On Thursday, October 16, 2025, the usually quiet Paino Lecture Hall pulsed with anticipation as students, faculty, and community members gathered for a talk that promised to cut through the fog of today’s political turbulence. The speaker, Judge J. Michael Luttig—a conservative stalwart of the federal judiciary and, more recently, a prominent critic of former President Donald Trump—took the stage for a lecture titled “Trump v. The Rule of Law.” The event, sponsored by the Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought Department, became a focal point for a campus and a country wrestling with what it means when the highest office in the land is accused of subverting the very laws it is sworn to uphold.
Judge Luttig, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals from 1991 to 2006, wasted no time in laying out his concerns. He described how, in his view, Trump’s administration—and particularly the early days of his second term—had ushered in what he called “the end of the rule of law.” Luttig’s critique was pointed, grounded in his own constitutional analysis of Trump’s most recent flurry of executive initiatives. “I actually did the constitutional analysis [for] these 12 or 15 initiatives ... every single one [of them] was flagrantly unconstitutional, or otherwise in violation of the laws of the United States,” he told the audience, according to The Amherst Student.
But Luttig’s criticism went beyond legal technicalities. He argued that Trump and the MAGA movement are not conservative in any traditional sense, but rather “radicals.” He pointed to the January 6, 2025 insurrection as a watershed moment—a “revolution against the United States government.” In Luttig’s words, “Trump and MAGA are not conservative, and [no matter what Trump] says whatsoever, they’re the opposite.” He warned that Trump’s disregard for constitutional limits could even extend to seeking a third term, despite explicit prohibitions. “It is likely that Donald Trump would run for a third [term] in office, notwithstanding the Constitution. He [doesn’t] care about that,” Luttig declared.
Luttig’s concerns about constitutional erosion did not end with Trump himself. He sharply criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for, in his view, enabling Trump to push through controversial policies. “All of Trump’s initiatives have been struck down by the lower courts. As soon as they’ve been struck down, Trump goes to the Court and claims, ‘You need to hear this case on an emergency basis,’” Luttig explained. He argued that the Court, by acting on these emergency appeals without issuing opinions, was “acting illegitimately.” He reserved particular scorn for the Court’s handling of the aftermath of January 6, noting that when counsel raised the question of whether Trump was disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the justices demurred. “The Supreme Court didn’t want to decide whether Trump was disqualified, but that’s their job,” Luttig said. “[If] you’re not going to decide the biggest cases in the land, [you] shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court.”
Luttig also called out Trump’s willingness to bend constitutional interpretation to his own ends—citing, for example, his use of emergency powers to levy tariffs and his unprecedented rally at the Department of Justice, where he threatened to prosecute political enemies. “That’s not the rule of law in America. That’s the antithesis of the rule of law,” Luttig asserted.
As for how to oppose what he sees as a dangerous trajectory, Luttig’s advice was sobering. “Trump has cut the American people off from every other means of challenging him and his language,” he said, suggesting that protest movements such as the No Kings Day Protests—held just two days after his talk—might be the only remaining avenue for meaningful resistance. “That is the only thing that stands a chance,” he concluded.
Students in attendance were struck by Luttig’s candor and his willingness to critique both Trump and the broader political and judicial systems. Sofie Robinson, a first-year student, reflected, “I think it’s interesting how he was talking about how there’s nothing wrong with the Constitution, and the problem is with the people who are executing or claiming to execute the Constitution.” Caroline Pulask, a sophomore, appreciated hearing from a conservative with deep experience “reflecting on how twisted it’s become.” Audren Hedges Duroy, another first-year, called Luttig’s outlook grim but necessary, noting, “I think that’s probably what’s most important right now, given that the legislative branch is doing nothing and can’t do anything.”
This campus conversation unfolded against a broader national backdrop of intensifying debate over Trump’s leadership and legacy. Just days later, an article published on October 22, 2025, in the LSE USAPP blog delved into President Trump’s personality and behavior, describing them as irrational, delusional, narcissistic, and nihilistic. The article noted Trump’s recent suggestion that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” should be recognized as a disease—a claim the author dismissed, instead proposing that “Trump Delusion Syndrome” better explains the former president’s enduring popularity among his base.
The author of the LSE USAPP piece argued that Trump’s actions—particularly his role in fomenting the January 6 insurrection and his extortion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—were not only disqualifying for the presidency, but also led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives, with bipartisan support for conviction in the Senate. The article noted that Trump’s legal troubles are unprecedented: “No US presidents have been convicted of a felony, let alone 34 felonies, before Trump and have suffered defeats in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation.” Trump’s financial gains from his presidency, his attacks on democratic institutions, and his hostile policies toward immigration and innovation were all cited as evidence of his unsuitability for office.
Economically, the article pointed to the 2025 Nobel Prize in economics, awarded to three immigrants to the United States, as a rebuke to Trump’s anti-immigration stance and his policies’ chilling effect on innovation. The piece also critiqued common explanations for Trump’s electoral victories, arguing that his supposed strengths—economic nationalism, bombast, and demographic appeal—do not stand up to scrutiny given the harm his policies have caused, especially to those who support him most fervently.
Perhaps most strikingly, the article compared Trump to Chauncey Gardiner, the protagonist of the 1979 satirical film Being There, suggesting that Trump’s supporters project their hopes and desires onto him, regardless of his actual record or character. White Evangelicals, for instance, are said to overlook Trump’s personal flaws, viewing his election as part of God’s plan. The author concluded with a note of cautious optimism: “With time and a greater understanding by more of the public of Trump’s character and the effects of his policies, we can hope that ‘Trump Delusion Syndrome’ and his MAGA movement will eventually disappear and be remembered only as an unfortunate chapter in American presidential history.”
As America continues to grapple with the legacy and ongoing influence of Donald Trump, voices like Judge Luttig’s and the critical analysis from academic observers serve as reminders that the health of the republic depends on vigilance, honest debate, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths—even, or especially, when they come from within.
