Trump Restructuring Government Raises Constitutional Concerns
President Trump’s radical restructuring of government is raising constitutional concerns as it lacks congressional authorization and threatens checks and balances inherent in American governance.
President Donald Trump, along with his appointees and acting officials, is engaged in a radical restructuring or termination of government employees, agencies, and programs. This initiative raises questions about its desirability among the electorate, including the 49.8 percent who voted for Trump and the 50.2 percent who supported Kamala Harris or third-party candidates.
However, a critical issue remains: Congress has not authorized this overhaul, and according to the Constitution, statutorily mandated agencies and programs cannot be altered or eliminated without legislative approval.
The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, dividing powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Legislative authority resides solely with Congress, while executive power is held by the president. The judiciary serves to delineate when these powers might overlap or conflict.
The ongoing radical reorganization threatens to undermine these essential checks and balances. The DOGE process presents a challenge to fundamental principles, positing that laws govern the nation rather than individuals, and highlights Congress's exclusive role in fiscal control and legislation. The president must execute laws enacted by Congress and manage executive agencies accordingly, not through unilateral action.
The president has the authority to suggest policy changes and appropriations to Congress but cannot bypass the legislative process based on political mandates. Only Congress has the power to enact laws necessary for the governance of the United States.
In instances where the president identifies areas that require reform, it is his responsibility to recommend appropriate measures to Congress, enhancing the constitutionality of policies and spending. While the president and Congress share some policy responsibilities, ultimately, federal policies enacted and funded by Congress bind the president.
The current overhaul initiated by Trump and Musk cannot align with the constitutional framework. Congressional intervention or Supreme Court action is necessary to legitimize these significant changes.
Recent Supreme Court decisions reinforce that it is Congress, not the executive, that defines the scope of policy. The court has also limited the president's deference in interpreting ambiguous laws, emphasizing the necessity for congressional involvement.
The effort to promote governmental efficiency led by Trump and Musk is orchestrated by unelected individuals lacking congressional appointment, undermining the intended checks and balances. These actions are taking place without providing transparency or recommendations to Congress or the public.
If this situation does not present a "major question" for Congress regarding its implications for American governance, then what does?
The actions surrounding DOGE contravene the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, which asserted that significant public policy changes require clear congressional authorization. Such a radical transformation without legislative backing is unconstitutional.
Judicial oversight is essential in restraining agencies that overreach their authority without legislative approval. While Trump had a legitimate electoral mandate, this does not negate Congress's role in lawmaking and policy setting. Desirable outcomes resulting from the Trump-Musk transformation do not equate to constitutional compliance.
Recent judicial rulings have not dismissed the quests for efficiency but insist on adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions. Trump can follow outlined constitutional protocols by recommending major issues for congressional deliberation. The judiciary must curtail actions by agencies or officials who act beyond their authority in the absence of legislative backing.
The Supreme Court has underscored that it is the judiciary's prerogative, not the executive branch's, to ascertain the correct interpretation of laws. All parties—Trump, Congress, and the Supreme Court—must take deliberate steps before proceeding with significant changes in governance.
