U.S. Founding Documents.
Last week, I was at an event with United States Senator Chris Coons of Delaware where he was interviewed about this country’s current political crisis. As he was responding to questions, Senator Coons (full disclosure, he is a former student) gave an unusually eloquent and impassioned call for service and political engagement.
He offered his audience an opportunity to consider why democracy is worth defending. I was enthralled.
Senator Coons also offered some explanations of how we got to where we are, paying particular attention to developments in Congress. Late into those explanations, the Senator weaved into his remarks a reference to the Federalist Papers.
He pointed in particular to Federalist 51. There, James Madison defends the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances and explains that such a system can only work if members of Congress are willing to defend the prerogatives of that branch, even against a president of their own party.
Recall that in Federalist 51, Madison wrote: “The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others…. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”
In the last decade, as America entered an unprecedented period of constitutional and political turmoil, such references have become so ubiquitous that the Senator’s mention of the Federalist Papers almost escaped my notice. But on reflection, his remarks illustrate a serious dilemma in the present moment.
Can we defend and preserve democracy and the rule of law without uncritically venerating our founding documents and without engaging in a kind of constitutional worship that rings hollow to millions of Americans? The answer, I think, is that we need to do two things at once: appeal to the values and institutions enshrined and established in those documents while acknowledging that if we survive the present moment, they will need serious reevaluation and reform.
Indeed, it is a little odd that in our defense of democracy, we fall back, uncritically, on the Federalist Papers. To be candid, I have done so repeatedly in my public writing over the last few years.
When Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote them, they were not so much advocating or defending democracy as warning about its dangers. Take this famous line from Federalist 51: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Madison continued, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Note the reference to controlling, not serving, the governed. In a less often quoted line, Madison referenced one of his repeated worries about the way democracy might work: “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”
In Madison’s view, democracy, in itself, offered no protection against such dangers. Indeed, as he observed in Federalist 10, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Picking up on Madison’s worries about such problems, more than a century ago, American historian Charles Beard offered a stinging critique of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers in “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.” Beard argued that, far from being a statement of the best in America, the Constitution was written by and for wealthy property owners to ensure that their interests would be protected from democratic majorities.
Federalist 51 was one of Beard’s prime targets, authored as it was by one of the people whom he accused of naked self-interest. Beard characterized the system of checks and balances that Madison defended as one designed to “maintain a hierarchical order protective of economic, political, and social elites.”
Of course, Beard’s criticism has not gone unchallenged. In 1977, Henry Steele Commager published one of the most important of those criticisms. In “The Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and America Realized the Enlightenment”, Commager accused Beard of falling prey to what he called ''sterile'' economic determinism.
In Commager’s view, the Constitution was primarily “a political document focused on the distribution of power between governments, rather than an economic document solely aimed at protecting property.”
Whether you think Beard or Commager has the better of the argument, it goes without saying that Madison did not anticipate the rise of mass, highly disciplined political parties of the kind that now dominate in Congress, the magnitude of campaign finance, the prevalence of social media, or AI. Those things make his hopes for checks and balances seem almost quaint.
This is not to say that the insights found in the Federalist Papers are no longer relevant. They have never been as important as they are today.
And Senator Coons was right to reference them. They are a helpful reminder of a vision of limited government that is in jeopardy today.
But the Federalist Papers and the Constitution they were defending should not be treated like the tenets of scripture that are discussed in a church sermon but then ignored by the parishioners when they leave church. We need to recognize that what Commager wrote in the aftermath of Watergate is as apt today as it was then. “Responsibility for our crisis,” he said, “is rooted in changes in the American character, the American mind, American habits or traits…over the past quarter century.”
In that 1977 essay, Commager argued that “it is insufficient, it is almost trivial, to assign full responsibility for our current sickness to particular presidents. After all, it is the American people who elected them… our government and politics, with all their knaveries, vulgarities, and dishonesties, more or less reflect American society, and even the American character, and that we are, in fact, getting the kind of government that we want. The fault, in short, is in ourselves.”
That is why Senator Coons rightly urged his audience not just to get busy now, trying not just to preserve democracy, but also to use this moment of crisis to restore the traditions, service, and dedication that the Constitution calls “the general welfare”—traditions that speak to the best in the character of this country.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. Musk, who served as an adviser to Trump and led the Department of Government Efficiency, announced he would leave his role the Trump administration to refocus on his businesses.
