Trump prospers amid attacks on the rule of law

Bob Sheak, May 15, 2025

Introduction

Trump and his allies are doing their utmost to enrich themselves and avoid the law, while hollowing out programs designed to assist the majority of Americans. In the process, they have disrupted the economy and politics and caused increasing hardship.

Economic turmoil

Trump’s tariffs have taken their toll on the economy and most Americans. Scott Horsley writes that they have sparked recession fears (https://npr.org/2025/04/30/nx-s1-5380204/trump-economy-gdp-tariffs-recession-consumers). After 100 days in the White House, Hosley writes, “Economic output is shrinking. The stock market has dropped sharply. And consumer confidence has tumbled to its lowest level since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Since then, Trump has “paused” or reduced tariffs and the stock market has been up and down, creating widespread investor and consumer uncertainty and caution.  “Trump [initially] imposed 10% taxes on nearly everything the United States imports, along with tariffs of 145% on many goods from China. The president has also called for additional tariffs — only to suspend them — leaving many businesses and consumers uncertain about what import taxes will look like in the future.”

He has subsequently lowered the tariffs on China.

The economic effects have been negative. Horsley writes, “Economic growth, as measured by the United States’ gross domestic product “contracted at an annual rate of 0.3% in the first quarter of the year, after growing at a solid pace of 2.4% in the final months of 2024.” He also points out, “Personal spending, which is the biggest driver of the U.S. economy, also slowed during the first quarter, after robust growth at the end of last year. Personal spending grew at an annual rate of just 1.8% in January, February and March — less than half the pace of the previous quarter.”

———–

Meanwhile, the President and his Family have prospered

Some, including the President and his family, have prospered amid the mayhem

Robert Reich writes on “The Grifter-in-Chief Trump and the Grift That Keeps on Grifting” (https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-qatar-air-force-one-corruption).

Robert Reich, is the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He is the author of books.

Reich thinks that Trump is “overplaying his hand.”

He writes,

“Not just by usurping the powers of Congress and ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Not just abducting people who are legally in the United States but have put their name to opinion pieces Trump doesn’t like and trucking them off to ‘detention’ facilities. Not just using the Justice Department for personal vengeance. Not just unilaterally deciding how much tariff tax American consumers will have to pay on almost everything they buy.” These moves have lost Trump popular support. But “almost all Americans…are firmly against — even many loyal Trumpers — us bribery. And Trump is taking bigger and bigger bribes.” Reich gives the following example.

“It was reported over the weekend that he’s accepting a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane worth at least $400 million from the Qatari royal family, for use during his presidency and for his personal use afterward.”

Reich continues.

“Trump just can’t resist. He’s been salivating over the plane for months. It’s bigger and newer than Air Force One — and so opulently configured that it’s known as ‘a flying palace.’ (No report on whether it contains a golden toilet.).” Reich adds:

“Apparently, he’s been talking about the plane for months. In February, he toured it while it was parked at Palm Beach International Airport.”

But there is a Constitutional issue. “The U.S. Constitution clearly forbids officers of the United States from taking gifts from foreign governments. It’s called the “emoluments clause.” (See Article I, Section 9.)” If Trump accepts the plane, he will be breaking the law.

 Reich asks, “what does Qatar get in return for the $400 million plane? What’s the quid for the quo?” Reich answers as follows.

This week’s Trump’s trip to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. is as much a personal business trip for Trump and his family businesses as a diplomatic trip.

“Trump’s company has just announced a new golf resort in Qatar, reportedly partnering with a company owned by the royal family.” But the potential financial rewards are not limited to Qatar.

“Eric Trump, who officially runs the family business, has just announced plans for a Trump-branded hotel and tower in Dubai, part of the U.A.E.”

The Trump family’s developments in the Middle East depend on a Saudi-based real estate company with close ties to the Saudi government. Saudi Arabia has a long list of pressing matters before the United States, including requests to buy F-35 fighter jets and gain access to nuclear power technology.”

There is more.

