(Part 2 of a 4-part series)

In this article we focus on proposals from Trump and the conservatives that give rise to concerns about dictatorial and authoritarian rule.  We’ll touch on why Republicans view the proposals as necessary to correct for abuses of the Left and an out-of-control federal government.  Then, after enumerating the major recommendations, we’ll assess them in depth, using a systematic and objective framework. And, finally, we’ll explore whether the proposals could backfire on Republicans.  

Background and context for the proposals

The proposals to expand presidential power come from two sources. First, there’s Agenda 47, which can be found on Trump’s 2024 Presidential website. And, second, there’s Project 2025, a 920-page document published by the Heritage Foundation.

To begin, we should be aware of some important context for these recommendations. Both Agenda 47 and Project 2025 paint the picture of a federal government that is far too big, too intrusive, corrupt, and ineffective.  Further, it is the Democrats who have created these intolerable conditions.  It is in this context that Agenda 47 and Project 2025 make recommendations to expand the authority of the President.  That is, the only way to fix the problems is to give the President more power and control.  

To convey a better sense of this context, here are some direct quotes from Project 2025 and Agenda 47:  

“Sadly, however, a President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country.” 

Project 2025, Page 43

“So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year.
• Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity;
• Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms;
• Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists;
• Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and
• Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about ‘intersectionality’ and abortion.”

Project 2025, Page 7

“The now-famous ‘Twitter Files’ have proven beyond all doubt that the corrupt officials at the FBI have been coordinating a massive censorship, surveillance, and propaganda campaign against the American People, and frankly against me. In the most recent and notorious example, the FBI worked to stop the truth from being told about the Biden Family’s criminality —they worked so hard to stop it from coming out — and the corruption prior to the 2020 election. They didn’t want any bad information to come out about the Biden family. The fix was in, the election was rigged.”

Former President Trump, Agenda 47–Call for Probe Into Online Censorship

“Ultimately, the Left does not believe that all men are created equal—they think they are special. They certainly don’t think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else. They don’t think any citizen, state, business, church, or charity should be allowed any freedom until they first bend the knee.“

Project 2025, page 16

What then are the Right’s most provocative recommendations to expand presidential powers?

Project 2025 systematically addresses every agency and aspect of the federal executive branch. It offers scores of detailed recommendations for the next conservative administration.  In essence, it is a complete reference guide—a Bible—designed to bring everyone up to speed. On the other hand, Agenda 47 collects Trump’s talking points on what he’ll do when he returns to office.  

For this article, I reviewed both of these sources as well as numerous articles written about them.  I developed a list of what I dub the most provocative power-expanding recommendations. Here then are brief descriptions, including links to proposals, for ten of those proposals.

1. Major shift from civil service to political appointments: To gain control over the administrative state, the president would adopt an Executive Order. It would shift tens of thousands of employees with policy-influencing roles from civil service jobs to political appointments of the president (see also Project 2025, pages 20-21). The number of federal political appointees would thus grow from about 4,000 to 50,000. These political appointees would lose civil service protection. This would help pursue Trump’s goal that, “every executive branch employee would be fireable by the President of the United States.”
2. Fix schools taken over by left-wing maniacs: To save American education and schools Trump declares, “we will cut federal funding for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children. . . We will begin to find and remove the radicals, zealots, and Marxists who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education. . . And we will create a new credentialing body that will be the Gold Standard, anywhere in the world, to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values, support our way of life, and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children, but very simply to educate them.” Trump also states that he will “implement massive funding preferences and favorable treatment” for states and school districts that abolish teacher tenure, and drastically cut administrators, especially “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion bureaucracy.”     
3. Fire college accreditors and impose new accreditation standards: To address colleges and academics who have been “obsessed with indoctrinating America’s youth” the President will, “fire the radical Left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics.“  New accreditors will be hired to impose standards that, “include defending the American tradition and Western civilization, protecting free speech, eliminating wasteful administrative positions that drive up costs incredibly, removing all Marxist diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats . . .”
4. Tax, fine, and sue college endowments to create an American Academy: To further address colleges and universities that turn students into Communists and terrorists, “we will take the billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments, and we will then use that money to endow a new institution called the American Academy.”  The Academy will compete directly with the existing university system by granting degrees recognized by the U.S. government and all federal contractors.
5. Abolish the Department of Education: To address undue federal intrusion in micromanaging education policy, the Department of Education will be eliminated.
6. Bring certain independent agencies under Presidential control: To gain control over the administrative state, independent federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be brought under the control of the President.
7. End “left-wing gender insanity being pushed on our children”:  Trump declares he will “sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age. . . I will declare that any hospital or healthcare provider that participates in the chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare—and will be terminated from the program immediately. . . My Department of Education will inform states and school districts that if any teacher or school official suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body, they will be faced with severe consequences, including potential Civil Rights violations for sex discrimination, and the elimination of federal funding.”
8. End free speech censorship by federal agencies and employees: To address free speech censorship by “a sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media”  Trump says he will, “sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business, or person, to censor, limit, categorize, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as ‘mis-‘ or ‘dis-information’. And I will begin the process of identifying and firing every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship—directly or indirectly—whether they are the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, the DOJ, no matter who they are.”
9. Restore the impoundment power of the President: Trump plans to use the impoundment power to cut waste, stop inflation, and crush the deep state.  In cases where the President determines that more funding was provided than needed, the President will be able to unilaterally return funds to the treasury.  Under current law, the president can request a “recission” but the request must be approved by Congress.  Trump argues that while the impoundment power was removed by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CBA), this legislation is unconstitutional.  He plans to restore the impoundment power by challenging the constitutionality of the CBA or getting Congress to restore the power.  
10. Conduct the largest deportation in American history and end birthright citizenship: Finally, as to illegal immigration, Trump declares he will, “undertake the largest domestic deportation in American history” (in speeches, but not in Agenda 47).  To accomplish this he will, “shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement,” including parts of the FBI, Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  Also, to prevent children born to illegal immigrants in the US from being citizens, Trump will issue an executive order to make clear that “going forward, the children of illegal aliens will not be granted automatic citizenship, and should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.  I will direct federal agencies to require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.”  

