
Trump Signals He Might Ignore the Courts
The Spanish political scientist Juan Linz once theorized that presidential systems are more likely than parliamentary systems to undergo constitutional crises or coup attempts, because they create dueling centers of power. The president and the Congress both enjoy popular elections, creating a clash of popular mandates when opposing parties win simultaneous control. 'Who has the stronger claim to speak on behalf of the people,' Linz asked, 'the president or the legislative majority that opposes his policies?' Presidential systems would teeter and fall, he argued, when the president and Congress could not resolve their competing claims to legitimacy.
A dozen years ago, when Republicans in Congress presented their majorities as having negated Barack Obama's electoral mandate and began threatening to precipitate a debt crisis to force him to accept their domestic economic plan, Linz's ideas began attracting renewed attention among liberal intellectuals. And indeed, the system is teetering. But the source of the emergency is nearly the opposite of what Linz predicted. The Trump administration is not refusing to share power with an opposing party. It is refusing to follow the constitutional limits of a government that its own party controls completely.
Donald Trump is unilaterally declaring the right to ignore spending levels set by Congress, and to eliminate agencies that Congress voted to create. What makes this demand so astonishing is that Trump could persuade Congress, which he commands in personality-cult style, to follow his demands. Republicans presently control both houses of Congress, and any agency that Congress established it can also cut or eliminate.
Yet Trump refuses to even try to pass his plan democratically. And as courts have stepped in to halt his efforts to ignore the law, he is now threatening to ignore them too. 'If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,' Vice President J. D. Vance posted on X yesterday morning. 'If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.'
Now, Vance was not quite making an unconditional vow to ignore a court order. Rather, he was stepping right up to the line. Obviously, judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, but determining whether orders are legitimate is the very question the courts must decide.
Elon Musk has described one judge who issued an unfavorable ruling as 'corrupt'—using the word in the Trumpian sense, not to describe flouting ethics rules or profiting from office, but rather to mean 'opposed to Trump'—and demanded his impeachment. Trump told reporters, 'No judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision; it's a disgrace.'
Vance proposed in 2021 that Republicans, when they regain power, should replace the entire federal bureaucracy with political loyalists, and be prepared to refuse court rulings against such a clearly illegal act. 'And when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you,' he urged, 'stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' So Vance has already reached the mental threshold of defying a court order. The question is whether he will see any of the current battles as presenting the right opportunity to take this step, and whether he will prevail on Trump (and, realistically, Musk) to do so.
Just as Trump and Musk are refusing to submit their plans to a Congress their party controls, they are at least toying with the notion of ignoring orders by a court they have shaped. The Supreme Court, which has final word on all constitutional disputes, has a 2-to-1 majority of Republican appointees. When Vance floated the idea of defying the courts in 2021, he was anticipating his party taking actions so indisputably illegal that not even friendly justices would swallow them. They are prepared to smash a system they control, simply because it won't move at the frantic pace they demand.
Will Trump actually go as far as he, Vance, and Musk have suggested? The notion that they would so early in their term escalate to the highest level of constitutional crisis short of canceling elections seems difficult to believe. Quite possibly, cooler heads will prevail.
The trouble is that the Republican Party's cooler heads have been on a losing streak since November. Trump has appointed some of his most radical, unhinged, and unqualified followers to the Cabinet, and—with the sole exception of Matt Gaetz, whose attorney-general nomination failed because he alienated so many fellow Republicans in Congress—they are sailing through. Trump freed all the January 6 insurrectionists, and has begun firing and investigating the people in law enforcement who investigated the insurrection.
Trump appointed a former J6 lawyer, Ed Martin, as U.S. attorney for the District for Columbia. Martin has presented himself in public as a kind of concierge lawyer for Trump and Musk, promising them special protection. 'If people are discovered to have broken the law,' he wrote to Musk, 'or even acted simply unethically, we will investigate them and we will chase them to the end of the Earth to hold them accountable.' The chief law enforcement officer in the nation's capital is stating in writing that he will investigate people for actions that he does not believe violated the law, but merely violated his own ethical sensibility, a rather frightening prospect.
Just this weekend, The Washington Post reported that the administration is asking candidates for national-security and law-enforcement positions to answer questions such as 'Who were the 'real patriots' on Jan. 6? Who won the 2020 election?,' and declining to offer jobs to those who fail to supply MAGA answers. Trump has sanctified the insurrection, has criminalized the prosecution of even its most violent activities, and is screening out anybody willing to question his belief that he is entitled to absolute power.
If you had predicted things like this before the election, most Republicans would have accused you of Trump derangement syndrome. Yet Republicans have barely uttered a peep of protest in the face of these actions.
