The speed of deviations from legal and constitutional norms during his second term has been dramatic. John Burn-Murdoch, based on an aggregate index of democratic regression, brought evidence that, in his first years in office, it was much greater than that of others (the factors that explain this characteristic of Trumpist decisionism).
Just hours after his inauguration in January, Trump had hundreds of people convicted of political violence and, soon after, removed legal protections from public servants, in addition to dismissing 17 officials in charge of combating fraud and corruption.
In March, the government was already in open conflict with the Judiciary, inciting the police against protesters and changing the country’s citizenship regime. Trump fired the head of the labor statistics agency and unilaterally dismantled entire agencies such as USAID. Finally, he illegally tried to force the president to resign and launched an offensive against immigrants.
Although Trump’s pattern of action was marked by brutal decisions with a strong impact in the short term, it failed to produce profound institutional changes (the two ongoing proposals to reform the electoral system will most likely not pass).
Yes, Trump’s political speed differs from the slowness of the institutional response. But it came forcefully in the decision on tariff policy, which underpins its global economic and economic strategy. On the other hand, the Legislature vetoed ICE’s policy, cutting its budget, which would imply its virtual paralysis. The emperor retreated. Part of the slowness is explained by the absolutely unusual nature of the president’s authoritarian and voluntarist profile, which exploited legal and regulatory gaps in the constitutional system.
This reaction partially dismantles the paradox between Trump’s imperial style and the country’s Executive Branch. The president cannot present bills nor has exclusive initiative in budgetary, tax or administrative matters; the budget is globally binding and the president cannot contingency expenses; and, if the budget is not voted on, there will be a government shutdown — the Executive’s proposal will not prevail.
The Executive operates in an institutional environment with strong restrictions, but due to a combination of circumstances, they have never been so weak. He has majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. But this revealed his independence: two of the judges he appointed voted against the tariff. Congress threatened to defund ICE, forcing it to back down.
Trump’s authoritarian antics also generated dissension within his legislative base and in thriving civil society. The federal judiciary prevented him from interfering in the FED and also in other institutions. In turn, robust federalism generated effective resistance to his initiatives.
Institutionality prevails despite catastrophic predictions of the death of democracy. But the damage to democratic norms was great.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
