Checks and balances at work in the US

Donald Trump’s style of presidency has flabbergasted pundits and the public alike. The United States president’s rule by fiat, where every day is witness to a new executive order, is perhaps premeditated by the new administration that seeks to upend the status quo in Washington DC. In doing so, Trump has issued a series of controversial and often counterproductive orders — from building a wall on the US-Mexico border to imposing a blanket travel ban on citizens of seven Muslim countries.

While many of his policy decisions are clearly contestable, Trump’s style of rule-by-fiat goes against the very ethos of democracy and rule of law that made America the beacon of freedom and justice in the first place. Just when his daily routine of verbal (and Twitter) attacks on religious minorities, media and allies was beginning to look normal, the first blowback (read denouncement) came from the US judiciary. A federal judge in Washington temporarily blocked Trump’s travel ban order from being enforced.

An embarrassed Trump administration complied. Although the president took to Twitter to rant against Judge James Robart, who put an injunction on Trump’s travel ban, there was a powerful message in the ruling: Trump’s policies can be — and will be — stymied by nationwide injunctions issued by the judiciary. Already Washington state, Minnesota and other US states want the appeals court in San Francisco to permit the temporary restraining order to stand as their lawsuit works its way through the courts. Recently, the appeals court questioned whether Trump’s travel ban discriminates against Muslims. No matter how it eventually winds up, it is certain that Trump will find it very hard to erase the checks and balances inherent in the US Constitution — perhaps the biggest strength of US democracy.