The Tribune

with CHARLIE HARPER 

THERE ARE MANY topics of interest in the current political revolution underway in Washington DC. Among them are human rights at home and abroad; foreign aid and the American role in the world; whether the US is still a reliable ally; the future of the domestic social safety net; the constitutional checks and balances between the three branches of the US government; and whether Americans want an emperor or a president.

On the latter issue, there have been this year several spirited but peaceful demonstrations across the US under the banner of ‘No Kings.’ Millions of people participated. ‘No Kings’ is designed as the rallying cry against President Donald Trump and his grandiose personal ambitions. But the label somewhat misses the point.

Trump doesn’t aspire to be a king (though it’s been well documented that he does love a royal, glamorous, glitzy receptions at home or abroad.) A king today is more of a symbol-- almost a figurehead--whose good works and public demeanour are expected to elicit pride and allegiance from his subjects as well as from others abroad.

Trump is the head of the executive branch of the American government. He aspires to be more. He has publicly envied the authority wielded by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They aren’t kings. They’re more like emperors.

Legislatures and judiciaries exist in China and Russia that operate with circumscribed independence from the president. It’s generally accepted in the West that the Chinese and Russian governments are tightly, centrally controlled.

During his second term, Trump has shown how much he learned during his first term, and the four years from 2021-25 that he spent in political exile from Washington DC. Following a detailed playbook that was leaked last year--The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025--Trump has methodically asserted his control of all three branches of the American government. This document was ominous and scary for those very few Americans who paid attention to the furore that the Democrats tried ineffectually to stir up in response to its release. 

Whether you admire or fear what’s happening today, it’s true that Trump’s position this morning is a lot closer to the positions of Xi and Putin than it was when he took office for the second time.

The slim but workable majorities afforded to Trump and the Republican Party in the November 2024 general election, together with rules changes for Senate confirmation of presidential nominees previously initiated by the Democrats, handed Trump the tools he needed to actively and aggressively gain control of the American federal government.

Careful to staff Washington agencies like the federal budget and personnel offices with loyal supporters, Trump and his team began immediately to winnow and marginalise the massive federal government workforce. Billionaire Elon Musk--a latecomer to the MAGA movement, but a very generous donor--led the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that slashed at waste and abuse in the federal workforce for several months.

Bending the massive government to his will became a key Trump objective. He was aided immeasurably in this aim by his nearly absolute control of the Republican Party, whose Senate leadership rarely defied him as the president, installed loyalists in key offices across the government, especially in foreign affairs, intelligence, and defence agencies long-regarded as immune from domestic politics.

Trump’s threat to identify and support a primary election opponent for GOP legislators who displeased him was sufficient to compel obeisance from his party’s congressional leadership.

While he certainly doesn’t exert unchallenged control of the executive and legislative branches of the US government, he has achieved a primacy that defies comparison in recent American history. The most recent president who exerted such control was probably Franklin D. Roosevelt—32nd president of the US--who died in office 80 years ago.

Then there is the federal judiciary. This branch of government was designed by the American founding fathers to be uninfluenced by the ebbs and flows of competitive politics. To be honest, such an idealistic situation has probably never truly existed in America. However, the degree to which the judiciary has become hostage to politics is objectively alarming.

Sandra Day O'Connor, the trailblazing Supreme Court justice from Arizona, who initially couldn’t get a legal job after graduating from Stanford Law School because she was a woman, fought for many years to abolish the practice of electing state judges. She saw this practice as fundamentally incompatible with an independent judiciary and believed an independent judiciary was one of the few guarantors of the American democratic system. She passed away two years ago.

It's safe to say that Trump dismisses such a perspective. Emboldened and enabled by his and Senator Mitch McConnell’s management of the Senate confirmation process to ensure a strong conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Trump clearly regards the high court as ‘his’ court.

Responding to a long series of special appeals by Trump’s Department of Justice, the Supreme Court has been considering, on an exceptional basis, dozens of challenges to Trump policies and initiatives that have evoked cries of illegality and unconstitutionality from plaintiffs appearing before lower courts all over the country. The court has already agreed to hear several cases on presidential power.

Here is a summary compiled by the New York Times of some of the pricklier issues the high court will, or is expected to, address in the relatively near future:

Tariffs. The justices have already heard arguments on whether the administration can tax imports by invoking a 1970s-era emergency law. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, has typically been used to impose sanctions and embargoes against other nations. It does not mention the word ‘tariff.’

Independent agencies. Last week, the court heard arguments on whether Trump can legally fire a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission. The case challenges a 90-year-old precedent that says Congress can protect independent regulators from being removed solely over policy disagreements.

The Fed. Can Trump fire Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor, who he says committed mortgage fraud? The role of the Fed is meant to be independent from political pressures, so that the central bank can make economic decisions. However, the president can fire its leaders for cause. Cook has not been charged with a crime, and her lawyers say the allegations are without foundation.

As part of his attempted nullification of independent offices within the federal government, Trump has aggressively attacked departmental inspectors general and many independent agencies appointed over the years by Congress.

Birthright citizenship.  One Trump executive order asserts that people born in the United States are not automatically entitled to citizenship if their parents are not citizens. That would upend more than 100 years of precedent, and change what it means to be an American. The wording of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution specifically protects birthright citizenship. After losing in the lower courts, the Supreme Court has accepted a White House’s request for review.

Two other cases the justices have not yet accepted, but will probably have to decide eventually:

Can the president override Congress’s spending decisions?

Can the president use an 18th-century wartime law to deport immigrants he accuses of belonging to a Venezuelan gang?

“It’s hard to imagine bigger tests of presidential power,” said one lawyer who appears frequently to argue cases before the Supreme Court.

Even considering the active GOP political backgrounds of justices like John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Cavanagh and Neil Gorsuch, many observers have been surprised at their apparent compliance with Trump’s grandiose plans.

One explanation for this special consideration could be ideological rather than partisan. Some of the current justices reportedly believe in Unitary Executive Theory, which maintains that Congress cannot impose any conditions on how the president controls executive branch agencies.

There are reasonable arguments about whether the federal government--which often is ineffective at developing and implementing policy from either party--would improve if agency heads were more accountable to the president in office.

The Times editorial board made it very clear where they fall on the debate. “The Supreme Court is flirting with a maximalist version of executive power that facilitates an unaccountable White House,” they wrote. “One that, for instance, blows up boats in international waters without due process. The court’s approach downplays the primary role that the founders assigned to Congress.”

Stay tuned.