logo
America's famed ‘checks-and-balances' governance system is failing

America's famed ‘checks-and-balances' governance system is failing

The Guardian16-07-2025
It has been said many times, but saying it appears to have no consequences: our system of checks and balances is failing. The US supreme court allowing the president effectively to abolish the Department of Education only reinforces this sense; Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, explicitly wrote that 'the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave' – but she did not explain how to counter the threat.
The picture is complicated by the fact that what critics call 'the stranglehold the checks and balances narrative on the American political imagination' has prevented positive democratic change. Hence it is crucial to understand where the separation of powers itself needs to be kept in check and where it can play a democracy-reinforcing role. Most important, we need counterstrategies against the Trumpists' usurpation of what should remain separate powers.
While pious talk of the founders' genius in establishing 'checks and balances' is part of US civil religion and constitutional folklore, the system in fact never functioned quite as intended. The framers had assumed that individuals would jealously guard the rights of the branches they occupied. Instead, the very thing that the founders dreaded as dangerous 'factions' – what we call political parties – emerged already by the end of the 18th century; and thereby also arose the possibility of unified party government.
The other unexpected development was the increasing power of the presidency; the founders had always seen the legislature as the potential source of tyranny; instead, the second half of the 20th century saw the consolidation of an 'imperial presidency', whose powers have steadily increased as a result of various real (and often imagined) emergencies. Some jurists even blessed this development, going back to Hamilton's call for an energetic executive, and trusting that public opinion, rather than Congress or the courts, would prove an effective check on an otherwise 'unbound executive'.
The dangers posed by unified party control and a strong presidency were long mitigated by the relative heterogeneity of parties in the US; internal dissent meant that Congress would often thwart an executive's agenda. Less obviously, Congress's creation of largely independent agencies, acting on the basis of expertise, as well as inspectors general within the executive itself established an internal system of checks. It also remains true, though, that, compared with democracies such as Germany and the UK, an opposition party in the US does not have many rights (such as chairing committees) or ways of holding a chief executive accountable (just imagine if Trump had to face a weekly prime minister's question time, rather than sycophantic Fox hosts).
Most important, though, the executive itself tended to respect the powers of other branches. But Trump: not so much. In line with his governance model, of doing something plainly illegal and then seeing what happens, Trump is usurping powers reserved for the legislature. He uses money as he sees fit, not as Congress intended; he, not Congress, decides which departments are necessary. The tariff madness could be over if Congress called the bluff on a supposed 'emergency' which justifies Trump's capricious conduct of slapping countries with apparently random levies. The most egregious example is his recent threat vis-à-vis Brazil which has nothing to with trade deficits, but is meant to help his ideological ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, escape a criminal trial for a coup attempt.
Trump is also destroying the internal checks within the executive. Inspectors general have been fired; independent agencies are made subservient to the president – in line with the theory of a 'unified executive' long promoted by conservative jurists. The US supreme court, occupied to 67% by Maga has been blessing every power grab. As the legal scholar Steve Vladeck noted, the court has granted Trump relief in every single emergency application since early April, with seven decisions – like this week's on the Department of Education – coming with no explanation at all. If this were happening in other countries, one would plainly speak of a captured court, that is to say: one subordinated to the governing party. As commentators have pointed out, it is inconceivable that this court would simply rubber-stamp a decision by a President Mamdani to fire almost everyone at the Department of Homeland Security.
Still, the main culprit is the Republican party in Congress. There is simply no credible version of 'conservatism' that justifies Trump's total concentration of power; and anyone with an ounce of understanding of the constitution would recognize the daily violations. This case can be made without buying into the separation of powers narrative criticized by the left (though what they aim at is less the existence of checks as such, but the empowerment of rural minorities in the Senate and the proliferation of veto points in the political system, such that powerful private interests can stop popular legislation).
Paradoxically, Democrats should probably make Congress even more dysfunctional than it already is: use every procedural means to grind business to a halt and explain to the public that – completely contrary to the founders' anxieties – the emasculation of the legislature is causing democracy's demise (it never hurts to slip in such gendered language to provoke the Republican masculinists).
Of course, one might question what role public opinion can really play as a check, and whether there's still such a thing at all given our fragmented media world: it never constrained the George W Bush administration's 'global war on terror' in the way that Hamilton's self-declared disciples had hoped. But it's still the best bet. After all, there is a reason why some jurists see 'we the people' as the fourth branch that ultimately makes the difference.
Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘It's racist': Latino tenants who sued their landlord got threatening message about ICE
‘It's racist': Latino tenants who sued their landlord got threatening message about ICE

The Independent

time24 minutes ago

  • The Independent

‘It's racist': Latino tenants who sued their landlord got threatening message about ICE

