Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

Opinion

Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.


A demagogue gains support by exploiting fear, grievance and prejudice, portraying himself as the people’s indispensable champion against threatening enemies and institutions. Trump offered perhaps his clearest expression of that idea when he declared, “I Alone Can Fix It.”

We should have paid closer attention to the word alone.

The warning signs were not hidden. Trump portrayed immigrants as dangerous, said they were “poisoning the blood of our country,” labeled political opponents the “enemy from within” and told supporters, “I am your retribution.” Together, these statements reveal the pattern of demagoguery: magnify fear, identify enemies, exploit grievance and present one leader as the people’s indispensable protector.

Yet Americans returned him to the White House.

The Framers did not know Trump. But they understood the archetype: the ambitious leader who exploits division, cultivates personal loyalty and seeks greater power. They did not write the Constitution assuming every president would be virtuous. They designed it for the possibility that one would not be.

Their answer was not trust in the president. Their answer was divided power.

James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that instability, injustice and confusion had been “mortal diseases” of popular governments. In Federalist No. 51, he warned against the “gradual concentration” of power and wrote that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

The Framers gave Congress legislative, spending, oversight and impeachment powers, established an independent judiciary and protected a free press capable of scrutinizing government. These guardrails were intended to prevent the concentration and abuse of presidential power, keep public office a public trust and ensure that no president could place himself above the law.

The genius of the system was not that it guaranteed a demagogue would never reach the White House. It was that the Republic might survive if one did.

Those guardrails have now been tested.

Impeachment was designed as an extraordinary remedy for serious abuses of public trust. Trump was impeached twice and acquitted twice by the Senate. The proceedings exposed a vulnerability: impeachment cannot restrain presidential power when partisan loyalty overwhelms independent constitutional judgment.

The Constitution’s emoluments provisions reflected concern that financial benefit and foreign influence could compromise public power. Trump’s continuing business interests raise a larger question: Can the presidency remain a public trust when governmental authority and private financial interests repeatedly occupy the same space?

The scale is extraordinary. A conservative accounting by The New Yorker journalist David Kirkpatrick estimated that Trump and his immediate family made nearly $4 billion by leveraging his presidency during roughly the first year of his second term. Presidential power intertwined with private enrichment on that scale demands scrutiny.

Here again, the guardrail question is unavoidable: Are constitutional guardrails adequately restraining the collision of public power and private gain?

Yet financial integrity is only one test. The constitutional guardrail under greatest strain may be the most fundamental of all: separation of powers.

Congress was never intended to become a president’s supporting cast. The Framers expected congressional ambition to counter presidential ambition. Yet when legislators fear presidential retaliation, surrender institutional authority or place partisan allegiance above constitutional responsibility, that counterweight weakens.

A check that refuses to check is little protection at all.

The judiciary is another essential guardrail, and here the answer is complicated. Courts have restrained some administration actions, but court orders have also faced serious compliance disputes. In April 2025, a federal district court found probable cause that the administration had willfully failed to comply with one of its orders.

The Supreme Court’s record is also mixed. In June 2026, it overturned roughly nine decades of precedent protecting Federal Trade Commission commissioners from at-will presidential removal, expanding presidential control over independent executive agencies while preserving separate protections for Federal Reserve governors.

The judiciary has not collapsed as a guardrail. But neither has it consistently restrained the concentration of executive power.

Taken together, the record offers an uncomfortable answer: constitutional guardrails do not hold simply because they exist. Some have worked. Others have bent, weakened or failed at consequential moments. All depend upon people willing to exercise constitutional power with independence, courage and fidelity.

Institutions alone cannot save a Republic. People operate them.

Representatives vote. Judges rule. Public officials decide whether their oath means fidelity to the Constitution or loyalty to a president. Journalists scrutinize power. Citizens decide whom to entrust with it.

Constitutional fidelity must become the standard.

The people possess a guardrail of their own: the power to replace leaders who refuse to defend the constitutional order.

Voting is more than a partisan exercise. Examine who defended constitutional authority and who surrendered it. Who demanded accountability and who excused misconduct. Who protected independent institutions and who placed personal loyalty above an oath.

