UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military


The American Republics

In his victory speech in the early morning of the 6th, Trump said, "The United States has given us unprecedented and powerful power," and "I have made a commitment that I will rule by adhering to this simple motto," thereby emphasizing his will to fulfill his campaign promises.

Many of Trump's campaign promises could significantly alter the order of the United States and the world. Trump said he could use the military to suppress protests or "internal enemies" and planned to fire a large number of federal government employees. In addition, he said that "revenge can sometimes be justified" for his political opponents, including those who participated in investigating and prosecuting him, and said he would promote punishment. He also said that he would deport a large number of unregistered immigrants on his first day in office.

No one can control Trump, which also indicates that his second term may be more violent. He was elected in the 2016 election without political experience and reused Republican elites. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis and others were called the "axis of adults" and played a role in calming Trump's unreasonable instructions and impulses. But US media reported that Trump now believes that loyalists are better than outspoken subordinates, and he wants to use them to fill high-level public positions.

The unexpectedly huge victory also made Trump more daring. As of the early morning of the 7th, he had the upper hand in all seven swing states and was leading Vice President Kamala Harris by about 5 million votes in the national vote count. This is the first time since 2004 that a Republican candidate has led in the national vote count.

In the Senate and House elections held at the same time as the general election, the Republican Party won 52 seats out of 100 seats in the Senate, regaining the majority in the Senate. The Republican Party also won 205 seats out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives, ahead of the Democratic Party, which only won 190 seats. If the Republican Party, which follows Trump, controls both the Senate and the House, it will be easier for Trump to realize his own agenda through the main functions of parliament, such as legislation. The Federal Supreme Court, which is composed of three justices nominated by Trump in his first term, has lost its balance due to the six seats of the Conservative Party and the three seats of the Progressive Party.

Numbered republics generally reflect significant shifts in governance, either through revolution, constitutional reform, or occupation. Numbered republics typically refer to political entities with the term "republic" in their name, followed by a numerical designation. This can indicate a succession or version of a governmental or constitutional system.

France has gone through five different republics since the end of its monarchy in the late 18th century. Each republic represents a distinct period of government in French history, marked by changes in the constitution and political system. The First Republic (1792–1804), was established after the French Revolution, following the fall of the monarchy, and ended when Bonaparte declared himself Emperor in 1804. The Second Republic (1848–1852) was established after the February Revolution of 1848, which ended the monarchy of Louis-Philippe (the July Monarchy). Soon Louis-Napoleon staged a coup and declared himself Emperor Napoleon III, leading to the Second Empire. The Third Republic (1870–1940) was etablished after the collapse of the Second Empire during the Franco-Prussian War (1870), and ended with the German invasion in World War II. The Fourth Republic (1946–1958) replaced the Vichy regime, and ended with Charles de Gaulle's return to power amid the Algerian Crisis.

The First Roman Republic (509–27 BCE) was the ancient Roman Republic that replaced the Roman Kingdom. The Second Roman Republic (1849) was a short-lived revolutionary government established in the Papal States during the revolutions of 1848-1849. The First German Republic (1919–1933), also known as the Weimar Republic, was established after World War I. The Second Republic (1949–1990) refers to West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) post-World War II until reunification. The First Republic in Austria (1919–1934): Established after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Second Republic (1945–present) was reestablished after World War II.

In Brazil, the First Republic (1889–1930) was also known as the "Old Republic," following the abolition of the monarchy. The Second Republic (1930–1937) was marked by Getúlio Vargas' presidency. Later "republics" in Brazil are less formally numbered but refer to subsequent phases of government.

In the Philippines, the First Republic (1899–1901), known as the Malolos Republic, established after independence from Spain. The Second Republic (1943–1945) was a Japanese puppet state during World War II. The Third Republic (1946–1972) was established after independence from the United States. The Fourth Republic (1981–1986) was the period under Ferdinand Marcos' rule after martial law. The Fifth Republic (1987–present) was established under the 1987 Constitution post-Marcos.

The Czech First Republic (1918–1938) was the interwar Czechoslovakia after independence from Austria-Hungary. The Second Republic (1938–1939) was a short-lived state following the Munich Agreement. In Hungary, the First Republic (1918–1919) was established after the collapse of Austria-Hungary. The Second Republic (1946–1949) existed before transitioning into the People's Republic of Hungary under communism.