“Trump’s family crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, announced that its so-called ‘stablecoin’ — with Trump’s likeness all over it — will be used by the U.A.E. to make a $2 billion business deal with Binance, the largest crypto exchange in the world. The deal will generate hundreds of millions of dollars more for the Trump family.”

——————

Kleptocracy

Author Ann Appelbaum considers an example of Trump’s priorities (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/trump-kleptocracy-autocracy-inc/682281).

The first point she makes is that Donald Trump puts his financial interests and golfing high in his list of priorities. Appelbaum puts it this way.

“As the stock markets crashed on Friday, April 4, Donald Trump left Washington, D.C. He did not go to New York to consult with Wall Street. He did not go to Dover, Delaware, to receive the bodies of four American servicemen, killed in an accident while serving in Lithuania. Instead, he went to Florida, where he visited his Doral golf resort, which was hosting the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tournament, and stayed at his Mar-a-Lago club, where many tournament fans and sponsors were staying too. His private businesses took precedence over the business of the nation.

Appelbaum continues.

“Many of his guests were also interested in boosting Trump’s personal interests, as well as gaining the American president’s favor. One of them was Yasir al-Rumayyan, who runs the $925 billion Saudi sovereign-wealth fund and is also the chair of the LIV tournament. Other sponsors of the tournament included Riyadh Air, a Saudi airline; Aramco, the Saudi state oil company; and, startlingly, TikTok, the Chinese-owned social-media platform whose fate Trump will personally be deciding, even as he profits from its sponsorship and support.

“Conflict of interests”

“Once upon a time (and not even that long ago), blatant conflicts of interest, especially involving foreign entities, were,” Appelbaum writes, “something presidents sought to avoid.” Trump is almost unique among American Presidents.

“No previous inhabitant of the White House would have wanted to be seen doing personal business with companies from countries that seek to influence American foreign policy. Such dealings risk violating the Constitution, which prohibits government officials from accepting “gifts, titles or emoluments from foreign governments.” But during Trump’s first term, the court system largely blew off his commercial entanglements. Now he not only does business with foreign as well as domestic companies that have a direct interest in his policies, he advertises and celebrates them. We know the identities of the golf-tournament sponsors not because investigative journalists burrowed deep into secret contracts, but because they appear on official websites and were displayed on a billboard, observed by The New York Times, at his golf course.”

Scandalous

“Both the website and the billboard would have been scandals in any previous administration. If they are hardly remarked upon now, that’s because Trump’s behavior is a symptom of something much larger. We are living through a revolutionary change, a broad shift away from the transparency and accountability mandated by most modern democracies, and toward the opaque habits and corrupt practices of the autocratic world. For the past decade, American government and business alike have slowly begun to adopt the kleptocratic model pioneered by countries such as Russia and China, where the rulers’ conflicts of interest are simply part of the fabric of the system.”

—————–

Gutting programs that uphold the law

Trump wants a huge and permanent tax break for billionaires and the rich, as well as simultaneously reducing federal government programs and expenditures that serve ordinary and poor citizens and the common good. It has the making of budding fascism. Here are some examples.

#1 – “The end of the rule of law” in the U.S.  Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig considers “the end of the rule of law” (https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/law-america-trump-constitution/682793).

His basic thesis is that the 47^th president “seems to wish he were king—and he is willing to destroy what is precious about this country to get what he wants.” He writes:

“The president of the United States appears to have long ago forgotten that Americans fought the Revolutionary War not merely to secure their independence from the British monarchy but to establish a government of laws, not of men, so that they and future generations of Americans would never again be subject to the whims of a tyrannical king.” Trump seems not to understand this legacy.  Luttig notes this: “Just last month, an interviewer from Time magazine asked the president in the Oval Office, “Mr. President, you were showing us the new paintings you have behind us. You put all these new portraits. One of them includes John Adams. John Adams said we’re a government ruled by laws, not by men. Do you agree with that?” To which the president replied: ‘John Adams said that? Where was the painting?’” Luttig continues: “When the interviewer pointed to the portrait, Trump asked: ‘We’re a government ruled by laws, not by men? Well, I think we’re a government ruled by law, but you know, somebody has to administer the law. So therefore men, certainly, men and women, certainly play a role in it. I wouldn’t agree with it 100 percent. We are a government where men are involved in the process of law, and ideally, you’re going to have honest men like me.’” And, earlier in May, “a television journalist asked Trump the simple question “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” Astonishingly, the president answered, ‘I don’t know.’ The interviewer then asked, Don’t you agree that every person in the United States is entitled to due process? The president again replied, “I don’t know.”

The gist of Luttig’s analysis is summed up by him as follows, “Thus far, Trump’s presidency has been a reign of lawless aggression by a tyrannical wannabe king, a rampage of presidential lawlessness in which Trump has proudly wielded the powers of the office and the federal government to persecute his enemies, while at the same time pardoning, glorifying, and favoring his political allies and friends—among them those who attacked the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection that Trump fomented on January 6, 2021. The president’s utter contempt for the Constitution and laws of the United States has been on spectacular display since Inauguration Day.”

Luttig refers to examples of Trump’s self-serving views.

“When Trump again assumed the presidency in January, he—like every American president before him—swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws of this nation, as commanded by the Constitution. In the short time since, Trump hasn’t just refused to faithfully execute the laws; he has angrily defied the Constitution and laws of the United States. In America, where no man is above the law, Trump has shown the nation that he believes he is the law, even proclaiming on social media soon after assuming office that ‘He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.’”

“From the moment he entered the White House on January 20, 2025, Trump has waged war against the rule of law. He not only instigated a worldwide economic crisis with his hotheaded, unlawful tariffs leveled against our global trading partners and our enemies alike; he deliberately provoked a constitutional crisis with his frontal assault on the federal judiciary, the third and co-equal branch of government and guardian of the rule of law—grabbing more and more power for nothing but power’s sake.

“On his first day back, foreshadowing his all-out assault on the rule of law, Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of 1,200 January 6 rioters. Soon, he began to persecute his political enemies—of whom there are now countless numbers—and to fire the prosecutors for the United States who attempted to hold him accountable for the grave crimes against the Constitution that he committed after losing the 2020 election.

Here’s a summary of Trump’s offenses to the law.

“For not one of his signature initiatives during his first 100 days in office does Trump have the authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States that he claims. Not for the crippling global tariffs he ordered unilaterally; not for his unlawful deportations of hundreds of immigrants to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), El Salvador’s squalid maximum-security prison; not for his deportation of U.S. citizens to Honduras; not for his defiantly corrupt order from the Great Hall of the Department of Justice to weaponize the department against his political enemies; not for his evil executive orders against the nation’s law firms for their representation of his political enemies and clients of whom he personally disapproves; not for his corrupt executive orders against honorable American citizens and former officials of his own administration, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security chief of staff who dared to criticize Trump anonymously during his first term; not for his unlawful bludgeoning of the nation’s colleges and universities with unconstitutional demands that they surrender their governance and curricula to his wholly owned federal government; not for his threatened revocation of Harvard University’s tax-exempt status; not for his impoundment of billions of dollars of congressionally approved funds or his politically motivated threats to revoke tax exemptions; not for his attempt to alter the rules for federal elections; not for his direct assault on the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright-citizenship guarantee; not for his mass firings of federal employees; not for his empowerment of Musk and DOGE to ravage the federal government; not for his threats to fire Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell; not for his unconstitutional attacks on press freedoms; and finally, not for his appalling arrest of Judge Dugan.”

“Amid the ocean of unconstitutional orders, Luttig writes, “Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting some of the most prestigious law firms in the country because these firms represented or employed Trump’s personal enemies in the past are the most sinister and corrupt, which is saying something.

“Some of the firms—Paul Weiss; Latham & Watkins; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—cut “deals” to avoid the president’s persecution. In doing so, they shamefully sold out their own lawyers, clients, and the entire legal profession, including the handful of courageous law firms—such as WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—that rightly and righteously decided to fight the president instead. It is the sworn duty of all American lawyers to denounce the president’s lawlessness, not to ingratiate themselves to him.

