield that much concentrated authority for any reason.
I 100% agree with the last paragraph "The best outcome of all this would be a better government. If everyone could stop shouting, and if the Trump team could pause long enough to build some consensus rather than taking a sledgehammer to everything, that might actually be achievable. Doesn’t seem likely, but it’s worth keeping in mind." How we accomplish this is the true question at hand.
"It may lead to a different balance of power between the branches...Or this fight may simply leave us all exhausted and weaker, without any meaningful change or systemic shifts...The best outcome of all this would be a better government. If everyone could stop shouting, and if the Trump team could pause long enough to build some consensus rather than taking a sledgehammer to everything, that might actually be achievable."
I think there's a fourth outcome, which is that this sledgehammer bullshit leads the American electorate to actually understand how the "establishment" gives us a comfortable and peaceful (relative to other areas of the world) lifestyle, and maybe we will actually appreciate things--like medical research, operable roads, potable water coming from our faucets--that we're so excited to dismantle. Maybe the populism era will, thus, end.
Trump defrauded millions. Musk was paid a "bonus" of 55 billion for one year. And they want to be poster childs for efficiency? THis duo is causing great trauma and harm to US citizens and in particular government employees. This included long term, quality employees, military veterans. THen they want to torch and burn medicaid which provides for health coverage for the poor and pays millions of health care workers salaries. Shock and Awe did not work in the gulf, it will not work here. The US is and will pay a significant toll for the harmful tactics being employed by the South African oligarch and his orange puppet.
FDR was walking a tight rope. Our economy was a.mess. Huge segments of our population touted the successes of communism and fascism. We held fascist rallies in The Quad Cities. In Southern Iowa communism was so popular we had Red Scarf Scout Troops. Within his own administration he had leaders that wanted him to become a dictator (sound familiar?). At a time when our country really needs another dose of Democratic Socialism, we seem to be turning more towards a failed past.
I predict the devastating stock market crash coming late this year will make Trump The Hoover of this generation. Only the theory that his policies will bring back mfg jobs and strengthen the dollar is keeping them. It won't last long. These kind of rises have always resulted in collapse. His lame duck session will begin early. Nothing he proposes will be accomplished.
It is clear though that something needs to be done about Gov't promises. We can't break contracts with unions and companies, much less other countries and expect them to trust us in the future. I live in an area with one of the world's most successful corporations. Unfortunately, constant lay-offs and threats of strikes are making it harder for them to recruit the best. This a company where it once it was a big deal to have a job, even if it was just sweeping floors.
I appreciate this reminder of historical context. My life and my work are directly affected by some of the decisions being made by this administration, which makes it challenging to maintain perspective. I would point out, though, that this administration operates under a slogan of 'make America great again', when America has never been great for millions of people who aren't white, male, hetero, with money and influence. There is much to oppose in a party that seems bent on making life incredibly difficult for the most vulnerable among us.
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis and historical perspective.
The elephant in the room is Trump’s apparent appetite for power. Many see Jan6 as a flaunting of the constitution for individual power grabbing. He never argued he was fighting for freedom or the country, only that HE should be president.
Fast forward to 2025 and he seems interested in centralizing his power and building his dynasty - Greenland will be ours, Canada a US state, Panama Canal will be ours, the world economy will bow their knees to Trump’s agenda, he can dispatch the military wherever he wants to impose his agenda, if you oppose him in any way you’ll be fired or arrested or worse. For goodness sake, he said the US will take over and occupy Gaza under the “authority of the US”.
I’m glad to hear you have faith in the US constitution and the separation of powers we enjoy, but Trump’s comments and actions indicate he sees both as an obstacle to his dynastic, autocratic agenda.
It may not be a crisis now, but if he succeeds with centralizing power enough that future presidents (if he allows an election) have complete control then history will look back and wonder why we didn’t treat this time like a crisis.
Rational points, but the scariest part of all this for me is that Elon Musk is setting the US up as a giant lab experiment for his AI software. By the time courts rule , it may be too late. It doesn't take long to hoover data from all major governent institutions. Once that has happened, we are in the hands of the richest man on earth, and all restraint will be lost. Trump may become disillusioned with him at some point, but that, too, will be too late.