A Los Angeles area family of Latino renters suing their landlord over a 2024 eviction claim they were met with a thinly veiled threat that they would be picked up by immigration agents, amid the ongoing, high-profile campaign of raids across the city. 'It's not fair for him to take advantage of that,' former tenant Yicenia Morales told The Los Angeles Times. 'I was born here. I have a birth certificate. I pay taxes.' 'I was already depressed over the eviction,' she added. 'Now I'm hurt, embarrassed and nervous as well. Will he really call ICE on us?' 'It's racist,' her attorney, Sarah McCracken, added in an interview with the paper. 'Not only is it unethical and probably illegal, but it's just a really wild thing to say — especially since my clients are U.S. citizens.' The controversy stems from a June message from attorney Rod Fehlman, whom Morales and her lawyers at the firm Tobener Ravenscroft said they saw in state records was the legal point of contact for landlord Celia Ruiz and her real estate agent David Benavides. In the midst of a back-and-forth over the case in June, Fehlman sent an aggressive message referencing recent arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, McCracken said. 'It is also interesting to note that your clients are likely to be picked up by ICE and deported prior to trial thanks to all the good work the Trump administration has done in regards to immigration in California,' Fehlman told the renters' legal team in email after being served this summer, according to McCracken. Fehlman told The Independent he cannot comment on 'ongoing litigation,' but said the message was taken out of context. Instead of a threat, he said, he was warning Morales's San Francisco-based lawyer about the ongoing pattern of ICE agents arresting immigrants at courthouses and immigration offices. 'My email mentions nothing about Ms. McCracken's client's citizenship,' Fehlman wrote in an email. 'This is an ongoing problem in Southern California and a sad reality that litigants have been picked randomly at Courthouses. It is unfortunate that this comment has been taken out of context intentionally by Ms. McCracken's firm and used to defame my office.' (The real estate agent named in the suit responded to the complaint with a different law firm than Fehlman's, according to the Times, and the renters have been unable to serve the landlord with the complaint yet. Fehlman did not respond to a question regarding which parties he was or had been representing in the eviction dispute.) McCracken told The Independent she was taken aback by her exchanges with Fehlman. 'This case doesn't involve my client's race or ethnicity or immigration status, or at least it didn't until he made that comment,' she said. 'We just thought it was irrelevant and an inappropriate way to try and get an edge in the case.' The Independent has contacted Morales for comment. Real estate agent Benavides, when reached by The Independent, hung up. On Tuesday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta warned that discriminating, retaliating against, or attempting to influence tenants based on their immigration status, including by reporting tenants to immigration services, is illegal. 'California tenants — no matter their immigration status — have a right to safe housing and to access housing documents in a language they can understand,' Bonta said in a statement. 'I will use the full force of my office to go after those who seek to take advantage of California tenants during an already challenging time.' McCracken said she has encountered landlords making verbal comments about ICE to tenants in the past. Now, however, she said people seem 'emboldened' to make boundary-pushing spoken and written comments about race and immigration status to renters under the second Trump administration, based on what she has heard from potential clients and legal colleagues. Renters have faced threats over their immigration status predating the second Trump term, too. In 2019, a New York judge fined a landlord $5,000 and ordered the payment of $12,000 in damages to a tenant who was threatened with ICE if they didn't pay rent, thought to be the first such case in the country. Earlier this year, an Illinois judge ruled on a similar case, dating back to 2022. Under the Trump administration, with its mass expansion of military-style immigration raids, unscrupulous individuals have also allegedly impersonated ICE to achieve unsavory ends, including a January incident in which a North Carolina man allegedly pretended to be an immigration agent to coerce a woman into having sex.

Judge bars ICE from immediately taking Abrego Garcia into custody if he's released from jail
Judge bars ICE from immediately taking Abrego Garcia into custody if he's released from jail

The Independent

time24 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Judge bars ICE from immediately taking Abrego Garcia into custody if he's released from jail

A federal judge in Maryland has prohibited the Trump administration from taking Kilmar Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he's released from jail in Tennessee while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges, according to an order issued Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the U.S. government to provide notice of three business days if Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to initiate deportation proceedings against the Maryland construction worker. The judge also ordered the government to restore the federal supervision that Abrego Garcia was under before he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That supervision had allowed Abrego Garcia to live and work in Maryland for years, while he periodically checked in with ICE. Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Donald Trump's immigration policies following his wrongful explusion to El Salvador in March. Trump's administration violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.

Trump claims he could have made Bryan Kohberger admit to why he killed 4 students
Trump claims he could have made Bryan Kohberger admit to why he killed 4 students

The Independent

time24 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump claims he could have made Bryan Kohberger admit to why he killed 4 students

The White House extended condolences to the families of the four University of Idaho students brutally murdered in November 2022. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that President Donald Trump would have compelled Bryan Kohberger to publicly explain his motive for the killings. Bryan Kohberger received four consecutive life sentences, plus an additional 10 years for burglary, without the possibility of parole. During his sentencing hearing, Kohberger declined the opportunity to address the court or provide a reason for the horrific murders. He had previously accepted a plea deal, admitting guilt to all four counts of first-degree murder and burglary, which removed the death penalty option and did not obligate him to disclose a motive.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store