Can Trump Dismantle the American Republic? Perhaps, Maybe, Mercifully Not!

Pray that everything stops short of the ultimate dystopia – the dismantling of the US Republic, writes Raghav Bahl.

It should be clear to any reasonable person that it would be a deathly spiral for America’s constitutional democracy, much beyond the shock and awe of wrecking global trade with tit-for-tat tariffs, abandoning Ukraine, allying with Russia, dismantling NATO, converting Gaza into a riviera.

(Photo: The Quint) 

I got three chilling videos of top American politicians within thirty minutes of waking up. Isn’t that the new normal, every morning, after Donald J Trump has had a full day on Truth Social while you were asleep in India? You are assaulted by a string of astonishing political clips even as you are rubbing your eyes, first from sleep, then from disbelief!

Trump Vs Mills: Trump is in a fiery spat with Janet Mills, Democratic Governor of Maine, watched by dozens of governors from the United States of America. Trump wants Mills to ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s games. Mills stoutly resists. Trump, in his trademark menacing tone: “You better comply, better comply, because, otherwise, you are not getting any federal funding”. Mills, in a couldn’t-care-less voice: “See you in court”. Trump, quickly incensed: “See you in court. That should be a real easy one. And enjoy your life after governor because I don’t think you will be in elected politics”. A bullying threat to end the conversation.

Pritzker & Nazis: JB Pritzker, Democratic Governor of Illinois, addressing the House: “If you think I am overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this – it took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours and 40 minutes to dismantle a Constitutional (Weimar) Republic”. Without raising his voice, using deadly, precise statistics, Pritzker proved how “robust” institutions can be ripped apart like paper by an evil regime.

Vance & Jackson: This one was most shocking, alluding to a podcast that JD Vance had done in 2021. Vance, sounding deeply earnest: “Stand before the country like (President) Andrew Jackson did, and say, ‘The Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it’”. I jumped out of my skin – had the Vice President of the United States made a case to openly defy the Supreme Court's ruling?

When POTUS Defies SCOTUS

Intrigued by the third video, I dug into the legacy of Andrew Jackson. He was POTUS (President of the United States) in 1832. Without getting into distracting minutiae, let me say he was an anti-native American leader who supported the conquerors’ claims on native lands. But in Worcester Vs Georgia, SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favour of the Cherokee Nation, asserting that Georgia could not impose state laws on natives. President Jackson is understood to have said, in rage, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it”.

While there is no conclusive evidence to prove he used those exact words, the implication was clear. If the President decided not to follow the court’s order, there was no military or mechanism under the court’s command which could compel the President to obey. Effectively, the US Supreme Court was seen as a toothless institution before the all-powerful POTUS. While Jackson simply ignored the judgment, his successor used a previous law to evict the Cherokee Nation in 1838, a tragic event in which thousands of native Cherokees died, called the Trail of Tears.

Was Andrew Jackson the only POTUS to vocally renege on a court order? No. President Eisenhower rejected an order to “desegregate” – ie, allow white and coloured students to share space and resources - at a public school. He defended his defiance, saying “You cannot change people’s hearts by laws”. But eventually, he gave in and sent federal troops to enforce desegregation at Little Rock Central High School in 1957. In another infamous instance, President Richard Nixon refused to comply with an order to release the Watergate Tapes; eventually, when threatened by impeachment, he too conceded. In these as well as other examples, while Presidents may have initially resisted and stalled, they did finally fall in line.

NO, WE WON’T, Mr CHIEF JUSTICE

But here’s a mind-blowing question: what if President Donald Trump, the most maverick and reckless incumbent of the Oval Office in America’s history, simply chooses to say “No Mr Chief Justice, do what the fu#@ you want, I am not going to carry out your orders. Go take a hike, sir”.

Am I fear mongering, conjuring up a situation which may never happen? Perhaps not. Several of Trump’s executive orders are being stayed or cancelled by courts across the country. Imagine if Elon Musk’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) is declared unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause since Musk has not been confirmed by the US Senate? Imagine if the court nullifies every sack order authored by Musk, instructing the Trump administration to restore all fired workers. Now finally imagine if M/s Trump & Musk say “NO, WE WON’T”. In CAPS. On TRUTH SOCIAL. What happens then?

It would be a catastrophic constitutional breakdown, and there are very few clues as to how it could unravel from there. One possible playbook could be as follows:

· Since POTUS cannot be arrested in office, SCOTUS could convict the Attorney General or White House Counsel for disobeying the court’s orders

· Theoretically, POTUS could issue an instant pardon to his convicted officers. And if the court reiterates its punishment, Trump could issue one pardon after another to thwart the court

· If SCOTUS sees these repeated pardons as an abuse of Presidential authority, the judges could use “inherent contempt” powers to punish officials for “non-criminal offences”; a pardon cannot be given against a civil offence

· There’s a helpful crevice in American laws – the President can only pardon a federal crime but cannot hold up a prosecution launched by any state. Conceivably then, strong Democratic states like New York and California could criminally charge federal officials, coercing them to comply or face their wrath. Even with extremely wide powers, Trump would be helpless to stop this

· An utterly frightening denouement would be SCOTUS using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump from office on grounds of inciting an insurrection against the Constitution, or for Trump to order the military to enforce his orders/pardons. Since there is an explicit bar on the US Army to act as a domestic law enforcement agency, the generals could demur.

I will stop extending this dystopian flight of imagined actions and reactions. It should be clear to any reasonable person that it would be a deathly spiral for America’s constitutional democracy, much beyond the shock and awe of wrecking global trade with tit-for-tat tariffs, abandoning Ukraine, allying with Russia, dismantling NATO, converting Gaza into a riviera …

Just pray that everybody and everything stops short of the ultimate dystopia, which is the dismantling of the American Republic. That should never be allowed to occur.