Trump’s Assault on Constitutional Norms and the Republican Response
Subversion of the Separation of Powers
President Donald Trump’s presidency has been marked by a blatant disregard for the constitutional safeguards that ensure the division of power among the three branches of government. His executive overreach has manifested in a series of actions that violate the authority granted to him under Article II of the Constitution.
Trump has repeatedly bypassed Congress, the legislative body responsible for approving spending, by unilaterally cutting funding to programs and agencies. These actions have extended to the firing of employees without regard to federal regulations, further undermining the system of checks and balances.
GOP’s Collective Silence and Meek Abandonment
Despite holding a majority in both chambers, Republicans in Congress have largely remained silent as Trump tramples on their constitutional authority. This collective shrug has been particularly noteworthy given that Article I of the Constitution explicitly empowers the legislature to pass laws and approve spending.
By failing to assert their authority, Republicans have seemingly abdicated their responsibility to restrain Trump’s worst impulses, leaving it to the federal judiciary to step forward.
Judicial Intervention and a Looming Constitutional Crisis
Federal courts have emerged as the primary check on Trump’s excesses. They have issued numerous rulings blocking his overreach, including injunctions against his travel ban and his attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
However, this judicial pushback has also raised concerns about a potential constitutional crisis. Should Trump openly defy a court order, it would represent a direct attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers.
Republican Awakening: Gingerly Steps and the Risk of Defiance
In recent months, a few Republican legislators have cautiously voiced concerns about Trump’s actions. They have sought to restore funding to cuts made in the budget by Trump’s "co-president," Elon Musk.
However, Trump has refused to reverse these cuts, fearing an admission of wrongdoing. This intransigence has put Republicans in Congress in a difficult position: step up and challenge the president or risk the wrath of their constituents.
Case Studies: Cuts to Food Aid and Medical Research
Republican lawmakers from states with significant farm economies have raised objections to Trump’s $1.8 billion cut in food aid programs. They have proposed a solution that would maintain the funding but redirect it through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Similarly, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has voiced concerns about the $9 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health’s medical research budget. She has pledged to work with Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to mitigate the impact.
Environmental Funding Cuts and Musk’s Conflicts of Interest
The most predictable cuts for Trump and Musk have been in funding for electric car battery manufacturing and renewable energy projects. Musk, who runs Tesla, has personally benefited from federal EV subsidies in the past but now seeks to eliminate funding for his potential competitors.
Atlas Public Policy research has shown that Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provided loans and grants for energy projects, has primarily benefitted Republican-voting communities. This puts Republican legislators in a bind as they face backlash from manufacturers whose federal funding has been frozen.
Transparency and Retaliation
Drawing attention to problematic funding decisions can have negative consequences. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) raised concerns about wasted food, leading to Trump’s administration reinstating the transit of food aid. However, the inspector general who released a comprehensive report on the matter was subsequently fired.
Conclusion
Trump’s presidency has witnessed a sustained assault on the constitutional norms governing the separation of powers. Republican legislators have largely failed to assert their authority, leaving it to the courts to rein in the president’s excesses. However, a few Republican voices have emerged to express concerns, hinting at a potential shift in the GOP’s response. It remains to be seen whether these cautious steps will lead to meaningful resistance or whether Republicans will continue to prioritize party loyalty over the rule of law.
