President Donald Trump’s second term has unfolded as a whirlwind of controversy and constitutional debate, raising urgent questions about the boundaries of executive power in the United States. From calls for investigations into political opponents to a high-profile clash with the Federal Reserve, Trump’s recent actions have drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers, legal scholars, and even Supreme Court justices, all warning of the potential erosion of foundational democratic norms.
On September 22, 2025, President Trump took to social media to publicly urge Attorney General Pam Bondi to initiate investigations into several of his well-known adversaries. Among those targeted was New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has been a frequent critic and legal opponent of the president. Trump’s open letter, posted online for all to see, signaled an aggressive legal campaign against his detractors, a move that many view as an alarming escalation in the politicization of the Justice Department. According to Devdiscourse, this public appeal was just the latest in a series of actions that have sparked widespread debates regarding free speech and the specter of political prosecution.
These concerns have only grown as the Trump administration has implemented new restrictions on Pentagon reporters and overseen the suspension of comedian Jimmy Kimmel, a prominent media figure known for his sharp criticism of the president. Critics argue that such measures not only threaten the independence of the press but also set dangerous precedents for the use of federal power to silence dissenting voices.
Senators Rand Paul and Chris Murphy have emerged as vocal opponents of these tactics, warning that the normalization of using the Justice Department for personal vendettas could fundamentally alter the nature of American governance. Senator Paul stated, “We must not allow the Justice Department to become a tool for personal retribution. That’s the path of authoritarian regimes, not constitutional republics.” Senator Murphy echoed these concerns, emphasizing the ethical and constitutional implications of the president’s actions.
The debate has not been confined to the legislative branch. In a recent dissent from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dire warning: “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.” Her words, published in Liberal Currents, have taken on new significance as the Trump administration’s principal project appears to be pushing the United States closer to the tipping point she described.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this trend is the administration’s ongoing effort to remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and draft a letter seeking the dismissal of Fed chair Jerome Powell. The White House has justified these moves by invoking the Vesting Clause, asserting that the president enjoys “essentially unlimited control over the executive branch,” and that any congressional limits on dismissal powers are unconstitutional. This doctrine, known as “unitary executive theory,” has become a central pillar of the administration’s legal strategy.
Supporters of Trump’s approach, such as Sohrab Ahmari—Unherd’s U.S. editor and cofounder of Compact magazine—have argued that challenging the independence of the Federal Reserve is a warranted reassertion of democratic control over the economy. Ahmari draws a parallel between Trump and President Andrew Jackson, who famously waged war against the Bank of the United States in the 1830s. “At issue, now as then, is whether the shape and management of US currency and the money supply should be subject to democratic contestation—or left to the supposedly ‘neutral’ determination of expert bankers,” Ahmari contends.
Yet, as Liberal Currents points out, historians and constitutional scholars see troubling echoes in this comparison. Daniel Walker Howe, in his Pulitzer-winning history What Hath God Wrought, describes how Jackson’s battle with the Bank was less a populist uprising than a personal vendetta, fueled by grievances and a belief in his own embodiment of the people’s will. Jackson’s efforts to remove federal deposits from the Bank, culminating in the firing of Treasury Secretary William J. Duane, triggered a constitutional crisis over the limits of presidential power. When Duane refused to comply with Jackson’s orders, Jackson replaced him with Roger Taney, who promptly redirected federal funds to state banks—a move so controversial that it nearly prompted mass resignations within the cabinet.
Senator Henry Clay, a leading critic of Jackson, warned in a Senate speech in 1833, “The real inquiry is, shall all the barriers which have been created by the caution and wisdom of our ancestors, for the preservation of civil liberty, be prostrated and trodden under foot, and the sword and the purse be at once united in the hands of one man?” Clay’s words resonate today as Congress and the courts grapple with the implications of Trump’s actions. Daniel Webster, another statesman of the era, cautioned that if the president is allowed to become the “single representative of the American people,” America risks becoming what “this constitution has never created, and what I cannot contemplate, but with profound alarm.”
Legal scholars Lawrence Lessig and Cass Sunstein have argued that the firing of Duane marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of presidential power, representing “perhaps our last glimpse of the framers’ conception of the President’s power.” The parallels between Jackson’s overreach and Trump’s current efforts have not gone unnoticed by today’s lawmakers and commentators, many of whom see in these actions a dangerous drift toward unchecked executive authority.
The stakes of these constitutional battles extend far beyond the personalities involved. As Justice Jackson observed, the gradual expansion of executive power threatens to undermine the delicate system of checks and balances that has defined American democracy for more than two centuries. The question facing the nation now is whether Congress and the courts can reassert their authority to “place fetters on a would-be king,” or whether the presidency will continue its march toward uncontainable power.
As the Trump administration presses ahead with its agenda—targeting political opponents, seeking to reshape the Federal Reserve, and challenging long-standing norms—the United States stands at a crossroads. The outcome will determine not only the fate of individual officials but also the future character of the Republic itself.
Each day brings new developments, new debates, and new warnings from those who fear what lies ahead. Yet the historical record, from Jackson’s Bank War to the present moment, offers a sobering reminder: the contest to “rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power” is as old as the Republic itself, and its outcome remains uncertain.