Trump's Unilateralism: Expanded Power, Uncertain Legacy, Weakened Congress

The current political moment, as illuminated by Jamelle Bouie and Ross Douthat on "The Opinions," reveals a profound shift in American governance and its global standing, driven by a unilateralist executive approach and a delegation of power that bypasses traditional legislative checks and balances. This conversation uncovers the hidden consequences of this "Caesarist" style of leadership, where immediate executive dominance coexists with an inability to cement lasting policy changes, creating a fundamental uncertainty about the future of American governance. Those who wish to understand the systemic implications of this executive-centric power dynamic--and how it might endure or dissolve--will find strategic insights here, offering a clearer lens through which to view the unfolding political landscape and its potential long-term impacts.

The Expanding Executive: Beyond Legislation to Executive Dominance

The most consequential strategic choice of the Trump administration, according to Ross Douthat, has been its relentless pursuit of unilateralist executive governance. This approach, he argues, has served to expand presidential power de facto, placing Donald Trump in a position of executive dominance not seen since Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, this expansion of power exists in parallel with a significant failure to enact substantive legislative changes. This creates a fundamental uncertainty: will Trump's approach pioneer a new, enduring form of presidential governance, or will many of his "frenetic acts and actions" simply evaporate? Jamelle Bouie builds on this by identifying Trump's most consequential decision as the abdication of traditional presidential duties, particularly personnel and crisis management, in favor of delegating authority to deputies like Stephen Miller. This delegation, Bouie contends, robs the president of the political expertise needed to respond effectively to shifting political winds, despite Trump's own perceived strength in this area. The consequence is an administration shaped by its deputies, leading to political difficulties and a lack of enduring policy.

"the most consequential strategic choice the trump administration has made has been to not just double down but triple down and quadruple down on a kind of unilateralist style of executive governance which has had two effects and it's way too soon to tell which is the most important one one effect is to both expand de facto presidential power to discover new presidential power to basically put trump himself in a position of a certain kind of executive dominance that i don't think we've seen since franklin roosevelt at the same time that coexists with a failure to instantiate changes through legislation which was certainly something that fdr was pretty good at right that makes it really really hard to tell how enduring you know 80 to 90 of the concrete policy changes of this hyperactive trump year will be"

-- Ross Douthat

This dynamic highlights a critical downstream effect: the illusion of decisive action without the bedrock of legislative consensus. While the executive branch can issue directives and make rapid decisions, these are inherently more fragile than laws passed through congressional deliberation. The immediate benefit of perceived strong leadership can mask the long-term vulnerability of policies that lack broad political support or statutory backing. This creates a competitive disadvantage for any administration that relies solely on executive fiat, as future administrations can more easily dismantle or alter its agenda.

The "Don Roe Doctrine": Colonial Ambitions vs. Anti-Colonial Roots

The discussion on foreign policy pivots to the controversial Greenland gambit, which Ross Douthat suggests stems from a pre-existing interest in territorial acquisition, possibly turbocharged by the perceived success of the Venezuela intervention. He posits that a faction within the online right supports territorial expansion as a signifier of a revived American spirit. Jamelle Bouie adds a touch of levity, suggesting Trump's perception of Greenland's size might be influenced by Mercator projections.

Crucially, Bouie provides historical context for the Monroe Doctrine, originally an anti-colonial stance asserting that European powers should not colonize the Americas. He then starkly contrasts this with the "Don Roe Doctrine" (a playful alliteration for Donald Trump and Monroe), which he characterizes as an explicit embrace of European-style colonization. While Douthat acknowledges a more cynical, self-interested variant of the Monroe Doctrine in play, particularly concerning rivals like Russia and China, Bouie argues that the core of the Monroe Doctrine was a recognition of the autonomy of independent republics. Trump's approach, he contends, represents a meaningful break from this by engaging in active, colonial-style management of self-governing countries. The hidden cost here is the erosion of America's historical role as a proponent of self-determination, replaced by a transactional, power-based foreign policy that risks alienating allies and undermining international norms.

"because the don roe doctrine is not about defending even if it's sort of like with your fingers crossed behind your back defending independent nations in the western hemisphere from european colonization the don roe doctrine is we got to be european colonizers"

-- Jamelle Bouie

This ideological shift has significant downstream effects. By abandoning the anti-colonial framing, the U.S. loses a powerful tool for diplomatic influence and moral authority. It signals a willingness to engage in great power competition through territorial ambition, potentially sparking similar actions from other nations and destabilizing regions. The immediate advantage of asserting dominance is overshadowed by the long-term disadvantage of fostering an environment of unchecked expansionism.

The Blank Check for ICE: Unforeseen Consequences of Unfettered Funding

The conversation then shifts to domestic policy, specifically the $75 billion allocated to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Jamelle Bouie likens the situation to the movie "Blank Check," where an abundance of money outstrips imagination, suggesting ICE may struggle to effectively utilize such a vast influx. While the funding will sustain current operations and limit efforts to rescind them, Bouie remains uncertain about its tangible impact on the ground, noting ICE's pre-existing struggles with hiring and training. This is compounded by reports of halved training times for new officers and lowered physical standards, a consequence of the agency's difficulty in finding qualified personnel.