Given his party's near-total acquiescence in every previous step toward authoritarianism, perhaps Trump would not have to be crazy to take the next one. The entire administration is intoxicated with power. The crisis lies not in the structure of government so much as the character of the party that runs it, which refuses to accept the idea that its defeat is ever legitimate or that its power has any limits.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Associated Press
23 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge blocks order barring asylum access at border, gives administration two weeks to appeal
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Wednesday that an order by Donald Trump suspending asylum access at the southern border was unlawful, throwing into doubt one of the key pillars of the president's plan to crack down on migration at the southern border. But he put the ruling on hold for two weeks to give the government time to appeal. In an order Jan. 20, Trump declared that the situation at the southern border constitutes an invasion of America and that he was 'suspending the physical entry' of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said his order blocking Trump's policy will take effect July 16, giving the Trump administration time to appeal. Moss wrote that neither the Constitution nor immigration law gives the president 'an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum' or other humanitarian protections.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Joins MAGA Hissy Fit Over Zelensky's ‘Suit'
Volodymyr Zelensky's wardrobe continues to generate MAGA theatrics. Ukraine's wartime president has shunned suits since Russia invaded his country in 2022, opting instead for military-style fatigues as a symbol of solidarity with his troops. That seemed to irritate President Donald Trump enough that he made a comment about it when his Ukrainian counterpart visited the Oval Office in February. At the NATO summit on Tuesday, Zelensky was spotted in a slightly more formal getup, but stopped short of wearing a traditional suit. His all-black outfit included a button-up shirt, a jacket with a subtle military cut, trousers, and utilitarian sneaker-style shoes. He dressed the same way when meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday. He also dressed similarly at last month's G7 summit. According to Fox News' Peter Doocy, who reported live from the Netherlands in the early hours of Wednesday local time, Zelensky's outfit qualified as a suit this time. 'If President Trump winds up seeing Zelensky tonight at the leader's dinner, he might not recognize him, because the Ukrainian leader has ditched the sweatshirt that he wore for that infamous Oval Office meeting earlier this year,' Doocy said. 'Mr. Zelensky has been spotted here in the Netherlands... wearing a suit,' he added Doocy wasn't alone in noticing Zelensky's new threads. 'LOL! Zelensky actually wore a SUIT this time,' right-wing podcaster Nick Sortor wrote on X. 'He wasn't about to make that mistake again after the Oval Office visit,' he added. 'Especially now that he's running low on cash.' Other right-wing social media figures piled on, making crude remarks and suggesting it was an attempt to impress Trump and obtain more foreign aid. 'Zelensky seeks $40bn a year in aid. He sure learned his lesson from the last time he begged for money,' conservative pundit Steve Gruber posted. Zelensky was wearing a black sweater when he met with Trump earlier this year in a meeting that devolved into a shouting match. 'Oh, you're all dressed up today,' Trump said to Zelensky when he first greeted him. Zelensky's attire has long triggered pearl-clutching in MAGA world, where the Ukrainian president is viewed with suspicion. Many on the far right resent the billions in U.S. aid sent to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. During the fraught Oval Office meeting, conservative reporter Brian Glenn, who also happens to be the boyfriend of Marjorie Taylor Greene, scolded Zelensky. 'You're at the highest level in this country's office and you refuse to wear a suit,' said Glenn. 'Just want to see, do you own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you disrespecting this office.' 'I will wear a costume after this war will finish,' Zelensky replied. 'Maybe something like yours, maybe something better, we will see, maybe something cheaper.' Glenn wrote on X Tuesday: 'As the unofficial Director of Wardrobe at the White House, I personally approve President Zelenskyy's attire at the NATO summit.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Kills Key Weapons Shipments to Ukraine as Putin Unleashes Hell
Kyiv has been left scrambling after the Pentagon made the sudden decision to stop supplying air defenses to Ukraine, citing concerns over U.S. stockpiles. The Ukrainian government has been left blindsided by the move, a source told The Washington Post, with the country's Foreign Ministry urgently summoning the U.S. ambassador to 'check with the Americans what's really happening.' Crucial air defense systems are among the munitions being withdrawn from Ukraine, with the Kyiv Independent reporting that Patriot missiles, precision artillery rounds, Hellfire missiles, drones, and other missiles used by F-16 fighter jets are under threat. The decision to halt some shipments to Ukraine was driven by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, according to Politico, after a Defense Department review of U.S. munitions stockpiles. In a statement confirming the news, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told Politico the decision 'was made to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe.' 'The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran,' Kelly added. Russia has drastically increased its aerial attacks on Ukraine, battering the country with an ever-increasing number of missile and drone attacks. June saw 5,337 exploding Shahed drones unleashed upon Ukraine, smashing the previous record of 4,198 in March, according to the Ukrainian Air Force and Dragon Capital. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has welcomed the suspension of arms shipments to Ukraine, stating on Wednesday that 'the less weapons are supplied to Ukraine the closer the end of the special military operation,' using Russian President Vladimir Putin's euphemism for his war on Ukraine. President Trump has yet to approve any additional arms packages to Ukraine since his inauguration in January, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicating in June that the U.S. plans to scale down its funding allocation to Kyiv during the next spending review. Nevertheless, Trump indicated at a NATO summit last month that he would 'see' if the U.S. could supply Ukraine with additional munitions for its Patriot missile defense systems. 'They do want to have the anti-missiles, as they call them, the Patriots, and we're going to see if we can make some available,' Trump said following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. 'They are very hard to get. We need them too,' he added. 'We are supplying them for Israel, and they are very effective. According to Politico, plans to redirect shipments back towards Israel or the U.S. homeland have been in place since at least March, as the Trump administration has repeatedly stated it wants to bring an end to the conflict by negotiating a peace treaty, which critics claim is overly favorable to Russia. Ukraine's Foreign Ministry said in a statement following the news that 'any delay or slowing down in supporting Ukraine's defense capabilities would only encourage the aggressor to continue war and terror, rather than seek peace.' The Daily Beast has contacted the Department of Defense for further comment.