Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Shapiro argues the U.S. system of checks and balances is failing because congressional leaders have willingly given away their constitutional power to the executive branch. He finds it "pathetic and weak" that they would work to attain office only to become a rubber stamp for the president, undermining their institutional role.

Related Insights

The Trump administration's strategy for control isn't writing new authoritarian laws, but aggressively using latent executive authority that past administrations ignored. This demonstrates how a democracy's own structures can be turned against it without passing a single new piece of legislation, as seen with the FCC.

The US executive branch increasingly initiates military action by citing inherent commander-in-chief powers, sidestepping the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war. This shift, exemplified by the Venezuela operation, marks a 'third founding' of the American republic where historical checks and balances on war-making are now considered quaint.

The check on authoritarian power doesn't require a majority opposition. In the U.S. Senate, a small faction of just 20 Republicans could privately threaten to join Democrats on an impeachment vote, effectively forcing the administration to reverse course. Their inaction signals political cowardice.

Crucial U.S. institutions, while formally existing, have effectively ceased to function as checks on executive power. Congress has ceded its constitutional authority to tax and spend, and the Justice Department's independence from the White House has disintegrated, rendering them functionally inert.

The Supreme Court is systematically dismantling laws that protect heads of independent agencies (like the CFPB and FTC) from being fired at will. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," concentrating power in the presidency and eroding the apolitical nature of regulatory bodies.

Criticisms of a president's 'authoritarian tendencies' often miss the historical context. The concentration of power in the executive branch, or 'imperial presidency,' is a long-standing issue in U.S. politics, dating back to at least FDR and Nixon, and is often exacerbated by a weak and ineffective Congress.

When Congress fails to act on a major crisis, executive agencies may stretch their existing legal authorities to address the problem (e.g., the COVID eviction moratorium). This often leads to legal challenges and accusations of overreach that stem from legislative paralysis.

Representative Sharice Davids points out a common public misconception fueled by presidential rhetoric. Presidents often say "I passed this law," but their constitutional role is limited to signing or vetoing bills. The actual, complex work of drafting, negotiating, and passing legislation is the exclusive domain of Congress, a fact often obscured in political messaging.

Trump's efforts are not just breaking norms but constitute an attempt at a full-blown "political revolution." The goal is to gain direct political control over institutions like the FBI and DOJ, weaponize them against political opponents, and eliminate the checks and balances that constrain presidential power.

Senator Elizabeth Warren argues that the separation of powers is not self-enforcing; it depends on each branch jealously guarding its own authority. A constitutional crisis arises when Congress becomes compliant and allows the executive branch to usurp its powers.