"the point is that he had so much money and like his imagination couldn't meet the amount of money he had and i kind of feel that's going to end up being the situation with immigration and customs enforcement in part because they struggle right even before this big influx of funding they really struggled to get people to hire people to do the job"

-- Jamelle Bouie

The immediate consequence of this massive funding is the perpetuation of existing operational scales, potentially including controversial practices. The downstream effect, however, could be a political backlash. While polls may show a public desire for stricter immigration policies, the visible cruelty and potential abuses associated with enhanced ICE operations, particularly highlighted by incidents like the shooting of Rene Nicole Good, can create significant discomfort and erode public trust. This creates a strategic dilemma: the immediate political advantage of appearing tough on immigration might be undermined by the long-term disadvantage of alienating a broader segment of the electorate due to perceived cruelty.

Congress as a "Nullity": The Receding Influence of Legislative Power

Addressing Congress's performance, Jamelle Bouie assigns it an "F" for its abdication of Article I authority, particularly in allowing the administration to impound congressionally authorized funds. From his perspective, this renders Congress a "nullity." However, he acknowledges the strategic benefit for Republicans who may prefer the White House to enact cuts without forcing them to take politically unpopular votes. Ross Douthat concurs, noting that even proposed cuts are often reversed when Congress votes on omnibus legislation, indicating a lack of conviction even among those who advocate for smaller government.

The core dysfunction, as Bouie sees it, is the receding influence of Congress, making it difficult to push back against expansions of presidential authority. He finds it hard to envision a post-Trump era where Congress meaningfully reasserts itself. This institutional weakness has profound systemic consequences. When Congress fails to assert its oversight and legislative functions, it creates a vacuum that the executive branch readily fills. The immediate benefit for lawmakers might be avoiding difficult votes, but the long-term disadvantage is the erosion of democratic checks and balances, weakening the entire constitutional order. This creates a competitive disadvantage for the legislative branch itself, diminishing its ability to shape policy and hold the executive accountable.

Midterm Temperature Check: A Coalition in Flux

Looking towards the midterm elections, Ross Douthat expresses concern that the Trump coalition, which expanded to include new voters, is not being actively consolidated by the administration. He believes these voters, while wary of Democrats, may not be reliably held by Republicans, potentially impacting key Senate races. Jamelle Bouie echoes this, noting Democrats' confidence in flipping the House but acknowledging the Senate as the real battleground. He points to the administration's "disinterest" in consolidating wins and the catastrophic erosion of support among Hispanic voters as significant liabilities.

Bouie also highlights the challenge for Trump: his personal standing continues to decline, and it's unclear what he can do to improve it. He posits that Trump may not deeply care about the health of the Republican Party as a separate entity, which poses a problem for midterm electoral strategy. This detachment, while perhaps personally liberating for Trump, creates a strategic vulnerability for the party. The immediate advantage of a charismatic leader is offset by the long-term disadvantage of a party whose fate is tied to an individual whose personal priorities may not align with broader electoral consolidation.

"my sense is that democrats are feeling very confident about the house right that they're quite confident that the house is going to flip it's already quite a narrow republican majority and if they're you know last year's elections in virginia and new jersey suggest at least something like the rumblings of another blue wave and if it's anything like that i think there's a broad expectation that democrats will win the house with no particular issue the question is the senate and there i think ross is right to know that the administration's i would say almost like disinterest in trying to consolidate its electoral wins is really going to hurt it"

-- Jamelle Bouie

The underlying system here is the dynamic of political coalitions. When a party relies too heavily on a charismatic leader without building institutional strength or broad appeal, it risks fracturing when that leader's popularity wanes or their focus shifts. The downstream effect is electoral vulnerability, particularly in midterms where the incumbent party often faces headwinds. The immediate advantage of Trump's passionate base is challenged by the long-term disadvantage of failing to broaden that base or retain newly acquired voters.

Actionable Takeaways for Navigating the Political Landscape

• Prioritize Legislative Durability: Focus on policy initiatives that can be codified into law, rather than relying solely on executive orders or directives. This requires engaging with Congress and building broader consensus, a longer-term investment that pays off in enduring impact.
• Re-evaluate Executive Power Delegation: Presidents should actively manage personnel and crisis response, rather than delegating broad authority. This requires cultivating subject matter expertise within the executive office and resisting the temptation of simply offloading decision-making to deputies. This pays off in 12-18 months through more effective governance.
• Understand Historical Context for Foreign Policy: Ground foreign policy decisions in historical understanding, particularly regarding doctrines like Monroe. Recognize that a colonialist approach, however cynically framed, undermines America's traditional anti-colonial stance and risks long-term diplomatic isolation. Requires ongoing learning and strategic reflection.
• Scrutinize Agency Funding with a Critical Eye: While significant funding for agencies like ICE may seem like a political win, critically assess its practical application and potential for unintended consequences, such as public discomfort with perceived cruelty. This pays off in 12-18 months by mitigating potential political backlash.
• Strengthen Congressional Oversight: Lawmakers must actively reassert their Article I authority to oversee the executive branch, particularly regarding the impoundment of funds. This is crucial for the institutional health of Congress and the broader constitutional order. This requires immediate and sustained effort over the next 1-2 election cycles.
• Consolidate Electoral Gains Beyond the Leader: Political parties must focus on consolidating their coalitions by catering to diverse demographic groups, not just relying on the popularity of a single leader. This involves substantive policy engagement and outreach. This pays off in 12-18 months by securing broader voter loyalty.
• Embrace Difficult Reforms for Long-Term Advantage: Recognize that reforms requiring immediate discomfort or effort (like robust legislative processes or humane immigration policies) often create lasting competitive advantage by building more sustainable and broadly supported systems. This pays off in 18-24 months by creating more resilient policy outcomes.