Is the U.S. political system equipped to handle a president who defies legal and institutional boundaries?
The Constitution created mechanisms for one branch of government to check the power of the others. Hyper-partisanship has, to a significant degree, prevented Congress from using the tools it has available. The Constitution isn’t self-enforcing. Ultimately, it’s up to “We the People” to say when we’ve had enough of the blurring of constitutional boundaries on the branches of government, violation of the rule of law, and the eradication of democratic norms.
The Constitution is a brilliant document that divides the federal government's powers into three branches. Each branch is meant to act as a check on the others' power. The Legislative Branch makes laws. Appropriations and tax bills must begin in the House, while the Senate provides “advice and consent” on presidential appointments. The Executive Branch–specifically, the president–signs or vetoes laws passed by Congress. The Judicial Branch interprets the law and can uphold or strike down laws and executive actions.
Critically, the framers of the Constitution included a mechanism to hold the Executive and Judicial branches accountable through the impeachment power. The House may impeach officials in the Executive and Judicial branches, including the president. The Senate tries those impeachments. If an official is convicted, the Senate can disqualify him or her from holding a position of public trust again.
Unfortunately, the impeachment process has become so politicized in this hyper-polarized atmosphere that I’m unsure how viable it is for the foreseeable future. It needs time for rehabilitation. Impeachment isn’t the only option, though. Congress can use the appropriations process by either placing more stipulations on funding or reducing funding to the Executive Branch. Lawmakers can also decline to pass legislation demanded by the White House. The Senate can withhold votes on nominations.
Regardless of how Congress decides to act, if it acts at all, the Constitution is not a self-enforcing document. “We the People” are ultimately the caretakers of the Constitution and the American experiment. If we lose the rule of law, I’m alarmed by what could happen next.
Do you think Trump’s tariffs are more about political strategy than economic benefit?
Trump has long supported tariffs. We’re talking about nearly 40 years of statements complaining about trade policy and promoting tariffs to bring manufacturing to the United States. The problem is that tariffs are economically destructive and much of what serves as the foundation of Trump’s beliefs is flawed. For example, manufacturing has been doing well and remained stable over the past several years. The vast majority of the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector have happened because of automation, not trade or outsourcing. It’s bad economics, which is why the stock market cratered and why Trump backed off on the reciprocal tariffs, even though he left the 10% global tariff and sector-based tariffs in place.
Listen, Trump has supported tariffs for as long as I can remember. He was saying much the same things in the 1980s. This suggests that Trump’s tariffs come from ideological views, not political strategy. I’m sure he believes that tariffs come with an economic benefit, but the literature available on tariffs and trade wars–including the United States’ own experiment with protectionist tariffs in the early 1930s–tells us that tariffs have the effect of hurting consumers and the poor and middle class.
Although Trump threatened broad tariffs during his first term, he didn’t go that far. He imposed tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum and tariffs on China. The broader tariffs were avoided, largely thanks to economic advisers who were skeptical of economic protectionism. Still, the tariffs imposed came with a real economic cost. Real income fell by $1.4 billion per month in 2018. The tariffs on China increased costs on Americans by $419 per household. American agricultural exports also fell by more than $27 billion. Taxpayers subsidized the drop in agricultural exports to the tune of $28 billion. Meanwhile, the trade deficit–a meaningless statistic in the context of the United States–increased overall during Trump’s first term.
Trump and his chief trade adviser, Peter Navarro, argue that manufacturing will return to the United States because of the tariffs. You have to remember that Trump is constitutionally ineligible for a third term. I don’t care what he says. He can’t run again unless the Constitution is amended, and that’s not going to happen. Infrastructure and capital investment could take up to ten years. Reorganization of the supply chain could take up to 15 years. Then you have to wonder about the workforce. The United States has, over the past several decades, shifted the workforce to services. That can’t be undone overnight. Because of the shift in the workforce to services, we lack the workforce necessary for these skilled jobs.
Trump and Navarro’s push to bring manufacturing back to the United States is also based on the faulty notion that this industry is hurting. Look, manufacturing in the United States isn’t in decline. Manufacturing production in the United States fell during the Great Recession and hasn’t reached the same levels since. However, it has remained consistent. Yes, fewer people work in manufacturing, but that is a trend that has existed for decades. What about the “job losses”? Roughly 88% of the job losses in manufacturing from 2000 to 2010 happened because of increased productivity, which includes automation. Only 12% can be attributed to trade and outsourcing.
With what’s happening today based on this really dumb trade war, I’m reminded of a quote from Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, who once wrote, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” It takes a lot of arrogance to believe that we can bully the world into submission and shift the economy away from services back to manufacturing. We were in the process of finding out it wouldn’t work until Trump backed down on April 9 by delaying the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs because of the negative effects on stocks and the bond market. The White House hadn’t seemed concerned about stocks, but the sell-off in the bond market the morning of April 9 became impossible to avoid because it increased the possibility of a financial crisis and inflationary pressures.
Although the 10% global tariff and sector-based tariffs still apply, with levies on imports from China raised to 125%, the scenario Trump created– “worse than the worst-case scenario,” as some have put it–has at least been avoided for now. In short, Trump blinked.
Do you think Trump is purposefully crashing the stock market?
It’s difficult to answer this. Trump and his advisers aim to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States and reduce the trade deficit. However, they can’t achieve that without significant losses in stocks. Anyone trying to make sense of their actions needs to read up on the “Mar-a-Lago Accord” to fully understand Trump's intentions. The stock market's reaction and the sell-off of Treasury securities that finance it clearly highlight why the “Mar-a-Lago Accord” won’t work.
I’m seeing more and more people ask this question. I wish I had an answer. On some level, the answer is probably “yes.” Trump and senior officials acknowledged that there would be some pain in this misguided trade war as they seek to bring more manufacturing back to the United States.
Some Trump apologists in Congress and the media have said, “Well, Trump campaigned on this.” Sure, Trump campaigned on increasing tariffs, but he also repeatedly misled voters by saying the countries that would be hit with the tariffs would pay the cost. Tariffs are paid by importers in the United States, not exporters from other countries. The cost of those tariffs is generally passed on to consumers. He also contradicted himself by saying that he would reduce inflation when his tariff policies only increase consumer prices.
Is there a strategy behind this? I’ve seen some speculation. A colleague at the Independent Center sent me a piece suggesting that China plans to invade Taiwan in the next six months. The piece doesn’t talk much about the tariffs, but my colleague believes that they are meant to make it harder for China to achieve its military goals.
Another theory is that this chaos is all part of a broader goal to devalue the U.S. Dollar. This is based on a paper published in November 2024 by Stephan Miran. Now the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Miran plays a key role in guiding economic policy and strategy in the White House. This plan is known as the “Mar-a-Lago Accord.” The idea is similar to the Plaza Accord signed in September 1985 by the United States, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and West Germany. The agreement was phased out. A new agreement, the Louvre Accord, was signed by the United States, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and Canada. Part of the goal of the Louvre Accord was to push the dollar back up because it had fallen too far against other currencies.
The so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord” has a goal similar to the Plaza Accord, but it adds other elements. The United States would work with participating countries to weaken the dollar while also restructuring the debt and the system of world trade. Miran all but spelled this out in an April 8 speech at the Hudson Institute. The U.S. Dollar did indeed weaken since the imposition of the tariffs because tariffs reduce imports, therefore lessening the need to buy foreign currency. This would reduce the trade deficit, particularly with China. The problem is, even with a slim chance of success that most economists think it has, the Mar-a-Lago Accord would take time to implement. The way Trump has handled the tariffs was reckless, and it backfired.
What best explains continued Republican support for Trump despite economic and legal controversy?
It’s a combination of factors. Congressional Republicans are worried about being primaried because the Republican Party's conservative base is devoted to Trump. Conservatives have created information bubbles that feed them content that confirms their biases. The redistricting process has created more partisan congressional districts. More partisan congressional districts mean more members of Congress who are responsive to their party base.
In a word, “fear.” Fear of a primary challenge. Fear for their safety. Fear of being embarrassed by a post on social media. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the politics of fear can advantage those who creatively employ them.
It’s pretty much routine for the party of the president in Congress to generally follow his agenda. I’ve been following politics for most of my life, and I’ve worked as a lobbyist and policy professional for more than 13 years, and that has always been the case. As true as that has always been, I’ve never seen anything like what we’ve seen with Trump. That’s because the conservative base of the Republican Party is committed to Trump in ways they’ve never committed to another Republican president.
Think of it this way. Conservatives didn’t have many policy victories, particularly on cultural issues. They’ve been unable to reduce the size and scope of government. They believe these failures are because Republicans in Congress didn’t fight hard enough to achieve conservative victories. Trump is viewed as someone who will fight for conservative victories and has achieved some of them, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Three justices who were part of the majority that undid the precedent established in Roe were appointed by Trump.
There are three other important elements we need to add to the equation that explain the continued support for Trump. The first is the information bubbles that conservatives have created for themselves because of their distrust of “mainstream media.” These information bubbles consist of a steady diet of right-wing media and influencers who often leave out critical details in their content or rely more on opinion than fact and/or traffic in hyper-partisan hit pieces and conspiracy theories. This space can be quite lucrative, which is why it’s so saturated. If you’re worried about your information space, check out Ad Fontest Media’s Interactive Media Bias Chart.
The other two elements work in tandem and create a race to the bottom in electoral politics. Those elements are the redistricting process and the primary system. The redistricting process is about partisan political power. The number of “crossover districts”–districts won by one party’s presidential candidate that’s represented by the other–has fallen from 86 in 2000 to 16 in 2024. In 1997, 113 districts had a partisan voter index (PVI) of D+3 to R+3. In the 2024 cycle, there were 57 of these districts. Districts that lean more toward an ideological vote point mean a more strongly ideological primary electorate, which means primaries are more likely to produce more ideologically slanted candidates in the general election who will be responsive to their party base, which unquestionably supports Trump.