“The utter unconstitutionality of these executive orders is perfectly captured by the following remarkable paragraph from Perkins Coie’s brief filed against the Trump administration by the legendary Washington law firm Williams & Connolly. I would venture to say there has never been a paragraph like this written in a brief before a federal court in the 235 years of the federal courts’ existence, every word of the paragraph indisputably correct.

“Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”

#2 – Warrantless spying

Daniel Boguslaw considers the expansion of domestic spying in the U.S. in an article for The American Prospect, May 12, 2025 (https://prospect.org/2025=05-12-warrantless-spying-report-signals-expansion-of-domestic-suveillance).

“Earlier this month, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a report on the most well-known aspect of the United States’ mass surveillance apparatus: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The report, which discloses surveillance actions undertaken during the last year of the Biden administration, details a marked uptick in querying of terms associated with U.S. persons, a decrease in the number of persons queried by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and most notably, an expansion of the 702 authority to include the war on drugs.

“Signed into law in 2008 by George W. Bush, the 702 authority amended a 1978 law to allow mass communications collection without a warrant, as long as broad rules of engagement from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) were followed. (In reality, the FISC acts as a rubber stamp for just about every request that comes across its desk.) Even marginal attempts to reform 702 authority when its renewal comes up every few years have been met with unprecedented vitriol and leaking from intelligence officials enraged at any check on their ever-increasing powers.

“Civil liberties advocates have repeatedly pointed to the fact that millions of Americans’ communications are routinely swept up in FISA surveillance, even if the marginal safeguards implemented by Congress constrain the most active FBI surveillance of U.S. persons. The intelligence agencies try to point to the first letter of FISA, “foreign,” to argue that the intention and bulk of surveillance collection is targeting non-U.S. persons and is by agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which are, at least on paper, barred from domestic surveillance.

But of course, the 702 back door allows for intercepting any communication with a targeted non-U.S. person, which includes millions of communications between non-U.S. and U.S. persons. This underscores why the new ODNI report is so important: It suggests that the authority is being broadened to include new ranges of targets.

“Just four lines of text in the 44-page report expose this new direction: “In 2024, the Government submitted applications for the renewal certifications and a new certification for counternarcotics. In March 2025, the FISC approved the renewal certifications for 2025, and in April 2025, the FISC authorized the new certification for counternarcotics. The IC will process the opinions for subsequent public release under FISA Section 1872.”

“Neither Congress nor the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is willing to curb powers that are increasingly being turned on lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens.”

Boguslaw continues.

Thanks to the FISC’s rubber-stamping, drug trafficking surveillance is likely the tip of the iceberg. FBI director Kash Patel, DHS chief Kristi Noem, and border czar Tom Homan have all made it known that U.S. intelligence agencies are committed to working together to target immigrants, green card holders, foreign nationals in the country on student visas, and law-abiding Americans who disagree with the sitting administration’s policies.”

#3 – The proposed suspension of Habeas Corpus

Marjorie Cohn is a professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Veterans For Peace and Assange Defense, and is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. Here, on May 12, 2025, she writes against the Trump administration’s argument of suspending habeas corpus (https://truthout.org/articles/stephen-millers-argument-for-suspending-habeas-corpus-is-legal-garbage).

Cohn comments on White House Chief of Staff Stephen Millier who “told reporters [on May 9] that the administration is considering whether to suspend the right to habeas corpus – known as “The Great Writ” – in immigration cases. Suspending habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge the legality of their detention in court, would be unconstitutional. The Suspension Clause, located in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, says: ‘The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.’”

Cohn cites Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck: “To casually suggest that habeas might be suspended because courts have ruled against the executive branch in a handful of immigration cases is to turn the Suspension Clause entirely on its head.”

“Moreover, Miller’s alarming declaration contains several legal and factual errors.

Only Congress, Not the President, Has the Power to Suspend Habeas Corpus

Contrary to Miller’s assertion, only Congress — not the president — can suspend habeas corpus, and only in rare circumstances. “Although [the Suspension Clause] does not state that suspension must be effected by, or authorized by, a legislative act, it has been so understood, consistent with English practice and the Clause’s placement in Article I,” Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. (Article I of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress).

