SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
constitutional crisis
Trump's Power Grab Proves That the US Was Never Immune From Authoritarianism
His ascent has exposed the inherent weaknesses, loopholes, and limitations that have always existed in the imperfect system created by the venerated Founding Fathers.
Oct 29, 2025
President Donald Trump’s demolition of the East Wing of the White House isn’t just an architectural abomination; it’s symbolic of the wrecking ball he’s taken to the Constitution. Driven by his unbounded megalomania and supported by the high-tech oligarchy and a Cabinet of fawning sycophants, the 79-year-old president has precipitated a constitutional crisis and set the nation on the road to authoritarianism and democratic collapse.
Since resuming his seat behind the Resolute Desk, Trump has issued more than 360 executive orders, presidential memoranda, and presidential proclamations, effectively replacing the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that forms the backbone of the Constitution with strongman-style rule. Among his most notorious decrees are those that:
- End federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs;
- Roll back environmental protections, encourage energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters, and eliminate electric vehicle mandates;
- Impose sanctions on liberal law firms and elite universities;
- Would restrict mail-in voting and impose national voter ID requirements;
- Empower the Department of Government Efficiency to reduce the size of the federal workforce and dismantle the administrative state;
- Authorize mass deportations and expedite removal proceedings to secure the borders and protect the nation from a claimed “invasion;”
- Seek to end birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment'
- Designate antifa as a domestic terrorism organization;
- Create a “Joint National Terrorism Task Force” to “investigate, prosecute, and disrupt” the work of “entities and individuals” who sponsor, fund, or “otherwise aid and abet” acts of “political violence,” including alleged attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities and “anti-police and ‘criminal justice’ riots;”
- Federalize the National Guard and dispatch troops to American cities;
- Impound congressionally authorized funds for foreign aid and medical research;
- Levy tariffs on imported goods without congressional approval; and
- Authorize Trump to fire members of independent federal agencies without cause under the auspices of the “unitary executive theory,” which posits that all executive power is concentrated in the person of the president.
Trump has also openly teased about running for a third term in contravention of the 22nd Amendment; secured three indictments and counting against his political critics; launched a lethal air campaign against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific without congressional authorization and in arguable violation of international law; and demanded that the Justice Department hand him $230 million to compensate for the federal investigations into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and for prosecuting him in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Confronted with this wreckage, most legal scholars now believe we have crossed the Rubicon. “We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis right now,” Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told the New York Times last February after Trump’s initial spate of executive orders. “There have been so many unconstitutional and illegal actions in the first 18 days of the Trump presidency. We never have seen anything like this.”
Although there is no universally accepted definition of a constitutional crisis, Princeton University professor of politics Keith Whittington has written that constitutional crises fall into two general categories: operational crises, which occur when vital political disputes can’t be resolved within the existing constitutional framework; and crises of fidelity, which happen when a major political actor no longer feels bound by constitutional norms.
The United States is beset by both calamities at once. As Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman explained on the eve of Trump’s first impeachment, Trump’s abiding lawlessness means that “we no longer have just a crisis of the presidency. We also have a breakdown in the fundamental structure of government under the Constitution. That counts as a constitutional crisis.”
Winning the fight against Trumpism requires building a new progressive politics guided by energetic leaders like Zohran Mamdani, who can articulate a small “d” democratic vision for the future.
In Trump 2.0, the dangers have multiplied, extending from the executive branch to the supine Republican majority in Congress and the Supreme Court. The Republican Party has been completely captured by Trump and the MAGA movement, both at the state and national levels.
The Supreme Court has similarly surrendered the last vestiges of actual judicial independence. All claims to the contrary evaporated last July with the court’s 6-3 decision on presidential immunity (Trump v. United States), authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The decision not only killed special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case against Trump, but it also altered the landscape of constitutional law, endowing presidents with absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken pursuant to their enumerated constitutional powers, such as pardoning federal offenses, and presumptive immunity for all other “official acts” undertaken within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted her Republican colleagues for inventing “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable” concept of immunity. “The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents,” she wrote, citing the famous Watergate tapes decision of United States v. Nixon. She concluded in a sad and angry lament, “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
Trump’s ascent has exposed the inherent weaknesses, loopholes, and limitations that have always existed in the imperfect system created by the venerated Founding Fathers, who for all of their failings (slaveholding chief among them), tried to erect formal structures to protect the republican form of government they established. Many realized the frailties of the project they undertook. Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the most prescient of the Founders, all but prophesied the rise of a Trump-like demagogue, warning in a letter to George Washington written during of the financial panic of 1792:
When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper… is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity, he may "ride the storm and direct the whirlwind."
Hamilton’s warning isn’t just a curiosity for professional historians to ponder. It’s an announcement of a five-alarm fire in 2025.
The all-important question is how we fight back. The first step, plainly, is to realize the gravity of the moment. American exceptionalism—the idea that this country is immune from authoritarianism—is a myth.
The second step is to realize that Trumpism is not just another form of partisan politics. It cannot be countered by lethargic appeals by establishment Democrats to re-embrace the political center.
Winning the fight against Trumpism requires building a new progressive politics guided by energetic leaders like Zohran Mamdani, who can articulate a small “d” democratic vision for the future. And it will require a commitment from each of us to engage for the long haul, and never forget that together we have power, and that alone we have none.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Targets Federal Judge for Warning Trump Could Spark 'Constitutional Crisis'
Judge James Boasberg reportedly raised concerns that the Trump administration "would disregard rulings of federal courts," something the White House has done repeatedly.
Jul 29, 2025
The Trump Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against a federal judge for warning in early March that the president could spark a "constitutional crisis" by defying court orders—a concern that was swiftly validated.
The complaint against James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who alleged on social media that Boasberg made "improper public comments" about President Donald Trump and his administration.
During a March gathering of the Judicial Conference—the federal judiciary's policymaking body—Boasberg reportedly raised colleagues' fears that "the administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize," according to a memo obtained by The Federalist, a right-wing publication.
Days after the Judicial Conference gathering, the Trump administration ignored Boasberg's order to turn around deportation flights, prompting an ACLU attorney to warn, "I think we're getting very close" to a constitutional crisis.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, later said there was probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court, concluding that the evidence demonstrated "a willful disregard" for the judge's order.
Boasberg's rulings against the Trump administration in the high-profile deportation case stemming from the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act have made the judge a target of the White House and its allies. Trump and some congressional Republicans have demanded that Boasberg be impeached.
Politico reported Monday that the Justice Department's complaint against Boasberg was signed by Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff.
"Mizelle argued that Boasberg's views expressed at the conference violated the 'presumption of regularity' that courts typically afford to the executive branch," Politico noted. "And the Bondi aide said that the administration has followed all court orders, though several lower courts have found that the administration defied their commands."
A Washington Post analysis published last week estimated that Trump officials have been accused of violating court orders in "a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Return of Abrego Garcia a Major Blow to Trump
It would be very helpful to American democracy if the media would do its job and focus on the fact that the Garcia case represents a significant defeat for Trump and win for the rule of law.
Jun 10, 2025
In a surprise development, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the man living in Maryland illegally deported to El Salvador was returned to the United States to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants. For months, the Trump Administration and the judicial system had been odds over returning Garcia to the United States. The Supreme Court had ruled that the Trump Administration had to “facilitate” Garcia’s return but not “effectuate” it.
It is essential to note that the Trump Administration admitted in court documents that they had inappropriately deported Garcia to El Salvador where he was imprisoned in a notorious maximum security prison. In an oval office meeting in April with Salvadoran President Bukele, Trump made it clear that Garcia would not ever be returning to the United States. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Garcia “is never coming back to our country.”
The standoff between the Trump Administration and the courts led to talks of a constitutional crisis. Indeed, it was hard to see how the impasse would be resolved. Then, without any warning, Garcia was moved from El Salvador to face charges in Tennessee of smuggling undocumented immigrants. Instead of her blanket statement that Garcia would never return to American soil, Bondi now said that “Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women. This is what American justice looks like.”
The charges against Garcia are hotly disputed by his attorneys. Democrats on Capitol Hill are also challenging the evidence against Garcia. On CNN, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal commented: “And I’ve heard again and again and again, as a prosecutor, as a United States attorney, federal prosecutor, as well as state attorney general, charges are not evidence. And so far, we’ve seen no evidence.”
Garcia’s return to the United States, even though he faces serious charges, is a real victory for the rule of law. As Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen put it in a statement: “As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it’s about his constitutional rights—and the rights of all. The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.”
For reasons that escape me, the mainstream media has not pointed out that Garcia’s return to the United States is a huge victory for the rule of law and a defeat for President Trump. Garcia is now in a judicial system facing charges, which will be tested in a court of law. His case will not be adjudicated by the whims of the Trump administration.
Recent events suggest that the Trump team realizes the importance of Garcia’s return to America. Trump is a master of the political counterpunch which distracts the media and public’s attention from the matter at hand. I strongly doubt that Trump would have deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests had he not suffered a defeat in the Garcia case. It is, as the New York Times put it, the political fight that President Trump is looking for.
The hard task for Democrats is to respond to Trump’s provocations while keeping the focus on the rights to a fair trial, due process and peaceful protest. It would be very helpful to American democracy if the media would do its job and focus on the fact that the Garcia case represents a major defeat for Trump and a victory for the rule of law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular