Why does Trump feel he can ignore the law without consequences? A deep dive
Donald Trump
's disregard for the rule of law is as clear as it could be. Consider that the three justices he appointed to the Supreme Court all joined a middle-of-the-night emergency decision blocking the unlawful deportation of more Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador — after the court had already ruled 9-0 that no one should be deported without a hearing first.
But you can't cure a disease without a diagnosis. To fight back against Trump, the country and the courts need to understand why he's waging war on law, not just that he is.
Tempting though it may be to think so, the best diagnosis isn't that Trump is simply crazy or wants to be a dictator. His actions can be explained rationally in terms of his incentives and his past behavior.
Put simply, Trump learned during the last eight years — featuring two failed impeachments, three fizzled criminal cases, and one toothless New York conviction — that he pays essentially zero personal cost when he violates the law. Like any child who faces no consequences for his actions, he concluded that the rules don't apply to him. He will keep on breaking the law until he pays a price for it.
And although acting unlawfully interferes with putting his preferred policies into place, Trump has repeatedly shown he cares much less about what happens than the messages his conduct sends. Unlawful actions frighten and enrage his opponents, who then contribute to extensive news coverage that tells his supporters he's taking on the elites they don't like.
Live Events
ALSO READ:
'Already seen Donald Duck': Colombian President brutally mocks Trump, says US revoked his visa
When a president doesn't want to follow the law himself, there are supposed to be internal institutional checks to make him do so. One is the
Office of Legal Counsel
of the
Department of Justice
. OLC, as it's called, has for decades functioned as a kind of independent-minded law firm within the executive branch. Before a president does anything that potentially pushes the legal envelope, he is supposed to get a formal memorandum from OLC that analyzes the legal issues and concludes that the action can or cannot be undertaken, and how.
In a normal administration, OLC memos are often treated almost as having the force of law themselves. The system is admittedly imperfect: under the presidency of George W. Bush, a lawyer in the office, John Yoo, authored the so-called torture memos that mistakenly (not to mention immorally) concluded that various methods of 'enhanced interrogation' were not prohibited by federal statutes that banned the use of torture.
But the OLC system could also be self-correcting. When he took over OLC, Jack Goldsmith (now a colleague of mine at Harvard Law School) immediately noticed the legal errors in the memos and retracted them. That was an act of personal courage, ending Goldsmith's rapid and well-deserved rise in conservative legal circles. At the same time, it was an act of institutional recovery. The repudiation of the earlier memos cemented OLC's reputation as genuinely independent and as a brake on unlawful executive action.
ALSO READ:
Pete Hegseth was called "abuser of women" by his mother: He admitted to having five affairs during first marriage
Trump has sidelined OLC to the point of ignoring it, as Goldsmith himself has pointed out. Executive orders come out of the White House that are plainly unlawful without even the formality of consulting OLC. Once lost, the OLC check will be extremely difficult to resuscitate in a future administration. Building a credible OLC team that is not simply subordinate to a given president's legal theory takes time. And getting top-flight lawyers to staff the team requires them to believe that what they will say matters.
Then there's the attorney general, the nation's top law enforcement official. That person can also function as a check on the president by insisting that the chief executive's actions are lawful. Pam Bondi seems to have no interest in playing that role, preferring to post support for the president's policies on social media, even when they are plainly illegal. In comparison, William Barr, who served as attorney general in the first Trump administration, looks practically like a paragon of legal restraint — even though he did an enormous amount to facilitate Trump's interests, including undermining Robert Mueller's investigation. Barr was a master at deploying subtle reading of legal rules to maximize presidential power. But at least he bothered to pay lip service to the rule of law. Bondi doesn't even do that.
ALSO READ:
Pete Hegseth doing "tremendous job": Why is Trump not firing US defense secretary despite massive controversy?
The upshot is that Trump is acting rationally, having removed institutional bars to his conduct. He not only loses nothing from lawless action, he gains by it — even when the courts stop him.