Let’s assess these recommendations systematically and objectively.

Media coverage of Project 2025 and Agenda 47 has been extensive. However, most treatments provide little analysis beyond describing the recommendations and identifying potential threats. In addition, there is no shortage of partisan reviews that condemn the proposals as democracy-destroying dictatorship. For our analysis, we’ll set aside these superficial and partisan critiques. Instead. we’ll conduct an objective and systematic assessment, applying the following the criteria to each of the ten proposals:
• Can it (the proposal) be imposed unilaterally (i.e., without action by Congress)?
• Is it vulnerable to successful to legal challenge?
• How much does it expand the power of the President and federal government? And is the expansion is consistent with the separation of powers and the Constitution’s intent to limit the size and scope of the federal government?
• And, given the analysis, what actual threats to democracy are presented?

Shift from civil service to political appointments: The proposed shift would give the president far more ability to hire employees who specifically support his/her agenda. The president would also have far more ability to fire employees who do not carry out presidential objectives and directives.

In October of 2020, Trump adopted an Executive Order (known as “Schedule F”). It shifted employees with policy-influencing roles from civil service to political appointments. This shift was estimated to increase the number of political appointees from about 4,000 to up to 50,000. These positions were exempted from civil service hiring procedures as well as civil service protections regarding discipline and removal.  They would be fireable at will.  Legal challenges were mounted but not pursued because Biden revoked this Executive Order shortly after taking office.  

Under existing law, federal employees take an oath of office. They promise to support and defend the Constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to faithfully discharge their duties of office.  The loyalty of employees is thus to the Constitution and the rule of law, rather than to the President.  Under Schedule F, a political appointee could be fired for not carrying out a directive, even if the employee believes the directive is unconstitutional or illegal. 

Compared with other countries, the federal workforce of the United States already has a higher percentage of political employees.  A study by the Brookings Institution found that increased reliance of political appointees “undermines government capacity and performance.”  Having more political appointees also undermines legal accountability in situations where loyalty to the president conflicts with the oath of office.

Should a policy such as Schedule F be imposed by executive order it would surely be challenged in court.  It’s probable, but not certain, that the order would be put on hold during court proceedings.  Currently, the Biden Administration is pursuing regulation changes to protect against such an order.  Also, legislation has also been introduced to curtail this option but is not likely to pass.  In the final analysis, the US Supreme Court would likely determine the matter.  Given its current composition and recent opinions, there’s a chance that something like Schedule F would be upheld.  

