Merkley's Marathon Address Decried Trump's 'Authoritarian Grip'—But Executive Overreach Didn't Start With Him
Trump’s presidency may have amplified executive power, but unless lawmakers roll back those powers—and the bloated government behind them—the next administration will do the same.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.) took to the Senate floor on Tuesday around 6:30 p.m. to "ring the alarm" on what he described as President Donald Trump's "tightening authoritarian grip on the country." Over the course of his nearly 23-hour speech—the second-longest in Senate history—Merkley accused the Trump administration of undermining checks and balances, attacking free speech and the press, politicizing the Justice Department, and using the military to suppress dissent.
Wrapping up his speech Wednesday evening, Merkley stated: "The president believes he is the king of this country and he can control everything, regardless of what the law says." These comments come in the wake of last weekend's "No Kings" protests and an appeals court decision from earlier this week that will allow Trump to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon.
"I'm holding the Senate floor to protest Trump's grave threats to democracy," Merkley said in his address, declaring: "We cannot pretend this is normal," strongly implying that, in failing to act, the Senate itself is complicit in enabling Trump's authoritarian drift.
Merkley's warnings are hardly unfounded. The Trump administration's deployment of the National Guard into U.S. cities, politicization of the Justice Department, and sweeping use of executive authority over immigration enforcement have all raised legitimate constitutional concerns and questions about how much power the executive branch should wield. But while Merkley frames these actions as an almost uniquely Trump-era phenomenon, the roots of executive overreach run far deeper.
For years, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have signed off on policies that expanded executive power, and presidents from both parties have taken advantage of this broad authority.
The Biden administration, for instance, used soaring pandemic-era emergency orders to justify vaccine mandates and heavy-handed intervention in the U.S. economy. It also pressured social media platforms to suppress "misinformation." These moves were met with little resistance from many Democrats, including Merkley, who supported sweeping federal relief packages and voted to keep emergency measures in place even after COVID-19 was largely contained. He also joined colleagues in urging social media companies to curb "misinformation" during the 2024 election, aligning with the Biden administration's broader agenda to regulate online speech.
Merkley is right to call out Trump's actions, but executive overreach has been a problem long before Trump was reelected. And unless lawmakers move to rein in the executive branch and shrink the size of government, this overreach will continue to be a problem long after Trump leaves office.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
You don't get it. The other side already has abused their power. To make it fair our side has to abuse power too. Besides that, they're not going to be the ones to give up power willingly. And is certainly wouldn't be fair if we gave up power first. That means they've got to be the ones to give up power. Because we're as hell are not going to do it.
Giving up power requires an act of Congress, which must be either signed by the President, or override a veto.
Has this other side, which has already abused their power, proposed legislation to restrain further abuses?
Ironically a majority of the EOs are to act in a minimal compliance with congressional law. So they are actually upset at trump not using powers previously expanded by presidents. It makes no sense.
Or overriding previous overreaches by Bush, Barry and Biden, but Sarcasmic is way too mentally corrupt and dishonest to notice.
Of course not. The other side hasn't done that. Which means it would be foolish for our side to do it. They did it first, whatever "it" might be, and that makes it ok for us to do it. Similarly when it comes to giving up power, they need to do it first or we're not going to do it. The right and wrong of an action are completely dependent upon what they do or don't do.
Oh look, another temper tantrum masquerading as a trolling attempt.
Michael, "Giving up power" isn't the only possibility. The people who wrote and ratified our Constitution emphasized that our public servants might either abuse powers that they were granted or usurp powers that they were not granted by our Constitution. See https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/07/james-madison-on-abuse-and-usurpation/.
Our Constitution established multiple means to remedy abuses or usurpations of power (either by the president or by Congress enacting laws that purport to authorize (or are construed to authorize) the president to take actions that violate our Constitution.
First (as the Preamble emphasized), "We the People" collectively acted (as the supreme legislative authority in the U.S.) to "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves."
Second (as Article VI emphasized), the People ordained and established our "Constitution" as the paramount law in "the supreme Law of the Land." The People emphasized that our "Constitution" is the paramount law by further emphasizing that no laws purportedly enacted by Congress could be part of the "the supreme Law of the Land" except to the extent that such "Laws" had been "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution.
Third (as Article VI further emphasized), the People established that the first, foremost and constant duty of every legislator and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal, including the president, all other executive branch employees and all judges) is "to support" our "Constitution" in everything they do.
Fourth (as Article I emphasized), the People "vested in a Congress" only the power (and imposed the duty) to "make all laws" (and only laws) that are "necessary and proper" to support our Constitution, i.e., "all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” absolutely “all” the “Powers vested by this Constitution in" Congress or "the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including in the executive and judicial branches).
Fifth (as Article II emphasized), the People "vested in a President" only the power (and imposed the duty) to "take Care that the Laws" enacted or approved by Congress are "faithfully executed" and otherwise to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" his "Ability."
