On this episode of Toppling The Duopoly, Eric Bronner from Veterans for Political Innovation discusses their mission to mobilize veterans to advance reform measures aimed at a more competitive and less toxic electoral process. It's the first national group of its kind. Eric talks about his own journey in helping create the organization, and why veterans are a critical segment of the population to get behind reform.
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
U.S. President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter in the Oval Office at the White House on May 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump was elected for a second term after a campaign in which voters were persuaded that he could skillfully manage the economy better than his Democratic opponent. On the campaign trail and since being elected for the second time, President Trump has promised that his policies would bolster economic growth, boost domestic manufacturing with more products “made in the USA,” reduce the price of groceries “on Day 1,” and make America “ very rich ” again.
These were bold promises, so how is President Trump doing, three and a half months into his term? The evidence so far is as mixed and uncertain as his roller coaster tariff policy.
Economic growth. After a chaotic month of on again, off again tariffs and a turbulent stock market, many Americans are dismayed that the nation’s gross domestic product—the measure of all goods and services produced by the economy—actually shrank in the first three months of the year. But rather than indicating a struggling economy, it may have been a byproduct of companies front-loading the purchase of imports in anticipation of the tariffs to come. Imports get subtracted from GDP for accounting purposes, so this may end up being a short-term trend. In the meantime, all the imports have led to a surge in the trade deficit, which hit a record $140 billion in March–the exact opposite of the Trump administration’s tariff policy goal.
Reflecting the volatile climate of conflicting signals, Goldman Sachs raised its recession probability forecast to 45%. Yet, later that same day, after President Trump announced a 90-day tariff pause, Goldman Sachs walked back its prediction. Uncertainty is in the air, everywhere you look.
Prices and inflation. Here too, the trend is toward more uncertainty and conflicting signals.. Donald Trump said, “We’re going to get the prices down. Groceries, cars, everything.” But the average retail price of eggs in the grocery store increased from $4.95 in January to $6.22 in March, a 26% increase. Paradoxically, though, wholesale egg prices —the amount grocers pay to suppliers—have dropped since Trump took office. The real question is: will that wholesale egg decline ever translate into relief for consumers? Currently, we simply don’t know.
Meat and poultry prices have risen over 9% compared to a year ago, tripling the rate of inflation (though prices have fluctuated somewhat by locality). Prices for coffee, seafood, fruit and vegetables, and cheese and nuts are predicted to rise due to the uncertainty and volatility of the White House tariff policy, causing businesses to freeze their production and investment plans.
David Dennison, director of operations at the Original Pancake House restaurant chain in suburban Washington, D.C., said costs have already increased by more than 20% on food items such as oranges, peppers, avocados, and tomatoes.
President Trump also promised to bring down the price of gas fuel through his enthusiastic embrace of a “Drill, baby, drill” policy. Yet, so far the price of gas has increased slightly from $3.018 per gallon in December to $3.171 in April, about a 5% increase. But paradoxically again, the price of crude oil has dropped by nearly 25% since early January. However, due to a lag in the price at the gas pump, it’s not clear which way retail prices ultimately will go.
While many prices are up, again somewhat paradoxically, the rate of inflation has dropped to 2.4%, marking a six-month low. But as President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris found out the hard way, everyday people don’t care much about the rate of inflation, which is the rate of price increases. They care about the price levels themselves — what they are actually paying in the grocery store or at the gas pump.
The White House can be cheered a bit by the fact that the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI) decreased by 0.1%, marking the first monthly decline since May 2020. But it had increased twice as much the month before. With so much uncertainty and volatility, it’s hard to know which way the CPI will continue trending. Once the full impact of tariffs hits—either actual or the effects of policy uncertainty—most experts predict that prices will climb. President Trump pretty much admitted as much with his comment that children might have to spend a “couple bucks more” on dolls.
Unemployment. One positive sign for the Trump economy is that the unemployment rate so far has held steady at a very low 4.2%, despite White House attempts to fire many workers at various federal agencies. Changes in unemployment rates tend to lag behind the broader economy, except during a catastrophe like a pandemic or war, so it’s possible that Trump’s executive orders and other actions might show impact in the coming weeks.
Wages. Additionally, the Trump economy is benefiting from an increase in real average hourly wages from March 2024 to March 2025 by 1.4% (and by 0.3% from February to March alone). But that is still way lower than the rate of inflation, so workers might not be noticing the increase. And Trump can’t really claim much credit since most of that increase came when Joe Biden was president. The average work week actually declined during the past year by 0.6 percent, so the wages in people’s pockets don’t reflect much of an increase.
In all these areas, there has been more uncertainty than clarity, and the verdict about future trends is still out.
