Why Trump’s early moves signal danger.

View this email in your browser ([link removed]) | Forward to a friend ([link removed]) | DONATE ([link removed])
[link removed]

From the Desk of Trevor Potter
Elections are expressions of popular opinion, a vehicle for sending messages to elected officials that should guide their actions. In 2024, millions of American voters followed the same path as voters across the globe ([link removed]) , voting out the party in power largely for, in their view, failing to adequately address economic pain ([link removed]) caused by post-COVID inflation and the rising costs of necessities like housing, health care and child care.

It is worth noting that we are still an evenly split country, with elections in many key states decided by 51-49 percent margins, and President-elect Trump winning an Electoral College majority with less than 50% of the popular vote. Politicians and pundits will argue over what these results are a “mandate” for, but no one can seriously suggest that this election result gave the president-elect a mandate to dismantle our democracy.
Quite the contrary: According to one exit poll ([link removed]) , concerns about the state of American democracy ranked even higher than concerns about the economy among voters of both parties.

Voters of all political persuasions said they want a more (small d) democratic government; one more responsive to voters’ concerns, not one where leaders are focused on amassing power for themselves or doing the bidding of a small subset of wealthy special interests. They disagreed over which candidate would do that, but they were united in their desire for “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

While some voters clearly support a “break all the china you can” approach, I believe a majority will be upset by anything that smacks of authoritarianism from the incoming administration. However, the worry is that many voters may not recognize actions that challenge the rule of law or the separation of powers defined by the U.S. Constitution until it is too late. We can look at Trump’s own words and deeds, and those he is bringing into his administration, to see a clear authoritarian direction.

Consider some of the behaviors ([link removed]) typically exhibited by would-be authoritarian leaders: Spreading misinformation and disinformation; seeking to expand executive power and avoid any checks on power; silencing political dissent; scapegoating vulnerable communities to sow division; and attempting to politicize independent institutions like the courts. Entire books have been published detailing the connections between these criteria and Trump’s actions, both as a candidate and as president.

In this moment, several developments clearly illustrate these threats to the rule of law: Trump’s nomination of numerous individuals with significant conflicts of interest ([link removed]) for Cabinet positions, and a refusal to agree to ethics policies ([link removed]) for his transition; his request that Congress recess ([link removed]) so that he can appoint nominees without the constitutionally-required advice and consent of the Senate; and the stated goal of two prominent appointees to seize the power of the purse away from Congress.

Nominees to some of the top leadership positions in the federal government are being selected because of their loyalty to Trump. Look no further than Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi ([link removed]) , who was nominated for U.S. attorney general after the withdrawal of former congressman and noted Trump loyalist Matt Gaetz.

Bondi will likely face questions about her decision as attorney general of Florida in 2013 not to join a lawsuit against Trump University — a decision that came shortly after a committee supporting her reelection campaign received a questionable $25,000 donation ([link removed]) from the Trump Foundation. She was also one of Trump’s attorneys during his first impeachment trial.

It is important to note that Bondi has been a leading election denier, claiming that Trump won the 2020 presidential election. As attorney general, she would have the ultimate say on the direction of every branch of the Justice Department, including enforcing the voting rights laws.

The Constitution explicitly gives the U.S. Senate the role of “Advice and Consent” ([link removed]) for executive branch nominees. Seeking an end-around to this check on his power, Trump asked the Republican candidates for Senate majority leader to pledge to leave town on long recesses, during which he could make appointments.

This would avoid the normal process of meetings with senators, confirmation hearings, and a majority vote to confirm. It’s also a path that destroys a core Senate power and a crucial piece of the founders’ design for checks and balances to prevent a president from acting as a king.

The Constitution gives Congress control over the federal budget. Nevertheless, the president-elect’s recently announced Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) seems to be designed to take that power for itself, even though it is not an actual department within the federal government.

Elon Musk, billionaire tech mogul and one of Trump’s biggest financial backers, and his co-director of this new effort, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, are promising budget cuts of up to $2 trillion.

According to reports by ProPublica ([link removed]) and the Washington Post ([link removed]) , to accomplish this goal, the Trump administration is exploring several options, including ignoring of a 1974 law passed in the wake of abuses by the Nixon administration. The Impoundment Control Act ([link removed]) says the president must get congressional approval to spend less than was appropriated for a particular purpose, explicitly codifying a key aspect of our system of checks and balances.

Any serious attempt to ignore Congress’ constitutional authority in this area must be met with a swift legal challenge.

Underlying all these threats is the failure of the Trump transition team to adopt the kind of ethical standards ([link removed]) the American people deserve to see upheld by officials in their government, as well as Trump’s failure so far to address the numerous personal conflicts ([link removed]) of interest he brings to the office. Recent news even includes allegations that Trump advisors are selling access to the appointments process. Voters have a right to know that their leaders are prioritizing the public good.

CLC is ready to stand up for the American people ([link removed]) , recognizing that our system of self-government, made possible by the rule of law and constitutional division of powers, will be tested in the weeks and months ahead.
Sincerely,

Trevor Potter
President, Campaign Legal Center

Donate ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Instagram ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center is dedicated to advancing democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American’s rights to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process.

Copyright © 2024 Campaign Legal Center, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
Campaign Legal Center
1101 14th St NW, Ste 400
Washington, DC xxxxxx
USA
** Unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])