The relationship between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk has come to a dramatic end. An alliance that took off like one of SpaceX’s rockets has now crashed and burned.
Days of increasing tensions over government contracts and political issues culminated on Thursday.
Without offering any proof, Musk claimed on X that the Trump administration hasn’t released all the records related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them.
Trump, who uncharacteristically had been quiet, fired back yesterday in the Oval Office, saying he was “very disappointed in Musk.”
Then he turned up the heat on his own social media network, Truth Social, stating, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts."
Hours later, Musk announced that SpaceX would start phasing out the spacecraft it has used to transport astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station for NASA.
The growing rift between Trump and Musk has had a notable financial impact. Following Trump's criticisms, shares of Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle company, fell more than 14%, resulting in a loss of approximately $150 billion in Tesla's market valuation. Consequently, Musk's personal holdings in the company decreased by about $20 billion.
Musk remarked in a post, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election," and followed up with the comment, "Such ingratitude.” Notably, he had invested at least $250 million in support of Trump's re-election campaign reported the Associated Press.
Once Trump was elected, the tech billionaire appeared to enjoy the spoils of his investment by standing prominently behind him as he took the oath of office, was appointed to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), flew on Air Force One for weekend stays at Mar-a-Lago, slept in the Lincoln Bedroom, and joined Cabinet meetings wearing MAGA hats.
However, Musk stepped down last week from his official senior adviser role at the White House.
While Trump praised Musk for his service then, he recently texted that Musk was “wearing thin,” that he had “asked him to leave” his administration, that the tech titan had “gone CRAZY.”
Both figures have made strong statements about each other, highlighting how quickly political and business relationships can change in the public eye.
June 3: Musk posts that the “massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”
June 4: Trump posts an image on Truth of Musk’s post announcing he’s leaving the government.
June 5: Trump confirms the deterioration of his relationship with Musk, saying he was “very disappointed” in the tech billionaire after he repeatedly blasted the president’s sweeping domestic agenda bill.
Musk claims that without him, Trump would have lost the election.
Trump claims he asked Musk to leave the administration and took away his "his EV mandate," after which he alleges Musk "just went CRAZY!"
Trump posts that the US government could save billions of dollars in its budget by terminating the contracts and subsidies awarded to Musk’s companies.
Musk claims Trump is "in" the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Musk agrees with an X user calling for Trump’s impeachment.
Musk claims Trump’s tariffs will cause a recession.
The Trump-Musk flameout reflects broader themes in the complex interplay between technology, politics, and personal relationships in today's society.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Americans show a strong preference for their elected executives — governors as well as the president — to achieve their political goals through conventional, sometimes slow, procedures, according to the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s latest Mood of the Nation Poll.
Results showed marked partisan differences. For example, 26% of all survey respondents rated a presidential action of firing all recently hired federal employees as “very appropriate,” including only four percent of Democrats and just over half of Republicans.
Still, the poll finds that large numbers of Republican prefer the president use conventional actions to achieve policy goals. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans indicated that it would be “very appropriate” for the president to initiate “a year-long analysis to identify the government positions that waste the most money.”
In reaction to the poll’s findings, Michael Berkman, director of Penn State’s McCourtney Institute for Democracy, commented, "It is heartening to see that most Americans support changing policies by going through traditional channels. These may be slow, but this approach is predictable, honors existing agreements with state governments, contractors, and public employees, and provides checks on the executive branch."
The poll of 3,251 adults took place during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration. A time of rapid change, during which President Donald Trump pushed the boundaries of longstanding norms concerning presidential power.
For example, Trump has pursued a dramatic reduction in the federal workforce, used his emergency powers to impose tariffs on foreign good s without the involvement of Congress, and has used executive orders to halt multiyear contracts and grants deemed inconsistent with the president’s political agenda.
The poll sought to understand how Americans view actions like these, to gain insight into citizens view the limits of appropriate executive power.
Respondents were asked to rate each of nine hypothetical executive actions. Since Trump is a polarizing figure, half the poll’s respondents were asked questions about “the president” rather than specifically about “President Trump.” The other half were asked to rate the same actions, if taken by a hypothetical newly elected governor in their state.
A clear majority, 60%, felt that honoring existing contracts was very appropriate. Also receiving high marks, 55% felt that it was very appropriate for the president to initiate a year-long analysis to identify government positions that waste the most money, and 44% thought it would be appropriate to try to renegotiate existing government contracts.
In contrast, the public shows little support for actions that push the boundaries of presidential power. Forty-nine percent felt that firing recent hires is not appropriate at all and 54% say it is inappropriate to cancel contracts simply because the president campaigned to end the policy.
Using emergency powers to furlough workers (something that the current administration has not done) or to cut off funds to agencies enforcing laws the president opposes, were viewed as “not appropriate at all” by 61% and 69% of those polled, respectively.
Finally, the least favored action was when the president simply chooses to not enforce existing laws they happen to disagree with. Only 7% felt this was very appropriate and nearly seven in ten Americans told us this was not appropriate at all.
Many Americans appear to be evaluating the exercise of presidential power through a partisan lens. But large segments of both parties indicate a preference for more precedented, conventional actions over those with less precedent.
The only presidential action supported as “very appropriate” by a majority of Democrats was that of honoring existing contracts. This was the case regardless of whether the contracts concerned recycling companies, charter schools or road construction (one-third of the sample was asked about each area).
A minority of Democrats viewed the other conventional presidential actions as “very appropriate,” and only a handful indicated that the unconventional actions would be appropriate.
Republicans are much more supportive of the president pursuing the change agenda outlined in the poll’s hypotheticals. Notably, however, Republican support is much higher for conventional presidential actions than the unconventional actions. For example:
Berkman noted, “This poll shows that a majority of Republicans and Democrats agree that following the rule of law is the most appropriate way to govern, though it is worrying to see partisan polarization again divide Americans over yet more issues."
Overall, when comparing the responses of those who were asked to rate hypothetical gubernatorial actions to those who rated presidential actions, the survey finds very similar support for conventional actions, but even less support for unconventional actions that would be taken by governors.
And, once again, there are partisan differences, with Republicans favoring the unconventional actions — many of which are geared toward cost savings — at higher rates than Democrats. An interesting nuance, however, is that Democrats are more supportive of governors than the president taking conventional actions, while Republicans are less supportive of governors than the president taking any action, conventional or unconventional, except for honoring existing contracts.
Overall, 66% rated governors honoring existing contracts as appropriate, higher than the 60% among those who were asked about the president. Fifty four percent and 44% respectively, indicated support for initiating a year-long cost-saving analysis and renegotiating contracts — virtually identical to the responses when asked about the president.
Somewhat fewer were supportive of governor’s calling a special session of the state legislature than were supportive of the president calling a special session of Congress, even though in practice special sessions are more common at the state level.
While Republicans indicate more support than Democrats for the three change-oriented conventional actions, the gap between the two groups is narrower than when the question is posed about the president. That is, Democrats are more supportive of governors than the president pursing these measures, while Republicans are less supportive of governors pursing these actions.
For example, there is a twenty-one percentage-point gap (57% minus 36%) between the proportion of Republicans and Democrats who indicate that governors renegotiating contracts is “very appropriate,” whereas that gap increases to 49 percentage points (71% minus 22%) when the subject is the president.
Overall, fewer respondents rate the unconventional items “very appropriate” when asked about governors than when asked about the president.
Since so few Democrats were supportive of the unconventional actions regardless of whether they were to be taken by governors or the president, the difference largely comes from the responses of Republicans.
For example, approval of mass firings of probationary employees drops from 51% when Republicans are asked about the president to 37% when asked about governors. Suspending contracts drops from 31% to 21%, and furloughing employees from 32% to 23%.
Notably, these patterns do not change appreciably based on the party of the governor currently in control. Few Democrats indicate support for the unconventional actions, even if their current governor is a Democrat. This may be in part because some of the questions asked respondents to imagine “a new governor.” More likely it has to do with the fiscally conservative nature of several of the items.
Taken altogether these results suggest that all Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, are more supportive of conventional actions by their elected executives than they are of unconventional actions. It also shows, not surprisingly, that Republicans are more supportive than Democrats of fiscally conservative policy change.
Finally, the findings also suggest that Americans are somewhat more accepting of the president seeking change through unconventional means than they are of state executives taking the same actions. This may be related to how they view the powers associated with the presidency versus those of governors.
However, it may also have to do with the current occupant of the presidency, Donald Trump. While not specifically named in the poll, it would be natural for respondents to be thinking particularly of President Trump when responding to these questions — especially since many of the hypothetical actions they were asked to rate are similar to actions already taken by Trump.
