I. The Language of Crisis, The Machinery of Control

When Trump speaks of “emergency,” it is not just a rhetorical flourish. It is a strategy. He has declared, in practice if not yet formally, that America is under siege—from immigration, from energy shortages, from China, from the “deep state,” from within and without. And from that diagnosis, he draws a familiar conclusion: only he can save the nation. But to do so, he must be unshackled from democratic constraint.

Already, in the opening months of his new term, Trump’s legal teams and executive agencies have begun laying the groundwork for sweeping uses of emergency powers. They are exploring the Defense Production Act to override environmental review processes and accelerate fossil fuel drilling. They are dusting off INA Section 212(f)—the same provision Trump once used for the Muslim Ban—to attempt mass deportations and border closures. And they are signaling intent to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to punish companies or countries seen as undermining his economic or geopolitical aims.

None of this is hypothetical. It is a project of power by design. And it has precedent. But this time, it comes with a new ambition: to use emergency authority not as a temporary response to crisis, but as the central operating principle of governance.

II. Efficiency as an Excuse

Trump’s defenders insist that he is simply doing what needs to be done—cutting through red tape, bypassing gridlock, restoring order. The argument is as old as autocracy itself: democracy is too slow for the dangers we face. We must act now, they say. We must act decisively.

But speed is not the same as strength. And decisiveness without deliberation is not leadership—it’s domination. What Trump offers is not a plan for more effective governance. It is a plan to abolish the constraints that make governance accountable.

Indeed, the genius of American democracy has never been its speed. It lies in its friction—its checks and balances, its multiple layers of responsibility, its deliberate messiness. The Founders designed a system that resists the very thing Trump now seeks: unilateral power in the name of urgency.

III. Emergency as a Political Weapon

It is worth remembering that the United States has no consistent legal definition of a national emergency. Since the passage of the National Emergencies Act in 1976, presidents have declared over 80 emergencies—some of them lasting decades. The system was built on the assumption of good faith: that presidents would use this tool sparingly, in coordination with Congress, and only for genuine crises.

Trump has no such intention. For him, the declaration of emergency is not a constitutional mechanism—it is a political weapon. It is a means of bypassing debate, evading judicial scrutiny, and punishing opposition.

In 2019, he tested the boundaries by using an emergency declaration to redirect Pentagon funds to his border wall. Courts eventually allowed parts of it to proceed. That moment was a signal—not just to Trump, but to future authoritarians: the legal and institutional guardrails are weaker than they appear.

Now, emboldened and unchecked, Trump is pushing those boundaries further. And the threats he invokes—immigration, energy, foreign trade—are not unforeseen catastrophes. They are the everyday challenges of governance in the modern world. To treat them as justification for autocratic power is not only unconstitutional; it is absurd.

IV. The Real Cost of Rule by Emergency

What happens when a country begins to run on permanent emergency? History tells us. Institutions atrophy. Transparency vanishes. The civil service is hollowed out. Courts are circumvented. Congress becomes irrelevant. And the citizens themselves grow numb—resigned to the idea that crisis is the norm, and concentrated power is the only solution.

This is not theoretical. From Putin’s Russia to Erdoğan’s Turkey, we have seen how the constant invocation of crisis becomes the justification for silencing critics, surveilling the population, and rewriting the very rules of political life.

And here is the most sobering truth: once democratic institutions are bypassed long enough, they forget how to function. The habits of self-government erode. The public begins to believe that deliberation is weakness, and autocracy is strength. The country does not fall overnight—it fades.

V. The Founders Knew This Danger

James Madison warned us plainly: “The accumulation of all powers… in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The American system was not built for convenience. It was built to prevent exactly what Trump is now attempting.

Emergency powers, in the Founders’ view, were not a license to rule. They were a danger to be constrained. Even Abraham Lincoln, facing true civil war, pleaded to Congress for authorization, sought legal review, and submitted his acts to public judgment. That is the difference between leadership in crisis and exploitation of crisis.

Trump’s vision is not Lincolnian. It is Napoleonic. And in that vision, there is no room for the Republic—only for the strongman.

VI. Resisting the Shortcut

So what is to be done?

First, we must call this what it is: a creeping autocracy masquerading as administrative reform. The language of “efficiency,” “boldness,” and “decisiveness” must not blind us to the dismantling of democratic norms.

Second, institutions must rediscover their will. Congress, even if divided, must push back—not only through hearings, but through legal action and public messaging. Governors and mayors must challenge unconstitutional federal overreach in the courts. Civil society must remain vigilant.

Third, the public must resist the temptation of shortcuts. It is easy, in a world of complexity and frustration, to fall for the promise of a single man who “gets things done.” But the price of that convenience is the erosion of liberty. Democracy is hard. That is its virtue.

Conclusion: No Free Republic Without Resistance

In 2025, the United States stands at a crossroads—not of ideology, but of structure. The question is not whether Trump’s policies are conservative or populist, good or bad. The question is whether the presidency itself becomes a vehicle for permanent, personalized power.

Authoritarianism rarely arrives with a single blow. It creeps in through exceptions, justifications, emergencies. It sounds like action. It looks like control. It always begins with the claim: “Only I can fix it.”

But a true Republic does not require a savior. It requires citizens.

And so this is a moment not only of vigilance, but of courage. The courage to speak out. The courage to slow down when pushed to hurry. The courage to believe that democracy—though slower, messier, and often frustrating—is worth the effort.

Let us not wait for the emergency to become permanent before we act. Let us defend the ordinary procedures of liberty now, while they still stand. Because once lost, they are rarely recovered.

---

Sources

• Ackerman, Bruce. The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Harvard University Press, 2010.
• Howell, William G. Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton University Press, 2003.
• Goldsmith, Jack. “Trump’s Emergency Powers Are Dangerous.” The Atlantic, Jan. 2020.
• Madison, James. Federalist No. 47.
• Savage, Charlie. “Trump and His Allies Plan to Use Emergency Powers If He Returns to Power.” The New York Times, May 2025.