Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Donald Trump and the mystery of the disappearing checks and balances

Published

on

Opinion: Donald Trump and the mystery of the disappearing checks and balances

If ever a U.S. president needed the checks and balances that the founders established, it’s law-breaking, oath-violating Donald Trump.

Yet those checks by Congress and the Supreme Court will hardly be a check at all once Trump is back in power. The former and future president has shaped each of those institutions in his image.

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

He’s already benefited. The Supreme Court, where Trump’s first-term appointees are half of its six-member far-right supermajority, ruled in July that presidents are virtually immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. The court’s dilatory deliberations and then its stunning decision had the effect of delaying past the 2024 election any federal trial for Trump’s alleged first-term crimes: plotting to overthrow Joe Biden’s election and then high-tailing it to Mar-a-Lago with government secrets.

Now that he’s headed back to the White House, those cases will be dropped. It remains to be seen whether Trump, as president, will exploit the license for wrongdoing that the court gave him. If past is prologue, the odds are good. Even better are the chances that the receptive court will rule in Trump’s favor when opponents’ challenges to his future presidential acts inevitably reach it.

But it’s Congress where Trump will have real pull — at least for the two years until the 2026 midterm elections.

Advertisement

Just as at the start of his earlier term, both the Senate and House likely will be under Republicans’ control, if only narrowly, thanks to Trump’s coattails. (The House majority won’t be officially determined until perhaps later this week, but Republicans are favored.) Their tie to Trump is stronger than it was in 2017-18. Republicans then were deferential; come January, they’ll be obsequious. The founders will spin in their graves at the bowing and scraping we’re about to see from the supposedly independent Congress.

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, House speaker in 2017 and 2018, broke with Trump in 2016 over the “grab ’em by the pussy” tape, but became accommodating enough once Trump was president. But contrast Ryan’s ambivalence with the zealotry of current Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who’s sure to be chosen as the Republicans’ leader again when they meet this week. Dubbed MAGA Mike by approving right-wingers when he got the speakership last year, Johnson has since made repeated pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago, campaigned with Trump and at every chance stood like a bespectacled bobblehead beside him.

As Punchbowl News reported: “Now Trump gets a congressional leader who will back his agenda — for better or worse.” Worse, I’ll wager.

In Ryan’s time, a novice President Trump didn’t have much of an agenda or even “concepts of a plan” beyond talk of building a wall, banning Muslims and repealing Obamacare; he didn’t fully realize any of those goals. Credit Ryan and other Republicans for the 2017 tax cuts law that’s counted as first-term Trump’s singular legislative achievement — if you can count a budget-busting giveaway to the richest Americans and corporations as an achievement.

Next year they’ll do it again. The House will extend the Trump tax cuts at a cost of about $1 trillion annually in debt, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and add to those breaks, including with the promises Trump made on the campaign trail: “Just plow it through,” as a Republican lobbyist said.

Advertisement

But this time Trump has a sprawling agenda beyond tax cuts: Project 2025, compiled by scores of his most far-right first-term advisors with his public blessing, but so unpopular that he disavowed it during the campaign. No surprise: That disavowal was just one lie among many.

“Now that the election is over, I think we can finally say that, yeah, actually Project 2025 is the agenda. Lol,” conservative podcaster Matt Walsh cynically tweeted last week. To which Trump whisperer Steve Bannon, fresh out of prison for contempt of Congress, responded on his podcast: “Fabulous!”

Look for Trump to issue executive orders and seek legislation from Congress to do much that’s in Project 2025: Blow up the civil service and reestablish a 19th-century-style spoils system. Make the Justice Department his vengeful law firm. End the federal role in education and mount culture wars. Abandon clean energy efforts, though that Trump promise could run up against the reality that Biden’s historic climate investments have brought good jobs, mostly to Republican districts.) Support for Ukraine is all but doomed, just as Trump desires.

In the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is stepping aside after a record run as party leader, leaving either Sen. John Thune of South Dakota or Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to become leader of the new majority. Each has had differences with Trump, but neither will likely defy him going forward, especially now that the Senate will include more Trump toadies.

Don’t look for much Senate resistance to Trump’s nominees for his Cabinet, other high posts and federal judgeships, as there was on occasion in his first term.

Advertisement

With Republicans likely to have a slightly larger Senate majority than in 2017-18, relatively moderate Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska won’t be the decisive naysayers they sometimes were before. Apparently, even anti-vax conspiracist and brain-worm carrier Robert F. Kennedy Jr. isn’t off-limits as a Cabinet possibility: “I think the Senate is going to give great deference to a president that just won a stunning … landslide,” Florida’s Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said when asked about the likes of Kennedy getting a role in the administration.

Here’s a silver lining: Trump, a dictator wannabe with a pliant Congress, will all but certainly overreach. We know that much of his agenda is unpopular. But with Republicans controlling all the levers in Washington, they can nonetheless impose it — and own the result.

The reckoning will come in two years. Midterm elections for almost a century have nearly always gone against the party holding the presidency. May 2026 be no different.

@jackiekcalmes

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending