World
India
The Trump administration is facing numerous legal challenges regarding its use of executive power. However, understanding these challenges only through individual cases would miss the bigger picture. The main issue is that President Donald Trump seems unable or unwilling to distinguish between legal principles and his personal wishes.
This blurred perception was evident once again during a recent meeting with governors at the White House. While discussing his executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in female sports, Trump turned to Maine Governor Janet Mills and directly questioned her stance.
Exchange Between Trump and Governor Mills
“Are you not going to comply with it?” Trump asked Mills.
“I’m complying with state and federal laws,” she responded.
To this, Trump replied, “We are the federal law.”
Even if the state of Maine were to challenge this executive order, legal experts suggest that Trump might still have a chance of prevailing in court. However, the real issue is not whether his interpretation of Title IX and federal regulations is legally sound—it is that he treats the law as interchangeable with his own decisions.
Threats to Federal Funding
During the same discussion, Trump went a step further, warning Mills that failure to comply with his order could result in a loss of federal funding.
“You better do it, because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t,” he threatened.
While the federal government has legal avenues to withhold funding under certain conditions, Trump does not have the unilateral power to cut off financial resources simply because a state challenges his policies. However, Trump has often shown little regard for such legal distinctions, instead behaving as though he wields absolute authority.
Trump’s View on Law and Power
Throughout his career, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a belief that his actions are inherently legal, while those who oppose him are engaging in criminal activity. This attitude dates back to his business dealings, where he faced allegations of racial discrimination and tax fraud, and continued through his presidency, from his attempts to overturn the 2020 election to his refusal to return classified documents after leaving office. He has also frequently accused political opponents of criminal behavior without evidence.
Trump recently expressed this perspective in a post on X, writing, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” The quote, often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte—a historical dictator—reflects Trump’s longstanding view that his actions define legality.
Supporters Embracing Trump’s Narrative
Trump’s supporters have increasingly echoed his belief in his supreme authority. For example, when the White House recently announced a spending freeze, Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director of Trump’s budget office, stated that federal spending must align with the president’s priorities, even though the Constitution clearly assigns spending authority to Congress.
Similarly, Paula White, Trump’s faith adviser, has taken an even more extreme stance, once claiming, “To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God.”
Rather than reassuring Americans that their government remains a constitutional republic, Trump and his allies have embraced a vision in which he operates with king-like authority. This was evident in recent social media posts depicting him as a ruler who overruled New York City’s congestion pricing system.
The Growing Constitutional Crisis
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board recently downplayed concerns about a constitutional crisis, arguing that Trump is merely testing the limits of executive authority. However, the situation goes beyond previous presidents pushing legal boundaries.
When an administration dismantles government programs and agencies authorized by Congress, the potential for legal redress is minimal. If a president fires all employees of a department and cancels its contracts, those affected cannot afford to wait for a Supreme Court ruling. Similarly, if a Democratic administration were to attempt something as radical as replacing churches with EV-charging stations, even a court ruling in their favor wouldn’t reverse the immediate impact.
Ultimately, Trump is not just redefining legal boundaries—he is rejecting the idea that the law constrains him at all. The existence of a constitutional crisis does not depend solely on legal disputes between branches of government. A president who insists that the law means whatever he says it means is, in itself, a constitutional crisis.