Overall, this recommendation presents a serious threat to democracy. Trump promises to re-issue the Executive Order if elected and has identified around 50,000 positions to be reclassified.  Also, the Heritage Foundation has reportedly developed a personnel data base that could be used to fill up to 20,000 of these political appointments.  These planning efforts show serious intent.  The action will enable the President to hire tens of thousands of policy-influencing employees based heavily on their loyalty to his/her agenda.  Worse, employees who believe that the President’s demands or actions are unconstitutional or illegal would no longer be protected.  Non-complying employees could simply be terminated and replaced with employees who carry out the President’s will. This represents a clear move towards dictatorship and authoritarian rule.  

2. Fix schools taken over by left-wing maniacs:  Most of the actions described in this proposal could not be imposed unilaterally by the President.  Also, unilateral action could probably be successfully challenged in court.  Prior attempts to cut federal funding via executive order have been successfully challenged in court, including sanctuary cities. Generally speaking, Congress has the power of the purse, and it would have to specifically provide the President with discretion to cut funding.  

Removing radicals, Marxists, etc. from the Department of Education would be possible if the effort to shift to political appointments is successful. 

Creating a new credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace patriotic and other specified values would require action by Congress.

Massive funding incentives for states and school districts to abolish tenure and programs for diversity, equity and inclusion could not be done unilaterally. It would require action by Congress, as well as action by states and school districts.  In the event that a Republican is elected as president and Republicans capture control of both houses of Congress, the prospects for these actions become slightly more feasible.

Regardless of feasibility, however, the actions set forth in this recommendation significantly expand the role of the president and the federal government. When it comes to matters of school policy–including race, gender, sexual orientation, curriculum, teacher credentialing, tenure, and other educational matters–the states and local governments have traditionally exercised primary responsibility. This is consistent with the Constitution and especially the 10^th Amendment, which reserves power to the states and the people.  The proposal usurps these powers.  In essence, the president and federal government would be enabled to impose the Republican party’s position on “Culture War” matters.  States and local school districts could lose federal funding and would be punished and pressured unless they complied.  This is dictatorial.  The proposal also conflicts with the separation of powers.  Congress establishes laws on nondiscrimination, the courts interpret these laws (especially the Constitution), and federal agencies enforce the laws and regulations.  Federal agencies (e.g., the Department of Education) can advise school districts on what the law is, but they cannot make law. Nor can the president. 

3. Fire college accreditors and impose new accreditation standards:  The president, acting alone, could neither fire existing college accreditors nor establish new accreditation standards.  Both accreditors and accreditation standards are matters controlled by non-government accreditation agencies.  Pursuant to current law (the Higher Education Act of 1965) the Secretary of Education is required by to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies. Such agencies are determined to be reliable authorities on the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education and the higher education programs they accredit. 

Existing law does not provide the federal government with authority to choose accreditation agencies or dictate accreditation standards.  Project 2025 specifically recognizes that Congress must be involved when it comes to reforms in the accreditation process (see pages 351-353). 

Arguably, under current law, the president could direct the Secretary of Education to remove all existing accrediting agencies from the Department’s list of approved agencies. The Department could then list only one agency the meets the specifications approved by the president.  However, the states and the higher education institutions themselves still have the power to select the agencies that do accreditation.  Also, this action would surely be challenged in court.  At most, the president could inject chaos into the existing accreditation process, perhaps leveraging statutory changes to provide the federal government more authority regarding accreditation agencies and standards.

Finally, it again should be recognized that giving the president and the federal government control over accreditation, accrediting agencies, and accreditation standards represents a major expansion in the role of the president and federal government. The states and the higher education institutions themselves have  exercised responsibility for accreditation and accreditation standards going back to the early 1900’s.  For the federal government to usurp this authority conflicts with the 10^th Amendment.

4. Tax, fine, and sue college endowments to create an American Academy:  Trump’s proposal does not identify any existing legal authority for the government to tax, fine or sue college endowment because of their behaviors. I also could not find any legal authority to go after endowments because “they’re turning our students into Communists and terrorists and sympathizers of many, many different dimensions.”   Absent statutory authority, this recommendation could not be implemented unilaterally.  Action by Congress would be required.

Let’s set aside the question of legal authority for a moment. This proposal would greatly expand of the role of the president and federal government on higher education matters.  It would create an American Academy that “competes directly with the existing . . . system” by providing instruction and granting degrees.  An even more questionable expansion is empowering the federal government to tax, fine, and sue endowments on account of vague and unproven behaviors. 

5. Abolish the Department of Education:  Project 2025 and Trump (in speeches, but not in Agenda 47) call for shutting down the Department of Education.  This action could not be taken unilaterally, and instead would require action by Congress.  Even if Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, as long as there are at least 41 Democrats in the Senate, they could filibuster legislation to abolish the Department.  On the other hand, rules regarding filibuster could be changed by Republicans should they gain control of the Senate in 2024.

Overall, the threat to abolish the Department of Education is more of a rallying cry than an actual threat to democracy.  Given the mission, size, and scope of the Department of Education, it’s not micromanaging anything. Authorizing legislation creating the Department (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88) specifically limits its scope. Thus, the Department does not establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, set requirements for enrollment and graduation, or determine education standards.  Because education in the US is decentralized, the states and local schools have primary authority regarding education.   Policies and actions being condemned in Project 2025 and Agenda 47 aren’t those of the Department. Rather, they emanate from federal and state statutes, state constitutions, local school boards, and accreditation standards adopted by accrediting bodies.  

Thus, the Department is being condemned not for its behavior, but for actions and policies of the states and local governments.  The Department has 4,400 employees, the smallest of the Cabinet agencies.  While its budget is large, a huge portion of these funds are allocated directly to students for purposes of financial aid (e.g., Pell Grants and student loans).  The Department also grants funds to K-12 schools and colleges for a variety of purposes.  Other functions include prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education, as well as collecting data and disseminating research. 

Ironically, Trump wants to abolish the Department so that he can return policymaking to state and local governments.  It turns out that this is already the case. Thus, abolishing the Department would have little or no effect on curing the alleged ills. To the extent that these programs and policies that offend Republicans actually exist, they will continue.

6. Bring independent agencies (FCC and FTC) under presidential control:  A president could not unilaterally transfer an independent federal agency to his/her direct control.  Because independent agencies have been established by statute, Congress would have to act to accomplish the transfer. 

This recommendation is dictatorial. It would give the president control over agencies that were intended to have a degree of independence and insulation from the president.  By law, independent agencies are accountable to Congress, and not to the President.  

Independent agencies are typically governed by boards or commissions with multi-year and staggered appointments.  While presidents make the appointments to these boards, they can only replace or reappoint members whose terms have expired.  Appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.  Also, statutes usually require the president to make bipartisan appointments.  Statutes also give these independent agencies other freedoms from presidential edicts, including executive orders.   

The agencies to be shifted to presidential control are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. It licenses radio and television broadcast stations and assigns radio frequencies.  Its role includes jurisdiction over broadband access, fair competition, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security. The FTC enforces federal antitrust and consumer protection laws by investigating complaints initiated by consumers, Congress, businesses, or the media. The commission works to ensure that the nation’s markets function competitively by stopping unfair or deceptive practices.

Because Congress would have to approve the shift and because Democrats could block legislation with 41 votes in the Senate (filibuster), it’s unlikely the recommendation will be implemented.  However, if Republicans gain the majority in the Senate, they could change the filibuster rules. Regardless, the recommendation seeks to empower the president on sensitive matters of communication, antitrust and consumer protection that the President could use to enact and enforce his/her agenda.  There is potential danger because Congress will have ceded its authority to provide oversight and accountability.

7. End left-wing gender insanity being pushed on children:  Most of the actions in this recommendation couldn’t be imposed unilaterally, or would be vulnerable to challenge if imposed unilaterally.  An executive order couldn’t contradict a federal statute requiring agencies to establish and promote programs on sex and gender transition. Otherwise, an executive order could instruct federal agencies under the president (but not independent agencies) to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age. Also, an executive order could repeal and terminate executive orders and other policies of the Biden Administration on the subject. 

The president couldn’t unilaterally terminate hospitals and health care providers from Medicare and Medicaid if they provide gender affirming care. Trump has recognized the need for statutory authorization, as he promises to “pass a law . . . in all 50 states.”   An executive order that attempted to punish providers that “participate in the chemical or physical mutilation of minors” would be subject to legal challenge.  At minimum, some form of due process procedure established by statute or federal regulation would be required.  

In a similar vein, the president could certainly require the Department of Education to disseminate advisories to states and school districts. These advisories could probably threaten “severe consequences.”  However, the president could not unilaterally declare that specified conduct constitutes a Civil Rights violation. Nor could federal funding be eliminated because a teacher or school official suggested to a student they may be trapped in the wrong body.   

Schools, school officials, and teachers operate under a variety of wide-ranging state and local laws. These laws address such subjects as non-discrimination, gender identity, privacy, parental consent and other matters. Vigorous debates are occurring in virtually every state and every school district in the country.  Different states and different school districts have adopted different policies.  Again, as with the debate over college and university curriculum, there is a partisan split on policies.  Trump’s proposal would essentially enable the president to impose the Republican party’s views on these “Culture War” matters.  This is dictatorial.  In addition, the proposal conflicts with the 10^th Amendment. The president and federal government would be dictating policy on matters reserved to the states. 

8. End free speech censorship by federal agencies and employees:  A president could certainly issue an executive order banning federal agencies from colluding to censor, limit, or impede First Amendment speech. However, it becomes more complicated when the federal agency does not censor or limit the content, but rather offers an advisory that the content could be “mis” or “dis-information.”  The question becomes whether “fact checking” limits or impedes free speech protected by the First Amendment.  

It becomes even more complicated when federal agencies alert businesses, people or organizations (especially social media platforms) that content on their websites or platforms is “mis” or “dis-information”, or that it is potentially dangerous or inciteful of illegal behavior.  If a business or organization deletes that content or flags it as unreliable, federal law (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), provides immunity from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.

In May of 2020, President Trump attempted to address some of these complicated matters. He issued an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.  The order recognized that the president couldn’t dictate policies directly, and instead called upon the FCC to initiate regulations to narrow the liability protection under Section 230. Interestingly, Trump could not order the FCC to adopt such regulations because of its status as an independent agency.  The order raised many legal questions, and was challenged in court. However, the cases were dismissed without a determination on the matter when Biden revoked the Executive Order.

Similarly, a president could not unilaterally (by executive order) ban federal money from be used to label domestic speech as “mis” or “dis-information.”  Congressional action would be required. 

The president would have the authority to fire political appointees who engaged in domestic censorship; however, civil service employees could not be fired under current law for simply labeling speech as “mis” or “dis-information.”  Again, action by Congress would be required.

The actions specified in this recommendation involve a large shift in powers from the judicial and legislative branches to the executive branch.  Under the separation of powers, the judicial branch interprets the law, especially the Constitution and the First Amendment.  Accordingly, the courts have wrestled with free speech and censorship issues the entire history of the country. The body of law is both extensive and complex. The decisions turn on the specific facts and circumstances of each case in determining whether First Amendment rights were infringed.  

Recently, prominent conservatives have charged that social media sites have removed posts with conservative leanings. But these sites respond that the removal was due to hateful and inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation.  Traditionally, we have resolved such disputes through the courts, with determinations made on the basis of specific facts and circumstances.  For a president to enter the fray and direct federal agencies to enforce policies that interpret interpret the 1st Amendment usurps the role of the courts.

Finally, if the actions specified in this recommendation were implemented, they presumably would apply to the president and all appointees.  Could a president call out “fake news”? Or could a Press Secretary allow certain media outlets to attend meetings, but forbid others?  We’ll come back to this question later in this analysis.

9. Restore the impoundment power of the President:  This recommendation entails a major increase in presidential powers. Under current law a president can only request a “rescission” (return of funds). The rescission must be approved by Congress within a limited timeframe.  In addition, the president can withhold funds through a temporary deferral that must meet certain conditions.  Under Trump’s proposal, the president would have broad and unilateral authority to impound funding deemed as excessive or unnecessary.

Some background on the impoundment power is instructive.  Historically, this authority was exercised by past presidents. President Nixon, however, was criticized for abusing it.  A recent article in the Business Insider notes, “But scholars generally agree that Nixon relied on that history in an unprecedented way.  He used the power far more often than his predecessors and he used it mainly to thwart domestic spending.”

Congress thus passed the Congressional Budget Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CBA) in response to Nixon’s abuse of the impoundment power. 

Whether the current Supreme Court would declare the CBA’s impoundment provisions unconstitutional is an open question.  The courts, however, are probably the only viable route for pursuing this recommendation.  Because Senate Democrats could prevent legislative action with 41 votes (filibuster), it is not likely that Congress would pass legislation to give the president more power over impoundment. However, if the Republicans gain control of the Senate in 2024, they could change the filibuster rules.

In summary, this recommendation would result in a great increase in presidential power. In would enable the president to take unilateral action to circumvent spending allocations determined by Congress.  This power, of course, would apply regardless of the political party of the president, a topic we’ll explore later in this analysis.

10. Conduct the largest deportation in American history and end birthright citizenship:  There is no law that would prevent a president from conducting a mass deportation, provided it was accomplished in accordance with law.  Trump proposes to act unilaterally, in that he will enlist several enforcement agencies of the federal government to accomplish the task. Regardless, an executive order couldn’t contradict or suspend statutory requirements on such matters as immigration status or processes for removal. Also, there is little doubt that a unilateral attempt to execute a mass deportation would be challenged in court. If so, it’s probable that the effort would be put on hold during the pendency of the proceedings. 

Beyond legal challenges, the main obstacles to a mass deportation are the sheer logistics and personnel required.  Legal timeframes and procedures would have to be adhered to with respect to each deportation, meaning literally millions of hearings, including judicial and administrative actions.  Already, the immigration court backlog exceeds 3 million cases.  The process for a mass deportation could be expedited, but this would require Congressional action.  

As to ending birthright citizenship via an executive order, this action would undoubtedly be challenged in court. The executive order would require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.  Trump argues that this is the clear meaning of the law, even though no federal court has ever upheld this reading. 

Most legal experts agree that ending birthright citizenship couldn’t be accomplished via executive order.  However, there are conservative scholars who argue that the 14^th amendment does not confer citizenship. They contend the amendment only applies to those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that illegal immigrants don’t meet this test. Since they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” they aren’t entitled to birthright citizenship. This interpretation conflicts with prior Supreme Court decisions. However, but it’s possible that the current Supreme Court could be persuaded by the conservative scholars. 

While it is unlikely that either of these recommendations will come to fruition, both are dictatorial or authoritarian in nature.  Trump proposes to act unilaterally in each case.  On ending birthright citizenship, the proposal violates the separation of powers by usurping the roles of the courts and Congress. He clings to an argument by conservative scholars that has never been upheld and that conflicts with existing Supreme Court rulings.  He also bypasses and usurps the role of Congress to adopt legislation on such a fundamental issue.   

Could the recommendations to expand presidential powers backfire on Republicans?

Let’s ignore, for the moment, the great harm that could result from the recommendations. It’s clear that they would give a Republican president far more power to enact and implement his/her agenda.  But what happens if Biden or another Democrat is in the White House?  And, even if a Republican wins in 2024, what happens when a Democrat is elected down the road?  After all, the Democrats would also be free to pursue these power-expanding recommendations. 

A more fully empowered Democrat president could do even more damage regarding the very matters Republicans are complaining about. This includes weaponizing the federal government against Republicans; expanding the size and scope of the federal government; ending free speech censorship by Democrats; and inflicting the party dogma of wokeism, DEI, critical race theory, Marxism, and other evils. It would be far easier to wipe out the presidential edicts of a prior administration. Tens of thousands of the president’s political appointees could be unleashed to carry out specific directives. And those who resisted could be fired and replaced.  Instead of using the enhanced powers to do address the matters that Republicans want addressed, Democrats could apply the powers to their own list. 

Clearly, as Republicans and conservatives pursue enhanced presidential powers, they should be mindful of the potential consequences. The move is very risky because there is no assurance they will win in 2024. A Democrat will be back in the White House at some point in time.  Also, Republicans should weigh the real possibility that voters will oppose a shift towards dictatorial and authoritarian rule. They may not like how the proposals conflict with the separation of powers, the 10th Amendment, give the president such unfettered control. This will especially be true when voters realize that either side—Republicans or Democrats—could abuse the enhanced powers to force their will on the other party and the American people.  The move could backfire.

Summary

Our in-depth look at the recommendations from the Right reveals that a few could be implemented unilaterally. Others, if implemented unilaterally, will be vulnerable to legal challenge.  Many of the proposals will require action by Congress and/or the courts. Thus, if Republicans capture control of Congress in addition to the White House, more of these recommendations become viable. Senate Republicans could end the filibuster rules–as Trump has previously recommended–thus paving the way for several recommendations.

Regardless, many of the proposals move in the direction of dictatorial and authoritarian rule, and several present a real threat to our democracy.  The president would be enabled to exercise powers currently vested with legislative and judicial branches, thus usurping authority provided in the separation of powers.  Some of the proposals would also expand the role of the federal government vis-à-vis the roles of state and local government.  This would be in conflict with the 10^th Amendment.

Finally, citizens who happen to be Republican or conservative may laud the policy edicts and the president’s power to impose them.  However, many Americans (probably more than a majority) will oppose these edicts and the president’s new power to force his/her will upon them. Their freedoms will be hard to protect if the courts and Congress have been taken out of play. Even Republicans may rue the day they started down this path when Democrats gain control.