Even with the bump in support for unconventional action for “the president” as opposed to governors, these poll findings suggest that the public, including those in the party of the current president, are more likely to support change pursued through conventional than unconventional channels of governing.
POLL: Americans Wary About The President Taking Unconventional Actions was originally published by the APM Research Lab and is republished with permission.
Craig Helmstetter is the APM Research Lab’s founding Managing Partner.
Eric Plutzer is Professor of Political Science and Sociology and currently serves as co-editor of the Public Opinion Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.
People stand on the pieces of a shattered United States flag.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is vital to America’s political process. As the only federal agency dedicated solely to enforcing election laws, the FEC plays a critical role in protecting voters and maintaining a level playing field for political campaigns.
But at this moment, America faces an unfortunate choice: We can have an FEC that does nothing or an FEC that President Trump wields as a partisan weapon against his political opponents.
Between those two unhappy options, the nation is better off without a functioning FEC for now.
One of the FEC’s six seats became vacant last week. Combined with a prior resignation and President Trump's unlawful firing of another commissioner earlier this year, the FEC is now down to only three members—one fewer than the minimum quorum it needs to take legal action on election issues. The FEC has faced other challenges in recent years, but without a quorum, the agency is effectively out of business: it can’t make any rules, issue opinions, or launch investigations.
The FEC’s incapacitation is not good for voters or for American elections. Under normal circumstances, restoring the FEC’s quorum would be a no-brainer. Indeed, in prior instances when the FEC has lost its quorum, our organization, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), has vigorously argued for Congress to quickly confirm new members so that the agency can perform its role of enforcing election laws.
This time is different.
In February, President Trump issued an executive order in which he claimed to take control of all independent federal agencies, including the FEC. He directed the FEC to conform its official legal actions to his positions and to the positions of Attorney General Pam Bondi. Under this order, the FEC may not take any action that is contrary to Trump or Bondi’s views of election law.
We cannot overstate how dangerous this is. A big part of the FEC’s job is to enforce the law against political candidates, parties, and members of Congress—and the President is now claiming that he has the right to control who, when, and how the FEC prosecutes.
Particularly from a President who has demonstrated unprecedented willingness to use his power against anyone who dares oppose him, placing the enforcement arm of election law under his control would enable him to investigate his political opponents in Congress for supposed election offenses, while also allowing his allies to break the rules with impunity.
This should be deeply concerning to every American.
More than 50 years ago, Congress intentionally and carefully insulated the FEC from that type of presidential control for exactly this reason. Congress recognized the obvious: The enforcement of election laws cannot be in the hands of someone who—either personally or through his party—is an active player in those same elections.
We know from personal experience that this insulation has been successful. One of us was the Republican chairman of the FEC, and the other held senior nonpartisan positions at the agency, under a combined four Presidents. At no time did either of us witness any presidential administration exert undue influence over the FEC’s actions.
President Trump’s order is completely contrary to the independent oversight role Congress created the FEC to serve. Yet the FEC’s remaining commissioners have conspicuously failed to disavow—or even question—the president’s power grab.
At least three times since the president issued his order, the FEC has had specific opportunities to reject the president’s claim of control and assert its independence. All three times, it has declined to do so.
First, when the order was issued, we urged the FEC to disavow it. The agency said nothing.
Second, in the context of a lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party, the FEC has been given multiple chances to assure the court that the FEC will not allow itself to be co-opted by the administration. The FEC has instead litigated the case on hyper-technical issues, studiously avoiding saying anything about the core matter of President Trump’s takeover attempt.
And third, in a formal request CLC filed with the FEC, we asked for a ruling that the president’s legal views would not grant blanket amnesty to his political allies from FEC enforcement. The FEC’s response again took refuge in technicalities, and the agency explicitly disclaimed offering an opinion on “any executive orders” or “the authority of any Executive Branch official or agency.”
At this point, we can only interpret the FEC’s repeated refusal to speak up for itself as its answer: capitulation.
Weaponization of election law would threaten the very core of American democracy. Accordingly, Congress must not restore the FEC’s quorum unless and until the agency’s commissioners reassert their independence. And any future nominees for FEC positions must be questioned extensively on their commitment to impartiality.
The FEC is too important to be turned into the partisan tool of a vindictive president.
Trevor Potter is founder and president of the Campaign Legal Center. Read more from The Fulcrum's Election Dissection blog or see our full list of contributors.
Adav Noti is the Executive Director at the Campaign Legal Center