The stock market has fallen…
One thing is for sure: the stock market’s gyrating roller coaster has been giving millions of investors financial vertigo. The S&P 500, a broad stock market gauge, dropped 18.9% between its Feb. 19 peak and its April 8 low, before partly bouncing back in the succeeding weeks. The S&P 500 is still five percent lower since Trump’s inauguration in January. So far, this has been Wall Street’s worst start to a new presidential term in 51 years.
…and so has the dollar.
The U.S. dollar has also lost about nine percent of its value since Trump took office. Investors in U.S. Treasuries and America’s debt have hesitated amidst the ongoing uncertainty, with bond prices fluctuating along with the value of the dollar. Currency investors instead have loaded up on more of other currencies and commodities, such as the euro, yen, Swiss franc, and gold. In short, investors are registering their pessimism about the Trump administration’s policies by dumping the dollar, so this is a trend worth watching to see how it develops.
If this decline in dollar dominance continues, it could force the U.S. government to pay much higher interest rates to service the national debt. That could well increase the chances that the federal government, at some point, would be forced to enact either tax hikes or cuts to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (which the Republican Congress is already trying to figure out how to cut).
The Federal Reserve recently voted unanimously to keep interest rates unchanged as officials brace for the impacts of the tariffs, and to “wait and see” if they will stoke higher inflation and slower growth. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said that it’s “not at all clear” what the central bank should do next, since the uncertainty about tariffs has become pervasive among businesses, which has in turn resulted in stalled investments and hesitation in economic planning. Some companies have put expansion plans on hold due to the unpredictability of trade policy.
The tumult of tariffs.
The sudden imposition of on again, off again high tariffs has introduced an unsettling level of uncertainty and turbulence into the U.S. and global economies. The tariffs have disrupted global supply chains, making it harder for businesses to forecast profitability. While some countries have responded with reciprocal tariffs, others have opted for negotiations, adding another layer of unpredictability. The White House’s yo-yo tariff war has left longtime trade allies, as well as competitors, bewildered and unsure of America’s trustworthiness as a trade partner. With tariffs on China reaching up to 145%, many firms have had to pause orders from China, increasing the odds that they will soon run out of inventory for certain goods and materials.
Just last weekend, new tariffs of 25 percent on imported auto parts took effect. That’s in addition to a previous tax of 25 percent on imported cars. In early May, business leaders said they are struggling to forecast their business and investment outlook because of the lack of clarity on trade policy. More companies have warned that they will have to pass on higher costs to consumers as they pay more to import finished goods and spare parts into the U.S. Despite the recent stock recovery, “The damage to economic momentum has already been done,” said Mike Sanders from Madison Investments.
Different economists have contrasting views on these weighty matters, and the White House insists that a degree of short-term pain is necessary to bring long-term gain. But The Economist magazine predicts that “America will be a country with shabbier roads, older airports and more dated factories.” The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is a huge gamble, and the verdict is still out on its ultimate impacts.
Consumers react, Trump’s favorability declines.
Amidst this uncertainty, Americans are increasingly worried about the direction of the Trump economy. For the first time since 2001, a Gallup poll found that more than half of Americans say their financial situation is getting worse, and President Trump’s approval ratings are declining. In a CNN/SSRS poll, 66% of Americans said they are pessimistic (29%) or afraid (37%) about the economy, with just 34% feeling enthusiastic or optimistic. Donald Trump’s 100-day approval rating is the worst for a U.S. president in 80 years. Even small businesses that had high hopes for Trump’s second term show declining confidence.
Perhaps to counter the darkening public mood, the White House has begun taking steps to try and hide the new economic reality from the American public. Recently, President Trump tried to claim that the price of gasoline is the “lowest in years,” which several media outlets, including Fox News, debunked as far from accurate. And an Amazon.com subsidiary announced that, in the interest of transparency, it would begin publicly posting how much tariffs will personally cost each of its customers on every product. But the Trump administration decried that as a “hostile and political act,” and President Trump reportedly called billionaire Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, and demanded that Amazon cease these efforts. Amazon complied.
Meanwhile, Trump has started to make excuses for the economy’s volatile performance. On the one hand, he takes full credit for private-sector growth that started right after his November election. But then he frequently blames the previous president, Joe Biden, for the current slowdown and high prices. In a recent interview with NBC, the president deceptively boasted, “The good parts are the ‘Trump economy’ and the bad parts are the ‘Biden economy’.”
But it’s not quite that simple. David Sanger, New York Times national security correspondent, said President Trump is facing a fundamental timing problem over his tariff strategy. “It will take years,” said Sanger, “for the huge investments he predicts will flow into the United States to unfold and bring about the industrial renaissance he has promised.” For example, the timeline for constructing a new semiconductor fabrication plant in the U.S. can take five years. But the economic pain of the tariffs has already started and will increase in the months ahead. “What is at stake,” wrote Sanger, “is a question of fundamental competence on an issue that [Trump] has always used to define himself.”
