Image via The Los Angeles Times
***
U.S. President Donald J. Trump was elected as an authoritarian populist who capitalized on the socioeconomic struggle of the common man with the campaign promise to notoriously “Make America Great Again.” In a period of social, economic, and cultural uncertainty, Trump tapped into the psyche of the working-class individual plagued by fear, mistrust, and antagonism toward the federal government. Scapegoating racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and undocumented immigrants as the source of citizens’ problems, Trump created a visual for the “American villain.”
President Trump’s return to the Oval Office has brought striking policy shifts that redefine executive power within the federal government. From attempting to revoke birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding through multiple executive orders, President Trump has signified that the national mandate he asserts grants him the right to act beyond legal and constitutional boundaries. Potentially recognizing the unlawfulness of his administration’s actions, Trump has even stated that “he who saves his country does not violate any laws.” Core constitutional values, such as the separation of powers and the rule of law, are thus deemed unnecessary as Trump uses executive orders to abrogate the Fourteenth Amendment and obstruct Congress’s constitutionally mandated control over federal spending.
A key presidential duty is to execute the law faithfully. Executive orders are meant to ensure that laws are enforced accordingly. Executive orders cannot and should not be used to rewrite the Constitution, especially regarding birthright citizenship or immediately pausing all federal spending, a Congressional prerogative.
Recognizing Trump’s unlawful assertion of executive power, state attorney generals from across the United States have contested several of his administration’s mandates. For example, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of twenty-two other states in a lawsuit over the Trump administration withholding essential federal funds. On January 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. blocked the federal funding freeze through a temporary restraining order. The case is currently pending as Judge McConnell hears corresponding arguments.
The lawsuit is expected to reach the Supreme Court. Regardless of the outcome, U.S. Vice President JD Vance has said that Mr. Trump should ignore the judiciary’s rulings, declaring that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” However, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court firmly established the judiciary’s authority to review such executive decisions.
Trump’s populist rhetoric condemns political elites, federal bureaucrats, and government initiatives such as Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI) as the root cause of the United States’ numerous issues. We should not be surprised that the actions of someone so openly opposed to our governing system are creating a constitutional crisis.
At the center of any anti-establishment populist leader’s rule is the “us-versus-them” mentality that characterizes the common man as the virtuous in-group and the elites as the corrupt out-group. By labeling marginal individuals as the enemy, Trump stokes socialized prejudices and nativist sentiment among voters. Consequently, since Trump positioned himself as the political figure representing the in-group, he won the popular vote and the mandate to consolidate executive power.
While the rise of authoritarian populism as a political philosophy may be a recent development in democratic nations like the United States, Italy, and Hungary, history provides a striking precedent. Nearly 100 years ago, in a period of national and international emergency, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt similarly expanded presidential power to counter citizens’ growing demands for comprehensive systemic change.
President Roosevelt was elected by an overwhelming majority in 1932 as the Great Depression ravaged the domestic economy, and citizens raised fears that both capitalism and democracy were near the end. Equally worried, Roosevelt denounced the economic royalists, proclaiming in his 1936 address to the Democratic Convention: “Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right.”
With a populist impulse to revamp the working-class experience, Roosevelt used his role to curb wealth inequality and transform the federal government into a positive agency of recovery and reform. Attacking the unjust concentration of wealth and economic power, Roosevelt pushed to pass the ambitious New Deal agenda and establish a prominent federal bureaucracy.
Instead of adhering to the legislative process, in which Congress drafts potential bills, the executive branch took the primary responsibility. Congress’s central role was to pass legislation, often delegating broad authority to the president or administrative agencies, quickly and without deliberation. Attacking the “unjust concentration of wealth and economic power,” Congress was responsive to almost any legislation the White House proposed during Roosevelt’s first hundred days in the Oval Office. In this period, Roosevelt called Congress into special session and pushed 15 major bills through, reshaping economic elements like banking, industry, agriculture, and social welfare.