The Korean Republics refer to the different phases of South Korea's government, marked by constitutional changes and shifts in political structure since its establishment in 1948. Each "republic" reflects significant events, reforms, or political transitions in the country's history. Early republics were marked by authoritarian rule, gradually transitioning to democracy in the Sixth Republic. From the Third Republic onward, South Korea experienced rapid industrialization and modernization. Public uprisings played a pivotal role in shaping the transition between republics.

Korean Republics began with the First Republic (1948–1960), the post-independence government under Syngman Rhee. The Second Republic (1960–1961) was a short-lived parliamentary government. And the Third to Sixth Republics (1963–present) repreent phases of South Korea’s government under successive constitutions. The Third Republic (1963–1972) under Park Chung-hee (President) transitioned to a presidential system under Park's leadership after a brief period of military rule. The Fourth Republic (1972–1981) was led by Park Chung-hee (until his assassination in 1979), followed by Chun Doo-hwan. It ended after Park's assassination and subsequent political turmoil, including the 1980 Gwangju Uprising against military rule. The Fifth Republic (1981–1987) under Chun Doo-hwan (President) ended with mass protests (June Democracy Movement), which forced the government to agree to democratic reforms. Sixth Republic (1987–present was marked by political liberalization and consolidation of democracy. Continued economic development turned Korea into one of the world’s leading economies.

In Portugal, the First Republic (1910–1926) followed the abolition of the monarchy. The Second Republic (1933–1974) was also known as the Estado Novo, a corporatist authoritarian regime. In Sudan, the First Republic (1956–1969) was the post-independence government. The Second Republic (1969–1985) was established after a military coup.

Some revolutionary or transitional governments in history have adopted a numbering system to signify phases of their governance (e.g., in Latin America or post-colonial states). Some Soviet republics included a numerical designation for their constitutions or phases, though they were not explicitly referred to as "numbered republics."

First American Republic - 1774-1789

The Continental Congress was the governing body by which the American colonial governments coordinated their resistance to British rule during the first two years of the American Revolution. The Congress first met in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, with delegates from each of the 13 colonies except Georgia. On October 20, the Congress adopted the Articles of Association. The Congress balanced the interests of the different colonies and also established itself as the official colonial liaison to Great Britain.

As the war progressed, the Congress became the effective national government of the country, and, as such, conducted diplomacy on behalf of the new United States. The Congress reconvened in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775. By the time Congress met again, war was already underway, and thus the delegates to the Second Continental Congress formed the Continental Army and dispatched George Washington to Massachusetts as its commander. As British authority crumbled in the colonies, the Continental Congress effectively took over as the de facto national government, thereby exceeding the initial authority granted to it by the individual colonial governments. On July 4, 1776 the Congress took the important step of formally declaring the colonies’ independence from Great Britain. The Second Congress continued to meet until March 1, 1781, when the Articles of Confederation that established a new national government for the United States took effect.

The First American Republic was formalized under the Articles of Confederation adopted by the Continental Congress. Following the Declaration of Independence, the members of the Continental Congress realized it would be necessary to set up a national government. This document served as the United States' first constitution. The Confederation Congress took over the reins of government on March 1, 1781, following American victories at Yorktown that resulted in British willingness to end the war. It was in force from March 1, 1781, until 1789 when the present-day Constitution went into effect. The Articles provided for a one-house legislature, a weak executive, no national power of taxation, a lack of standard currency, and voting by state—flaws that would eventually lead to its failure.

  • With the states retaining considerable power, the central government had insufficient power to regulate commerce.

  • It established a weak central government that mostly, but not entirely, prevented the individual states from conducting their own foreign diplomacy.

  • It could not tax and was generally impotent in setting commercial policy. Throughout the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress was denied the power to levy truces of any sort and forced to depend instead upon voluntary contributions from the States. This unsatisfactory situation persisted in the postwar Confederation Period as well. First Rhode Island and later New York vetoed proposals to grant· the central Government authority to collect truces. Meanwhile, the individual States practiced a sort of tariff anarchy, imposing discriminatory and arbitrary duties upon the products of one another and presenting foreign traders with a bewildering array of tariff rates. This unstructured system was understandably unsettling, and it stimulated interstate rivalries, hostility, and disunity.

  • Nor could it effectively support a war effort. "No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled... every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage."

  • The central government had little power to settle quarrels between states. Disputes over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade threatened to tear the country apart.

