Trump's Open Disrespect for Law Could Be a Calculated Gamble
Feb 5, 2025
auto_awesome
Walter Olson, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, dives into the Trump administration's contentious relationship with legal norms. He discusses how ongoing executive actions may not just be oversights but strategic moves against established laws. Olson highlights the potential implications on governance, especially regarding immigration and civil service protections. He raises concerns over the judiciary's role in mitigating these actions and suggests that this could lead to a constitutional crisis, testing the limits of executive power.
The Trump administration's actions reveal a dangerous pattern of executive overreach, threatening the established legal frameworks governing civil service and international agreements.
Current political dynamics create challenges for judicial oversight of the executive branch, raising concerns about the administration's respect for court rulings and statutory requirements.
Deep dives
Concerns Over Executive Powers
The recent actions taken by the Trump administration reveal a concerning pattern regarding the extent of executive powers. This includes the suspension of laws and the oversight of federal regulations that traditionally govern civil service protections and international agreements. For example, the suspension of the TikTok ban, initially framed as a prosecutorial discretion, illustrates an overreach where the president appears to believe he can nullify legal consequences affecting third parties. Such behavior raises critical questions about the future of the constitutional separation of powers and the potential normalization of executive actions that defy established law.
Defying Established Agencies
The attempted removal of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) highlights the administration's disregard for existing legal frameworks. Although USAID was originally created by executive order in the 1960s, later congressional laws formalized its existence and required certain functions to be upheld. The notion that an agency created by legislation could be eliminated through executive action demonstrates a troubling trend where the administration chooses to ignore the legal binding nature of statutory requirements. This trend can foster an environment of uncertainty about the permanence and validity of governmental organizations.
Judicial Response and Strategic Ambiguity
The current political landscape presents challenges for judicial checks on the executive branch due to Congress's apparent reluctance to assert its authority. This has resulted in a situation where the courts may face increased pressure to respond to numerous constitutional violations without clear guidance. The administration’s chaotic approach creates an environment in which courts may struggle to address the volume of legal challenges efficiently. Questions remain about whether the administration would respect judicial rulings or engage in acts of defiance, leaving strategic ambiguity about future compliance with court decisions and further complicating the dynamic between branches of government.
The White House is asserting the ability to defy longstanding legal and constitutional rules. It's almost certainly not an accident. Walter Olson comments.