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.

While President Trump has a mandate to address immigration, his administration's forceful tactics are losing public support and face legal challenges on constitutional grounds. This demonstrates that a perceived electoral mandate is not a blank check for any method of implementation, especially when tactics clash with public sentiment and legal norms.

Despite the Supreme Court striking down his tariff authority under one law, Trump will likely find a new legal justification to continue imposing them. The economic leverage tariffs provide for international negotiations is too valuable for his administration to relinquish, signaling a potential constitutional conflict.

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.

The expansion of executive power and erosion of political norms, such as state intervention in corporate decisions or attacks on media, will not be reversed. Future administrations, regardless of party, are unlikely to relinquish these new powers. A Democrat could use state capitalism to promote renewables just as a Republican uses it for oil.

Past administrations expanded surveillance via subtle legal maneuvers in secret courts. The Trump administration’s blunt, public demands for broad powers force a mainstream confrontation over these issues. This lack of sophistication may ironically trigger a public reckoning that secrecy previously prevented.

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.

The Trump administration operates "extra-constitutionally" not by directly breaking laws, but by creating bureaucratic chaos. By claiming incorrect venues or unclear authority, they engage in a "cat and mouse game" that paralyzes the legal system and operates as if the Constitution doesn't exist.