If Trump kills precedent, what’s next?

Whether you like it or not, President Donald Trump is a political wrecking ball. Depending on your perspective, that’s either a refreshing change from the polished cowardice of most politicians or a growing concern as the wrecking ball swings dangerously close to the foundational principles of our republic.

Trump isn’t just smashing the usual corrupt bureaucracy, using long-standing executive powers to cut off funding for insane left-wing projects uncovered by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. No, he’s also testing the structural limits of executive power — to their breaking point. But the conservatives out there who cheer him on, alongside his reliable MAGA base, are making a colossal mistake by not thinking far enough ahead.

One day, Trump will no longer be president of the United States. One day, someone else will be holding the sledgehammer. One day, someone else will be testing the limits of whatever is left of precedent. And on that day, will it be someone who cares about the freedoms you care about?

In the first few months of Trump’s second administration, we’ve already seen warning signs: on tariffs, on immigration, and, yes, on executive overreach so vast and casual that it might make even President Woodrow Wilson blush.

And conservatives, once the vanguards of constitutional restraint, are now cheering as Trump brushes off congressional authority, treats the judiciary like a nuisance, and expands presidential powers to dizzying new heights. All because, for now, it’s being done in service of our goals.

But what happens when those powers are handed to someone who doesn’t share our worldview?

Tariff strategy

Starting with trade, it’s clear that Trump loves tariffs the way CNN loves Jan. 6. In both of his administrations, he’s leveraged Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — a Cold War-era relic that allows the president to restrict imports for national security reasons — to impose sweeping and chaotic tariffs without even a nod from Congress.

Under the ridiculous guise of national security and some back-of-the-napkin math on trade deficits, Trump can impose or remove tariffs on anyone, including our free trade allies, at a moment’s notice. Not through a careful, deliberative process alongside the support of Congress with an eye for the future beyond the next election. This was just one man deciding unilaterally to reshape American trade policy with nothing but a pen, a phone, and a Truth Social account.

But while his loyal supporters and his inner circle of drooling sycophants will excuse any decision as another example of 4D chess, a negotiating strategy, or simply a way to stop every nation on the planet from “screwing” us over, let’s play this out.

Let’s assume the president of the United States can simply declare an emergency and do whatever he or she pleases? Does that mean we should celebrate when President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — God forbid — decides that climate change, or racism, or wealth inequality is a national security threat? We’ll be left with nothing but the complaint that our emergency is real and theirs isn’t.

Immigration enforcement

Then there’s immigration, which is far less controversial but still includes instances of Trump ignoring fundamental American principles to achieve his goal, facing accusations of shredding the due process rights of illegal immigrants who face deportation.

Of course, the argument against deporting illegal immigrants to their home countries is ridiculously weak, even if the argument against deporting illegal immigrants to El Salvadoran prisons without judicial process is more reasonable. But, again, take a step back. Even if you think this is all part of Trump’s genius-level strategy on immigration — as part of an immigration policy that has been an almost universal success since his return to the White House — what precedent does this set?

What happens when the next Democratic president decides you are a national threat? That your gun ownership, your social media posts, or your political rallies are “extremist behavior” worthy of surveillance, detention, or worse?

This is far from impossible. Former President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security floated language about right-wing domestic extremism that was so vague it could include anyone who owns a copy of the Constitution.

Executive overreach

And what about the so-called TikTok ban that just never happened?

To support my work, please consider upgrading your subscription for access to exclusive content!

You can read the rest of my latest column on the Washington Examiner website.