Between March 1, 1781, when the Articles of Confederation were enacted, and November 5, 1781, when a new Congress convened, Samuel Huntington and Thomas McKean served briefly as presidents of the body. Samuel Johnston had declined the presidency when elected. When the first Confederation Congress met on November 5, 1781, it elected John Hanson (1715–1783), delegate from Maryland, as “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.” Hanson was integral to a number of important initiatives later realized later when Washington was Chief Executive.

The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. Once peace removed the rationale of wartime necessity the weaknesses of the 1777 Articles of Confederation became increasingly apparent. Divisions among the states and even local rebellions threatened to destroy the fruits of the Revolution. The Confederation government’s ineffectual response to Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, convinced national leaders that a more powerful central government was necessary. This led to the Constitutional Convention that formulated the current Constitution of the United States.

Second American Republic - 1789-2025

The Founders were faced with a difficult decision — fix the flawed Articles of Confederation or develop a new system. Nationalists, led by James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Wilson, almost immediately began working toward strengthening the federal government. They turned a series of regional commercial conferences into a national constitutional convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

Delegates to the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 created the instrument of government. When delegates to the Constitutional Convention began to assemble at Philadelphia in May 1787, they quickly resolved to replace rather than merely revise the Articles of Confederation. Five months of debate, compromise, and creative strategies produced a new constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, creating a federal republic with a strong central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The Federalist Papers were a series of eighty-five newspaper essays published anonymously but were in fact written in defense of the Constitution by James Madison, John Jay (1745–1829), and Alexander Hamilton. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify until after the formation of the new government in 1789.

  • With his 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing stated in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

  • The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, simplified the process for selecting a President and Vice President from the same political party. Under Article II as originally ratified, the Electoral College did not vote separately for President and Vice President. Instead, each elector voted for two candidates for President. If one candidate received votes from a majority of the electors, he became President, while the candidate with the second-highest number of votes became Vice President. The original system could [and did in the election of 1796], result in the selection of a President and Vice President with different political alignments. Possibly the theory was that the House would be the domain of the populares, while the Senate would preserve the interests of the optimates.

  • The 13th Amendment, passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery in the United States.

  • The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. Birthright citizenship is a legal principle under which a person is granted citizenship of a country by virtue of being born within its territory. In the United States, this concept was established bythe 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents born on U.S. soil, solidifying the jus soli interpretation.

  • The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 marked the beginning of the end of the spoils system. This act established that government jobs should be awarded based on merit, determined through competitive exams, and created the Civil Service Commission to oversee this process. At that time, there were approximately 132,000 federal employees on the U.S. government payroll. The majority of federal employees worked in the postal system. A significant portion of the workforce managed customs duties and internal revenue collection. Over time, the merit-based system replaced patronage in most areas of government employment, though political appointments still exist for high-level positions. The term "spoils system" gained prominence during the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–1837). The spoils system refers to a practice in U.S. politics where a political party, after winning an election, rewards its supporters, friends, and loyalists with government jobs and public positions. The system operates on the principle of "to the victor go the spoils," meaning that the winning party has the right to distribute government positions as political rewards. Jackson openly embraced the practice, arguing that it democratized government by allowing ordinary citizens, not just elite bureaucrats, to hold public office. The spoils system was heavily criticized for fostering corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence in government.

  • The Tillman Act of 1907 began efforts to control bad behavior by rich people and corporations. That law explicitly forbade any corporation from making “money contributions in connection with any election to any [federal] political office.” By 1925, the Tillman Act had been incorporated into the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, further limiting money in politics, and in 1938 came got the Hatch Act which limited contributions to $5000 per candidate and $3 million per party.

  • The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, was adopted to address the Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. holding unconstitutional Congress’s attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States. Article I granted Congress authority to collect taxes, but required direct taxes to be imposed proportional to the population of the states. The 16th Amendment clarified that Congress had the power to collect an income tax without apportionment among the states, and without regard to population.

  • The 17th Amendment, passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, provided for the direct election of Senators by the voting public during elections. Initially, state legislatures selected Senators, rendering the Senates semething of a gathering of ambassadors from quasi-independent states. the year before the 17th Amendment was ratified, at least twenty-nine states were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the state legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained by presidential electors.

  • The 19th Amendment, proposed in June 1919, and ratified in August 1920. prohibited the federal and state governments from denying or abridging a U.S. citizen’s right to vote on the basis of sex, thereby recognizing women’s suffrage.

