Jim Allan’s spirited response to my Quadrant Online column, Trump’s war on constitutional democracy, misses what makes this moment so dangerous for America. While Jim and I share deep concerns about judicial activism and bureaucratic overreach, his attempt to normalise Trump’s recent actions ignores their unprecedented assault on constitutional government.
Jim suggests my warnings echo progressive hysteria. Nothing could be further from the truth. The threat Trump poses stems not from policy disagreements but from his systematic dismantling of checks on presidential power. His actions in just the first month of 2025 reveal a leader rapidly consolidating personal control while declaring himself above the law.
Take Trump’s approach to executive orders. Jim notes that Joe Biden issued more orders early in his term. But this comparison misses the point entirely. The issue is not quantity but substance - Trump consistently invokes emergency powers to override Congress, courts and the Constitution itself.
His declaration of a “border invasion” to suspend asylum rights exemplifies this overreach. Rather than work with Congress to reform immigration law, Trump simply decreed that America’s legal obligations to asylum seekers no longer apply. This is not normal policy implementation - it is rule by executive fiat.
Trump's attempt to rewrite birthright citizenship by presidential decree represents an even more troubling power grab. For 150 years, American courts, Congress, and administrations have understood the 14th Amendment’s meaning. The drafters specifically debated this issue during congressional deliberations. Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the citizenship clause, stated explicitly it would cover “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction,” excluding only children of foreign diplomats and hostile occupying forces.
Jim argues the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” creates ambiguity. But this ignores not just the historical record but also repeated Supreme Court precedents. In the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, the Court held that a child born to Chinese parents was a citizen despite laws at the time barring Chinese immigration. The Court emphasised that “subject to the jurisdiction” simply meant subject to U.S. laws - a standard clearly met by children born to undocumented parents.
This understanding shaped a century of law and society. Every federal agency, from the State Department to the Social Security Administration, has operated on this principle. Millions of Americans have built lives and families relying on this settled interpretation. Even critics of birthright citizenship, like former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, acknowledged changing it would require a constitutional amendment.
If Trump believes this understanding is wrong, legitimate paths exist to change it. His administration could bring test cases arguing for a narrower interpretation, backed by historical and legal analysis. He could seek legislation clarifying citizenship rules within constitutional bounds. He could pursue an amendment through proper channels. Instead, he simply decreed that millions of Americans’ citizenship rights no longer exist.
The implications reach far beyond immigration policy. If presidents can unilaterally rewrite constitutional rights through executive order, what prevents a future administration from declaring the Second Amendment protects only muskets? Or that the First Amendment does not cover digital speech? Once we accept that presidents can override settled constitutional meaning by decree, no right remains secure.
Trump's February 18 executive order, issued after my Quadrant column was submitted and not addressed in Jim's response, provides another stark example of this pattern. It commands all independent regulatory agencies - including the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission and others - to submit their regulations, budgets and legal positions to White House review through the Office of Management and Budget.
For over a century, Congress designed these agencies to operate with meaningful independence from presidential control. Their commissioners have fixed terms and bipartisan requirements. They can only be removed for cause, not political disagreement. This structure allows them to enforce laws and protect the public interest without direct White House interference.
Trump's order claims power to override these statutory protections. It would let his administration control everything from antitrust enforcement to election oversight through budget allocations and regulatory review. The White House could block investigations of allies or shape rules to punish opponents. Even if courts ultimately reject this power grab as unlawful, the order reveals Trump's vision of unchecked presidential control.
Perhaps most revealing is Trump’s pinned social media post proclaiming “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” This was not some off-hand remark but a carefully chosen statement of principle. It echoes Napoleon Bonaparte’s justification for crowning himself emperor - the idea that a leader’s will supersedes all law when he deems it necessary to “save” the nation.
Vice President Vance made this doctrine explicit, suggesting judges have no authority to constrain executive power in areas like immigration or law enforcement. Jim likens this to Lincoln’s clash with courts during the Civil War. But this comparison fails on multiple levels.
Lincoln faced armed rebellion threatening the nation’s survival. He sought and received congressional approval for emergency measures. Even at the height of civil war, he never claimed blanket authority to ignore courts as a matter of principle. When he suspended habeas corpus, he did so narrowly and temporarily, acknowledging it as an extreme measure requiring legislative backing.