The solution is therefore to find ways to make Trump pay a meaningful price for violating the law. That's unlikely to come from the Supreme Court, which has taken criminal sanctions off the table, or from Congress, where impeachment doesn't seem like a realistic possibility. It's going to have to come from the people directly, expressing themselves through elections, protests, and poll numbers. In our democracy, the people gave us Donald Trump. Now the same people have to protect themselves from his assault on the law. If we don't, our democracy won't survive.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Four more HC cases come in way of SSC teacher appointments
Kolkata: Four petitions have been filed in the Calcutta High Court, challenging the new May 29 teacher recruitment rules, 2025, for filling up 44,203 vacancies in the teaching posts in state-run schools. The petitions also challenge the monthly interim relief of Rs 25,000 and Rs 20,000 for the terminated Group C and Group D employees, which was announced by the state govt on May 30. The high court has admitted all four petitions. "The two petitions challenging the recruitment rules have been filed separately by classes IX-X and classes XI-XII applicants. The matter was mentioned before Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee. It might be taken up for hearing on June 5 by the bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury," petitioners' lawyer Firdous Samim said. The remaining two petitions challenging the interim relief for Group C and D may come up for hearing on June 9. The petitioners challenged the new teacher recruitment rules, 2025, notification on many counts, calling it a departure from the Supreme Court order. They maintain that the apex court, while scrapping the 2016 recruitment process, didn't scrap The West Bengal School Service Commission Rules, 2016. According to the petitioners, the government altered the recruitment rules, 2016, through the new notification in which the weightage for different attainments of candidates was altered. For instance, 10 marks were allotted to "prior teaching experience", which was not there in the 2016 rules. The petitioners fear that this new parameter was inserted to favour the 26,750 teachers who lost their jobs following the Supreme Court order. The other clauses disputed are the reduced academic qualification marks from 35 to 10 and increased written examination marks from 55 to 60. A petitioner said, "Many of our fellow protesters who have crossed the stipulated age cannot appear for the exam again, but those who lost their jobs can appear even if they exceed the upper age limit." Lubana Parvin, a petitioner, said: "We have been fighting for the last 10 years for justice, but the new recruitment rule has made it more difficult for us as it has given added advantage to the teachers who lost their jobs. The provision for 10 marks to be given for lecture demonstration means we will get nothing as we have never participated in classroom teaching. Many of the waitlisted candidates cannot appear for the test as they have crossed 40 years. The age relaxation has been given to the jobless teachers only; why have we been deprived of this relaxation?" The other petitions questioned why those empaneled as wait-listed candidates in Group C and Group D categories wouldn't get the monthly relief when those who first got the jobs out of the fraudulent process were entitled to the relief. Roy Banerjee)
The Hindu
42 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Mexico's ruling party headed toward control of newly elected Supreme Court, vote tallies show
Mexico's ruling Morena party appeared to be heading toward control over the Supreme Court, preliminary vote tallies of the country's first judicial election indicated. While votes were still being counted for the majority of the 2,600 federal, state and local judge positions up for grabs in Sunday's judicial elections, results rolled in for the nine Supreme Court positions. The majority of the newly elected justices share strong ties and ideological alignments with the ruling party, shifting a once fairly balanced high court into the hands of the very party that overhauled the judicial system to elect judges for the first time. Increased control of governing party Experts warned the shift would undercut checks and balances in the Latin American nation: The governing party would now be close to controlling all three branches of government, and President Claudia Sheinbaum and her party also would have a easier path to push through their agenda. 'We're watching as power is falling almost entirely into the hands of one party,' said Georgina De la Fuente, election specialist with the Mexican consulting firm Strategia Electoral. 'There isn't any balance of power.' Some of those headed toward election were members or former members of the party. A number of them, who were Supreme Court justices prior to the election, were appointed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Sheinbaum's mentor who pushed through the judicial overhaul last year. Others were advisers to the president or the party or campaigned with politically aligned visions for the judiciary. Not all of the prospective winners were explicitly aligned with Morena. One standout was Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, an Indigenous lawyer from the southern state of Oaxaca. He has no clear party affiliation, though Sheinbaum said repeatedly she hoped to have an Indigenous judge on the court. Control on judiciary That Morena would emerge from the election with control of the judiciary was what critics had feared. The vote came after months of fierce debate, prompted when López Obrador and the party jammed through the reforms for judges to be elected instead of being appointed based on merits. The overhaul will notably limit the Supreme Court as a counterweight to the president. Critics say the judicial reform was an attempt to take advantage of high popularity levels to stack courts in favor of the party. Sheinbaum and her mentor have insisted that electing judges will root out corruption in a system most Mexicans agree is broken. 'Whoever says that there is authoritarianism in Mexico is lying,' Sheinbaum said during the vote. 