  • In 1930, once he realized that he had set in motion a general revision of the tariff, President Hoover urged the House and Senate to exercise restraint. Willis C. Hawley, of Oregon, introduced a bill in the House that ignored the limitations Hoover had suggested. In the upper House, Senator Reed Smoot, of Utah, traded support of higher tariffs on imported industrial goods for increases in agricultural duties. Hoover was none too pleased with the monster this process had created. Having set up the highest general tariff rate structure that the United States had ever experienced, it triggered an angry reaction overseas. One nation after another retaliated by raising its own trade barriers. A monumental international depression had begun, which was destroying the whole fabric of world trade, even while Congress was putting the finishing touches on the SmootHawley Act. Under the impact of higher tariffs, competitive devaluations, and heavy-handed financial controls throughout the world, the flow of international trade shrank drastically in 1931 and 1932, and the U.S. economy staggered toward total paralysis.

  • The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 totally altered the process of changing domestic tariffs because it authorized the President to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with other countries for an initial 3-year period. It thus turned over to the executive branch the power to reduce rates, The new agreements led to the reduction of many tariff rate levels, but because they simultaneously stimulated increased trade, the total amount of the duties collected under the reciprocity agreement's tariff concessions was actually higher than it had been under the original Smoot-Hawley rates of duty. Unfortunately, the total volume of U.S. international trade was not fated to return to its predepression levels for some time.

  • The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, limited persons to being elected only twice to the presidency. This followed soon after the people had elected Franklin D. Roosevelt to unprecedented third and fourth terms of office, in 1940 and 1944, respectively. This prohibition would not prevent someone who had twice been elected President from succeeding to the office after having been elected or appointed Vice President.

  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to conduct comprehensive investigations to determine the effects of imports of any article on the national security of the United States. The President can concur or not with the Secretary’s recommendations, and, if necessary, take action to “adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives.” In addition, the Secretary can recommend, and the President can take, other lawful non-trade related actions necessary to address the threat.

    For many years the primary function of the U.S. tariff system was to provide the Federal Government with a regular income adequate to finance its operations. Tariffs or customs duties are fundamentally nothing more than taxes levied on imported goods. The duties, collected at customs houses, are turned over to the US Treasury. The importance of the revenue-raising aspect of tariffs has declined markedly in the period since 1913. Until that time customs duties had accounted for between 50 and 90 percent of the total Federal income. The ratification of the 16th amendment to the Constitution in that year permitted the imposition of direct income taxes, a development that greatly expanded the Government's revenue-collection capabilities. As a consequence, tariffs have declined in importance as revenue measures; in recent years customs duties have accounted for only 1 or 2 percent of the Federal Government's total income.

    To prevent or restrict the importation of certain goods from abroad, customs duties had to be set at such a level that the price of imported items (their basic cost after transport plus the import tax) would be higher than the price of similar but domestically produced items. High tariffs were designed to "protect" US industries and producers from foreign competition and to preserve domestic employment levels.

    Many businessmen, politicians, and diplomats had argued for years that the Nation's mature industrial economy required increased exports in order to maintain its economic health. One very effective way to encourage other nations to purchase US-produced goods was to offer to buy more of their products, and the reduction of tariff barriers on both sides might bring about this mutually beneficial result.

  • The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress' power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – "Impoundment Control" – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office. An "impoundment" is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently. But the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that the President does not have unilateral authority to impound funds. Congress has the power of the purse.

    If the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.

    A "deferral" is the withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.

Third American Republic - 2025-????

In a charged final rally before Election Day, Donald Trump addressed a packed arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan, delivering a message filled with confidence and signature style. In a striking moment, Trump compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, recounting that Border Patrol agents recently declared him "the greatest president in history" and "better than both Abraham Lincoln and George Washington." Possibly Trump envisions himself as a pivotal figure in American history, the founder of a Third American Republic.

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said that the country is "in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” The leader of the conservative think tank was orchestrating Project 2025 plans for a massive overhaul of the federal government in the event of a Republican presidential win. He made the comments Tuesday on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, adding that Republicans are “in the process of taking this country back.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson wrote on the social platform X. “This is chilling ...Their idea of a second American Revolution is to undo the first one.”

David Walter Runciman argued " the real turning point came in 1978, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. This was the year the lobbyists and other organised groups who were pushing hard to relax the burden of tax and regulation on wealthy individuals and corporate interests discovered that no one was pushing back all that hard. Despite Democratic control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, 1978 saw the defeat of attempts to introduce progressive tax reform and to improve the legal position of trade unions. ... What took place in the 1980s was therefore an extension of the Carter years, not a reversal of them. The process of deregulation and redistribution up the chain accelerated under Reagan..."

"Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD)" is a strategy used to influence perception by spreading negative, misleading, or alarming information about an idea. The term is often associated with marketing, public relations, and political propaganda but is also prevalent in discussions about technology and finance. In cryptocurrency and stock markets, FUD can be used to manipulate prices by creating panic among investors. Politicians or interest groups might employ FUD to sway public opinion against policies or individuals. FUD remains a powerful psychological tool but is increasingly scrutinized in an era where misinformation spreads rapidly online.

"Owning the libs" is a political strategy employed by some conservatives in the United States, aiming to provoke or upset liberals to assert dominance or highlight perceived liberal sensitivities. This approach often involves emphasizing divisive cultural issues to elicit reactions, akin to internet trolling. The term "own" in this context originates from hacker and gaming slang, where it means to dominate or defeat an opponent. Over time, this concept has permeated political discourse, particularly among right-wing groups. The strategy focuses on eliciting emotional responses from liberals, thereby portraying them as overly sensitive or easily provoked. In recent developments, the migration of liberal users from platforms like X (formerly Twitter) to alternatives such as Bluesky has raised questions about the future of "owning the libs" as a strategy. With fewer liberals on these platforms, the effectiveness and relevance of this approach are being reevaluated.

In the 2024 elections, the Republican Party won a majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the Senate, Republicans won 53 seats out of 100. In the House of Representatives - 218 seats, which is also a majority. A conservative majority also formed in the US Supreme Court, in which some of the judges were appointed by Trump during his first term in the White House. Congress and the Supreme Court — as the legislative and judicial branches of government — potentially give Trump the ability to quickly pass laws, unimpeded approval of his nominees for key positions, and passage of budgets. Some analysts suggest that this is a potential threat to American democracy. "The next four years will be a test for her," says Robert Benson , a senior analyst at the Center for American Progress. The conservative Heritage Foundation had been pushing Project 2025, a sprawling wish list of free market policies written by more than 100 conservative organizations with ties to Trump. Project 2025 plans will centralize power in the executive office. The Heritage Foundation has also assembled extensive policy plans and a personnel database under its Project 2025 banner, but Trump has distanced himself from and criticized the effort as Democrats have seized on its more extreme proposals. The nearly 1,000-page handbook lays out sweeping changes in the federal government, including altering personnel rules to ensure government workers are more loyal to the president. The Project 2025 team was staffed with Trump's former White House aides and advisers. Yet Trump repeatedly disavowed the document, saying on social media he hasn't read it and doesn't know anything about it. The group continued vetting resumes for its nearly 20,000-person database of potential government officials ready to execute the group's vision for government.

Trump has vowed to sidestep any efforts to block his agenda.

  • In 2016 the Republican front-runner was so confident he said his supporters would stay loyal even if he happened to commit a capital offense. "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

    The question of presidential immunity — whether a sitting or former president is immune from legal actions — was addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in several key rulings. In Trunp v. United States, decided 01 July 2024, "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying" ... it should go without saying that the Office of the Presidency, the apex of the Executive Branch, is made significantly more powerful when the constraints of the criminal law are lifted with respect to the exercise of a President’s official duties. ... the Court today transfers from the political branches to itself the power to decide when the President can be held accountable. What is left in its wake is a greatly weakened Congress, which must stand idly by as the President disregards its criminal prohibitions and uses the powers of his office to push the envelope, while choosing to follow (or not) existing laws, as he sees fit. We also now have a greatly empowered Court, which can opt to allow Congress’s policy judgments criminalizing conduct to stand (or not) with respect to a former President, as a matter of its own prerogative.... A majority of this Court, applying an indeterminate test, will pick and choose which laws apply to which Presidents, by labeling his various allegedly criminal acts as “core,” “official,” or “manifestly or palpably” beyond the President’s authority....

    "As far as I can tell, the majority is mostly concerned that, without immunity, Presidents might “be chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent Executive.” ... Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the Commander-in-Chief powers, the foreign-affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in Article II however they please—including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal and that have potentially grave consequences for the rights and liberties of Americans. ... The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself. ... America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction. Once selfregulating, the Rule of Law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a President have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible."

  • Trump called for a purge of federal employees. “On Day One, we will begin to find and remove the radicals, zealots, and Marxists who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education, and that also includes others, and you know who you are,” Trump said in July 2014. “We do have an enemy from within. We have some very bad people, and those people are also very dangerous. They would like to take down our country. They’d like to have our country be a nice communist country or fascist in any way they can, and we have to be careful of that. But they’re the greatest con artists, because [as] soon as I said an enemy from within, they said … oh, he’s saying an enemy from within. These are sick puppies, I’m telling you,” Trump said 01 November 2024.

