At the end of 2017, the historian Walter Russell Mead, famous for his writings on the different schools of thought in U.S. foreign policy, received a call from Steve Bannon, then still the chief strategist at the White House and advisor to Donald Trump. Bannon wanted to tell Mead that they were familiar with his work and that his books were the reason behind one of Trump's most visual decisions: hanging the portrait of former President Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office.
To understand Trump, one must know Jackson (1767-1845). And to understand both, one must read Mead, who, although not in agreement with their ideas, became the reference point for the Republican universe during the first term. Obviously, both presidents are not the same, but the jacksonianism, according to the historian, is the closest precedent to explain populism, the attraction to someone considered an outsider, hostility towards free trade, rejection and disdain for international alliances and allies, the distrust of the bases towards the elites, the reluctance towards entanglements abroad, and Trump's obsession with American power and sovereignty. The Make America Great Again.
But in addition to all this, which defines the pure core of trumpism, there is an element that began to take shape eight years ago and has resurfaced strongly in this first month back in the Oval Office: the division of powers, the frontal clash with the judges, and the seed of a major constitutional crisis. Like Trump, Jackson was impetuous, bewildering, had a bad temper, and was constantly on the defensive, thinking that the world was against him and that the ruling elites underestimated him. Both relied on highly controversial advisors and were accused of being bullies and flirting with tyranny. And both even claimed that elections had been stolen or rigged, one in 2020 and the other in 1824 when he received more votes than his rivals but not a majority, so the decision on who would be president fell to the House of Representatives. And the one who maneuvered in favor of John Quincy Adams, the chosen one, ended up becoming his Secretary of State.
But perhaps the similarity that resonates the most these days has to do with Justice. Jackson ignored the law and the Constitution arguing that it was necessary because the nation was threatened, and even challenged a decision of the Supreme Court regarding the expulsion of the Cherokee Indians, arguing that his personal authority to determine what was constitutional was just as empty as that of the High Court. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," the president said about the court's chief, according to a testimony from the time. An open challenge. Sound familiar?
The big difference is that Jackson, who had been a judge, criticized Marshall in constitutional terms, not political terms, and ultimately demanded that Congress and the states recognize the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, instead of threatening to ignore it. Because he understood the danger and consequences of a frontal challenge for a nation in formation.
In his first term, Trump clashed with the courts over the temporary ban on refugee entry or family separation practices. But it is now that the confrontation is becoming brutal. In form and substance.
"No judge should be able to make that kind of decision. It's a shame," he said in the face of the cascade of decisions that judges of all stripes, many of them appointed by Republican presidents or himself, have made to curb his most controversial measures. Such as trying to deprive children of undocumented immigrants of citizenship, against what the Constitution says, mass layoffs, budget cuts, fund freezes, equality policies, discriminations, etc.
The courts have become the only brake on the Executive's steamroller and the irregular machinery led by Elon Musk. And neither the president nor the world's richest man are taking it well. Musk has tweeted dozens of times calling for judges to be subjected to impeachments, congressional trials, or fired. He has even shared the message of Salvadoran Nayib Bukele, explaining how his government got rid of judicial control by force. "What sense does it make to hold democratic elections if unelected activist 'judges' can override the clear will of the people? That is not democracy at all!" he wrote on his account, clamoring for dismissals.
It is all part of the frustration over specific decisions, but also something deeper. Trump always pushes the rope to the limit of tension, like when he plays with the idea of trying to be president again in 2028, despite the Constitution imposing term limits. "If a judge tried to tell a general how to carry out a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to order the attorney general how to use his discretion as a prosecutor, that is also illegal. Judges are not allowed to control the legitimate power of the executive," protested J.D. Vance. The vice president, by the way, quoted Andrew Jackson in 2021 anticipating what would happen if Trump returned to power. "When the courts - because they will take you to court - restrain you, present yourself to the country as Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The Chief Justice has made his decision. Now let him enforce it'."
That is exactly what his boss is doing, with the support of his team of Republican senators and congressmen, the Department of Justice, but also a group of thinkers and academics who are revolutionizing constitutional theory and the view on the separation of powers. On February 19, after signing an executive order on pollution, Trump posted a message on social media congratulating himself with a unique expression: "Long live the king!", posting a photo of himself with a scepter and crown. That same day, he signed another order stating that "the president and the attorney general, subject to the supervision and control of the president, will provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch. The President's and the Attorney General's opinions on legal issues are determinative for all employees in the performance of their official duties. No executive branch employee may propose an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contradicts the President's opinion on a legal issue," the document said.
"Whoever saves his country does not violate any law"
There is much more. A few days earlier, on February 14, and paraphrasing Napoleon, he published a phrase summarizing his challenge to the legal and constitutional limits of the nation while implementing the largest purge in History: "Whoever saves his country does not violate any law". In 1977, Richard Nixon left a historic quote in a famous interview with journalist David Frost. When asked if there were situations in which the president could do something illegal if he believed it was in the nation's interest, Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it... that means it is not illegal". This caused a major scandal in the midst of a crisis that ended with the president. Now, when the Supreme Court has partially aligned with that thesis, holding that a president has total immunity for his official acts, it barely raises eyebrows.
Trump's team has embraced the most radical version of the so-called unitary executive theory, a current that advocates for reading and interpreting the Constitution in a way that limits Congress's ability to hinder the president's will. "Trump cannot violate the Constitution because he is the living embodiment of the U.S. Constitution," said activist Jack Posobiec, and more importantly, high-ranking officials from the Department of Justice have echoed. "We are Trump's lawyers and we are proud to fight to protect his leadership," wrote without shame the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, where the capital is located.
Comentarios