Consider This from NPR - Is Trump testing limits or trying to eliminate them?

Episode Date: February 2, 2025

Most presidents want as much power as they can get. And it's not unusual to see them claim authority that they don't, in the end, actually have. We saw it just last term, when former President Biden tried to unilaterally forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in federal student loans.Or when he announced, days before leaving office that the 28th Amendment, on gender equality, was now the law of the land. So are the opening moves of Trump's presidency just a spicier version of the standard playbook or an imminent threat to constitutional government as we know it?For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.orgEmail us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Here is one view of what's been happening in the U.S. government over the past two weeks. We are in the midst of sweeping authoritarian power grab that has never been witnessed in the lifetime of anyone standing here right now. That is Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon speaking on Tuesday. He ticked off the actions President Trump has taken so far during the start of his term. The inspector generals being fired. Trump fired the watchdogs who monitor federal agencies en masse on a Friday night, ignoring a law that requires him to give Congress 30 days' notice and a reason. Memos going out telling government workers to spy on government workers to see if anyone

is overly sympathetic to the idea of diversity. That directive asked employees to report any colleagues trying to get around President Trump's order aimed at ending federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. And then, Merkley brought up the memo that ordered a broad pause on federal loans and grants. We have Trump saying, I'm going to steal the power of the purse allocated to the Constitution to Congress, and I'm going to take it for myself. The memo was rescinded on Wednesday, though the White House says it still intends to cut

federal funding. It's now tied up in court. Merkley described all of this in stark terms. That is a constitutional crisis. The Constitution, of course, has checks and balances built in. But the legislative branch is controlled by Republicans. Both the House and the Senate are under GOP control. And Republican lawmakers look at Trump's moves differently.

North Dakota Senator Kevin Kramer told local radio station KFGO that he's a stickler for the separation of powers. But he told reporters Tuesday that Trump was just testing his own authority. You know, he's getting some guidance that presidents have more authority than they've traditionally used. Some presidents have used a lot of it, some have used less. And indeed, White House press secretary Caroline Levitt said this week that all of Trump's moves are legal.

On the funding freeze? White House counsel's office believes that this is within the president's power to do it, and therefore he's doing it. Here she is talking about another Trump order, one aimed at ending birthright citizenship. The idea that everyone born in America is an American citizen. It's taken from language in the Constitution.

Twenty-two state attorney generals have said that this is unconstitutional. A federal judge has just agreed with their argument. What's the administration's argument for doing away with birthright citizenship? The folks that you mentioned have a right to have that legal opinion, but it is in disagreement with the legal opinion of this administration. That order is likely headed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, which has taken a very expansive view lately of presidential power. Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho summed up the state

of affairs succinctly. For all of you who haven't noticed, this is a different day in Washington, D.C. Consider this, Trump is testing the limits of presidential power. Is it a political flex or a subversion of the Constitution? From NPR, I'm Scott Detro. It's Consider This from NPR. Most presidents want as much power as they can get, and it's not unusual to see them claim authority that they don't in the end actually have.

We saw it over the last term when former President Joe Biden tried to unilaterally forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in federal student loans. I will never apologize for helping working Americans and middle-class people as they recover from the pandemic. Or when Biden announced days before leaving office that the 28th Amendment on gender equality was now the law of the land, which is, of course, not how it works. So, are the opening moves of the Trump presidency just a spicier version of the standard playbook or an imminent threat to constitutional government as we know it?

We're going to get two different points of view on that now, one from Ronald Prusin, professor emeritus of history at the University of Toronto, and also Kenneth Lewandie, a political scientist at the University of Michigan. He's also the author of the book, False Front, the Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age. Welcome to both of you. Hello. Thank you.

Let's start with you, Ronald. Critics of Trump are sounding all kinds of alarms about the way that he's used executive power. Supporters, again, as we've heard, say, this is just what presidents do. Actually, Kenneth, let me start with you. What do you think about that? So I think you have to be able to hold two ideas in your head at once. Yes, it would be true that if all of these things were carried out

and implemented the way that they ostensibly want them to be, it would be a dramatic expansion of presidential power. But then there's this other idea which is, well, why are they doing this? Why are they carrying out actions at the pace that they are signing 70 or so so far? And why do they seem to not care whether or not they'll be invalidated in court or whether they're unworkable or how long they will take? And the answer is because presidents see a political advantage to taking executive action, regardless of whether it's actually carried out. So I think that the

concerns are real, and I don't want to downplay the concerns. But if your question is, well, why are they taking this route? It's not always about changing policy. It's messaging at times as well. Ronald, what do you think about it at this all? Well, I mean, in some respects, I would agree with Kenneth just said. That is that political scientists, historians, commentators have been talking about the imperial presidency in the United States for decades at this point. There's been a gradual, substantial, often dramatic expansion of presidential power,

certainly, especially since the 1930s onward. That said, I think what we're seeing at the moment is a dramatic expansion of dramatic expansion, particularly intense right now. I guess the equivalent, I would say, of talking about a high tide as opposed to a tsunami. And it is true that there may be a kind of testing process underway here and an image building or image confirming process underway. But there is a context here that makes this particularly threatening, particularly concerning.

The context of Trump's own ego, of the nature of the political dynamics right now in terms of Republican power in Congress, and the nature of the Supreme Court's rulings. Kenneth, you said in an interview that the Trump administration, the White House, is almost like an eye of Sauron, and it can focus on some parts of the globe,

but they're missing hobbits elsewhere and can only really focus in on one part at a time. It's a big federal government. There's a lot of hobbits, and sure, elves and dwarves or whatever else Middle Earth people you wanna put there, in this analogy. Do you think, again, a few weeks in, do you think that idea holds up, that a president can really zone in on one or few areas at a time and can't put a massive immediate

fingerprint across the federal government? I think that the fundamental point is that there are bandwidth limitations to any president, right? They've got a couple hundred very close aides who are loyal and competent and the administrative state is massive, right? That's a really difficult logistical management problem that presidents have been trying to solve for decades. So I think that even the most empowered president is going to have these problems. And in fact, if you look outside the US and you looked at even at dictators who can literally control the life or death of their subordinates, they still have trouble executing their initiatives and getting people to follow their orders.

So I think that the point stands, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can only focus on one thing at a time, but I think people need to keep in mind the fundamental human limitations of the challenge that any president faces. Ronald, what do you see as the most important check and balance at this point? I think it has to be, to begin with, I don't see a single one. I think the problem with

the context that Trump is operating in is that it is so multifaceted. We're dealing with problems on the congressional front, we're dealing with problems at the Supreme Court, we're dealing with problems at state and local government levels as well. And all of those have to be, going forward, important arenas as far as checks and balances are concerned. In the moment, I'm particularly concerned about the courts and especially the Supreme Court, given the way in which it has been tilting in recent days. Probably even before that, some of the reactions within Congress, even on some of the confirmation

questions, but certainly on various legislative moves as well. That would be a really crucial arena right now. Kenneth, what about you? What's the most important check in balance right now? The most important check, if you made me pick one, is the one that they're attempting to smash through, which is an independent, nonpartisan federal workforce. So, I mean, the details on this sometimes get a little bit boring and make people's eyes glaze over, but you have to keep in mind what their fundamental goal is, which is to make most government jobs essentially

the property of the sitting president. And that would be a fundamental change to the way that we do government in this country. A return to really the first century of how the federal government worked. Well not even a return to that because at that time we did not have two million employees, some of whom maintain nuclear weapons or do food inspections. Basically all we did at that time was the postal service. So that would be truly a different world. Some of what public servants do make politicians look bad. They uncover fraud, waste, and abuse.

They reveal bad inflation numbers. And if suddenly all of those employees could be fired on a whim by the sitting president or someone who identifies them as opposed to the administration, that's just a totally different world. So I think that that's the last most important check, particularly given the way the courts and Congress has behaved, and it's the one that I'm the most concerned about. That's Kenneth Lewandy, a political scientist at the University of Michigan and the author of False Front, The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age, as well as Ronald Prusin, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Toronto. Thanks so much to both of you. Oh, you're welcome.

Happy to be here. Thanks. This episode was produced by Mark Rivers and Connor Donovan. It was edited by Courtney Dornig. Our executive producer is Sammy Yannigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detro. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor-free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.