Following the reelection of Donald Trump last Tuesday, I, like many other Americans, faced some emotional reckoning. A lot of questions I did not expect to grapple with hit me full-force as I scrolled through The New York Times while in my 10 a.m. class on Nov. 6. I began to wonder about the response online, so I switched to social media. There, I saw many people in my social circles — both the ones here in Evanston and back home in Charlotte, North Carolina — were reposting graphics about the potential loss of abortion rights, climate policy as well as what Trump’s first acts in office could bring. In the flurry of outcry, I couldn’t help but think of one thing: the American experiment.
Our nation is an experiment; the Founding Fathers took pride in creating an unprecedented government system, a large-scale constitutional republic with federalist roots. In a world full of centralized, absolute monarchies, the United States stood alone in the 1700s as a democracy upon its founding. It attempted to prove that its democratic system could not only survive, but thrive. It is from this history that the term “the American experiment” came to be.
The key goal of this experimental governmental system was to protect the rights of its citizens and maintain stability. By stability, I am referring to the stability of the division of power with regards to keeping any one section of government from gaining too much power or from electing a tyrant.
Many think Trump is a tyrant. But is he? The most basic definition of a tyrant is a cruel leader who oppresses their citizenry and abuses their power. I agree that Trump has a historical track record that is limited in amiability for those unlike him; Trump has shown disregard for women, ethnic and racial minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ community throughout his rhetoric. But is this oppression? I would not say so. Trump has not legally stripped any of these people of their rights through policies he enacted; he has only talked of doing so. Have those rights — in part — been taken away by those he has appointed? Yes; just look at the Supreme Court. I will digress on that in regards to the right to an abortion. And his oppression of the rights of illegal immigrants, you might ask? Well, I agree, it’s inhumane and cruel. But these acts do not make him a tyrant. These people are not legal residents nor citizens of the U.S., and thus are not members of the U.S. citizenry. As such, Trump has not oppressed U.S. citizens in a way that makes him a tyrant.
Yet, there is a secondary reason Trump is not a tyrant — in ancient Greece, a tyrant was a ruler who seized power unconstitutionally or inherited it. Trump did not do that — he was reelected to the Oval Office by the Electoral College and popular vote, and the fact that he was elected by a margin of 5 million or so over Kamala Harris shows the American people reaffirms his standing. As painful as it is for some of us to admit, American democracy and the institutions that uphold it chose Trump to either continue the American experiment or end it during his tenure as the 47th U.S. president. The idea of Trump not being a tyrant works to show that the American experiment is not over, since the government is not being run by a tyrant, per the word’s definition.
Even if Trump does turn out to be a tyrant, he will face difficulty unwinding the American experiment, even with Republican majorities in the Supreme Court, Senate and House. Many are fearful that with Republican control of the three federal branches, the nearly 900-page Project 2025 — a policy proposal released by a conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation -– will be enacted. The project remodels the federal government to be more in line with right-wing ideology and seeks to consolidate most of the executive branch’s power under the president. Despite Trump denying his support of Project 2025, many, including myself, find this hard to believe. Eighteen former Trump aides helped to write or edit the proposal, and the project’s goals in certain areas are parallel with those of Agenda 47, Trump’s formal policy plan for his next term.
However, to pass any of the proposals in these plans, the Trump administration must face in any attempt to eliminate the American experiment: the Constitution.
This is the case for three reasons: Amendments are hard to pass, the Supreme Court has limits in justifying their rulings and the Constitution has safeguards in place.
Components of both Project 2025 and Agenda 47 would require amending the Constitution, such as the ending of birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Despite the popular support for Trump, I highly doubt three-fourths of all state legislatures would vote in favor of such an amendment. The process of amending the Constitution is tedious and for that reason, uncommon. Toeing the line of constitutionality does not always end well, and the Supreme Court may very likely shoot it down. Their job is not as subjective as it seems; the court must still adhere to the bounds of the Constitution as defined by the founders and legally justify decisions using this document. The current Roberts Court — despite its polarizing rulings overturning Roe v. Wade and the Chevron doctrine — is obligated by the nature of its rule to shut down unconstitutional new laws. Third, the Constitution directly defines the powers and role of each branch, including the executive. Trump and company cannot legally seize more power than is allotted to them in the Constitution, and they are liable to oversight from other branches of government via the checks and balances put in place by the founders. The founders foresaw challenges to their experiment, and they prepared against them within the document that enabled such a challenge — in the eyes of some — to win the 2024 election.
With that said, there is no telling what is ahead for our nation over the next four years. But I know one thing is certain: I will not be living under an authoritarian government, and I will be casting a ballot in 2028 because the American experiment will live on during and after the Trump presidency, just as it always has for the past two centuries.
Reed Zimmerman is a Weinberg first-year. She can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