Trump is not simply "exerting his power over the executive branch" (where he already holds almost total power). He is attempting to exert executive power over the legislative branch (by refusing to enforce legislation duly passed by Congress) and the judicial branch (by threatening to defy the Court's decisions). Given the ongoing consequences -- tens of thousands of federal workers fired, thousands of research projects and medical trials halted mid-stream -- arguing that this does not constitute a crisis frankly strikes me as ridiculous.
My first reaction was not good since I thought you were just defending Trump et al. As I read on I realized that your position is one of rationally looking at the current situation without reaction. This, I believe, is to stop the struggling and step back, slow down and talk.
I hope this approach is what will happen over time. My concern is that in the rush to make change happen doors may be slammed shut.
I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail.
Yes, aore measured approach instead of a sledgehammer. Also, I'm all for people making money, but not purposely soaking the federal government, we taxpayers. And the income inequality is troubling, as well as the disparagement of minority groups.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” wrote Orwell. This article is naive and ignores the fundamental character difference between Lincoln, FDR, and Truman, all of whom were said to be causing Constitutional crises. To equate FDR and Lincoln with the current president is the worst kind of Kremlin-inspired What Aboutism. I would urge your readers to seek out what Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben Ghiat, and Anne Applebaum, who all have decades of expertise in studying authoritarianism dictators from the left and the right. Waiting to be alarmed until it is too late is the luxury of the chattering classes who can afford to say, “Oops.”
Francis, you, Snyder, Ruth etc all quite entitled to rebut and sound the klaxons of crisis and alarm. But do not make comments like "Kremlin-inspired" on this site again. That is quite out of bounds, unhelpful and unwarranted.
That’s very disappointing that you think that or would speak to a reader in this way. I’ve always admired you and The Progress Network. For my first interaction with you to be so unpleasant and lacking in civility is really disillusioning. In terms of what is out of bounds this seems quite tame to express ideas that are not violent in any way toward anyone. The sharpness of your response implies my criticism of your argument (not you) hits a bit too close to home for you. As the child of holocaust survivors and a former U.S. diplomat who worked for years in authoritarian police states, I feel it is highly warranted, helpful, and necessary to help our fellow citizens understand what is going on. I’m sorry for offending you with remarks. I would continue to urge your readers to also see what true experts on authoritarianism have to say.
Kremlin-inspired is a direct verbal assault stating literally that what I have written is a result of Putin and Russian autocracy. Pls explain why you think that is an acceptable way to criticize something? “True experts” do not have a monopoly on thoughtful insights, nor are they immune from being blinded by their own lens. I responded as I did because using the language you did is not acceptable on this site. The rest of your critique of course is welcome.
And civility requires certain mores of engagement. I am surprised you are disillusioned that someone who has steadfastly worked to shift the tone of discourse (and no, I am not at all perfect and make my own missteps) simply and forcefully states when and why language crosses over a line. A subjective line for sure.
FDR's Executive Order 9066 imprisoned American citizens, who had done nothing except be of Japanese descent, in military internment camps for four years. I hate Trump, but I'm really, really sick of this idea that the presidency was held by honorable men until he came along.
Well put.
You're right. It's not a "Constitutional crisis." It's an auto-coup, a legally elected single person using the levers of power to gain autocratic control of the government. It may not succeed due to some of the factors you mention, but it well might. I don't have an answer, except to do what little I can to resist and oppose, but I' running low on hope.
Yeah, good luck with this nuanced approach. The federal government is NOT doing well. It's being eviscerated. Judges are making rulings which Trump and Musk and their ilk are ignoring.
FDR ought to have been impeached and removed from office over his Court packing threats. But what Trump is doing is even worse: he is baldly asserting that the executive is totally above the law and that no executive action is legitimately subject to judicial review at all.
His latest rhetorical flourish to this effect, from earlier today, was to quote Napoleon to the effect that "he who saves his country does not violate any law". How much further will you bend over backwards to sanewash this kind of thing? How much more evidence do we need that a guy who openly and explicitly said during his campaign that he wanted to be a dictator is, in fact, attempting to rule as a dictator? And if the President openly attempting to rule as a dictator isn't a constitutional crisis, what is?
