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.

Increasing political influence, including presidential pressure and politically-aligned board appointments, is compromising the Federal Reserve's independence. This suggests future monetary policy may be more dovish than economic data warrants, as the Fed is pushed to prioritize short-term growth ahead of elections.

Rajan argues that a central bank's independence is not guaranteed by its structure but by the political consensus supporting it. When political polarization increases, institutions like the Fed become vulnerable to pressure, as their supposed autonomy is only as strong as the political will to uphold it.

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts related to their "core constitutional functions," such as pardoning or directing investigations. This protection applies even if the actions are performed in bad faith, creating an unprecedented shield from accountability.

Cheering for a president to use executive orders or emergency powers is short-sighted. The opposition will eventually gain power and use those same expanded authorities for policies you oppose, creating a cycle of escalating executive action.

Beyond headline-grabbing scandals, the most insidious impact of a kleptocratic administration is its refusal to enforce existing laws, from financial regulations to anti-corruption acts. This quiet dismantling of the legal framework fosters a culture of impunity where bad actors thrive, ultimately harming ordinary people and destabilizing the entire system.

Alan Blinder identifies a pending Supreme Court case on the President's power to remove a Fed governor as a potential market catalyst. An adverse ruling would set a precedent allowing political removal of governors, which could abruptly awaken "bond vigilantes" to the reality of a compromised central bank.

Alan Blinder argues that financial markets are severely underpricing the risk of political interference at the Federal Reserve. He cites the President's attempt to remove a governor and political appointments as clear threats that defy historical norms, calling it "one of the biggest underreactions" he's ever seen.

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.