Coleman was an assistant Missouri attorney general and later a Republican member of the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1993. Now retired as a lobbyist, he is an advisor to the Protect Democracy Project, an anti-authoritarian watchdog group.
Since taking office more than three years ago, President Trump has consistently shown a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental precepts of our constitutional system.
He doesn't fathom the doctrine of separation of powers, the limitations placed on a president through the Constitution's checks and balances. And he doesn't comprehend the foundation upon which all of it rests — the rule of law. All of which raises the question: Will Trump become an unaccountable dictator?
Last year Trump asserted he could personally take over special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible Russian influence in the 2016 election and his own role in it "if I wanted to." Emboldened after being acquitted by the Senate on the House's impeachment charges, he said, "I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country." And he has claimed that, as president, the Constitution gives him "the right to do whatever I want."
Most Americans had never considered an American president would speak such words. They are the musings of a monarch from centuries ago, or a dictator ruling in a banana republic.
It's doubtful the president came up with these constitutional perversions by himself. Assistance was surely provided by his current White House counsel, Patrick Cipollone, and Attorney General William Barr. Both are leading proponents of what's known as the unitary theory of the executive, an extreme doctrine of presidential power that has no legal boundaries. It is radical, wrong, undemocratic — and dangerous.
This theory is as obscure as it is controversial. It is a viewpoint that proponents argue is found in Article II of the Constitution: "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." Those words have been variously interpreted to theoretically invalidate any statute passed by Congress that denies the president "exclusive control" over a "purely executive" power — and thus violating the principle of the separation of powers in the Constitution.
Other supporters of the theory take a more extreme view. They consider independent federal regulatory agencies as illegitimate, since they are structured to be insulated from presidential control. They believe Congress has no power to demand information from any part of the executive branch. And they assert that executive authority, under the Constitution, gives a president whatever powers are left specifically unchecked by either Congress or the courts.
Advocates of the theory posit that Congress cannot compel executive branch personnel to appear on Capitol Hill, even under subpoena. Not surprising, these were the same arguments put forth by Trump's lawyers in several court cases brought by the House against the president. They also served as a cornerstone of Trump's defense in the Senate impeachment trial.
While not the first presidential proponent of the theory — George W. Bush referred to it in more than 161 bill-signing statements — Trump has taken it to a significantly higher level.
Consider if Trump really has all the powers he thinks he should have. If only the president could determine what presidential powers exist, then a president could do more than act whenever Congress had not set specific parameters on a given topic. Under this extreme theory, his unilateral actions, even in the face of explicit congressional opposition, would be nonetheless constitutional.
This is precisely the issue now before the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Is it appropriate for the House to challenge Trump's decision to build a wall on the southern border with funds not appropriated for that purpose?
Richard Nixon pretty well summed up the essence of the unified theory of the executive this way: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal."
If Trump continues to lean on this crackpot theory to justify his governing decisions, it will have historical consequences for our nation. He would end our democracy based on the rule of law and replace it with an unaccountable dictatorial king.
The proponents of the unitary theory of executive power have constructed an alternative Constitution in much the same way Trump has used what his aides describe as "alternative facts" to conjure an alt reality.
If that sounds scary, well, it is. This president believes he has found the keys to the kingdom made possible by this discredited constitutional theory. It makes him, effectively, a king.
To overcome and reverse Trump's actions, we are encouraged by the wise counsel of Justice Robert Jackson, who came up with a famous test for evaluating claims of presidential power in a 1952 opinion preventing President Harry Truman from taking over the steel mills to avoid a strike during the Korean War.
"With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations," he wrote.
It's time for Congress and the courts — and the voters — to act accordingly, before it's too late.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.