President Trump describes himself as a consequential President. Regrettably, that is true. There is little doubt he will leave America different than it was when he took office.
Donald Trump has worked hard to be consequential. But he hasn’t done this by working with Congress. Instead, he has aggressively expanded Executive Power beyond that exercised by any recent President. (Trump also has worked overtime to make sure he is remembered after he leaves office, unfortunately through stunts like proposing to rename the Kennedy Center after himself, building his ballroom, festooning the White House in Gold, and, planning to hold an Ultimate Fighting Championship fight at the White House next June.)
Many of us have been horrified by some of Trump’s actions. The firing of thousands of federal employees shortly after Inauguration Day comes to mind, as do the recent military strikes on suspected drug boats, and the unnecessary and irresponsible closure of the federal government.
But many others, presumably including the President’s MAGA base, praise Trump’s actions, citing “successes,” including border security and “cutting government waste,” as well as ICE raids and deportations, “ending DEI at elite colleges” and, ironically, “ending the weaponization of the Department of Justice.”
One friend of mine who is reluctant to criticize Trump suggests that fear of change prompts opposition to Trump’s policies and actions. As the friend puts it, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
President Trump has broken a lot of eggs, but what is often more disturbing than the particulars of some of the eggs being broken is how he went about breaking them. When legislative authorization did not exist, as was the case with the Trump tariffs and dozens of other actions taken via Executive Orders, he has moved forward without one.
In Trump’s mind, his ends justified the means. To me and the eight million people worried that Trump sees himself as a king, the ends don’t. Simply put, even if I were to agree with Trump policies, he should not pursue them in violation of the Constitution.
In recent conversations, I have been surprised to find otherwise reasonable people tell me that while they don’t agree with “everything Trump is doing,” they hesitate to suggest that Trump is destroying the Constitution by violating it.
Do you agree with President Trump that his ends justify his means?
I don’t. I want the President to act in accordance with the Constitution—and I mean with the Constitution as written, not as the current Supreme Court sometimes interprets it. I do not want suspected drug boats to be destroyed in a macho “shoot first and let God sort it out” attacks, even if fewer shipments of deadly drugs headed to America are intercepted.
And I don’t want federal agencies and programs authorized and funded by Congress to be closed via Executive Orders. I want Congress to determine the laws of the land. I want the President to carry out those laws. Period.
The Constitution and democracy have become endangered species because we have a President who believes he is above the law. That is scary. It is also why Congressional power must be restored in the 2026 mid-term elections.
Don’t forget that election day 2026—November 3rd— is less than a year away. It’s time to get busy.
J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, goldendoodles, and other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.
Bob Parker says
The philosophy of “the ends justifies the means” was a central tenet of anther wannabe strongman in the early 20th century who also became known and referred to by his last name – Lenin! And trump and the MAGA crowd have the gall to call the Democrats, of any stripe, as socialists, communists and Marxists! trump, like many strongmen in the 20th and 21st centuries is all about self-aggondizement – Lenin, Stalin, Franco, Veronica and Castro come quickly to mind. What trump has in common with them is the belief that THEY are the state and that all of the state machinery exists to serve THEM! (Hmmm, I guess trump and the MAGA crowd actually do like the “they/them” pronouns!)
But trump, like those who proceeded him, did not gain control by themselves; each had the fittingly (or is it “wittless”) assistance of those who agree with the retooling of the state machinery to the benefit of ” the dear leader” – these were the “fellow travellers”, while others just didn’t understand or recognize the lies and deceit – these individuals were referred to as “useful idiots”! While there are many in Congress, the Judiciary and Administration who fall into the 1st category, trump could not have accomplished what he has without the many more in the 2nd category of supporters.
A reminder, while there were monarchs and emperors in history who festooned themselves and their surroundings with ornate gold and glitter, it was not the gold that determined their greatness, and many times it was the opulence of their regime that caused their downfall. It was Louis XIV (the Sun King) who said “L’Etate c’est moi” (I am the state) is remembered not for the opulence of Versailles, but rather for the oppression of his subjects. I doubt if any Frenceman today would want to go back to that time. My question: are we willing to shout that “trump has no clothes” and push back on his authoritarian agenda?
John E Dean says
Thank you for your comment.
I believe we are willing to shout that “Trump has no clothes” and to push back on his authoritarian agenda. I think I already see signs of that happening, not only because of the deepening Epstein scandal, but because of the ICE raids, the attacks on boats suspected of carrying drugs, and his abuse of the DOJ.
Mary Smith says
The “ends don’t justify the means” lesson applies directly to Talbot County. Conservation has been used as an excuse for elitist policies that freeze villages in place, cut off jobs and services, and push seniors, families, and young people farther from basic needs. The result is rising hunger, addiction, isolation, and a shrinking tax base while opportunity disappears.
And we know who gains. These policies protect the preferences of wealthy elites and donors while excluding working families and anyone without privilege. Conservation here functions less like stewardship and more like a system of segregation that marginalizes whole communities. If the means worsen life for most residents just to serve the whims of a few, then the ends are not just.
John E Dean says
Thank you for reading my piece and for your comment.
Deirdre LaMotte says
I remember when Walmart tried to enter Chestertown in the early 1990s. It became a “class issue”. Curious
since “the class” it hurt the most those who wanted Walmart. The research showed, for example, a young man from Kent County High School who did not want to attend college but would open a hunting store.
Walmart would have put him out of business. Perhaps he could have worked in Walmart as a salesman
because his business would never survive Walmart’s economy of scale pricing.
His business would have kept alive smaller stores that cater to locals, that give to local sports teams and
support local initiatives. The profits would not be sent to Bentonville, Arkansas. And as a family member from Easton said, once Walmart enters all the chains follow….
We defeated Walmart and retain a small town with local businesses. Yeah, not everything is within
5 minutes, but we are not clobbered by megastores. We also do not have the intense wealth in Kent County that Talbot has. This has kept our downtown rather middle class with a rather good mix of
local businesses and restaurants.
Seriously, I am sick of communities being taken over by mega rich on one end and mega stores on the other. It seems so out of scale and the opposite of “community”.
Mary Smith says
I agree. Nobody wants megastores taking over. The problem in Talbot is different. We used to have boatbuilding, canneries, trades, corner stores, and walkable villages with real community life. Those weren’t “big box,” they were local. Today, zoning and conservation rules have shut out even those kinds of businesses. We need the small-scale industry and services that once sustained our villages and are now legally impossible.