The United States Constitution was built on the belief that no one person should have unchecked power. The Founding Fathers understood the danger of tyranny and worked to build a government that could resist it. They created three separate branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—and built in a system of checks and balances to ensure that each branch could limit the others. This design protects freedom and prevents the rise of authoritarian rule.
But in recent years, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump, this balance of power has come under serious strain. The increasing use of executive orders to legislate—without proper action from Congress—and the failure of Congress to hold the President accountable represent a dangerous shift away from constitutional government. This trend threatens the very foundation of American democracy.
The Role of the Executive Branch
The executive branch, headed by the President, was created by Article II of the Constitution. Its primary role is to enforce the laws passed by Congress. It is not supposed to make laws on its own. The power to legislate belongs to Congress, as stated in Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”
This separation of roles is not just a matter of formality, it is essential to preventing tyranny. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47, when one person can make, enforce, and interpret the law, freedom is at serious risk.
The Growth of Executive Orders
The use of executive orders by American presidents is not new, and when used properly, they serve an important function. Executive orders can help manage federal agencies and clarify how existing laws are enforced. But when a president uses executive orders or memoranda to create new policies, spend federal funds, override acts of Congress, or target specific people or groups with retribution, they become a direct threat to the constitutional balance of power.
During Donald Trump’s first term, his use of executive orders often raised eyebrows and drew legal challenges. But since returning to office in January 2025, President Trump has issued a series of executive orders that are more aggressive. More importantly, Trump’s executive orders are blatantly unconstitutional and far more dangerous to the democratic structure of the U.S. government than the executive orders and memoranda he issued in his first term in office.
Here are some examples of executive orders and memoranda from Trump’s Second Term (January 2025–present)
- Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Executive Order 14159): In his first week back in office, Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to detain and deport all undocumented immigrants without due process. This bypasses existing immigration laws and constitutional protections guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Legal experts and civil rights groups immediately challenged the order, but enforcement began anyway in many jurisdictions before courts intervened, and has resulted in people being sent to CECOT, a concentration camp in El Salvador.
- Renaming Federal Geographic Features to Reflect American Heritage (Executive Order 14172): Trump issued an order authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to “evaluate and suspend access” to any journalist deemed a threat to “national morale or political stability.” This sweeping restriction violates the First Amendment’s protection of a free press and represents an authoritarian move to suppress dissent and independent journalism. The most well-known result of this executive order occurred when Trump banned the Associated Press from White House briefings because they refused to call the Gulf of Mexico by Trump’s preferred name, the “Gulf of America.”
- Executive Memorandum Declaring Select Cities as “Anarchist Jurisdictions” (Executive Memorandum ): Building on a controversial directive from his first term in the White House, Trump renewed an Executive Memorandum which declared several U.S. cities “anarchist jurisdictions” and ordered federal agencies to withhold funding from those cities. This action punishes local governments based on their political positions or public criticism of federal policies. The Constitution does not give the executive branch authority to bypass Congress and unilaterally cut funding based on political disagreement.
- Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP (Executive Order 14230): In response to several major U.S. law firms representing clients challenging administration policies, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to investigate firms for “undermining national governance” and to consider their eligibility for federal contracts. In addition, some law firms had their security clearances revoked and were barred from entering government buildings, including courthouses. This move sends a chilling message to the legal profession and interferes with the constitutional right to legal representation and due process.
- Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism (Executive Order 14188): Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities found to be “hostile to American values.” In practice, this has meant targeting schools that host speakers critical of administration policy or who engage in DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. Critics argue that this order violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty by punishing institutions for protected speech and academic freedom.
- Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information (Executive Order 14152): In a highly controversial and unprecedented move, Trump issued an executive order calling for the immediate suspension of security clearances, government consulting privileges, and federal contract eligibility for individuals he accused of “sabotage” during his first term, including specifying by name former Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor and former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director Chris Krebs. Both had publicly criticized Trump’s actions in office. The order is widely viewed as retaliatory and unconstitutional, violating due process rights and further weaponizing the executive branch against dissenters.
- Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (Executive Order 14160): Perhaps the most constitutionally alarming of all, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Supreme Court has upheld this principle for over a century. Trump’s order not only challenges long-standing constitutional precedent but does so without any legislative authority or constitutional amendment process, effectively attempting to rewrite the Constitution by executive fiat. Legal scholars and civil rights organizations widely condemned the move, and it immediately triggered a wave of lawsuits nationwide.
What makes these executive orders more dangerous than those from his first term is not just their legal overreach, but the President’s open defiance of judicial rulings and congressional oversight. In several cases, courts have issued injunctions blocking enforcement of these orders, but the Trump administration has either delayed compliance or continued enforcement through legal loopholes and agency action. Meanwhile, many members of Congress, particularly those allied with the President, have remained silent, or worse, supportive.
The President’s current approach is no longer limited to policy differences or political brinkmanship. It is a deliberate attempt to govern without Congress and to sidestep the Constitution altogether. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47, combining legislative and executive powers in one individual is “the very definition of tyranny.” That warning now feels less like a historical theory and more like a description of present-day reality.
Congressional Abdication of Responsibility
While executive overreach is a serious problem, it is made worse by Congress’s failure to respond. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government, not a subordinate one. Lawmakers swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath requires them to guard the separation of powers, even when it is politically difficult.
Yet, during President Trump’s time in office, many in Congress, especially those from his own party, chose not to challenge his actions. Even when courts raised concerns or ruled against certain executive orders, Congress often remained silent. In some cases, it actively supported the President’s overreach.
When Congress allows the President to legislate by executive order, it sends a dangerous message: that the legislative branch is no longer necessary. This breaks the constitutional design and opens the door to authoritarianism.
In Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” That was not a mistake or a historical accident, it was a deliberate choice by the Framers. They believed that a strong Congress was the best defense against tyranny, and it’s why the legislative branch is often referred to as “first among equals.”
Historical Parallels and Constitutional Warnings
American history offers many warnings about the dangers of unchecked executive power. During the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon famously said, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” This idea—that the President is above the law—was soundly rejected by the courts and Congress. Even so, Trump posted a message to the social media platforms “X” and “Truth Social” saying, “He who saves his country violates no law,” indicating that he feels anything he does is by definition legal.
During Trump’s first term, the idea that the President could not be held accountable gained more ground. At his first impeachment trial in 2020, some senators argued that the President’s actions—pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent—did not rise to the level of removal. Despite clear evidence, the Senate chose not to convict.
This reluctance to act sent a message that the President could use the powers of his office for personal or political gain, as long as he remained popular within his party. That is a dangerous precedent, and one that erodes the rule of law.
The Danger to Democracy
When a President is allowed to act as both lawmaker and law enforcer, the system no longer resembles a democracy—it resembles a monarchy or dictatorship. The entire purpose of the Constitution’s checks and balances is to prevent that outcome.
If executive overreach continues without consequence, future presidents—regardless of party—may feel empowered to ignore Congress entirely. That would be a dramatic shift away from the Constitution’s vision and a step toward authoritarian rule.
It is not enough to say that voters can remove a president in the next election. The Founders did not trust elections alone to preserve liberty. That is why they built in other protections: separation of powers, checks and balances, impeachment, and judicial review. These tools must be used when necessary to preserve constitutional government.
Conclusion
The use of executive orders and memoranda to legislate, especially as practiced by President Donald Trump, poses a serious threat to the U.S. Constitution. By attempting to both create and enforce laws, the President has stepped outside his constitutional role. Just as troubling is Congress’s growing unwillingness to challenge this behavior. By failing to act, lawmakers violate their own oath and allow power to concentrate in the hands of one person.
This is not just a political concern, it is a constitutional crisis. If left unchecked, it could lead to the breakdown of the American system of government. The Constitution was designed to protect against tyranny, but it only works if each branch does its job. That includes saying “no” when the President oversteps his bounds.
The United States has faced many challenges in its history, but the strength of its democracy has always depended on the courage of its leaders to uphold the law, even when it is inconvenient. Now is such a time. Defending the separation of powers is not just a matter of politics. It is a matter of preserving the freedom and integrity of the republic.
