Our System Means America Doesn’t Need To Trust Trump to Remain Strong
America’s checks-and-balances system ensures resilience without relying on trust
A friend and I have an ongoing text message exchange where they periodically check in to ask what I think about President Trump v47. Recently, this friend asked whether I trusted Elon Musk’s team, which is now receiving unprecedented access to sensitive information under the Trump administration. My answer was simple: no, I don’t trust Musk—or anyone in government, for that matter. I don’t need to. The genius of the American system, the longest continuous government in the world today, lies in its design, which disperses power across multiple branches and levels of government to ensure no single individual or group can dominate unchecked. This principle, rooted in Enlightenment ideals, is why our nation endures political upheaval and controversial decisions without collapsing. But with all of the noise in the news, on social media, and from our families and friends, how can we maintain perspective?
Never was a government that was not composed of liars, malefactors and thieves.
—Marcus Tullius Cicero
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Trump’s Government Overhaul
The Trump administration has embarked on the most significant reorganization of the federal government since the Clinton era. This includes granting Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to federal payment systems and data, a move that has sparked both praise and alarm. On the one hand, this initiative challenges entrenched bureaucracies that are resistant to change. On the other hand, it raises valid concerns about privacy, security, and potential misuse of power.
While critics frame these changes as reckless or even unconstitutional, it’s worth noting that every administration faces resistance when attempting to disrupt the status quo. Bureaucracies often resist change not out of malice but because their very nature is to preserve stability. However, stability can sometimes morph into stagnation. It’s healthy to question whether we truly need all existing programs and agencies in their current form. For example, if eliminating the Department of Education doesn’t compromise critical functions like student loans—which could be managed elsewhere—what is truly lost?
Recent polls indicate that Trump’s approval rating has reached an all-time high of 49%, with significant gains among younger voters aged 18–34. This surge suggests that Trump’s actions resonate with a generation eager for systemic change. However, this trend also highlights a growing divide between those seeking reform and those concerned about preserving institutional stability, underscoring the importance of balancing innovation with accountability in governance.
Trump’s approach often veers into scorched-earth governance. Instead of refining existing systems, his administration is dismantling some in their entirety before rebuilding from scratch. This strategy risks discarding valuable programs alongside inefficiencies. Reforming USAID might be necessary to align its priorities with administration priorities or public sentiment, zeroing out its budget could undermine America’s soft power globally.
When legislative power is united with executive power in a single person or in a single body of magistracy, there is no liberty.
—Baran de Montesquieu
Checks and Balances: A System Designed for Resilience
The separation of powers—a cornerstone of liberal democracy—allows our nation to weather such contentious policies. This principle, championed by French Enlightenment political philosopher Montesquieu, is designed to prevent excessive centralization of power in a single monarch or executive. Our US Constitution divides authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches while federalism empowers state governments as an important counterbalance to federal power.
Federal courts possess well-established authority to enforce compliance with judicial orders through tools like contempt sanctions, asset freezes, and mandates to U.S. Marshals, as demonstrated in historical confrontations between the branches. While the likelihood of military involvement is remote—a scenario without clear precedent—private entities such as banks would almost certainly adhere to court directives to avoid penalties, even against government officials. Judges can pressure compliance by targeting key economic interests or imposing escalating fines. Ultimately, the judiciary’s structural powers and the executive branch’s reliance on functional governance make sustained defiance of court orders legally and practically untenable in domestic matters like executive actions.
Consider this: even if Musk’s team misuses its access or if Trump overreaches in other areas, there are mechanisms in place to correct the situation. Congress can investigate and legislate against executive actions, courts can rule them unconstitutional, and states can challenge federal overreach through lawsuits or legislation. These checks ensure that no single branch or individual can wield unchecked power for long.
Historical examples abound. In 1972, when President Nixon attempted to impound funds allocated by Congress for environmental programs, the Supreme Court intervened to uphold legislative authority. Similarly, President Biden faced criticism for freezing border wall funds approved under Trump, a reminder that executive discretion over spending is not new but always subject to judicial review.
Recently, federal courts have intervened to review DOGE's access to Treasury data following lawsuits alleging potential constitutional violations. A preliminary injunction has limited DOGE's ability to monitor payment systems while ensuring no disruption to Social Security or Medicare disbursements. This judicial action exemplifies checks and balances by ensuring executive initiatives comply with constitutional safeguards while maintaining essential government functions.
This system isn’t perfect—far from it—but its durability lies in its ability to self-correct over time.
