The framers of the constitution created a system of government to ensure that no single branch of the federal government (executive, judicial or legislative) could dominate the others. Each branch has powers to curtail or empower the others.
However, are concerned about a return of absolute rule due to the steps taken by Donald հܳ’s second administration. This has sparked around 100 “no kings” protests all over the US, organised to coincide with .
Increasing presidential power
The second Trump administration has made a determined effort to strengthen and reduce oversight of the executive branch (the presidency). Achieving this could mean the president acting in an arbitrary manner similar to absolute monarchs of the past, free of congressional or judicial interference.
հܳ’s , which has been passed in the House of Representatives and now must go to the Senate, contains certain provisions that strengthen the role of the president and undermine the checks-and-balances system.
Previous presidents, such as during the New Deal era of the 1930s, had many of their executive orders cancelled by Supreme Court rulings. Over the last five months, the judiciary has on the constitutionality of հܳ’s executive actions, putting at least 180 on hold.
As a consequence, the president has continually questioned the validity of the courts to act. At last week’s West Point graduation ceremony, Trump that last November’s election result “gives us the right to do what we wanna do to make our country great again”.
As Robert Reich, the former US secretary of labor, recently, this “big beautiful bill” will remove the courts’ ability to hold executive officials in contempt and undermine any efforts to stop the administration. Supreme Court rulings could be ignored by the executive branch, and Congress would be unable to enforce its subpoenas and laws. “Trump will have crowned himself king,” Reich concluded.
Just like the judicial branch, the legislative branch (Congress) also has the ability to check the executive branch. Congress can the presidential veto if both the House and Senate pass legislation with a two-thirds majority. And the executive branch (the president) cannot fund any initiatives without the budget being approved by Congress first.
But Trump and his supporters have minimised the impact that Congress can have on this particular bill by including all of the provisions within a . This is a special legislative procedure that is designed to pass bills through Congress quickly.
Bills usually require 60 votes to bypass a – a tactic used by senators to delay voting on the bill by refusing to end the debate and speaking for exceptionally long times without a break.
But because this is a budget reconciliation, it only requires a majority – 51 votes – to pass the Senate. And because the Republicans have 53 seats in the Senate, Trump is confident the bill will pass without any Democratic interference.
The House narrowly the bill, despite some opposition from Republicans. And some have also expressed concerns. But this is the latest move to centralise greater power within the presidency.
Trump v the courts
հܳ’s apparent belief that he is above the law has, in part, been supported by last year’s Supreme Court ruling which stated that former presidents had immunity from prosecution for official presidential acts. The decision decided such acts included command of the military, control of the executive branch, and execution of laws.
However, this week’s on the legality of հܳ’s economic tariffs represents a setback to the administration’s efforts to strengthen presidential power. The Court of International Trade that the White House’s use of emergency powers did not grant it the authority to impose tariffs on every country, and that the constitution states such power resides within Congress.
The Trump administration immediately said it would be appealing the decision. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Kush Desai, the White House deputy press secretary, on the ruling, and that Trump would use “every lever of executive power” to “restore American greatness”.
All of which has led Trump to another authoritarian leader, Napoleon, on social media. His post – “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” – was a clear rebuke to those who have tried to limit executive authority while he has been in office, and echoes that of former president Richard Nixon who, in an with David Frost about the Watergate scandal, argued that the constitution allowed the president to break the law.
This is an extension of the notion that Article II of the constitution has granted the president the authority to act without checks and balances when dealing with the executive branch. It is a theory much touted within , believed to be the blueprint for the Trump presidency.
There are other historical comparisons that could be made of հܳ’s authoritarian actions, such as the rule of of England (1625-49), who believed he could govern without consulting parliament except when he needed to raise taxes to conduct overseas campaigns. Ultimately, this led to a period of and the of the king for treason.
While none of these consequences are likely to be replicated, it is clear the US is currently in a constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court has a to make on the judicial challenges to հܳ’s executive authority. These will have generational consequences – but it is unclear in which way the court, where conservative judges have a 6-3 majority, will lean.
While Trump may not be seeking a crown for his head, he is certainly arguing that he has the right to control the executive branch in the way he sees fit, without any interference from Congress or the judiciary. This is not the separation of powers as prescribed by the framers of the US constitution, but more like the absolutism of medieval monarchs.
, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .
