Project Presidential Power
“Open disregard for law and legal institutions and ideological justification of lawlessness” as well as “contempt for law” are, Hannah Arendt writes, “characteristic of all movements.” Arendt continues that under the rule of decree, “power, which in constitutional government only enforces the law, becomes the direct source of all legislation.” Lauren Stiller Rikleen argues that the barrage of Executive Orders coming out of the White House are part of a concerted attack on democracy and the rule of law. On Friday evening, the President fired twelve congressionally-approved Inspector Generals at various federal agencies, violating a law that requires the President to submit a written explanation to Congress of why he is firing the inspector general with 30 days notice. I am sure there will be lawsuits. Some will prevail. But if Congress refuses to pushback on this and other attacks on its power, we will increasingly live under the rule of presidential decree. While the media attends to each decree on its own, Rikleen is correct that we must understand that the entirety of the approach is designed to fundamentally centralize power in the presidency. And while it is true that presidents of both parties have been consolidating presidential power for over a century, the theory of the unitary executive that inspires much of President Trump’s approach to government would radically undermine the separation of power that is at the root of the American constitutional foundation of liberty. Rikleen writes:
And this leads to the media’s second significant failing—to see all of government through a partisan lens. When dealing with profound changes to law and questionable legality, coverage like this is irresponsible: “Many of Trump’s orders are likely to be challenged in court by Democrats and liberal advocacy groups.”
That sentence is as treacherous to the rule of law as many of the executive orders themselves. Characterizing those who would challenge these executive actions as party-affiliated or liberal advocacy groups diminishes the substance of the challenges, ignores the underlying threats to democracy, and relegates legitimate legal challenges to mere partisan behavior.
Reflexively describing valid concerns about threats to our democracy as a partisan fight gives the advantage to those seeking to undermine it and weakens the function of journalism as a bulwark for a free society.
Maybe that is what media owners today want, but our country needs more. The people now running the government told us all exactly what they planned to do. The media must stop being surprised, school themselves on Project 2025, and focus on fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law."