No, Trump is not causing a constitutional crisis

Contrary to the hysteria coming out of Washington, Donald Trump isn’t causing a constitutional crisis. 

Rather, by drawing a torrent of outrage and barrage of lawfare for daring to assert control over the executive branch that’s supposed to serve him – and by extension us – Trump has exposed a constitutional crisis a century in the making.

The crisis has two parts: The first is that despite maintaining the trappings of a republic where we elect a president and Congress to govern based on our desired agenda, America has found itself instead ruled by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who impose their own agenda through the administrative state.

The second is that judicial supremacists have effectively conspired with the bureaucrats to ensure this permanent government prevails by preventing the president from reining in and commanding the bureaucracy to make it responsive to Americans’ wishes.

The administrative state, the Democrat-dominated fourth branch of government that has combined the powers of the other three, was ground zero for The Resistance that dogged Trump I.

So, Trump II has made “deconstruction” of the Federal Leviathan, as he put it in a recent executive order, one of his foremost priorities. 

While the actions the executive has taken to control the executive branch may look revolutionary to Official Washington, contrary to the propaganda of its corporate media mouthpieces, Trump is effectuating a common-sense counterrevolution.

Like a turnaround artist taking over an ailing business, beyond laying out a comprehensive vision for restoring it to health, codified via a slew of executive orders, and rapidly installing those prepared to faithfully execute them, Trump has:

• Fired or forced out those engaged in past misconduct, bought out others likely to resist going forward, and enacted plans to downsize a government that tries to do an infinite number of things, many poorly, into one that does the most important things well.
• Weeded out zombie officials through the simple act of soliciting responses to an email calling for bureaucrats to detail five achievements from their prior work week.
• Dismissed political cases and pardoned those persecuted by a weaponized law enforcement apparatus to restore justice.
• Restructured agencies. 
• Frozen programs, policies, and associated spending for review. 
• Cancelled fraudulent and/or wasteful contracts. 
• Begun deregulating and defanging regulatory agencies.
• Empowered change agents, including those targeted by the last administration, and DOGE – essentially an elite management consultant – in conjunction with these activities.

The president has done all this consistent with his power as commander-in-chief.

He has ultimate authority over the executive branch and its personnel.

He has ultimate prosecutorial discretion.

He has ultimate responsibility to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

The presumption of his critics apparently is that he is supposed to serve as president-in-name-only – to beg for permission from the executive branch rather than take command of it to do our bidding.

That those impacted by his policies have thrown temper tantrums, some resisting and leaking their disdain to the press on their way out the door, others indicating they may even sell their country out to foreign powers – as CNN recently suggested regarding disgruntled outgoing CIA brass – illustrates a staggering level of entitlement, insubordination, and danger within the administrative state.

Unfortunately, the courts have perpetuated these problems by insulating the bureaucracy – at the expense not only of the agenda Americans voted for, and of the administration forced to fend off lawfare, but of the legitimacy of the courts and our constitutional order itself.

The lawfare has come in the way of a slew of cases brought by administrative staters, and their blue state and “non-governmental” champions aimed at gumming up the president’s efforts.

The arguably frivolous suits wouldn’t be so detrimental if they hadn’t been forum-shopped to some of the nearly 700 district court judges who have chosen to serve as willing accomplices in an effort to thwart the administration, and by extension violate the people’s will.

These radicals in robes have operated as if the duly elected president of the United States is their subordinate through first imposing generally unappealable temporary restraining orders, and now in some cases preliminary universal injunctions that halt legitimate presidential actions and policies not just for the benefit of those bringing the cases, but for everyone everywhere.

In so doing, individual district court judges have elevated themselves above the president, second-guessing his policies, micro-managing him, and stripping him of his authorities – even if only temporarily – by preventing him from firing his subordinates and his subordinates from accessing basic agency systems; implementing policies explicitly under his purview; and pausing programs for review, as would be prudent for anyone assuming office with a mandate for change.

Some appellate judges are blessing these moves. The Supreme Court has shown a reluctance to wade in until the relevant issues “percolate” up to it.

Courts have entertained all manner of artful justifications for damaging the executive, whether in claiming the processes by which Trump has acted are deficient, or that they imperil privacy rights – ironically in light of the silence about a government that has surveilled us all and, as we just learned, leaked the tax records of 400,000 Americans, Trump included. 

What the judges and bureaucrats are really saying is that they know better than the president, and the American people who elected him. They are substituting their wisdom for yours, the Constitution and consent of the governed be damned.

For this reason, the fight between Trump on the one side, and the administrative state and courts and the other, is much bigger than him.

It’s about whether we will have a republic.