Sixth (as Article III emphasized), federal "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties" and "to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party" (so no "judicial Power" can "extend" any further than permitted "under" our "Constitution," federal "Laws" and "Treaties").
In short, our Constitution requires all public servants to support our Constitution by policing themselves (by refraining from abusing powers granted by, and not usurping powers not granted by, the supreme law of the land). Our Constitution requires legislators to support our Constitution by enacting laws that are necessary and proper to prevent or remedy any federal employee's abuse of powers granted by, or usurpation of powers not granted by, the supreme law of the land. Our Constitution requires executive and judicial officials to support our Constitution by implementing and enforcing the supreme law of the land.
Jacob R. Swartz is the fall intern at the senator Jeff Merkley (D) reelection headquarters.
If only the State weren't in open defiance of the federal government and actively aiding terrorists then I might be sympathetic but they are. Sorry, States don't get to nullify federal law whenever they feel like it, a lesson from almost 200 years ago that Democrats still refuse to learn.
Attempts at deregulation and reducing government spending are the true signs of an authoritarian.
I guess according to Jen Psaki, J.D. Vance is literally worse than Trump. Huh, gonna have to adjust my worse-than-Hitler totem pole rankings...
Yeah, there is not enough spit on Earth to spit on her with.
Interesting way of looking at it. Is TDS actually improving Hitler's reputation?
>>have all raised legitimate constitutional concerns and questions about how much power the executive branch should wield.
"concerns and questions" is the Les Nessman Offensive.
https://reason.com/2022/02/28/two-years-to-slow-the-spread/
Biden announced a federal vaccine mandate on private employers with 100 or more workers five weeks later.
"I've tried everything in my power to get people vaccinated," the president maintained. "But even after all those efforts, we still had more than a quarter of people in the United States who were eligible for vaccinations but didn't get the shot….So, while I didn't race to do it right away, that's why I've had to move toward requirements." Look at what you made him do.
The Sup;reme Court struck this down. National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA,, No. 21A244 (Jan. 13, 2022)
This would also prevent future administrations from ordering private employers to fire, or refuse to hire, girls and women who have had abortion.
Litigation is another way to curb executive power exceeding statutory limits. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
girls and women who have had abortion.
2025: Everyone's a biologist now.
A Reason article that is right on all counts. This is first, foremost and still a Congress-problem. If Congress wants to rein in an executive that's overreaching, they need to undo their century of delegations of authority and abdications of responsibility.
And roll back all that progress we made in the 60s? No thanks.
What "progress"?
Going on a decade plus long military adventure in Indochina.
The other party has to do it first though. The party in power won't do it because they are in power. So it must be done by the party that doesn't have the power to do it.
That's the pessimistic view. The more optomistic view is that we've walked up to the brink before and made our way back and the same is possible again. It will, however, require the party not in power today to remember that feeling when they are back in power. That makes it unlikely - but not impossible.
It will, however, require the party not in power today to remember that feeling when they are back in power.
What feeling was that? Envy? Desire? Resentment? Covetousness?
Powerlessness. Frustration at the authoritarian tendencies of your political opponents. Maybe even a smidgen of humility?
I'm inclined to agree with Prof Alder's article earlier today that the campaign finance laws have the unintended consequence of making that unlikely. But again, not impossible.
And then override the presidental veto. I think SCOTUS is the best chance of rolling back by declaring delegating Constitutional authorities to the other branches unconstitutional or at least must sunset after 2 years* or be reauthorized by Congress. Then let Congress stand by their votes for authoritization.
*I'd prefer that no Congress could delegate beyond their seated term, but that doesn't have much Constitutional weight. 2 years deriving from army authorization. Also be nice if they had to have stand alone votes for each delegation of authority.
It probably is, but that has just a slightly higher likelihood of happening than the snowballs chance in hell of Congress taking their power back.
G.I. Joe dolls, er, action figures had the Kung Fu Grip.
If any toy maker is stupid enough to sell Democrat dolls, they will have Authoritarian Grip.
"Trump’s presidency may have amplified executive power"
A majority of "amplified executive power" is revoking or fixing former presidents' executive power overreaches. For example:
EO 14148 – Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions — Revokes the following EOs/Memos.
(a) Executive Order 13994 of January 21, 2021 (Ensuring a Data-Driven Response to COVID-19 and Future High-Consequence Public Health Threats).
(b) National Security Memorandum 3 of February 4, 2021 (Revitalizing America’s Foreign Policy and National Security Workforce, Institutions, and Partnerships).
(c) Presidential Memorandum of February 4, 2021 (Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Persons Around the World).
(d) Executive Order 14026 of April 27, 2021 (Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors).
(e) Presidential Memorandum of March 31, 2022 (Finding of a Severe Energy Supply Interruption).
(f) Presidential Determination 2022-13 of May 18, 2022 (Delegating Authority Under the Defense Production Act to Ensure an Adequate Supply of Infant Formula).
(g) Presidential Determination 2022-15 of June 6, 2022 (Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, on Solar Photovoltaic Modules and Module Components).
