“When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”

                                                                                             Richard M. Nixon

In American mythology no one is above the law. Justice is blind and we all get it equally under the law. For almost 250 years we’ve boasted that the United States is a nation of laws, not men (persons now). We profess to believe in the rule of law. We’re headed for a test of that proposition now.

In November we elected a President who has spent his life violating the law, reneging on deals he’s made, evading court orders and generally demonstrating his contempt for matters legal.

 Last summer, the Supreme Court made its own contribution to undermining the hoary notion that even Presidents are subject to the law. Presidents, the Court said, are immune from prosecution for official acts, even if those acts are illegal.

Not to worry. Presumably, Americans would be electing men and women of good character so that we wouldn’t need to worry about the Chief Executive stealing or murdering–lying might be another matter, but then we’re used to that.

As long as our presidents were persons of good character, then, we shouldn’t have had cause for concern. But…if we happened to elect someone of less than sterling character—say a draft dodger, or a philandering adulterer, or a convicted felon, then we might need to worry. Worse yet, a person who was all of those things and more.

Even then, we could count on the revered tenet of checks and balances to hold a corrupt or power-hungry President in check—doing something illegal or unconstitutional. We could always count on Congress or the courts to block him or her. Things must be done according to rules and procedures.

Well, as Joe Biden used to say, guess what?

In the first three weeks of the Trump administration, we have been overwhelmed by a blizzard of executive orders and other actions, covering everything from a freeze on federal spending to banning paper straws. Characteristically, Trump flooded the zone so that it was hard to digest one order because it was quickly followed by another, then another. We can’t say we weren’t warned. True to form, he announced his intentions during the campaign and even before. Not that there were no surprises. Ignoring the Constitution to revoke—by executive order—birthright citizenship, we knew about. Cancelling foreign aid and abolishing the Agency for International Development, that wasn’t entirely expected.

There were other actions: Firing a bunch of inspectors general without notifying Congress 30 days in advance as legally required; abolishing all DEI programs in the government and maybe even in the private sector; removing the chairman of the Federal Election Commission despite having no authority to do so, and others.

The commander of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, was fired on Day Two of the new presidency, allegedly because she was a DEI appointee. Maybe that was the reason, but certainly also because she was a woman. Fagan initially was given 60 days to move out of her government provided housing. That was changed weeks later to three hours, forcing her to leave without her personal possessions.

If the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., is fired by Trump, we won’t have to wonder why. Gen Brown is a former fighter pilot. He is also an African American. He was not a DEI appointee.

It is worth asking why, with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and marching in lockstep to Trump’s orders, these changes were not made legally, the old- fashioned way, through congressional action.

The question, of course, is naïve. These changes are being attempted through executive action because this President wants to exert his authority, legally or not. Enlarging his power is as important, perhaps more so, than the changes he’s trying to make. One of his apparent goals is to emasculate Congress, and he’s doing it with the craven cooperation of congressional Republicans.

These actions also are heavy with symbolism. Shutting down the Agency for International Development as Victim Number One is red meat for opponents of foreign aid, but it’s meaningless in terms of reducing government spending. The AID budget is about 43 billion dollars. Forty-three billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it’s less than one percent of the $6.75 trillion federal budget—insignificant if one is seriously looking to reduce federal spending. But they’re not serious about cutting the budget. They want to look like they’re serious; and cutting foreign aid, which is never popular, is a good place to make the effort look good.

Trump, as usual, along with Elon Musk, have made bizarre, false claims about fraud and waste at AID, but they offer no examples and no proof. Trump’s modus operandi is that something is given only when something is received. Life is a matter of transactions, and foreign aid apparently is given by suckers.

Most worrisome of all, however, is that the foxes are now guarding the hen house. Trump appointees will be in control of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the investigative arms of the various departments and agencies. If ever we had cause for concern about waste, fraud and abuse, this is the time to start worrying.

Speculation has increased that Trump may decide to disregard adverse court rulings. Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this possibility in a general way in his year-end report last December. “Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” he wrote. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.” Undeterred and unimpressed, Trump’s vice president, J.D. Vance, has suggested in a recent tweet on X that “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive branch’s legitimate power.”

So with Congress and the courts disqualified, and traditional law enforcement now in the hands of the transgressors, what’s left?

The media, often referred to by Trump as, “The enemy of the people.” Trump already has launched a number of lawsuits against television networks, suggested that their licenses be revoked and suggested more than once that libel laws be less protective of the media. ABC and CBS have caved, and settled. They decided that profit is more important than principle. The Washington Post, having been ordered not to endorse anyone for President last year, is experiencing an exodus of talent. The Washington press corps, with some exceptions, has never exhibited much in the way of courage when it comes to holding presidents to account.

For those of us who came of age in a different time, when we were asked not what we wanted but what we could contribute, this moment is particularly difficult. Instead of a generosity of spirit, we encounter an intolerant meanness. Instead of a call to unity, we hear an encouragement of division. Instead of respect for our differences, we find contempt.

Democracy, we know all too well, is messy and inefficient. It’s disheartening to see the men and women who populate our institutions—especially in Congress—surrender their power and abandon their constitutional duties

Change is a fact of life. Nothing stands still. Improvements can always be made in any system. Grace, consideration and kindness, however, never become outdated.