Unusually for him, Donald Trump didn’t make a fuss as he signed one slowly written executive order last Tuesday.
The public attention was distracted that day. By the drama that grabs the headlines of Elon Musk, by immigrants deported to Guantanamo Bay, through the federal bureaucracy, and by the torrents of other directives issued since Trump’s inauguration last month.
However, under the deceptive title of “ensure accountability of all institutions,” his second presidency’s 69th executive order has been criticized as a “b-fired power grab” that promotes political doctrine aimed at creating a presidential dictator.
The order engraved between signing the directive to end the mandate of the Covid vaccine at schools and another expanded access to in vitro fertilization also includes a single paragraph that allows the president to decide the law and who should follow it.
This paragraph is wary even for constitutional conservatives who otherwise agree with much of Trump’s actions. Other critics characterize it as another step towards the American brand of tyranny.
Law professor Frank Bowman, former federal prosecutor who wrote high crimes and misdemeanors: The history of each of the Trump era described the executive order as “breathing.”
“The essence of that is that Donald Trump is trying to make himself an elected dictator,” he said.
“It has a great sense. The order basically says, “The law is determined by my will, my period, and anyone who disagrees with me must line up. Welcome to either a monarchy or a dictatorship.”
The order, on the surface, aims to enhance transparency and accountability for federal agencies acting with a certain degree of independence, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, bringing them under more direct surveillance by the White House.
“Previous administrations allow so-called “independent regulatory bodies” to operate with minimal presidential supervision. These regulators are now exerting substantive enforcement bodies without sufficient accountability to the President and through him to the American people. Additionally, these regulators are permitted to promulgate important regulations without a presidential review,” the order states.
However, details of the order give the president’s authority far beyond mere surveillance.
Joe Morell, a Congressional Democrat with the House Committee on Powers, wrote on Wednesday that he would “open political corruption and immense money to political corruption and immense money,” which denounced the order as “an unprecedented violation of America’s rule of law.”
If the order exists, it could open up a way for Trump to serve his political and business interests by supporting allies such as Musk, for example, by finding that he is not bound by financial regulations or that the immigration judge’s ruling is invalid.
But critics further warn, along with other measures, that the directive, poses a more fundamental threat to democracy, poses a sideline of constitutional checks and balances in support of the claim that presidential authority is paramount, in order to advance the “unified administrative theory” of Republican rights.
The executive order seeks to exploit the complexities of modern government. In the 1930s, Congress delegated the establishment of detailed regulations for agencies that required specific expertise, such as finance and technology, to staff with expertise. While Congress still had a wide range of parameters, the authorities were accused of determining administrative law details.
Congress removed these regulatory bodies from the presidency and was removed a step in order to protect their independence. The president has allowed people to dismiss the institutions under certain circumstances.
Most modern governments have similar systems, but Trump characterizes this process as a stolen presidential force and therefore unconstitutional.
Trump’s executive order abolished independence by holding the Office of Business and Budget (OMB), which is part of the presidency. OMB is led by Russell Vought, founder of Reding America (CRA) Thinktank’s Right-wing Center and one of the leading authors of the Project 2025 Project for Government Authoritarian Acquisitions.
Vought is behind other measures to strengthen Trump’s control based on a single theory of enforcement, including the president’s move to override Congress’ spending decisions by blocking or rearranging funds, and the dramatic changes that would have happened if it endured. Vought also spoke about kicking civil servants out of work.
Bowman said the true intention of the order was revealed by the president’s decision to exempt some actions from the Federal Reserve from OMB surveillance.
“The reason is that if he simply declares that the Federal Reserve is no longer independent, it fears driving the market insanity and putting financial panic at risk,” he said.
“But I lie about the notion that this is a kind of constitutional declaration, because if an independent institution is inherently unconstitutional, then if you are the president, you cannot choose and choose something independent. Having an independent institution is constitutional or not.”
Even some conservatives who support some of Trump’s actions are wary of the executive order provisions that declare that the president, or attorney general under the presidency, will make the final interpretation of the administrative division, from issuing regulations to the position of litigation.
Greg Nunziata, executive director of the Conservative Law Society, who is strongly critical of some of Trump’s actions, said he is arguing about the constitutional legality of independent bodies, even if the president has doubts about the constitutional legality of independent bodies, even if he wants to control them.
However, Nunjiata is interrupted by the fact that “the increasing proposal from the White House is that the law says the president is.”
“The law is passed by Congress, interpreted by the Supreme Court, and the President is obliged to follow the law. He is obliged to hire an attorney who makes a sincere effort to interpret what the law requires.
Bowman said the section amounted to a declaration that the President’s opinion on the law would invalidate everyone else in the government.
“It’s just crazy because essentially, it’s what it’s like to say that the president wakes up one morning and says, ‘I don’t think all of these laws criminalizing bribery should apply to me, my family, my friends, or the officials of the administrative officers at all.” That’s my legal opinion.
Again, Trump’s actions raises the question of whether an executive order will be issued. Bowman is not convinced that other pillars of the US system of checks and balance will work to protect democracy.
He said that the Supreme Court conservatives have already shown sympathy for the theory of unity enforcement by determining that the president is immunity from the conduct in his official capabilities.
“The main check on enforcement officials is the power of Congress, but for now he’s completely restrained Republicans in Congress. They have a lot of tools they can use to stop this, but now they’re totally terrified of using them,” he said.
“The usual checks on dictatorial behaviour are already in the process of being suppressed or so.”
