Breaking It Down: Serious Questions About Power, Rights, and the Presidency

You might have heard a lot of heated talk lately about the President and the Constitution. It can get complicated, feeling like it’s all just for lawyers and politicians. But at its heart, many of the current alarms being sounded boil down to a really basic, incredibly important American idea: should our country be run by a clear set of laws that everyone, including the President, must follow, or can one person make up the rules as they go along?

Way back when America was founded, thinkers like Thomas Paine said that in free countries, “the law ought to be king.” John Adams, one of our earliest presidents, emphasized we are a “government of laws, not of men.” The idea was simple: no more kings, no more tyrants. Instead, a system of rules to protect everyone’s freedom.  

A recent, very detailed (and very long!) article in The Atlantic magazine has raised some loud alarms, suggesting that President Donald Trump, in his current term, might be side-stepping, or even directly challenging, these foundational principles. The original piece is packed with legal arguments, but the core concerns it raises are things every American should be able to understand and think about. So, let’s break it down.

What’s the Big Deal About “Rule of Law,” Anyway?

Simply put, the “rule of law” means no one is above the law – not you, not me, not the President. The Constitution is our main rulebook, and the President takes an oath to “faithfully execute” the laws it sets out.  

But The Atlantic points to some troubling moments. For instance, when President Trump was reportedly asked by interviewers if he needs to uphold the Constitution, or if every person in the U.S. is entitled to “due process” (which means a fair legal process), his answer, astonishingly, was, “I don’t know.” And when asked about the “government of laws, not men” idea, he apparently questioned it, suggesting that since “men are involved in the process of law,” he wouldn’t agree “100 percent,” adding, “ideally, you’re going to have honest men like me.”

For critics, these aren’t just casual remarks; they signal a perspective that sees personal judgment, or a leader’s own sense of what’s right, as potentially more important than established laws and constitutional guarantees.

Red Flags: When a Leader’s Actions Raise Serious Questions

The Atlantic op-ed doesn’t just focus on words; it lists a series of actions from the first few months of President Trump’s second term that it argues are serious “red flags” for the rule of law. Here are a few key examples, grouped by theme:

Using Government Power Against “Enemies” & Helping “Friends”? A core principle of American justice is that laws should apply equally to everyone. But the op-ed expresses concern that President Trump is using the vast power of the federal government to punish those he views as political opponents while rewarding his supporters. For example, on his first day back in office, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of 1,200 people involved in the January 6th Capitol attack.

Simultaneously, the article mentions that the Department of Justice has reportedly been directed to investigate former officials who were critical of him, like Chris Krebs, the cybersecurity chief who debunked claims of election fraud in 2020. Another alarming example cited is a series of executive orders targeting some of the nation’s top law firms, seemingly because they represented clients or causes the President personally disapproved of. Some firms reportedly “cut deals” to avoid this pressure, while others are fighting back in court, arguing these orders are unconstitutional attempts to punish them for their legal work and associations.  

Clashing with the Courts – Our System’s Referees: In our system, judges and the courts are like independent referees. Their job is to make sure everyone, including the President and other branches of government, plays by the rules set out in the Constitution and our laws. The Atlantic details some deeply worrying clashes. One major example is the arrest of Wisconsin State Judge Hannah Dugan in her own courthouse on federal criminal charges. The accusation was that she helped an undocumented immigrant facing misdemeanor charges leave her courtroom through a back door, allegedly to avoid ICE agents.

Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the arrest on Fox News, stating some judges “think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today…” Critics argue this action against a sitting judge on what the op-ed calls “specious” (or flimsy) charges looks like an attempt to intimidate the judiciary, the very branch of government meant to hold presidential power in check. The article also highlights the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Despite a reported Supreme Court order for the administration to “facilitate” his release and return him to the U.S., the op-ed states that, as of its writing, “nothing has been done.” If a President can ignore orders from the nation’s highest court, it raises fundamental questions about who ensures the rules are actually followed.  

Making Up New Rules – Bypassing Congress and the Constitution? Our Constitution carefully divides power. Congress makes the laws (like taxes or rules for citizenship), and the President’s job is to carry them out. The President generally can’t just create new laws or ignore existing ones on a whim. The Atlantic points to several instances where it argues President Trump is doing just that:

Global Tariffs: His unilateral imposition of massive tariffs on goods from many countries has caused a global economic crisis, according to the op-ed. It argues that the emergency laws he invoked don’t give him the authority for such sweeping, non-emergency tariffs, and that this power belongs to Congress.  

Birthright Citizenship: His executive order attempting to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents is seen as a direct assault on the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted for over 150 years to guarantee this right.  

Reorganizing Government (DOGE): The creation of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) and its efforts to dismantle or radically overhaul federal agencies without explicit congressional approval has also been challenged in court, with one judge reportedly ruling that the President “has neither constitutional nor, at this time, statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch” in such a sweeping manner.

Controlling Federal Elections: An executive order issued in March aimed at giving the President more authority over federal elections was also quickly blocked by a federal judge, who stated, “Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections.”  

Threatening Basic Rights – Like a Fair Chance (Due Process): A cornerstone of American freedom is “due process” – the idea that the government must follow fair procedures and respect your rights before it can punish you or take something away. The Atlantic expresses alarm that this is being eroded, citing President Trump’s reported statements that undocumented immigrants can’t all have trials before deportation because “The system wasn’t meant” for that. The deportation of a 2-year-old American citizen to Honduras is held up as a particularly shocking alleged violation. The administration’s use of the old “Alien Enemies Act” to try and deport alleged gang members without usual court proceedings has also been rejected by multiple federal courts as an overreach of that law.  

Why Does Any of This Matter to You?

It might seem like high-level legal stuff, but the op-ed argues these issues strike at the core of American democracy and individual liberty. If a President can selectively enforce laws, ignore court orders, create new rules without Congress, or deny people a fair process based on who they are or what the President wants, then the “government of laws” that protects everyone starts to crumble. When power becomes too concentrated in one person or when established rules are disregarded by those in power, everyone’s rights are potentially at risk. This, The Atlantic warns, is how a system designed to prevent tyranny can begin to look like one.

The Warning and the Way Forward

The Atlantic piece paints a grim picture, suggesting these first few months are a worrying harbinger and that even the Supreme Court may struggle to fully rein in a President determined to push the boundaries of his power. It concludes not with an easy answer, but with a powerful reminder from history, quoting abolitionist Frederick Douglass: “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Ultimately, the message is that understanding these fundamental principles of American governance—the rule of law, the separation of powers, due process, and constitutionally protected rights—isn’t just for lawyers or politicians. It’s for every citizen. Because, in a democracy, the ultimate check on power lies with informed people who understand what’s at stake and are prepared to stand up for those principles.