The fear gripping large swaths of the American public under the second administration of Donald Trump is unprecedented in modern US history. The president’s brazen acts of retribution against political opponents, open hostility towards dissent, and disregard for democratic norms make it clear that he intends to wield power with even fewer restraints than before. It is tempting to reduce the United States’ political crisis to the simple notion that poor choices at
However, the terrifying reality is that constitutional and legal safeguards, long assumed to be bulwarks against authoritarian rule, have proven alarmingly ineffective. That is because elite privilege and authoritarianism are part of the DNA of the US Constitution.
Despite the lofty rhetoric of liberty espoused by the founding founders, the constitution they drafted was not about freedom and equality for all.
As originally conceived, it was a deeply flawed, pro-slavery document drafted by an elite class of white male property owners whose primary concern was preserving their economic and political dominance. The so-called principles of liberty and democracy were designed to exclude most of the population, including enslaved people, women, and the poor.
Far from being a charter
of universal rights, the US Constitution enshrined systemic inequality, ensuring power remained concentrated in the hands of a privileged few.
It is not a coincidence that the US lags behind much of the world in securing fundamental rights. Unlike many democracies, where constitutions explicitly recognise economic and social rights as fundamental to human dignity, the US Constitution contains no such guarantees. There is no constitutional right to healthcare, housing, a living wage, or basic economic security. This absence is not accidental; it reflects the priorities of a system designed to serve economic elites.
In the US, these protections remain elusive, dismissed as “radical” by an establishment bent on privileging wealth and power over human wellbeing. It is not surprising that the American government spares no expense for military power but refuses to extend the same urgency to its citizens’ socioeconomic security.
While extending few economic and social rights to American citizens, the US Constitution grants US presidents wide-ranging power to do as they please.
Unlike leaders in most democracies, the US president wields extraordinary unilateral powers with little judicial or legislative oversight. The president can halt or pursue federal prosecutions, selectively enforce laws, control immigration policies, classify or declassify government secrets, override agency rulemaking, and purge “disloyal” officials—all without meaningful checks.
Foreign policy decisions, including treaty withdrawals and military interventions, require parliamentary approval elsewhere, yet American presidents can unilaterally exit treaties and deploy troops exploiting loopholes in the War Powers Resolution without congressional authorisation.
Emergency powers, which in most democracies require legislative oversight, are virtually unchecked in the US, allowing the executive to seize assets, impose sanctions, and redirect funds on the mere declaration of a national emergency.
In stark contrast to democracies where courts actively check executive overreach, the American judiciary consistently defers to the executive in foreign affairs even where there are gross violations of human rights. A damning example is the court case of Defense for Children International-Palestine v. Biden, where plaintiffs sought to hold the administration of former US President Joe Biden accountable for US support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza, arguing that American aid facilitated acts of genocide.
Despite acknowledging credible evidence, the court dismissed the case, reaffirming that even in cases involving human rights violations, the executive remains legally unaccountable.
Presidents’ invocation of national security has long been a pretext for the unchecked expansion of executive authority. Trump, like President George W Bush, has aggressively seized upon this precedent, using it not just for military interventions but also to justify domestic repression. Under the guise of national security, his administration is targeting immigrants and threatening to criminalise dissent.
