Remember when breaking the law was a bad thing? Quaint times, weren’t they? But in the Trumpiverse—a land where legal troubles are mere stepping stones to judicial validation—flouting congressional statutes isn’t a scandal; it’s a strategy. If you’ve been wondering why Donald Trump’s latest term seems to be a whirlwind of executive overreach, lawsuits, and constitutional mayhem, buckle up. This isn’t an accident. It’s a masterclass in using the judiciary as a political tool, and frankly, it’s been working.
For those who still believe that laws matter (adorable!), let’s lay out the strategy. Trump’s playbook isn’t about avoiding legal trouble. Quite the opposite—it’s about diving headfirst into legal chaos, forcing cases up to a Supreme Court that has been slowly molded into an executive-power rubber stamp. What looks like reckless lawlessness is actually a calculated bid to expand presidential authority through judicial blessing. It’s a speedrun to rewriting the Constitution without the hassle of an actual amendment process.
Step One: Create the Crisis
Trump understands one basic truth: the Supreme Court can’t rule on a case that doesn’t exist. So, how do you create landmark rulings in your favor? Easy—you trigger lawsuits by outright ignoring statutes and waiting for the inevitable legal challenges. It’s less “lawbreaking” and more “law-testing,” if you squint hard enough and don’t mind watching democracy erode in real time.
Take his recent spree of firings—National Labor Relations Board members, civil servants, and any pesky official who might remember what the Hatch Act is. The law says he can’t do that, but Trump is betting that the Supreme Court will eventually say, “Actually, he can.” It’s the legal equivalent of submitting your homework and having the teacher rewrite the syllabus so your answers are suddenly correct.
Step Two: Send It to the Supreme Court, Where the House Always Wins
If Trump’s presidency were a Vegas casino, the Supreme Court would be the house, and we all know the house always wins. His legal team isn’t throwing spaghetti at the wall; they’re carefully selecting which laws to bulldoze, betting that SCOTUS will happily expand executive power.
Need examples? Look no further than Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where the Court upheld his so-called “Muslim ban,” reinforcing the idea that the President’s national security decisions are nearly untouchable. Or Trump v. United States (2024), where SCOTUS threw out crucial parts of the federal case against him over January 6th, again emphasizing executive power. See the pattern?
Each legal “defiance” isn’t just a tantrum; it’s a chance to hand the Supreme Court a golden opportunity to strike down another congressional limit on presidential authority.
Step Three: If the Law Says No, the Court Might Just Say Yes
Trump’s current administration is flexing this tactic hard. Take the case of federal funding. Congress tells the President where the money goes. The Trump administration, in turn, decides to hit the pause button, refusing to disburse funds that don’t align with his agenda. Cue the lawsuits! Courts (the lower ones, at least) have said he’s violating congressional authority. But the big question is: what will SCOTUS say?
The endgame is simple—argue that any law restricting the executive branch is unconstitutional. After all, if SCOTUS ruled that Congress couldn’t limit Trump’s ability to fire at-will (see: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case), then why should it be able to tell him how to spend money, enforce regulations, or oversee independent agencies? It’s a slippery slope, and Trump is happily skiing down it.
Step Four: Even Losing is Winning
Even if Trump loses some of these cases, he still wins. Why? Because his entire strategy normalizes the idea that the President can (and should) push legal boundaries. Every time the administration openly defies Congress, we all become a little more accustomed to the idea that the President’s power should be absolute. He’s acculturating the public to a strongman model of government, where the Supreme Court isn’t a check on power but an enabler of it.
Even if the Court occasionally reins him in, the conversation has already shifted. The Overton Window has been dragged so far right that future presidents (whether it’s Trump, DeSantis, or some yet-to-be-named authoritarian understudy) will start from a place where executive power is assumed to be near-absolute.
Step Five: Dangle the Constitutional Crisis Card
For those wondering if Trump would ever go full rogue and ignore a Supreme Court ruling outright, don’t hold your breath just yet. He doesn’t have to. The mere possibility that he might ignore judicial decisions is already a power move. Vice President J.D. Vance has already floated the idea that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” The message is clear: if you don’t rule our way, maybe we just won’t listen.
It’s a psychological game—one that pressures the Court to tread lightly. No one wants to be the justice who provokes a constitutional crisis. So instead, SCOTUS may just… accommodate. You know, for the sake of “stability.”
The Bottom Line: The Law is What You Make It
This isn’t just about Trump’s personal legal troubles (though, let’s be real, there are plenty of those). It’s about permanently altering the balance of power. If this strategy continues unchecked, future presidents—Republican or Democrat—will inherit a vastly expanded executive branch, with fewer and fewer limits from Congress.
So, what happens now? Well, if you’re a fan of democracy, you should probably be a little concerned. If you’re a constitutional scholar, you might want to start rewriting those textbooks. And if you’re Donald Trump? Congratulations—you’ve turned lawbreaking into a pathway for legally redefining presidential power.
And the best part? The Supreme Court might just let him get away with it.
Welcome to the new era of executive power—where the laws don’t matter until the Supreme Court says they do.
