Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Just words, or did Trump mean it: "He who saves his country violates no Law."

Just words, or did Trump mean it: "He who saves his country violates no Law."
President Trump arrives at Kentucky Air Guard Base > 123rd Airlift ...

On February 14, 2025, President Donald Trump shared this quote on Truth Social and X: "He who saves his country violates no Law."

I’ve learned with President Donald Trump not always to take him literally but to take him seriously. In this case, I am taking his comment very seriously.


It appears that this specific quote, "He who saves his country violates no Law," which is first attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, was not used by Trump before his post. Not surprisingly, the post has drawn widespread attention and criticism, for obvious reasons, given its implications about executive authority and legality if the words become more than just words.

The statement exemplifies a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Patriotism" or "Appeal to Nationalism."

This fallacy occurs when someone argues that an action is justified or acceptable simply because it is done in the name of one's country or patriotism, regardless of whether it violates laws or ethical principles. In this case, the statement "He who saves his country violates no Law" suggests that any action taken to save the country is inherently lawful. This is a flawed argument because it ignores the possibility of illegal or unethical actions being taken under the guise of patriotism.

Should Trump continue to espouse the concept that anything he does is legal if he is trying to save the country, the ethical and legal implications are serious and must be challenged.

Surprisingly, there have been several instances in American history where presidents have used the "Appeal to Patriotism" to justify their actions or policies. Some notable examples are:

President Discusses the Future of Iraqgeorgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

  • President George W. Bush: After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President Bush often invoked patriotism to garner support for the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq. He framed these actions as necessary for protecting American freedom and security, suggesting that opposing these measures was unpatriotic.

Donald TrumpFormer President Donald Trump has promised, if re-elected, to weaponize the Justice Department against his enemies, including Joe Biden. Alex Wong/Getty Images

  • President Donald Trump: During his 2020 campaign, he argued that voting for Joe Biden would mean China winning, implying that supporting him was the patriotic choice.

portrait of Woodrow Wilson - study - Woodrow Wilson House … | Flickrwww.flickr.com

  • President Woodrow Wilson: During World War I, Wilson used patriotic rhetoric to justify the U.S. entry into the war. He framed the war as a fight for democracy and freedom, suggesting that opposing the war effort was unpatriotic.

Historically, there have been instances where U.S. presidents have turned their patriotic words into actions by invoking the Insurrection Act, which is the proper way to proceed.

The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military domestically to suppress insurrections and domestic violence or to enforce federal law. While the Act is legal, its invocation has sometimes been controversial. It has been invoked several times throughout US history:

  • President George Washington invoked the Act to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.
  • 1831: President Andrew Jackson used it during the Nullification Crisis.
  • 1871: President Ulysses S. Grant invoked it to combat the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction.
  • 1957 & 1962: President Dwight D. Eisenhower used it to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.
  • 1992: President George H.W. Bush deployed federal troops to Los Angeles during the riots following the Rodney King verdict.

President Donald Trump threatened to invoke it during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests but never actually did so.

Using the premise of national security, saving the country, or patriotism to justify actions is understandable if the actions don’t violate the Constitution. The historical examples cited were opposed at the time by political opponents who argued that the use of the Insurrection Act pushed the limits of legal authority.

The Insurrection Act does provide specific criteria for when it can be invoked. According to the Act, the President can deploy the military domestically in the following situations:

  • When requested by a state's legislature or governor: If a state legislature or governor requests federal assistance to address an insurrection against that state.
  • When it is impracticable to enforce the law: If an insurrection in any state makes it impracticable to enforce the law through regular means.
  • To protect constitutional rights: If an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, the state is unable or unwilling to protect those rights.

Unfortunately, the Insurrection Act does not require a state legislature or governor to "prove" an insurrection exists in a formal legal sense before requesting federal assistance, which opens up the possibility of its being used to justify political objectives. However, the Act requires that the request be based on a genuine and serious situation where the state authorities cannot handle the insurrection or enforce the law effectively on their own. Ultimately, the decision to invoke the Insurrection Act rests with the President, who must assess the situation and determine whether the criteria for invoking the Act are met.

The state officials would need to provide the President with sufficient information to justify the invocation of the Insurrection Act. This information would likely include details about the nature and extent of the insurrection, the inability of local law enforcement to maintain order, and the potential threat to public safety and constitutional rights.

It is clear that the President was wrong on February 14th when he said, "He who saves his country violates no Law." The President operates within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and is subject to checks and balances from the other branches of government, including Congress and the Supreme Court.

Whether Trump will choose to test the principle remains to be seen.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Americans Want To Rein In Presidential Power

Protestors march during an anti-Trump "No Kings Day" demonstration in a city that has been the focus of protests against Trump's immigration raids on June 14, 2025 in downtown Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Jay L Clendenin

Americans Want To Rein In Presidential Power

President Trump has been attempting to expand presidential power more than any president in recent history, in large part by asserting powers that have been held by Congress, including federal funding and tariffs. Public opinion research has shown clearly and consistently that large majorities—often bipartisan—oppose expanding presidential powers and support giving Congress more power.

The Pew Research Center has asked for nearly a decade whether presidents should not have to “worry so much about Congress and the courts” or if giving presidents more power is “too risky.” Over seven in ten have consistently said that giving presidents more power would be too risky, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans, no matter which party is in power. In February 2025, 66% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats took this position.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Congress Must Counteract Trump’s Dangerous Diplomacy

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meets with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. Carney, who was elected into office last week, is expected to meet with President Trump to discuss trade and the recent tariffs imposed on Canada.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

Why Congress Must Counteract Trump’s Dangerous Diplomacy

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s May 31 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue defense summit in Singapore was no ordinary one. He accused China of posing a “real” and “imminent” threat, leading China to accuse the United States of touting a “Cold War mentality.” Juxtapose this with King Charles’ May 27 speech opening the Canadian Parliament, which he was prompted to deliver in response to U.S. threats to annex Canada. Consistency has not been a hallmark of this administration, but the mixed messages are not just embarrassing—they’re dangerous.

Given Trump’s unpredictable tariffs and his threats to make Canada the 51st U.S. state, Canada can no longer rely on its continental neighbor as a trusted partner in trade and defense. Canadians are rallying around the hockey saying “elbows up” and preparing to defend themselves politically and economically. Trump’s words, which he doubled down on after the King’s speech, are destroying vital U.S. relationships and making the world—including the United States—less safe. Hegseth’s message to China rings hollow next to Trump’s refusal to treat territorial borders as subject to change only by consent, not coercion or conquest.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Political Crisis Sparks Great Interest in the Federalist Papers. Is That a Good Thing?

U.S. Founding Documents.

Getty Images, DNY59

America’s Political Crisis Sparks Great Interest in the Federalist Papers. Is That a Good Thing?

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump and Musk Flameout

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.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The Trump and Musk Flameout

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.

Keep ReadingShow less