Blandine Chelini-Pont: “Justice did not have the courage to rule that Trump was a danger for democracy”

Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election is worrying, in the United States as elsewhere in the world. In 2017, the businessman arrived at the White House almost by surprise. Little prepared, he had surrounded himself in part with traditional republicans, respectful of institutions, who had acted as internal checks and balances and limited the excesses of their leader.

Donald Trump fired them one by one, and set about building a team whose primary criterion is loyalty. His return to control of the leading world power could therefore prove even more devastating from the point of view of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the application of an ultraconservative program.

Blandine Chelini-Pont, professor of contemporary history at Aix-Marseille University, looks back on the excesses of Donald Trump's first term, and outlines the directions for his next four years in the Oval Office.

Donald Trump won the presidential election, the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the House is still in a tie. What counter-powers could hinder its action?

Blandine Chelini-Pont: Counter-powers exist, they are defined by the Federal Constitution. It is the system of « checks and balances » which, normally, protects the perimeter of each power (executive, legislative and judicial), with a fairly flexible system of control and cooperation between them. This is the ideal starting system. But it has experienced many excesses, in particular an increasingly marked presidentialization, which accelerated during the first term of Donald Trump.

How did this presidentialization manifest itself?

B. C.-P. : Donald Trump did not respect institutional procedures and the rules enshrined in the Constitution. For example, he refused to systematically go through the Senate to validate the appointments of members of his cabinet and other executive officials. During his next term, he could make greater use of his power of appointment in the administration.

The think tank ultraconservative Heritage Foundation is pushing in this direction: it hopes that Trump will fire all people suspected of being “leftists” within the federal administration, and proposes the immediate replacement of several tens of thousands of federal civil servants [contre environ 4 000 remplacements lors d’une alternance ordinaire, NDLR.].

Republicans accuse the federal state of stifling the freedoms of Americans and states. They are the slayers of Deep State“the deep state”.

Yet, paradoxically, the remedy they propose consists of giving the President of the United States maximum power in controlling the administration. We can therefore legitimately worry about the fact that Trumpist networks are penetrating all state services.

Government agencies, which exercise supervisory power independently [par exemple la CIA, ou l’agence de protection de l’environnement, NDLR.] are particularly targeted. Donald Trump could seek to subvert them – in other words modify their missions to his advantage –, cut off their funds or even completely eliminate some of them.

Within the Republican Party, are there any opponents of Trumpism left? If so, do they have any power?

B. C.-P. : A number of Republicans have publicly announced their opposition to Donald Trump. More than 200 of them signed a platform in USA Today to support Kamala Harris against their party's candidate. The best known figure of these dissidents is Liz Cheney, former number three of the Grand Old Party [jusqu’en 2021, NDLR.] and daughter of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush's vice president. This has been at odds with Trump since the assault on the Capitol in 2021.

But these Republicans no longer have a federal mandate. Liz Cheney was not re-elected in 2022, for example. Since the midterm election in 2022, Republican elected officials in Congress have almost all been radical Trumpists who campaigned on the billionaire's name.

In addition to Trump winning the presidency, the Senate has a large Republican majority, and the House of Representatives could also remain red [les résultats ne sont pas encore parvenus, NDLR.]. It would be a grand slam, and Donald Trump could then do exactly what he wants.

Can justice stop him? What happened in this regard during his first term?

B. C.-P. : During his first term, he did everything to ensure that the Ministry of Justice did not open an investigation into the cases that concerned him, by publicly denigrating the attorney general and exerting pressure on him.

This was particularly the case regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign, which led to the conviction of several members of Trump's team. This case subsequently participated in the first procedure ofimpeachmentthat is to say impeachment, targeting Donald Trump, in 2019-2020, but this is a political and not a judicial procedure.

Despite the launch of two impeachment procedures, Donald Trump has never been convicted, neither by Congress, nor by the Supreme Court, nor by the courts for his abuse of power. Is this not a demonstration of the weakness of the American rule of law?

B. C.-P. : He was still convicted civilly and criminally in several cases, the most recent for tax fraud linked to the Stormy Daniels affair, in the State of New York. But he was never convicted for his abuse of power as chief executive.

Following the January 6, 2021 insurrection, Congress rejected Trump's second impeachment proceeding, with Republicans voting against it. Then the Supreme Court protected the billionaire against criminal prosecution by arguing, in its decision of 1^is July 2024, that the President benefits from a “presumption of immunity” for everything relating to his official acts.

Result: he was neither “punished” politically by Congress, nor criminally for inciting insurrection, and was therefore never made ineligible. This gives the impression that the federal justice system has been powerless, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Judges in the federal court system did not have the courage to rule that Trump was a danger to democracy. The decision of 1^is July of the Supreme Court also cuts off any possibility of pursuing an appeal against possible abuse of power when Trump returns to the White House.

We can therefore say that the rule of law has been weakened in the United States, because the American system relies heavily on the righteousness and honesty of its political leaders.

The Founding Fathers considered that a politician representing democracy could only behave decently and respectfully of institutions. There are therefore not enough constitutional constraints to limit the excesses of power of the executive and its arbitrariness. But Trump has little regard for the philosophy of institutions, he considers that he is the leader, and that he decides as he wants.

Observers say Donald Trump is much better prepared for office today, as he enters his second term. What role does the Heritage Foundation and its “Project 2025” play in this preparation?

B. C.-P. : Donald Trump denied the influence of think tank Heritage Foundation during his campaign, and said he had not read the Project. On this second point, it's possible: he doesn't read. But his entire team around him went through it and some of the people who participated in its writing will be among his closest advisors at the White House.

The documents of Project 2025 include a list of Republican personnel ready to commit. Trump therefore has a potential army of senior officials at his service – this is one of the reasons why he is believed to be more prepared than during his first term.

I think the Project 2025which promotes an ultraconservative turn and a very right-wing transformation of the federal state, will be applied by Donald Trump and his teams. Several of those close to him, such as Steve Bannon, have notably increased threats against the “conspirators” – in the media, in government, in administrations – whom they intend to track down and prosecute for treason.

Alongside the Heritage Foundation, there are many other influential networks that have established links with Trump's teams. I am thinking, for example, of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative and religious jurists, which named many of the names of federal judges appointed by Trump during his first term. These people are opinionated and very determined. One of their goals was to end Roe v. Wade, who protected abortion rights at the federal level, and they succeeded.

So we can expect a second term that will be more radical and more effective in implementing his conservative program?

B. C.-P. : This is exactly it, particularly on immigration. Trump has promised to track down immigrants and deport them from the United States. However, overall, he does what he says. He does not bother with procedures and respect for the law. He relies on a speech which consists of saying that any limitation on his good will is contrary to the popular will since he was elected. And this discourse works with a large part of the population, who do not understand how the rule of law or American institutions work.