  • Elon Musk, the world's richest man, said in an interview with the famous YouTuber, Joe Regan, that he hopes to "shrink the size of government agencies to be much smaller," indicating his desire to cut two trillion dollars from the $6.7 trillion budget. At a virtual town hall event 30 October 2024 on Musk’s social media platform, X, the multibillionaire Tesla and SpaceX executive said “We have to reduce spending to live within our means. And, you know, that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity.” Musk said difficulties may result from these government cuts, but they will be "temporary difficulties" before an eventual "long-term boom." Scott Bessent, a front-runner to be Treasury secretary, said he didn't know how to cut $2 trillion, but said, "Look at the way Musk runs his companies. He runs them well." Musk could have a conflict of interest. Any move to cut the budgets of the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, and the Securities and Exchange Commission would expose him to this accusation, as these are the primary agencies that regulate and investigate his companies.

    Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech entrepreneur, was more specific about his goals. During his campaign, he said he believed 75 percent of federal employees should be laid off. About 2.3 million civilians work for the federal government, nearly 60 percent of whom serve in the departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. His plan called for closing the Department of Education, shutting down the FBI and transferring 15,000 special agents to other agencies, and eliminating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and transferring its functions to other departments.

    Steve Bannon, a prominent political strategist and former chief strategist for President Donald Trump, has been a vocal advocate for the "deconstruction of the administrative state." This concept involves reducing the size and influence of federal agencies and bureaucracies, aiming to shift power back to elected officials and the private sector. Bannon's approach is influenced by his belief that the administrative state has accumulated excessive power, operating beyond the control of elected representatives and the public. He argues that this concentration of authority undermines democratic principles and individual freedoms.

  • Rather than relying on his party’s control of Congress to trim the budget, Trump and his advisers intend to test the legal theory of "impoundment", holding that presidents have sweeping power to defund programs they dislike. “We can simply choke off the money,” Trump said in a 2023 campaign video. “For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending.”During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign.

    Donald Trump and his allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system. They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, health care, and federal law enforcement—all without Congressional approval.

    “The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous,” said Ranking Member Boyle. “Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people’s elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk. House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet.”

  • Trump often repeated his view that the president should have a greater role in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Trump advisors proposed a broader array of reforms that would chip away at the Fed’s monetary autonomy. In his first term, Trump nearly always pushed the Fed for easier money, even demanding “negative” rates once rates sat near zero. The Federal Reserve, often referred to as "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States, responsible for managing monetary policy, regulating banks, and stabilizing the financial system. Calls to abolish the Federal Reserve typically come from critics who believe it plays an outsized role in the economy or operates without sufficient oversight. Some argue that the Fed's ability to print money contributes to inflation and diminishes the purchasing power of the dollar. Critics claim the Fed operates with limited transparency and is not directly accountable to the public. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah called for abolishing the Fed. "The Executive Branch should be under the direction of the president," Lee said 07 November 2024 in a post on X, hours after Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters he wouldn't resign if Trump asked him to. "The Federal Reserve is one of many examples of how we've deviated from the Constitution in that regard," Lee added. "Yet another reason why we should #EndTheFed."

  • “To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariff.’ It’s my favorite word.” said Donald Trump. “There’s going to be a new sheriff in town, and this sheriff loves tariffs,” said Steve Lamar, president and CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA). One of the central tenets of the incoming president’s economic plan is establishing a universal baseline tariff of 10 to 20 percent on products from around the globe—even from countries already covered by free-trade agreements and preference programs.

    Ahead of the Nov. 5 election Trump proposed a 10% tariff on all U.S. imports, as well as a 60% tariff on products from China. Manufacturers and retailers typically pass those costs to customers. Tariffs are considered a regressive form of taxation, meaning they hit the lowest-income consumers the hardest. That's because low-income families spend a larger share of their budgets on essentials like groceries, versus higher-income earners.

    President-elect Donald Trump announced plans to implement significant tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China upon taking office. Specifically, he intends to impose a 25% tariff on all products from Mexico and Canada, and an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods. These measures aim to address issues such as illegal immigration and drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl, into the United States.