(h) Presidential Determination 2022-16 of June 6, 2022 (Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, on Insulation).
(i) Presidential Determination 2022-17 of June 6, 2022 (Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, on Electrolyzers, Fuel Cells, and Platinum Group Metals).
(j) Presidential Determination 2022-18 of June 6, 2022 (Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, on Electric Heat Pumps).
(k) Executive Order 14081 of September 12, 2022 (Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy).
(l) Presidential Memorandum of January 17, 2023 (Delegation of Authority Under Section 6501(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022).
(m) National Security Memorandum 18 of February 23, 2023 (United States Conventional Arms Transfer Policy).
(n) Presidential Memorandum of February 27, 2023 (Presidential Waiver of Statutory Requirements Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, on Department of Defense Supply Chains Resilience).
(o) Presidential Memorandum of November 16, 2023 (Advancing Worker Empowerment, Rights, and High Labor Standards Globally).
(p) Executive Order 14112 of December 6, 2023 (Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination).
(q) Executive Order 14119 of March 6, 2024 (Scaling and Expanding the Use of Registered Apprenticeships in Industries and the Federal Government and Promoting Labor-Management Forums).
(r) Executive Order 14126 of September 6, 2024 (Investing in America and Investing in American Workers
EO 14154 – Unleashing American Energy — Revokes EOs 11991, 13990, 13992, 14007, 14008, 14013, 14027, 14030, 14037, 14057, 14072, 14082, 14096.
EO 14155 – Withdrawing the United States From the World Health Organization — Revokes EO 13987 (plus memo).
EO 14159 – Protecting the American People Against Invasion — Revokes 13993, 14010, 14011, 14012.
EO 14163 – Realigning the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program — Revokes EO 14013.
EO 14168 – Defending Women… / Restoring Biological Truth… — Rescinds 13988, 14004, 14021, 14075.
EO 14171 – Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions — Revokes EO 14003.
EO 14174 – Revocation of Certain Executive Orders — (title EO) Revokes EO 14042 (Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors); and EO 4043 (Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees).
EO 14177 – President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — Revokes EO 14007.
EO 14178 – Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology — Revokes EO 14067.
EO 14182 – Enforcing the Hyde Amendment — Revokes 14076 and 14079.
EO 14183 – Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness — Revokes EO 14004.
EO 14312 – Providing for the Revocation of Syria Sanctions — revokes Syria sanctions EOs / underlying emergency
EO 14314 – Making America Beautiful Again by Improving Our National Parks — Revokes a January 12, 2017 memorandum.
EO 14318 – Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure — Revokes EO 14141 (January 14, 2025).
EO 14324 – Suspending Duty-Free Treatment for De Minimis Entries — Supersedes EO 14256
EO 14337 – Revocation of Executive Order on Competition — Revokes EO 14036.
EO 14352 – Saving TikTok While Protecting National Security — Revokes a July 24, 2024 memorandum.
EO 14354 – Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees — Supersedes (in part) EO 14109.
EO 14306 Amends previous cybersecurity EOs.
EO 14169 Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid shuttered USAID
EO 14231 – Amendment to Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border amends EO 14193 and EO 14197
If only previous presidents "amplified executive power" like Trump.
Get out of here with facts. We have a narrative to push.
That’s a crap ton of revoking.
So [D] party's support in REPEALING their UN-Constitutional legislation will begin in ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Still waiting (100-years and counting).
I don’t care if states don’t want to “enforce” federal law. Hell, I don’t care if they refuse to protect federal property/agents.
But you don’t get to cry foul when the federal government comes in to secure their personnel and holdings.
Edit: and you sure as shit don’t get to threaten agents enforcing federal law with arrest for kidnapping.
Edit: and you sure as shit don’t get to threaten agents enforcing federal law with arrest for kidnapping.
Why would anyone think this was even a good idea?
I mean, not even Orville Faubus threatened to arrest soldiers for trespassing into Little Rock Central High School.
Michael, state officials could reasonably think that prosecuting a federal employee for kidnapping is reasonable if the state officials reasonably believe they can prove the elements of the crime. Federal kidnapping (18 U.S.C. 1201), for example, necessarily is limited to conduct by which a person "unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person." For good reason, the first word is "unlawfully." As in any prosecution, any defendant must be presumed innocent (their conduct must be presumed to be lawful) because the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all facts necessary to establish guilt (including that the conduct at issue was unlawful).
DesigNate, the potential for prosecuting federal employees for committing state crimes (even while such federal employees were putatively involved in carrying out official orders) was well established even before the U.S. was established. John Adams (as a Massachusetts lawyer) became notorious for defending British soldiers in 1770 being prosecuted and tried in Massachusetts under Massachusetts law by a Massachusetts judge and jury. See, e.g., https://www.samsonhistorical.com/blogs/reliving-history/john-adams-defense
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence (of the United States of America) emphasized the illegality (unconstitutionality) of "protecting [British soldiers] by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States" and "depriving us in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury."