The framers of the Constitution had a specific purpose in mind when they separated powers.
He hesitated. But the reason remains unclear.
Whether due to a plunging stock market, fleeing investors, Republican donors inundating the White House with calls, or concerns about his own investments, President Donald Trump chose to temporarily suspend most of his arbitrary tariffs yesterday afternoon. This was a choice made personally by him—his “instinct,” as he described it. A spontaneous decision that could see the tariffs reinstated again.
The Republican leaders in Congress have declined to use their legislative power to rein him in or moderate his actions, not just on this matter but on others as well. The Cabinet consists of sycophants and loyalists prepared to defend inconsistent policies, even at the risk of appearing foolish. The judiciary, similarly, has yet to intervene decisively. No one seems willing to stop a single individual from potentially damaging the global economy, destabilizing financial markets, and pushing this nation and others into recession based solely on his whims each day.
This epitomizes the nature of arbitrary, unchecked power. It underscores why the Constitution’s authors designed the framework to prevent such a concentration of authority. In that famously warm, cramped room in Philadelphia, where windows were closed for privacy, they debated and deliberated over mechanisms to curb executive power. They conceived the idea of distributing authority among several branches of government. As James Madison articulated in “Federalist No. 47”: “The accumulation of all powers—legislative, executive, and judiciary—into the same hands … can accurately be defined as the essence of tyranny.”
More than 200 years later, the governance system established by that Constitutional Congress is failing significantly. The entities and personnel meant to check executive power are not holding this president accountable. We face a de facto tyrant who believes he can impose his will irrespective of facts or evidence, disregarding opposing viewpoints. While the economic consequences he has caused are quantifiable, the damage extends equally to scientific research, civil liberties, healthcare, and the civil service.
From this chaotic episode, a valuable lesson emerges. In recent times, many individuals in democracies have grown disillusioned with their political systems due to ongoing disputes, the challenge of reaching compromises, and the sluggish decision-making processes. Similar to the early 20th century, would-be autocrats have started claiming that we would be better off without these institutions. “The truth is that men are tired of liberty,” Mussolini professed. Lenin derisively commented on the failures of what he termed bourgeois democracy. In the United States, a newly emerging group of techno-authoritarian advocates view our political structure as inefficient and propose a “national CEO,” essentially a dictator in different terminology.
Yet in the past two days, Donald Trump has provided a striking illustration of the necessity of legislatures, the importance of checks and balances, and why most singular rule—dictatorships—tend toward decline and corruption. If the Republican Party does not restore Congress to its intended role, and if the courts continue to allow the president free rein, this cycle of destruction will persist, and every inhabitant of the planet will bear the consequences.
