The President Who Breaks the Law
And the Court That Lets Him
“If the judiciary refuses to enforce the law, the president becomes untouchable.”
On a quiet day without fanfare or explanation, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority granted a stay on a lower court's ruling that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from gutting the Department of Education. In doing so, the Court abandoned its role as a check on executive power and signaled a dangerous shift: the highest judicial body in the United States effectively endorsed the president's authority to dismantle a federal department created by Congress. This is not a minor administrative decision. It is a historic expansion of presidential power that challenges the Constitution's clear delegation of lawmaking to the legislative branch. And it may be the moment we stop pretending America is still a functioning democracy.
This ruling did not occur in isolation. It is part of a growing pattern in which Trump and his administration routinely defy legal norms, dismantle institutional protections, and centralize power in the hands of the president. The court's acquiescence in this latest abuse underscores a terrifying reality: the United States is sliding toward autocracy, and its traditional safeguards are either compromised or complicit. This essay examines the case in detail, situates it in the broader context of democratic backsliding, and argues that the nation now faces a constitutional crisis in plain sight.
The Supreme Court's Decision: Judicial Abdication of Responsibility
The case at the center of this crisis involves Trump’s long standing hostility toward the Department of Education. Citing vague accusations that the department promotes "woke ideology" and harbors employees who "hate our children," Trump has vowed to eliminate the department altogether. In March, his administration announced plans to lay off 1,378 employees, roughly half the department, in what was widely seen as the first step toward dismantling it.
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia sued to halt the firings. A federal judge in Massachusetts, Myong Joun, ruled that the layoffs were unlawful and ordered the reinstatement of the fired employees. But the Supreme Court intervened, granting the Trump administration a stay on Joun's ruling, thereby allowing the layoffs to proceed.
The Court offered no reasoning. No constitutional rationale. No explanation. This silence is especially damning because it suggests the justices do not feel obligated to justify decisions that effectively erase the boundaries of presidential authority. In 1973, the Court refused to allow President Nixon to dismantle the Office of Economic Opportunity, affirming that the president could not unilaterally abolish a department created by Congress.
Today, the same institution grants Trump that very power.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent warning that the Court was enabling lawlessness. "When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it," Sotomayor wrote. Her dissent underscores the stakes: if the judiciary refuses to enforce the law, the president becomes untouchable.
Dismantling the Law: Trump's Strategy to Override Congress
The Department of Education is not a radical agency. It does not impose curriculum on schools. It provides funding to high poverty districts, supports students with disabilities, and enforces federal laws against discrimination based on race and sex in education. Its mission reflects decades of bipartisan consensus that the federal government has a role in promoting equal access to education.
Trump’s attacks on the department are not based on policy. They are symbolic acts of destruction, part of a broader war on what he calls the "deep state." The appointment of Linda McMahon, a former wrestling promoter with no education credentials, to lead the department was itself a sign of contempt. Her support for mass layoffs underscores the administration's goal: to eliminate not just a department, but the legal framework it upholds.
The mass firings were met with immediate legal resistance. Judge Joun's ruling was a rare assertion of judicial authority in defense of the law. But the Supreme Court's intervention nullified that effort and allowed the administration to proceed.
This is more than a bureaucratic reshuffle. It is an assertion that the president can ignore Congress, fire civil servants at will, and dismantle public institutions created by law. That is not constitutional governance. It is authoritarian overreach.
Congress Under Siege: The Rescission and Impoundment Crisis
Even as the Court greenlit Trump's assault on the Department of Education, another constitutional crisis unfolded in Congress. The White House submitted a request for "rescissions" totaling 9.4 billion dollars, cuts to funding that Congress had already approved. By law, the president is not allowed to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. The 1974 Impoundment Control Act, passed in response to Nixon's abuse of power, explicitly forbids this practice.
Yet Trump has ignored the law, just as he did in 2019 when he withheld military aid to Ukraine. This time, the administration asked Congress to retroactively approve the cuts, essentially laundering its illegal action through legislative rubber stamping.
The rescission package includes the elimination of federal support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund NPR, PBS, and local stations. Trump claims these outlets promote "left wing propaganda." The move is a direct attack on independent media and public access to information.
The Senate must approve the rescissions by Friday, or the funds will be spent as originally mandated. Senators are concerned not only about the legality of the request, but about its vagueness. The administration has failed to specify what programs will be cut, prompting Senator Susan Collins of Maine to remark, "We still are lacking the level of detail that is needed to make the right decisions."
Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a key figure behind Project 2025, has made clear that this is only the beginning. He told CNN the rescissions are the first of many and that if Congress does not comply, the administration will withhold funds anyway. This is open defiance of congressional authority and a test of whether lawmakers will enforce the laws they pass.
Collapse from Within: DOJ Resignations and a Government with No Adults
As Trump consolidates power, the Department of Justice is bleeding talent. Nearly two thirds of the lawyers in the unit tasked with defending federal programs have resigned. These are not partisan operatives. They are career civil servants who signed up to uphold the Constitution, not dismantle it.
One departing lawyer told Reuters, "Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system. How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?"
Their mass departure raises urgent questions about who is left to enforce the law. With the Court abdicating its responsibility and Congress on the ropes, the executive branch is operating with virtually no internal resistance. If DOJ lawyers refuse to defend unlawful policies and are replaced by loyalists, there will be no legal friction to slow the collapse.
Unelected Extremists in Power: Who Is Actually Running the Government?
The growing chaos inside the Trump administration has created a power vacuum filled by loyalists and ideologues. Jason Zengerle of the New York Times reported that Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, effectively controls domestic policy. Known for his anti immigrant extremism, Miller is now setting the tone for the administration's agenda.
According to Zengerle, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defers to Miller, while Attorney General Pam Bondi spends more time on Fox News than overseeing justice. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is more interested in managing Trump's image than in governing.
This dysfunction extends to foreign policy. The Atlantic's Tom Nichols reports that Trump has little interest in international affairs and leaves major decisions to underlings. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth talks endlessly about "lethality" and trans people but appears uninformed on actual policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as national security advisor, has little real influence.
Real power lies with Elbridge Colby, undersecretary of defense for policy. Colby made the call to withhold weapons from Ukraine and initiated a review of the U.S., UK, and Australia defense pact to pressure Australia into spending more on defense. Nichols notes that this system resembles authoritarian regimes where leaders focus on a few priorities while unelected functionaries drive the rest of government.
In such a system, no one is in charge except the strongman at the top. On most days, even he is not.
Bureaucratic Cruelty: Burning Food Instead of Feeding Children
Perhaps the most grotesque example of this administration's cruelty is the destruction of 500 metric tons of high nutrition biscuits meant to feed starving children. Purchased by USAID under the Biden administration, the food sat in storage in the United Arab Emirates. It was intended for children in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Instead of delivering the aid, the Trump administration ordered the biscuits to be burned. The State Department claimed that feeding Afghanistan might benefit terrorists, offering no explanation for why food destined for Pakistan was also destroyed. Now expired, the biscuits cannot even be used as animal feed. Taxpayers will spend 130,000 dollars to destroy them.
This is not just incompetence. It is malicious neglect. When a government chooses to burn food while children starve, it forfeits any claim to moral leadership. It behaves like a regime, not a republic.
Weaponizing Distraction: Epstein, Propaganda, and the Collapse of Truth
As public outrage builds over inflation, layoffs, and institutional decay, the Trump administration has turned to its favorite tactic: distraction. After economic data showed inflation rising under Trump's new tariffs, Trump tried to deflect attention by accusing Representative Adam Schiff of mortgage fraud.
This coincided with a broader media strategy to bury the story of Jeffrey Epstein. Fox News mentioned Epstein zero times on a day when the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN all led with Epstein coverage. Only one Republican House member voted for a Democratic measure requiring the release of Epstein files.
Then Wired reported that the Justice Department had released prison footage labeled as "raw," which had a two minute and 53 second gap. Journalist Garrett M. Graff remarked, "Okay, I am not generally a conspiracist, but come on DOJ, you are making it really hard to believe that you're releasing the real full evidence on Epstein."
In a democracy, truth is a safeguard. In an autocracy, it is a threat. This administration does not fear breaking laws. It fears exposure.
Conclusion: The Illusion of Democracy Is Fading
Laws are being ignored. Courts are enabling lawlessness. Congress is being bypassed. Civil servants are fleeing. Unelected ideologues are running departments. Food is being burned. And truth is being buried.
This is no longer a debate over policy or partisanship. It is a question of whether the United States remains a republic of laws or has become a nation ruled by one man.
An authoritarian government is bad for freedom, bad for justice, and bad for everyone not in power. It runs counter to everything America claims to stand for, truth, justice, and the American Way.
The Supreme Court's ruling on the Department of Education is not just another case. It is the moment the mask slips. The moment democracy stops pretending. The moment we realize no one is coming to save us but ourselves.
Sources:
Reuters (Andrew Goudsward)
The New York Times (Jason Zengerle)
The Atlantic (Tom Nichols, Hana Kiros)
CNN (interview with Russell Vought)
Wired (Dhruv Mehrotra, David Gilbert)
Public statements by Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Those of the American people who voted for this demented madman and his many co-conspirators have brought this period of deep darkness upon us all. It is they, and no one else, who should suffer the consequences of their miscast vote.
The purposeful destruction of "500 metric tons of high nutrition biscuits meant to feed starving children." Definition of evil.