With 44 months still left in Donald Trump’s second term, it’s too soon to predict the ultimate fate of the Trump economy, or whether President Trump will succeed in revitalizing US manufacturing. As Yogi Berra once famously said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” But the White House still has many months to try and right the leaky ship, and the clock is ticking.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn on May 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Presidents are typically evaluated by their accomplishments in the first 100 days. Donald Trump's second term stands out for a different reason: the unprecedented number of executive actions challenged and blocked by the courts. In just over three months, Trump issued more than 200 executive orders, targeting areas such as climate policy, civil service regulations, immigration, and education funding.
However, the most telling statistic is not the volume of orders but the judiciary's response: over 120 rulings have paused or invalidated these directives. This positions the courts, rather than Congress, as the primary institutional check on the administration's agenda. With a legislature largely aligned with the executive, the judiciary has become a critical counterbalance. The sustainability of this dynamic raises questions about the resilience of democratic institutions when one branch shoulders the burden of oversight responsibilities.
Upon returning to office, President Trump took an aggressive approach to executive authority, unleashing a tsunami of orders aimed at radically reshaping federal policy. This strategy, designed to implement changes swiftly, seems to potentially outpace legal challenges. Nevertheless, the judiciary has actively engaged in reviewing these actions, resulting in numerous injunctions and rulings that underscore the constitutional limits of executive power.
In one high-profile case, New Jersey v. Trump, the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents was challenged and blocked. A federal judge found the order in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, and the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court is pending.
In Dellinger v. Bessent, an executive order seeking to reclassify senior civil servants as at-will employees—effectively removing their job protections—was halted with a preliminary injunction. The court determined the order violated civil service laws and posed risks to the function of government.
Meanwhile, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, the administration’s effort to freeze federal funding to institutions promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives was ruled an unconstitutional overreach. The court emphasized that policy disagreements do not justify infringing upon academic freedom and civil rights.
These cases illustrate a pattern of executive actions that the judiciary deems as overstepping legal and constitutional lines in the sand. The courts have thus far served as a vital check on the administration's expansive use of executive orders.
While the judiciary has actively engaged in reviewing executive actions, Congress has taken a more passive role. The passage of continuing resolutions (CRs) to avoid government shutdowns has inadvertently granted the executive branch increased discretion over federal spending. Unlike detailed appropriations bills, CRs extend existing funding levels without specific instructions, allowing the administration to redirect funds with minimal oversight.
This discretion has been utilized to withhold funding from programs such as climate research and DEI initiatives, aligning spending with the administration's priorities without new legislative mandates. The reliance on CRs, coupled with a lack of assertive legislative oversight, has contributed to an imbalance in the separation of powers.
Yet, even as the judiciary works to check the excesses of executive power, the legislative branch—the one designed by the Framers to be the first line of defense—has largely chosen to stand aside. If the courts have played prosecutor, Congress has spent much of its time playing the absent witness—sometimes unwilling, but just as often all too willing to let the executive branch redraw the lines it was supposed to defend. Nowhere has this been clearer than in the recent Senate vote over tariffs. The GOP-led Senate could have stood with the majority of American voters in disapproving the administration’s actions. Instead, it meekly acquiesced, declining to impose any limits on the president’s authority despite bipartisan concerns. The message was unmistakable: Trump’s consolidation of power would not face resistance from Capitol Hill.
The first 100 days of President Trump's second term have tested the mechanisms of American governance. The judiciary has emerged as a central figure in maintaining constitutional checks and balances, responding to a surge of executive actions with rigorous legal scrutiny. However, the limited engagement from Congress raises concerns about the durability of this equilibrium. Sustaining a healthy democracy requires active participation from all branches of government and an informed public. If oversight becomes just the lonely burden of the judiciary, the system begins to tilt—slowly, but decisively—toward executive dominance.
The danger lies not in the temporary assertion of power but in the normalization of it. You don’t have to be a Constitutional law scholar to recognize that when checks and balances rely on a single branch to function, the republic risks becoming structurally unbalanced. The ongoing challenges underscore the importance of vigilance, accountability, and institutional courage in preserving the foundational principles of the republic.
This all begs the question: What is to be done? Congress must get off the sidelines and reassert its constitutional responsibilities, beginning with full appropriations bills that constrain executive discretion and meaningful oversight hearings that clarify the scope and limits of presidential power. Courts must continue to defend legal norms without being drawn into partisanship. But the broader task belongs to the public: to demand transparency, resist apathy, and reaffirm that no leader is above the law. Democracy, after all, is not self-executing—it must be defended, deliberately and continually, by those it serves.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
