Donald Trump’s second, nonsequential presidential term constitutional experts have found it to be a turning point in American history. The first weeks of the government have shown not just a set of specific policy changes but also a methodical reconceptualization of presidential power deserving of close examination.
American democracy rests on a careful balance of powers dispersed throughout the several branches of government, a system painstakingly built to prevent the kind of power concentration found Today. Trump’s assault on executive orders points to a constitutional reconfiguration that methodically erases accepted limits rather than only policy execution.
His general amnesty of January 6th insurrectionists—including those found guilty of violent assaults on law enforcement—represents a particularly alarming model. This deed goes beyond simple pity; it clearly emboldens political violence carried out in support of his aspirations. When such action gets presidential absolution, we create a dangerous precedent: buying into the MAGA cult makes you extralegally exempt from prosecution under the watch of Donald Trump.
The modern government is intensely hostile toward meritocracy. Though they evidently lack the necessary credentials, selections such as Pete Hegseth, who was chosen to serve as the Secretary of Defense, do not show unfortunate aberrations. Instead, it is pointedly a systematic replacement of competence with ideological allegiance. This tendency reveals a deliberate decline of our nation’s institutional capacity rather than merely ‘casual nepotism.’
Compare Hegseth’s choice with Lloyd Austin, his predecessor, whose decades of leadership experience at battalion, brigade, division, and combatant command produced unrivaled operational expertise. The way in which we now lower our standards of qualification suggests that our values in a leader are shifting. Political allegiance should be prioritized over governmental effectiveness—a departure from the measures taken toward supposed governmental efficiency. We are handing incompetent pundits the keys to the kingdom because they swore unwavering allegiance to a red baseball cap instead of our Constitution.
The administration’s intentional amplification of social division may be the most alarming. When executive orders label initiatives and research projects as “DEI,” they do so with a deliberately broad definition. For example, the National Science Foundation targets the words “women,” “victims,” and “disabilities” when looking at these projects that seek federal grants. This newly instituted policy is demonstrative of a very real threat toward even statutorily mandated protections of civil rights. Though there may be valid criticisms of diversity training techniques, or the selective nature of federal grants, the Trump administration’s approach is markedly not a critique of such practices, but an attempt at total institutional dismantling.
The intentional resurgence of nativist ideas—shown in the executive order opposing birthright citizenship despite clear constitutional clauses and court precedent—exposes a governmental ideology based on division rather than unity.
Trump’s conflicting approach toward Ukraine and his unambiguous support of Russian interests indicate a significant realignment of America’s geopolitical posture. This shift in focus could incentivize our traditional allies toward nuclear proliferation, should they think guarantees of American security depend wholly on the sways of presidential temperament. The government’s newfound belligerence toward longtime allies and the paving of paths for totalitarian governments accomplish little in the way of ‘strategic decisiveness.’ Instead, haphazard attempts at diplomacy seem to prioritize getting along with heads of state rather than maintaining the best interest of our nation.
When navigating this newfound subversion of checks and balances, this mockery of established order, our collective responsibility exceeds the choice between red or blue. To preserve democratic institutions, we must protect what now appear to be tentative constitutional values: separation of powers, equal protection under the law, and government positions based on knowledge, not blind servitude, blind obedience.
Our national resilience rests on institutional limitations and an informed citizenry that can distinguish party differences from systematic challenges to democratic governance. Apart from its new, overreaching approach to legal procedure, the current government poses a fundamental threat to the constitutional system itself. We must demonstrate a robustly defensive position toward presidential actions that fall outside the realm of executive power, some even beyond the reach of reason.