Donald trump and the law | thearticle

A blitzkrieg – a “lightning war ” – is intended to overwhelm with surprise, speed and blinding firepower. The aim is to shock the enemy into believing resistance is futile. Donald Trump and

his enforcer, Elon Musk, have spent the first three months of this presidency taking a chainsaw to America’s civil service. A blitzkrieg of executive orders is raining down on what Trump

calls the “deep state ”. Thousands have been summarily fired without due process. The latest targets in this war are federal judges, the last constitutional line of defence against

authoritarianism in a democracy. Court rulings are being ignored. Judges are being targeted. Hard-right House Republicans are now calling for Congress to impeach judges whose rulings they

don’t like. Big law firms viewed as hostile have had their security clearances revoked. Some – as well as their clients — have been barred from taking government contracts or even entering

government buildings. A handful have fought back. Others have buckled. One agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to Trump causes . This is essentially paying protection money.

The culture war unleashed by the MAGA movement reaches deep and far. Students protesting Israeli actions in Gaza are jailed for being anti-American. Tourists with minor visa infractions

have been detained and in at least one case, shackled in solitary. Universities are being threatened with funding cancellations if they don’t adopt policies that please the President. This

is more than Trump’s revenge, the settling of scores by an agein g capo de tutti capi . It’s an assault on the rule of law, the unifying thread that has held American society together for

more than two centuries. It’s a gunfight: between those who believe that, however irksome, due process matters — and those who think it’s superfluous. And, by and large, Trump’s blitzkrieg

is working. Resistance, so far, has been meek. The Republican party is supine, mesmerised by Trump or incapacitated by fear. Trump’s cabinet is starstruck. The Democratic party is comatose.

Congressionally appointed public bodies like USAID and the Department of Education are coming out with their hands up. The only meaningful pushback is from the courts, the third and equal

branch of government under the United States constitution. But for now, this feels more like a rearguard action by isolated partisans in the face of well-organised onslaught. The American

constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use. It’s a landmark document in the evolution of western political thought and practice. It defines what government is, how it

should work and where the citizen stands. “No person,” the Fifth Amendment states , “ shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law .” But they are, in numbers.

So who decides what the law says? Who is the arbiter? The law or politicians? How the answer plays out over the next four years may well decide America’s future for a long time to come. For

those who need reminding, Congress passes laws, the President administers laws and the courts interpret laws. That’s how America has worked for the past 200 years. It’s a three-ring circus –

each intended to keep the other honest and the republic on an even keel. Trump doesn’t like the idea. He doesn’t see the point. It cramps his style. JD Vance, his boorish Vice-President,

goes further. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power ,” he says. It’s what happens in China or Russia. It’s not what America is. No President since 1865 has

refused to follow a direct order from a federal court. Trump may be dangerous but he’s not stupid. So far he’s walked a careful line, erring on the right side of the law — just. But the

broad tactic is clear: flood the courts with appeals against executive actions that may or may not be unlawful and sometime, someone will breach the guardrails, and the castle keep can be

stormed. And after that… who knows? The most recent example was an order by James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington DC. The judge ordered a pause to the deportation of suspected

Venezuelan street gang members under a rarely invoked statute of 1798, the Alien Enemies Act. He wanted to know more. Justice department Officials claimed the detainees were already in

international airspace so could not be turned back. They then asked the federal appeals court to remove Judge Boasberg from the case altogether. Trump called the judge a “radical left

lunatic” and backed calls for his impeachment. The administration is playing cat and mouse with the judiciary. America’s Chief Justice, John G. Roberts Jr., hit back with a rare public

broadside: “For more than two centuries,” he thundered, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal

appellate review process exists for that purpose.” In other words: “Get in line, Mr President: nobody is above the law.” Except Trump believes he is — and he has form. In 2018 during his

first term, he accused a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy of being an “Obama judge”. “We do not,” Roberts then riposted, “have Obama judges or Trump judges,

Bush judges or Clinton judges….an independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” That, of course, is not entirely true. Supreme Court justices are, and have always been,

political appointees. (Federal court and district judges are also appointed.) Perhaps the most striking example of judicial activism is Roe v Wade, which ruled abortion legal in 1973. Then,

in 2022, it was flipped by the Supreme Court and the issue devolved to the states. Nevertheless, when it comes to holding the ring between opposing claims, the courts are the only game in

town. They play a crucial role in scrutinising what the executive does, under the principle of judicial review, established by America’s fourth and arguably greatest Chief Justice, John

Marshall. His premise was simple: a win at the polls doesn’t give governments a blank cheque. It follows from this that you can believe a judgement is wrong. You can even believe a judge is

“rogue” . But the remedy is not to undermine the judge, remove him or throw him in jail. “The remedy is to let the legal system do what the legal system does, which is to correct bad rulings

on appeal.” There are two views about how all this will work out. Steve Vladeck, constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, isn’t pressing the panic button yet: “It’s like my

six-year-old who tests the boundaries,” he says, “ pushing to see how much they can get away with .” Others see this as a crisis for American democracy from which it may not easily recover.

The Trump base loves the idea that he is a disruptor. They cheer when he takes a wrecking ball to a faceless state they feel has held them back and trampled on their values and beliefs. But

power is a funny thing. A person is all-powerful — until they’re not. We invest someone with omnipotence by allowing ourselves to be persuaded that they are. The same applies to a state. The

Berlin Wall fell, not because the Soviet Union was suddenly powerless from one day to the next. It fell because the veil was lifted. Its weaknesses were suddenly exposed. The spell was

broken. The emperor had no clothes. Trump’s flood-the-zone strategy – his attacks on judges and his tariff wars, to name but two — is a big gamble by a habitual chancer. His advisers say he

is playing a long game. Is Trump still a “Buy”? Maybe. But as Warren Buffet, the world’s most celebrated investor, says: “Tariffs are all very well. But then what?” On the evidence so far,

there’s an equally strong case for shorting the 47 th President of the United States. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have

an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._