“Amy Coney Barrett, a current member of the Supreme Court, agrees with Scalia. When she was a judge on the 7^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, she and Neal K. Katyal, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, wrote for National Constitution Center: ‘The Clause does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it.’ That is because the Suspension Clause is located in the section of the Constitution that details the powers of Congress, and habeas corpus has only been suspended four times since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.”

Cohn writes that “Miller is also wrong because there is no ‘invasion’ currently occurring in the United States, despite several of Donald Trump’s January 20 executive orders declaring that there is an invasion of the southern U.S. border.”

She gives the following examples.

“For example, in his order entitled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” Trump declared, ‘I have determined that the current state of the southern border reveals that the Federal Government has failed in fulfilling this obligation to the States and hereby declare that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.’ He claimed that he was suspending what he described as ‘the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border until I determine that the invasion has concluded.”

Trump also signed an order titled “Clarifying the Military’s Role in Protecting the Territorial Integrity of the United States.” It calls the situation at the southern border an “invasion” that includes “unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities.’”

Cohn also refers to the opinion of Rear Adm. James McPherson, former U.S. undersecretary of the Army, who “said on PBS ‘NewsHour’ that ‘We don’t have a war going on at the southern border. We have a law enforcement crisis perhaps. But that’s not an invasion.’” The courts have not supported the idea.

• Several federal courts have also rejected the idea that there is an ongoing invasion at the southern border.
• In February 2024, a federal district court in Texas rejected the equating of immigration with an invasion, concluding that “surges in immigration do not constitute an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
• During the first week of May, three federal judges rejected the Trump administration’s argument that the immigration situation constitutes an invasion.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., in South Texas, granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 1 and rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to justify using the Alien Enemies Act by arguing that the U.S. was being invaded by a Venezuelan gang.

• On May 6, U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney in Colorado called the Trump administration’s definition of invasion “unpersuasive” and rejected the government’s argument that the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was beyond judicial review.
• Also on May 6, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in New York held that the Tren de Aragua gang (TdA) is not attacking the United States. “TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion or predatory incursion,” he wrote, and halted deportations from most of New York City and nearby areas.
• Although immigration matters generally start in immigration courts, appeals from those decisions are routinely heard by Article III (federal) courts.
• In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that noncitizens held within the United States have the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

—————–

Concluding thoughts

Sadly, Trump and the sycophants and cronies in his administration want a government that favors their interests. And their interests are in opening up opportunities for the enrichment for his family and other rich people, while diminishing opportunities for the majority. On the latter point, see the article by Celine McNichols and her colleagues on “the 100 ways Trump has hurt workers in his first 100 days” (https://epi.org/publication/100-days-100-ways-trump-hurt-workers/#read-the-report), and Elois Goldsmith’ “Trump Social Security Cuts Will Result in New Burdens for millions” (https://commondreams.org/news/social-security-direct-deposit-2-million), and Sasha Abramsky’s article “NIOSH Upheld Workplace Safety for Millions in the U.S. Trump is dismantling it (https://truthout.org/articles/niosh-upheld-workplace-safety-for-millions-in-the-us-trump-is-dismembering it). All is not yet lost. In response to the Trump administration’s attacks on vital government programs, there have been ongoing protests across the country. Trump has not done well in polls. Nonetheless, Trump and his allies have taken the country away from democracy or a republic and towards something increasingly authoritarian.

 Steven LevitskyLucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt, political scientists who study how democracies come to an end, write the following (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-democracy.html).

“Under authoritarianism… opposition comes with a price. Citizens and organizations that run afoul of the government become targets of a range of punitive measures: Politicians may be investigated and prosecuted on baseless or petty charges, media outlets may be hit with frivolous defamation suits or adverse regulatory rulings, businesses may face tax audits or be denied critical contracts or licenses, universities and other civic institutions may lose essential funding or tax-exempt status, and journalists, activists and other critics may be harassed, threatened or physically attacked by government supporters.”