    Trump's proposed tariffs raised concerns among economists and trade partners. Experts warn that such tariffs could lead to increased consumer prices, higher inflation, and potential job losses in both the U.S. and affected countries. Additionally, there is apprehension about the possibility of retaliatory tariffs from trade partners, which could further disrupt global trade relations.

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority over the implementation of tariffs, but over generations, Congress has delegated that authority to the President. The President of the United States has the authority to impose tariffs without explicit approval from Congress under certain conditions. This power is derived from several federal laws that delegate specific trade-related powers to the executive branch. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) allows the President to impose tariffs if an investigation by the Department of Commerce determines that imports threaten national security. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) enables the President to regulate commerce during a declared national emergency related to an extraordinary foreign threat. The Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301) granted the President authority to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions if foreign countries engage in unfair trade practices that burden U.S. commerce. The Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 337) authorizes the President to take action against unfair methods of competition or practices in import trade. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act provides authority for the President to negotiate and implement trade agreements, which can include adjustments to tariff rates. These powers are not unlimited and may be subject to judicial review or congressional pushback. Congress retains the constitutional authority to regulate trade and could pass legislation to override executive actions, though such efforts may require overcoming a presidential veto.

  • Administration selectees may get recess appointments without hearings. Trump demonstrates his confidence in this with his clown car / Mos Eisley Cantina nominees. Congress has not actually taken a formal recess, precisely to deny presidents the ability to side-step lawmakers. Trump, though, has demanded that the Senate resume the practice of adjourning itself so that he can ram his picks through without any oversight. The GOP's new majority leader, John Thune, replied submissively to Trump’s demand, saying on Fox News that "all options are on the table." And Johnson echoed that sentiment on Fox News Sunday, saying of recess appointments that “there may be a function for that.”

  • Trump mentioned extending his stay in the White House while on the campaign trail in 2020. “We are going to win four more years,” Trump said at a rally in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on August 18, 2020. "And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.” The Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, limits presidents to two terms in office. Donald Trump, having served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 and recently elected as the 47th president in 2024, is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term. Despite this constitutional limitation, Trump has made remarks suggesting interest in a third term. In a meeting with House Republicans, he humorously mentioned he wouldn't seek a third term unless they found a way to allow it, acknowledging the constitutional restriction.

    Trump suggested 13 November 2024 that he could be open to a constitution-breaking third term in office, in remarks made to House Republicans ahead of the start of his second term. "I suspect I won't be running again unless you say, 'He's good, we got to figure something else,'" Trump provocatively told his audience in a downtown Washington hotel, drawing some laughter from supporters. Trump's suggestion of a third term stands in stark contrast to the US Constitution, which explicitly limited presidents to two terms in office. This restriction was established by the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency.

    Michael C. Dorf noted November 13, 2024 "Perhaps Congress would pass a resolution declaring that Trump's first term doesn't count because of the Mueller investigation, the House impeachments, and/or other makeweight reasons. Or perhaps Republicans would simply nominate Trump for president and expect--with some justification given the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Anderson--that the courts would not stop him from running for or holding office." Alternately, "in 2028, Republicans could run a ticket of Vance for president and Trump for VP. Then, following Vance's swearing in, he resigns, and Trump becomes president. At that point, Trump names Vance (or someone else) as his VP."

    The 22nd Amendment bars candidates from being "elected" to the presidency more than twice but does not bar anyone from serving as president more than twice. The 22nd Amendment doesn’t prevent a former president who has already served two terms from becoming vice president in a subsequent term. As vice president, that person could then ascend to the presidency if the president on the ticket stepped down. Or the Supreme Court could choose interpret the 22nd Amendment to say that it only applies to presidents who have served consecutive terms, but that might be a bit of a stretch based on its text, even for the Trump Court. Trump was putting the idea into Republican voters’ minds that maybe another candidate with the last name “Trump” might be the best choice for the party in the future.

  • Trump declared in a video 10 November 2024 he will be “closing up the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., and sending all education and education work and needs back to the states.” The idea of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education has been a focus of right-wing advocacy for decades, opposing a department created by Democrat president Jimmy Carter. Advocates argue that states and local governments are better equipped to address the unique educational needs of their communities without federal interference. Some believe education is not a constitutionally assigned federal responsibility and see the Department as an overreach. Federal oversight ensures compliance with anti-discrimination laws in education. The Department allocates billions in funding to support low-income and underserved students. Programs like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) rely on federal leadership and funding.