Although significant New Deal legislation was passed through Congress, due to its sizable Democratic majority, it exceeded constitutional limits on federal power. Under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, Congress has the authority “to regulate commerce…among the several states,” but Roosevelt’s policies often limited state power. The National Recovery Agency, for instance, placed all industrial production in the nation under federal regulation.
Checking Roosevelt’s broad expansion of executive power, the Supreme Court ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional. Most notably, in Schechter Poultry v. The United States (1935), the Court held that “the Constitution prohibited Congress from delegating legislative power to the President.” Rejecting Roosevelt’s approach to the Great Depression, the Court asserted: “Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.”
After years of the Supreme Court tearing down the key features of New Deal legislation, Roosevelt approached his second term with a judiciary reform bill. To limit the Court as an opponent, Roosevelt proposed to enlarge the Court to a maximum of fifteen justices. Congress rejected his effort in a nine-to-one decision, with Democrats rebutting Roosevelt’s argument that older Justices could not perform their duties. In the Congressional elections of 1938, in response to the Congressional opposition, Roosevelt tried to purge Democrat members who were critical of his New Deal policies.
Nevertheless, Roosevelt achieved his goal. Though his Court-packing proposal may have been unsuccessful, subsequent Supreme Court rulings became more favorable to federal authority.
It is commonly argued that Roosevelt was one of the greatest presidents in American history. However, his abusive, authoritarian tendencies must not be forgotten. In an era of economic emergency, Roosevelt tried everything at his disposal to fight growing unemployment, poverty, and food insecurity. He fought the presidential status quo and established the federal bureaucracy tasked with regulating the American economy. However, to do so, FDR concentrated broad administrative power in the executive branch, threatening to punish anyone who stepped in his way.
While there are extensive differences between Roosevelt’s expansion of presidential power through the New Deal and current President Donald Trump’s efforts, the key similarities are undeniable. Both leaders, in their adherence to populist ideology, concentrate power in the executive branch, reinterpret the legal significance of the Constitution, and intimidate political opponents with retribution.
During his presidency, Roosevelt faced unprecedented national and international crises such as the Great Depression and the Second World War, creating the need for a strong administration with broad executive authority. The political and socioeconomic conditions that President Trump inherited in his second term, on the other hand, do not similarly warrant the declaration of a national emergency and sweeping presidential power.
The United States is undeniably struggling with record-high levels of undocumented immigration and unaffordable consumer pricing, yet these issues are not unique to America; they are global phenomena facing other Western democratic nations as well. Considering the current international political conditions, it may appear that Trump is taking necessary control over the federal government. However, this is not the case, as the declaration of national emergency is historically limited to wartime.
There is a fine line between protecting the livelihoods of U.S. citizens and infringing on political freedoms and civil liberties that are enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights by uprooting the very system of our democracy. There is undeniable value in an anti-establishment president who works for working-class Americans, yet populism should not fuel anti-democratic authoritarianism.
Understanding the consequences of monarchy, the Founding Fathers created our Constitution to protect the rule of law and balance of power. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison outlined the risks of political factions, asserting that a lack of political diversity and compromise would result in tyrannical rule. However, in today’s political climate, Trump’s use of authoritarian populism is inching dangerously close to fascism and tyranny.
Roosevelt’s New Deal presidency foreshadowed how authoritarian populism would dismantle U.S. democracy and constitutional law. Yet, the Trump administration takes anti-establishment politics to a new level.
The United States is not in a period of national emergency. But with Donald Trump as chief executive, the loss of American democracy and the founding values of our nation appear inevitable. Americans must recognize that Trump’s unconstitutional actions are not just anti-establishment, but inherently anti-democratic. With politics of loyalty, coercion, and scapegoating, the United States is in imminent danger.
***
This article was edited by Natasha Tretter and Emily Campagna.
Ava Bedoya 
Julia Baechli 
Suzana Paljusevic