Donald Trump signed his 69th executive order on Tuesday under the unassuming title "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies." Though the day's attention was diverted by other headline-grabbing stories, experts are now denouncing this order as nothing short of a power grab, one aimed at consolidizing presidential authority to alarming degrees.
The order has raised concerns it could position Trump as an elected dictator, with experts like Frank Bowman, a law professor and former federal prosecutor, calling it breathtaking. "The essence of it is Donald Trump is trying, quite consciously, to make himself an elected dictator," he stated, describing the effects of the order as having big implications for democracy.
The executive order proposes to tighten oversight of independent regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, which could be interpreted as beneficial for accountability. Yet the order contains language allowing Trump to effectively decide the law and dictate who must comply. Critics argue this is not merely about enhanced transparency; its details grant the president authority far exceeding mere oversight.
"Previous administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal presidential supervision," the order claims. The text alleges these agencies hold substantial authority without appropriate accountability. Joe Morelle, the top congressional Democrat on the house administration committee, labeled the order as "an unprecedented violation of American rule of law" and warned it could lead to political corruption.
If enacted, the order opens doors for Trump to cater to personal and political interests. Critics have expressed fears he might rule certain entities exempt from financial regulations, which could favor allies—including billionaires like Elon Musk—essentially blurring the lines between governance and personal interests.
Bowman noted the executive order could pose fundamental threats to democracy, particularly as it aligns with the ambitious political doctrine of the "unitary executive theory," which diminishes the constitutional checks and balances meant to restrain presidential power.
Regulatory systems, established to protect independence for specific agencies by granting them flexibility affording specialist knowledge, would be eroded under Trump’s proposed reforms, critics contend. The very independence of these agencies, designated to operate outside direct presidential influence, would be compromised under this new structure, raising alarm bells.
Russell Vought, who heads the office of management and budget and is embroiled with plans for enhancing Trump’s control over governance, has drawn scrutiny. Critics are concerned about Vought's other proposals, which include enabling Trump to override Congressional spending decisions. This potential shift fundamentally alters the power balance outlined by American democracy.
Bowman pointed out the irony inherent to Trump's actions: the president has opted to keep some actions of the Federal Reserve independent, ostensibly to avoid market crashes and financial panic. Critics suggest if the rationale claims independent agencies are unconstitutional, the president cannot selectively exempt others from oversight.
Even conservatives traditionally aligned with Trump have shown unease over some aspects of the executive order. For example, Gregg Nunziata of the Society for the Rule of Law cautioned against increasing indications from the White House implying the law is whatever the president asserts. He articulated, "The law is what Congress passes, and the Supreme Court interprets, and the president has to obey the law.”
This executive order has incited fears over re-defining the law itself, potentially permitting Trump’s interpretations to conflict with established definitions. Bowman illustrated this point by stating, "If the president wakes up one morning and says he thinks these statutes criminalizing bribery shouldn’t apply to him, the Justice Department would have to adopt his interpretation completely.”
While debate swirls over the ramifications of this executive order, the guardian structures of American democracy seem vulnerable. The normal checks against executive overreach, traditionally empowered by Congress, have been effectively suppressed or weakened under Trump’s tenure. Bowman states the Republican party currently displays fearfulness about using legislative powers against the president, which otherwise could be pivotal to curbing remnant actions deemed authoritarian.
Global parallels paint concerning pictures as the advice from experts suggests the U.S. is already on thin ice when assessing transitions toward authoritarianism. Parlaying information from other nations about defying democratic norms, it becomes clear the U.S. is experiencing significant shifts resembling more autocratic models.
Political leaders express greater undercurrents threatening to alter the very fabric of democracy under the guise of accountability. Experts are growing increasingly alarmed about the path being treaded not only for future governors but for the nation’s identity itself. The specter of dictatorship is being raised by those who recognize the precarious position of democracy.
While Trump’s executive order may appear as another bureaucratic maneuver, its breadth raises legitimate concerns about the future of accountability, governance, and the rule of law. The overarching debate echoes back to Trump’s presidency and whether the framework established by the Founding Fathers can remain intact amid such sweeping changes.
Scrutiny will continue to form around this executive order, and oppositional voices will likely amplify should it cut too deep. Constitutional scholars and ethical observers must fight to retain the checks and balances enough to prevent slipping toward autocracy, ensuring the preservation of democracy remains at the fore.
America stands at the crossroads, having to retake its grip on the rule of law as it navigates through these tumultuous political waters forged under the shadows of authoritarianism. The reactions against Trump’s actions might very well dictate whether American democracy can survive this presidency.
Without decisive intervention from the legislative branch and the public, Trump's perceived proximal dictatorship may signal dark times for the nation's governance.