Do not ask only what party a candidate represents. Ask what constitutional principles that candidate will defend when defending them becomes politically costly.

Americans are exhausted. But exhaustion cannot become surrender.

Do not follow the noise. Follow the power.

Read the legislation. Examine the votes. Follow the money. Question representatives. Speak out. Petition government. Demonstrate peacefully. Vote.

When those entrusted with constitutional power refuse to use it, the people must use theirs.

And when elected leaders will not defend the constitutional order?

Replace them.

So, will the guardrails hold?

Only if we make them hold.

The Constitution cannot supply courage, cast our votes or compel allegiance to constitutional principle over allegiance to a president.

That responsibility is ours.

The Framers gave us a Republic capable of surviving a demagogue. They left keeping it to us.

Now we must keep it.

_____________________________________________________________________

Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and former principal who spent her career advancing civic responsibility, equity, and public engagement. She writes about democracy, ethical leadership, and the values that strengthen American communities.


Read More

​Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner at the White House.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When Leaders Disagree, Ceremony Plays an Important Role

When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.

Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.

Keep ReadingShow less
A ​fire burns and destroys the city hall  in Limoges, central France.

A fire burns and destroys the city hall after a group of individuals forced entry into the building during ongoing protest action against the "high cost of living," in Limoges, central France on Oct. 17, 2026.

Pascal Lachenaud/AFP/Getty Images/Tribune

What Americans can learn from the French protests

On Monday, France’s Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez admitted that police have “lost control” as some cities continue to see massive waves of looting and mayhem. Social media brims with images of stores being ransacked, cars burning, and mask-wearing goons running wild. In Limoges, the beautiful Hôtel de Ville was burnt to the ground.

But the chaos, as is so often the case, began peacefully. And many supporters and leaders of the protests have condemned the violence. I think that violence has more to do with France’s miserable record of assimilating immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East than with budget cuts. Call me cynical, but I don’t believe the goons pillaging Louis Vuitton stores are planning to resell the handbags to buy better school supplies or to bolster their teachers’ salaries.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands raised in the air, holding each other.​

America’s polarization has closed us off to each other’s humanity. The Golden Rule and the churches may be the way back to common ground.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? How Trump Is Destroying America's Soul

The recent actions by both some Jewish leaders and pro-Palestinian activists against NY mayor Zohran Mamdani are an example of just how far our nation has come from our ideals under the presidency of Donald Trump.

Even with Mamdani's consistent pro-Palestinian statements, he was called a "coward" and a "sellout" because he stood with the Jewish community in remembering the October 7 Hamas attack. Jewish leaders condemned him for his criticism of Israel and Palestinian sympathies expressed in the same breath as remembrance of the attack. But Mamdani understands the connection between the treatment by Israel of Palestinians and Palestinian treatment of Israel.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin in front of a landed airplane.

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?

This winter, Russia plans to freeze Ukraine into submission. According to an intercepted Russian plan, Moscow intends to use hundreds of ballistic missiles, long-range drones, and glide bombs to strike Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa with such intensity that they are cut off from power, heat, and water, slashing electricity and heat by up to 90 percent and crippling sewage systems. Russia hopes that with an energy system so thoroughly destroyed, millions of Ukrainian citizens would become so cold, sick, and desperate that their country might just surrender. Deliberately attacking the heat and water of civilians is a war crime, but Moscow thinks it can get away with it. Ukraine is running short on the Patriot interceptors it needs to stop ballistic missiles, and Putin is betting Trump will continue to betray Ukraine. It’s looking like a safe bet.

Trump shows no evidence to the contrary. On October 9, he got off a call with the Russian president and then immediately lifted U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel. The next day, after Russian strikes killed at least 17 people in Zaporizhzhia, Trump announced it was “time for Ukraine to get a new president.” Days later, the American-controlled satellite network Ukraine’s military depends on was throttled without warning, knocking out service to the drones Ukraine uses to chase down Russian attack drones. Trump denied giving the order, but The Telegraph reported that Musk pitched the idea and Trump agreed.

Keep ReadingShow less