Other presidents challenged court rulings without denying judicial authority itself. Jefferson disagreed with Chief Justice John Marshall but implemented his decisions. Jackson opposed Worcester v. Georgia yet never claimed courts lacked power to review executive actions. Even FDR’s court-packing scheme acknowledged the Supreme Court’s constitutional role - he sought to change the institution’s composition, not deny its legitimacy.
Trump goes further, suggesting judicial review itself is illegitimate when it constrains his agenda. His administration argues courts cannot evaluate his emergency declarations or scrutinise his constitutional interpretations. This is not disputing particular rulings but rejecting the basic principle that courts can check executive power.
The systematic purge of Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents reveals similar contempt for constitutional limits. Jim defends the mass removal of January 6 investigators as fair “reciprocity” for supposed past wrongs. But firing career officials for investigating presidential allies is not normal transition policy - it turns law enforcement into a personal political weapon.
Trump’s acting deputy attorney general - one of his former defence lawyers - ordered the FBI to compile a list of all personnel who touched January 6 cases. This mirrors classic authoritarian tactics: identify and remove anyone who might hold you accountable. A justice system cannot function if investigating wrongdoing becomes a firing offence.
Most disturbing is Trump’s withdrawal of Secret Service protection from former officials facing active Iranian assassination threats. Jim’s critique notably ignores this clear case of personal vengeance overriding core presidential duties. Even if John Bolton and others now criticise Trump, leaving them exposed to credible death threats breaks a fundamental responsibility - protecting American lives, especially those endangered by past government service.
Jim suggests that comparing Trump’s actions to historical examples of democratic decline amounts to hysteria. He argues that without concentration camps or mass repression, such parallels are meaningless. This fundamentally misunderstands how democracies die in the modern era.
Recent history offers sobering lessons. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez maintained democratic forms while gradually concentrating power through emergency decrees and attacks on institutions. Hungary’s Viktor Orban preserved elections but hollowed out independent courts and media. Turkey’s Erdogan initially presented himself as a democratic reformer while systematically undermining checks on his authority.
These leaders did not immediately abolish democracy. They operated through superficially legal means - emergency powers, executive orders, personnel changes. Each step was justified as necessary reform or response to critics. Courts were attacked as partisan obstacles. Law enforcement was redirected against opponents. Professional civil servants were replaced with loyalists.
Trump's February 18 executive order targeting independent agencies exemplifies this pattern. Like other modern autocrats, he maintains the outward forms of institutions while gutting their independence. The order preserves these agencies' structures but subjects their every move to White House control - transforming independent regulators into instruments of presidential power.
The pattern repeats across cases. First comes the assertion of emergency powers to bypass normal constraints. Then attacks on courts and law enforcement to ensure impunity. Finally, the conversion of state institutions from independent checks into partisan weapons. At each stage, defenders minimise the threat. They dismiss historical comparisons as alarmist. They rationalise each erosion of democratic norms as justified by circumstances.
Only after institutions are sufficiently weakened does the mask fully drop. By then, the guardrails that could have stopped authoritarian consolidation have crumbled. The outward forms of democracy remain, but meaningful constraints on power have vanished.
Jim suggests we face a choice between bureaucratic tyranny and Trump’s executive assertiveness. But this frames the issue backwards. The real choice is between a government bound by law and one subject to a leader’s unchecked will. Trump’s actions point decisively toward the latter path.
Constitutional democracy requires not just elections but genuine limits on power. A president who claims authority to override courts, weaponise justice, and endanger critics is testing how absolute his control can become. Conservatives have long warned that unchecked power corrupts. That principle applies whether the power flows from unelected bureaucrats or elected strongmen.
No, Trump has not yet openly defied a Supreme Court ruling. But his words and actions suggest he sees no real barriers to his will - only obstacles to push aside when he deems it necessary. A leader who convinces enough supporters that national salvation requires absolute power can indeed become unstoppable. Recognising that risk is not hysteria but vigilance.
If conservatives indulge authoritarian methods because they advance certain policies or crush opponents, they may wake to find democracy’s guardrails have crumbled. The cost of complacency may be the end of American democracy as we know it.
To read the full article on the Quadrant website, click here.