'Mexico is a country that is only becoming more free, just and democratic because that is the will of the people.' The elections were marred by low participation — about 13% — and confusion by voters who struggled to understand the new voting system, something opponents quickly latched onto as a failure. De la Fuente said Morena is likely to use its new lack of counterweight in the high court to push through rounds of reforms, including electoral changes. Early Tuesday, nearly 87% of the ballots had been tallied and counting was continuing. — Hugo Aguilar Ortiz was the big surprise from the election. The Indigenous lawyer led all vote-getters, including several sitting Supreme Court justices. He's known as a legal activist fighting for the rights of Indigenous Mexicans and has criticized corruption in the judiciary. — Lenia Batres was already a Supreme Court justice and was appointed by López Obrador. Previously a congresswoman, she's a member of Morena and clearly an ally of Mexico's president. — Yasmín Esquivel is a Supreme Court justice who was appointed by López Obrador. She focused her campaign on modernizing the justice system and has pushed for gender equality. She was at the center of a 2022 controversy when she was accused of plagiarizing her thesis. She is considered an ally of the Morena party. — Loretta Ortiz is a justice on the Supreme Court who was appointed by López Obrador. She also served in Congress and resigned from Morena in 2018 in a show of independence as a judge. Despite that, she's considered an ally of the party. — María Estela Ríos González is a lawyer who acted as legal adviser to López Obrador, first when he was mayor of Mexico City and later when he became president. She has a long history as a public servant and work in labor law and on a number of Indigenous issues. — Giovanni Figueroa Mejía is a lawyer from the Pacific coast state of Nayarit with a doctorate in constitutional law. He currently works as an academic at the Iberoamericana University in Mexico City. He's worked in human rights. While he holds no clear party affiliation, he supported the judicial overhaul pushed forward by Morena, saying in an interview with his university that the overhaul 'was urgent and necessary in order to rebuild' the judiciary. He said some of his work in constitutional law was cited in justifying the reform. — Irving Espinosa Betanzo is a magistrate on Mexico City's Supreme Court and has previously worked as a congressional adviser to Morena. He campaigned for the country's highest court on a platform of eliminating nepotism and corruption and pushing for human rights. — Arístides Rodrigo Guerrero García is a law professor pushing for social welfare with no experience as a judge, but who has worked as a public servant and has experience in both constitutional and parliamentary law. He gained traction in campaigns for a social media video of him claiming he's 'more prepared than a pork rind.' — Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra is a prosecutor specializing in human rights for Mexico's Attorney General's Office. She's worked on issues like gender equality, sexually transmitted infections and human trafficking. In 2023, she worked on the investigation of a fire in an immigration facility in the border city of Ciudad Juárez that killed 40 migrants.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Harvard battles $2.5 Billion US funding cut, cites risks to national security, public health research
Harvard University on Monday asked a federal judge to issue a summary judgment ordering the unfreezing of $2.5 billion in federal research funding that has been halted by the Trump administration, which Harvard says is illegal. The university contends that the freeze jeopardizes over 950 critical research projects, including those related to national security and public health. In a filing with the US district court in Boston, Harvard argues that the funding suspension is both unlawful and politically motivated. The university asserts that the freeze violates its rights to free speech and due process and undermines academic independence. Trump has been attempting to force change at Harvard and other top American universities, because of his view that these have been captured by the left-wing woke and has led to the rise of antisemitism. The Trump administration has not yet responded to this latest move by the university. US district judge Allison Burroughs has set July 21 for the arguments on the Harvard case seeking summary judgement, which refers to a request to the judge to decide a dispute without a trial to determine material facts. Impact on vital research The funding freeze affects a wide array of research initiatives, including studies on cancer, infectious diseases, and biological threat awareness for the department of defence. A defence advanced research projects agency (DARPA) official highlighted in court documents that canceling a $12 million grant for biological threat research at Harvard could pose "grave and immediate harm to national security." Additionally, the freeze threatens research in areas such as pediatric HIV and dark energy, potentially hindering advancements in both medical and scientific fields. Political tensions and retaliation claims Harvard's legal challenge comes amid escalating tensions with the Trump administration. The university alleges that the funding freeze is a retaliatory measure following its refusal to comply with a list of demands from the White House, which included changes to hiring practices and student discipline regulations. Besides, multiple other investigations have been opened into Harvard, including some looking into threats against Jewish students and faculty after pro-Palestine protests broke out following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Further escalating the situation, the administration attempted to revoke Harvard's certification under the student and exchange visitor program, effectively barring the university from enrolling international students. This move was temporarily halted by a federal judge, but it has added to the university's concerns about political interference in academic affairs.