  • Trump floated the idea of bringing prayer into public schools, a threat to the separation of church and state. “We will support bringing back prayer to our schools,” Trump said in September 2023. The Trump campaign pointed to updated federal guidance from the first Trump White House that ensured students could exercise religious practice and prayer while at their public school, at the threat of losing federal funding. Robert Alter, who has written a translation of the Hebrew Bible, argues that the move “would take us back to benighted historical eras of the past,” when a “particular kingdom would adhere to the cult of that kingdom’s principal deity.” Returning prayer to public schools and promoting “school choice” nationwide are two of 10 priorities to “rebuild” America’s education system announced by President-elect Donald Trump in a video 10 November 2024. State-sanctioned prayers in public schools were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962 in Engle v. Vitale. The Texas State Board of Education voted 8-7 Friday to accept a school curriculum that smuggles Christian religious instruction into public schools. The curriculum is voluntary, but school districts that adopt it will receive financial incentives.

  • Trump said he will give conservative evangelicals universal school vouchers, although he didn’t use that language, which is very unpopular in polling. “We will give all parents the right to choose another school for their children if they want,” he said. “It’s called school choice.” “We will give all parents the right to choose another school for their children if they want.” “School choice” typically is code language for vouchers, which allow parents to divert public funds from public schools to help pay tuition at private schools — including religious schools.

  • Trump announced his education plan that will require forcing schools to teach patriotism (what some regard as White Christian Nationalism). The Trump campaign wrote in its “Ten Principles For Great Schools Leading To Great Jobs,” published in September 2023: "Just as he did during his first term, President Trump will fight for patriotic education in America’s schools. Notwithstanding that America’s founding principles of liberty and equality have successfully guided the United States throughout the most difficult periods in its history ... decades of poor scholarship have vilified our Founders and the principles that they championed and have taught many of our young people to hate their own country." In a July memo Trump pledged, “We will create a new credentialing body that will be the Gold Standard, anywhere in the world, to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values, support our way of life, and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children, but very simply to educate them.”

  • Donald Trump unleashed a social media attack on Gen. Mark Milley, suggesting he should have been put to death for treason. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH,” Trump wrote on his account on 23 September 2023. Trump made comments on his Truth Social account over reports first published in 2021, opens new tab that Milley called his Chinese counterpart Li Zuocheng both ahead of Trump’s election defeat and after the result to reassure him that the U.S. would not attack China, and if there were to be an attack, that he would alert him ahead of time. Milley – who, per the Constitution, does not have command authorities as JCS chairman – reportedly ordered senior officers to check with him before executing orders from then-President Trump, the commander-in-chief. Milley has also made partisan statements to the press, admissions in the book Peril and derogatory comments about Trump, including those in his now-public draft resignation.

    “First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. “Any general, any admiral, whatever,” who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or “woke s---” has “got to go,” Fox News host Pete Hegseth, Trump’s selection for defense secretary Hegseth, said.

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) explicitly allows for retired officers to be recalled to active duty to face court-martial. A retired general can be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in certain circumstances. The key factor is whether they are still receiving military benefits or are considered to have a connection to active military service. Service members are still considered part of the Armed Forces when they retire from the military - those entitled to military retirement pay are still subject to the UCMJ. "§802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter ... (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay. " This ensures that those who wore the uniform and made critical decisions impacting service members’ lives can still be held accountable. One broad category is conduct unbecoming an officer. This catch-all offense covers any behavior that disgraces the officer corps or compromises an officer’s ability to lead. Retired officers are also still subject to the military’s restrictions on political activities. While they are free to vote and privately express political views, they may not make public statements that might represent the military, such as by wearing a uniform to a protest or using their rank title in a political endorsement. The application of UCMJ jurisdiction to retirees is significant because courts-martial are not Article III courts and are therefore not subject to some of the basic protections contained within the Bill of Rights.

  • Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is sometimes referred to as the Insurrection Clause or Disqualification Clause, disqualifies any person from holding any federal or state military or civil office, if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or given aid or comfort to its enemies. On March 4, 2024, in its only decision specifically interpreting Section 3, the Supreme Court held unaminously in Trump v. Anderson that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates. In so ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that had held former President Donald J. Trump to be ineligible for the office of President under Section 3 on the grounds that he had engaged in insurrection and, therefore, could not be listed on the Colorado presidential primary ballot.

  • Trump vowed repeatedly to pull the plug on birthright citizenship, extending back to his first term. “On day one of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal immigrants will not receive automatic US citizenship,” Trump said in a May 2023 “Agenda 47” campaign video.




  • NEWSLETTER
    Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list