Trust Is Optional; Accountability Is Not
Public trust in government has been declining for decades, reaching historic lows during periods of political polarization. While trust can enhance compliance with policies and foster social cohesion, our system doesn’t require blind faith to function effectively. Instead, it relies on transparency, accountability, and institutional checks.
Take Musk’s involvement as an example. Critics argue that granting an unelected individual such sweeping access undermines democratic principles. However, most civil servants who manage sensitive data are also unelected. What matters is not whether we trust Musk personally but whether his actions are subject to oversight by Congress, courts, and watchdog organizations.
Rather than fixating on personalities or worst-case scenarios, we should focus on ensuring current robust oversight mechanisms remain intact.
James Madison designed our US Constitution's five interconnected frameworks of legal (rule of law), policymaking (deliberate action), institutional (separation of powers), political (coalition-building), and unity (common ground creation) to foster stability. Madison was concerned about the “tyranny of the majority,” where one party could eke out a small majority and then make sweeping changes over the objections of the minority. The division of Congress and three branches of federal government compels competing factions to negotiate. For example, the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for cloture, judicial oversight moderates executive action, and the Electoral College’s state-based majorities incentivize cross-regional appeals.
Since 1960, both parties have incrementally strengthened presidential power through executive orders, legislative delegation, and crisis-driven authority. Under Reagan and Trump, Republicans shifted from advocating congressional restraint to embracing executive unilateralism, while Democrats expanded administrative power to advance social policies amid legislative stalemates. These changes were motivated by a desire to shortcut the tedious process of achieving consensus. Congressional polarization and judicial deference have further entrenched this trend, creating a presidency increasingly unmoored from traditional checks and balances.
We would be well served by speaking out for Congress to play a more muscular role in governing rather than deferring to the executive. Similarly, the Supreme Court must not act as a “super senate” creating new laws when Congress fails to act. Accountability and transparency are stronger when each branch of government stays in its lane.
The Broader Implications: Lessons from History and Beyond
The current debate over government restructuring echoes larger societal trends. Across industries—from tech to healthcare—there’s a growing tension between innovation and regulation. Just as Silicon Valley disrupts traditional business models with promises of efficiency but risks exacerbating inequality or privacy violations, government reforms promise cost savings. Still, if poorly executed, they may erode public trust.
This dynamic isn’t unique to America or our time. During the Enlightenment era itself, thinkers grappled with balancing progress against stability. Their solution—rooted in reason and liberty—was to create systems capable of adapting without losing their core values.
Today’s challenges demand similar adaptability. Whether addressing climate change or navigating geopolitical shifts like China’s rise as a global power player (which could exploit any perceived U.S. weakness), we must work within our unique system of government, which has served us so well, and resist the urge to concentrate power in one branch of government for the sake of expediency.
Focus on What We Can Control
In times of political uncertainty or rapid change, headlines or social media debates can make you feel overwhelmed. But as I advised my friend, limit your anxiety to what you can personally witness or influence. If you see harm directly affecting yourself or your community, take action. If you, your family, or your community are not being harmed, resist the urge to spiral into fear based on distant events or hypothetical scenarios.
Our founding fathers designed a system meant to endure precisely because they understood human nature's flaws—including our tendency toward mistrust and fearmongering. By dispersing power across branches and levels of government while embedding checks and balances throughout, they created a framework that doesn’t rely on any one individual—or even public trust—to succeed.
Let’s take a step back from today’s noise and focus on what truly matters: strengthening our communities, holding leaders accountable through established processes, and preserving the Enlightenment ideals that underpin our democracy.
Peace through understanding.
Your article outlines the checks and balances structure of the United States government. The intention is to prevent the excessive centralization of power in one branch, most notably the executive branch.
A key premise is that each of the branches of government would fight to maintain their constitutional powers, creating an organic push-back against overreach from the other branches of government.
You argue that precisely because of the checks and balances structure, federalization, and the nature of commercial institutions (such as banks in your example) adherence to law, that illegal actions by the Trump v47 administration would be prevented, because “Ultimately, the judiciary’s structural powers and the executive branch’s reliance on functional governance make sustained defiance of court orders legally and practically untenable in domestic matters like executive actions.”
Your argument has a major flaw. All of the above depends on people in positions of authority in the administration to follow the law. If the Senate abdicates its duty to properly vet cabinet members for ethics and an adherence to following the Constitution and instead functions as a party rubber stamp, then there are no guardrails. There are significant powers and incentives now vested in Presidency to cause those people to follow the President rather than the law.