Until that rhetoric is reality - which is absolutely is not now - then being hysterical about what he says is a waste of time and energy. The courts are currently reacting and acting on a series of tangible actions whose legality and legitimacy are in question. That’s how it should be. And impeaching FDR for attempting to change the balance of power in his favor would have been a serious misuse of the impeachment power.
I would point out also that 20th century history makes clear just how dangerous it is to downplay evil rhetoric like Trump's. Many, many ordinary mainstream liberal-minded people like you in the 1920s and early 1930s sanewashed Hitler by saying that the things he said about Jews were rhetorical bluster and he hadn't yet turned that rhetoric into reality. The proper time to stop him was before any of it turned into reality!
Of course that was true in the 1920s and 1930s. That doesn’t make it true or untrue today. Bring mindful of parallels is of course vital. But so is bring mindful of real differences between now and then.
The point of the impeachment power is to restrain the president from taking dictatorial and/or criminal actions. It ought to have been used much more through our history, since the Presidency has been dangerously overpowered from day one. At this point it has become so imminently dangerous that, if we manage to survive the Trump years with the country intact, we ought to amend the Constitution to replace it either with an executive council or a parliamentary system. No single person should ever again be allowed to wield that much concentrated authority for any reason.
I 100% agree with the last paragraph "The best outcome of all this would be a better government. If everyone could stop shouting, and if the Trump team could pause long enough to build some consensus rather than taking a sledgehammer to everything, that might actually be achievable. Doesn’t seem likely, but it’s worth keeping in mind." How we accomplish this is the true question at hand.
"It may lead to a different balance of power between the branches...Or this fight may simply leave us all exhausted and weaker, without any meaningful change or systemic shifts...The best outcome of all this would be a better government. If everyone could stop shouting, and if the Trump team could pause long enough to build some consensus rather than taking a sledgehammer to everything, that might actually be achievable."
I think there's a fourth outcome, which is that this sledgehammer bullshit leads the American electorate to actually understand how the "establishment" gives us a comfortable and peaceful (relative to other areas of the world) lifestyle, and maybe we will actually appreciate things--like medical research, operable roads, potable water coming from our faucets--that we're so excited to dismantle. Maybe the populism era will, thus, end.
Trump defrauded millions. Musk was paid a "bonus" of 55 billion for one year. And they want to be poster childs for efficiency? THis duo is causing great trauma and harm to US citizens and in particular government employees. This included long term, quality employees, military veterans. THen they want to torch and burn medicaid which provides for health coverage for the poor and pays millions of health care workers salaries. Shock and Awe did not work in the gulf, it will not work here. The US is and will pay a significant toll for the harmful tactics being employed by the South African oligarch and his orange puppet.
FDR was walking a tight rope. Our economy was a.mess. Huge segments of our population touted the successes of communism and fascism. We held fascist rallies in The Quad Cities. In Southern Iowa communism was so popular we had Red Scarf Scout Troops. Within his own administration he had leaders that wanted him to become a dictator (sound familiar?). At a time when our country really needs another dose of Democratic Socialism, we seem to be turning more towards a failed past.
I predict the devastating stock market crash coming late this year will make Trump The Hoover of this generation. Only the theory that his policies will bring back mfg jobs and strengthen the dollar is keeping them. It won't last long. These kind of rises have always resulted in collapse. His lame duck session will begin early. Nothing he proposes will be accomplished.
It is clear though that something needs to be done about Gov't promises. We can't break contracts with unions and companies, much less other countries and expect them to trust us in the future. I live in an area with one of the world's most successful corporations. Unfortunately, constant lay-offs and threats of strikes are making it harder for them to recruit the best. This a company where it once it was a big deal to have a job, even if it was just sweeping floors.
I’m grateful for this analysis and I think that people are panicking because these aren’t politicians and the game has changed.
We haven’t lived through a Silicon Valley land and resource pillaging before. This is an entirely different moment.
I appreciate this reminder of historical context. My life and my work are directly affected by some of the decisions being made by this administration, which makes it challenging to maintain perspective. I would point out, though, that this administration operates under a slogan of 'make America great again', when America has never been great for millions of people who aren't white, male, hetero, with money and influence. There is much to oppose in a party that seems bent on making life incredibly difficult for the most vulnerable among us.
This is very thoughtful and gives a nice framework to put everything in context. Thank you for sharing.