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

House Ethics Committee orders AOC to pay nearly $3,000 for Met Gala dress
House Ethics Committee orders AOC to pay nearly $3,000 for Met Gala dress

The Independent

time6 minutes ago

  • The Independent

House Ethics Committee orders AOC to pay nearly $3,000 for Met Gala dress

The House Ethics Committee has directed US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to make additional payments concerning her 2021 Met Gala appearance. The committee's investigation revealed she did not fully adhere to Gift Rule regulations, having accepted free admission for her partner and underpaid for certain outfit items. Although Ocasio-Cortez had paid nearly $1,000 for her ′Tax the Rich′ gown and accessories, the panel assessed their fair market value at over $3,700. She has been advised to pay an extra $2,733.28 and contribute $250 to the Met's Costume Institute for her partner's meal. The committee found no evidence of intentional underpayment by Ocasio-Cortez, and her chief of staff confirmed she accepts the ruling and will settle the remaining amounts.

Feeling flush? Americans can Venmo government to help pay off US debt
Feeling flush? Americans can Venmo government to help pay off US debt

The Guardian

time6 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Feeling flush? Americans can Venmo government to help pay off US debt

John F Kennedy's sage words from his inaugural address are forever seared into America's political consciousness: 'Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.' Six decades and some change later, the United States Treasury is keeping Kennedy's spirit alive by offering Americans with a few dollars collecting dust in their Venmo balance a chance to fulfill a new patriotic duty: helping pay off the national debt. The US treasury department has long had a 'Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt' page available for those that dislike traditional charity, feel like they don't pay enough in taxes, or simply want to help the country stay No 1 in an eclectic list of superlatives that includes military spending, Olympic gold medals, prison population, corn subsidies, and healthcare costs. But the new-age, Gen Z-friendly method of payment is a recent addition, first flagged on Twitter by Planet Money's Jack Corbett. A bipartisan punching bag that trades sides of the aisle depending on who's in office and who needs funds earmarked for projects in their state, concern over the national debt is one of few issues that Democrats and Republicans can unite on. Also bipartisan is the debt's growth, which has increased every year since 2001, when it sat at $10.28tn. As of this writing, the debt has ballooned to $36.72tn. America is on track to continue the trend, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that Trump's Big Beautiful Bill will add $3.4tn to the debt over the coming decade. It is unclear how much money Trump and Elon Musk's 'Doge' saved, although analysis estimates the number at under the advertised $180bn, and a far cry short of the initially advertised $2tn. The federal government spent $6.75tn in Fiscal Year 2024 while collecting $4.92tn in revenue. Highlights of past and present government spending include the $151bn procurement process for the Trump administration's Golden Dome missile defense project, over $2tn on Lockheed Martin's long delayed F-35 fighter jet, and roughly $800bn in annual spending on the Pentagon, which recently failed its seventh audit in a row. Kind-hearted Americans have gone above and beyond their regular tax-paying duties contributing around $67.3m since 1996. That's enough to fund 20 minutes of the US government's spending habit. If Americans could dig into their couch cushions, eat less takeout, and tighten their belts, they might be able to tackle the problem once and for all. It would only take about $107,000 per person, payable via ACH, Paypal, credit or debit card, and now, Venmo.

Social Security makes screeching U-turn on controversial policy
Social Security makes screeching U-turn on controversial policy

Daily Mail​

time6 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Social Security makes screeching U-turn on controversial policy

Social Security will continue mailing paper checks — in a major U-turn from a previously announced plan. The agency had planned to halt checks after September 30 to cut costs and reduce fraud, shifting entirely to electronic payments. Paper checks cost about 50 cents to issue, compared with 15 cents for direct deposits, officials said. But the agency has now reversed course, saying that it will continue to issue paper checks for Americans who have no other means of getting payments, a spokesperson confirmed to This includes both recipients of retirement and disability benefits. Despite the about-face, the agency urged people to switch to direct deposit if they can. 'We will continue to drive down paper check volume, which is less than 1 percent of total,' the spokesperson said. The news comes as a grim new forecast this week warned Social Security's retirement fund is set to run short in just seven years — which could end up meaning benefits will be slashed for millions of recipients. The check U-turn came after pushback from Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren met with Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano on Wednesday and asked about the plan to discontinue paper checks, according to CBS News. 'There are about 600,000 Americans who still receive their paper checks — it's a small fraction of people who receive Social Security payments, but it's a population that often needs checks through paper' instead of through electronic deposit, Warren said. She added that Bisignano made a commitment that 'no one would be left behind.' Millions of Americans are 'unbanked,' which means they do not have a traditional checking or savings account at a bank or credit union. The reasons why can vary, from past money mistakes to losing a job or not having enough money to meet minimum balance requirements. These people tend to rely on alternative banking services, such as check cashing establishments, in order to access vital funds. But paper checks are also more than 16 times more likely to be reported stolen or lost compared to electronic transfers, according to government data. There is also a higher chance that they will be returned deliverable or altered. The policy reversal came after pushback from Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren Social Security relies on its trust funds to provide monthly benefit checks to around 70 million Americans who still receive paper checks but are able to switch can provide a bank account or credit union for direct deposits or an approved pre-paid debit card. Registration can be completed at the government's Go Direct website. The policy reversal comes after latest forecasts painted a grim picture for the future of the program. Social Security's retirement fund is set to run short in just seven years — which could end up slashing benefits for millions of Americans by thousands of dollars a year. According to latest projections, retirees could face automatic 24 percent benefit cuts as early as the end of 2032. This means a couple who both worked would receive $18,100 less each year if they retire at the start of 2033. The new forecast from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), released Thursday, moves up the insolvency date for both Social Security and Medicare trust funds. A projection just last month had funds lasting until 2033, but that has already been revised. A major factor is the impact of President Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill ', which experts warned would speed up the use of funds.

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