And President Trump has indicated that he intends to proceed without limitations. From the NY Times: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Trump wrote, first on his social media platform Truth Social, and then on the website X.” His public actions over many years show that his proclivity is to go his own way regardless of norms.
The most glaring hole in the Constitution is the pardon power. Any member of the administration, or even in the general populace, can be pardoned for ANY federal offense (except impeachment). The President could, and did, pardon over 1500 people who on January 6th attacked the US Capitol during the prescribed day to certify the election; many of these criminals attacked hundreds or law enforcement officers, injuring 140 of them. So what restraint is there to prevent a group of people from attacking opponents of Trump?
A Federal judge has ordered the administration to reinstate foreign aid contracts. If the administrator decided to defy the court and not disburse funds, he may receive protection in the form of a pardon. There are many other examples where a government official could violate the law (those passed by Congress, signed by a President and upheld by the Courts) with impunity, if they believed that a pardon would protect them from consequences.
One could say that many government leaders, if in a bind between the law and V47’s edicts could resign. True, but they would immediately be replaced, in a downward spiral that would appoint those with lesser and lesser ethics until someone is in place who would follow V47 rather than the law.
Last year the Supreme Court ruled that Presidents have immunity for official acts. If V47 did something that appeared to violate the law, and declared that it was an official act, there is very little that could be done to stop him. (I’ll talk about impeachment later.) In the best case, a series of court cases to determine if the President’s actions were official acts, and whether they violated the law, would take months or years to wind through the courts. And if a US Court ruled that the President did violate the law and did not have immunity because it wasn’t an official act, who would enforce the judgment?
The Justice Department has a policy that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime. Since the Department of Justice controls all of the federal prosecutors, there is no avenue to charge a President with any federal crime, assuming that the Attorney General stops the prosecutors.
The federal courts can issue rulings including specific actions that must or must not be taken by an administration. But it is the Executive Branch that is constitutionally charged with enforcing court rulings. Yes, US Marshals support the courts and can carry out court orders, but the US Marshals are under the Department of Justice. An Attorney General could stop the US Marshals from enforcing a court order.
So, it comes to Congress to be the branch that ensures that the law is followed. Unfortunately, over decades now the US Congress has shown that it is less an independent branch of government and more a party functionary, supporting the party of the majority in the House and the Senate. The US Congress has ceded important roles to the Executive Branch. Starting in 1934 and amending and strengthening it 5 times over the years, Congress shifted their tariff powers to the Executive, for example. ( https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11400 )
Congress, as intended by the Founding Fathers, has the power to counter overreach by the Executive Branch. One mechanism is to write laws. The Republican members of House of Representatives has the majority, and if they continue to act in the President’s interest and not the country’s, it is hard to imagine that they would pass a law to limit an overreach. Also, since the President would have to sign the bill to make it law, he could easily veto. Reaching a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate to override seems very unlikely.
That brings us finally to one power that remains to limit high crimes and misdemeanors by the President: impeachment. Once again, Congress has shown that they are a party-loyal organization. In the 3 Presidential Impeachments in our lifetime, almost all of the impeachment and conviction votes were along party lines, with a few defections in each.
To summarize: The President controls the Executive Branch which has the means to do almost anything. The Executive Branch controls the Armed Forces, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security and virtually every other mechanism to enforce the government’s Trump’s will. With the unlimited pardon powers and full Presidential immunity for official acts, if those with their hands on the levers of government choose to follow or not follow a law, the Courts and Congress are effectively powerless.
The retort might be that surely if offenses are grievous enough, the US Congress will step in. They haven’t in the past, but perhaps violations by the President have not been grievous enough. To that I ask, where’s the line?
Is the line when on June 1, 2020 Park Police, under orders from Attorney General William Barr, acting on Trump V45’s order, illegally and violently cleared Lafayette Square at 6:30 PM, even though the First Amendment sanctioned peaceful protesters had a permit to demonstrate until 7 PM. All so that Trump V45 could do a photo op?
Is the line when Trump V45 solicited fake electors to try to bring fake Electoral ballots to Congress in an attempt to stop the lawful certification, and instead throw the vote to each State’s delegation, where a party vote would install Trump as President?
Is the line when Trump sent a mob to attack the US Congress on January 6th, 2021 to try to stop the Electoral vote certification, where our Capitol was ransacked, 140 officers were injured, and the death of those in Congress was very possible?
So, where’s the line where Congress would say “Enough!” and act to assert their Constitutional duty to defend the US Constitution?