This is not Normal

Throughout recent years, the American political landscape has been marked by an unprecedented disregard for the established rules and traditions that once served as the bedrock of constitutional governance. What once was a system in which both parties—symbolized by the elephant and the donkey—fought hard and long to preserve the rule of law now appears to be treated as little more than a relic, a mistake to be rectified at any cost. In this new paradigm, the Trump administration’s approach has not been measured by the number of lawsuits it faces or the precise legal minutiae at play; rather, it is defined by a fundamental willingness to bulldoze through rules that were hard won by both sides of the political spectrum, and to replace them with what can only be described as a “slash and burn” vision of American greatness.

From the moment President Trump assumed office in January 2017, his administration embarked on a course that seemed designed to provoke and challenge the established norms of governance. While previous presidents, regardless of party affiliation, operated within the constraints of long-held legal traditions and procedures, Trump’s strategy was radically different. His policies were not simply about governing; they were about sending a message—a message that the rules set by decades of political struggle were outdated, even detrimental, to the pursuit of a new kind of national strength. In this view, the legal frameworks and procedural safeguards that both elephants and donkeys had struggled to maintain were treated not as sacred trusts but as mistakes to be swiftly rectified. The reality, as critics contend, is that the principles painstakingly built over generations have been plowed under by a leadership that embraces chaos as a tool of political transformation.

This approach is nowhere more evident than in the administration’s frequent invocation of national security as a blanket justification for its actions. National security, a concept that has always been central to the responsibilities of the executive branch, has under Trump been wielded like a catch-all excuse. Policies ranging from aggressive immigration enforcement to drastic fiscal maneuvers were defended not on their merits alone, but on the assertion that the nation was under imminent threat from internal and external enemies. In this manner, the very idea of safeguarding the country was used to trump—or even sidestep—the checks and balances that have long been the hallmark of American democracy.

Take, for instance, the highly contentious travel ban introduced on January 27, 2017. Ostensibly aimed at protecting the nation from terrorism, the ban targeted several predominantly Muslim countries. The measure was immediately met with legal challenges that questioned not only its constitutionality but also its fundamental premise. Despite judicial injunctions and widespread protests, the administration defended the ban as essential for national security, an argument that resonated with many of its supporters even as it sparked heated debate across the country. In this case, the Trump administration’s reliance on national security transformed a policy that might have been subject to the usual gradual refinement into a symbol of defiance—a clear rejection of the slow-moving processes that had long governed American politics.

Similarly, the issue of federal spending has been reconfigured in the Trump era. For decades, the principle that the president must faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress has been a non-negotiable rule, one that was vigorously defended by both Republicans and Democrats alike. It is a rule that has been hard fought for by history’s elephants and donkeys, representing a common ground between political adversaries in the interest of maintaining a balanced government. Yet, in a series of aggressive moves from 2017 through 2018, the administration sought to redefine this foundational tenet by attempting to impound funds allocated by Congress. Whether it was a matter of redirecting billions meant for foreign aid or other fiscal reallocations, the Trump team argued that such moves were necessary for the proper defense of national interests. Once again, national security was invoked to justify these actions, transforming a matter of fiscal responsibility into a test of executive might. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision in early 2020, which rejected the administration’s request to block a lower court order ensuring the release of funds, underscored the limitations of this strategy. Yet the broader narrative persisted: the idea that traditional processes and safeguards—hard-fought over by both parties—were obstacles to the swift, decisive action needed in a world of constant threats.

Perhaps even more dramatic was the instance in which a court order was blatantly ignored in the name of national security. In September 2018, a federal judge issued an injunction that specifically barred the deportation of an asylum seeker pending further review. This ruling was intended to uphold the due process rights of an individual caught in the throes of a complex immigration system—a system that, despite its flaws, had been shaped by decades of careful legislative and judicial oversight. However, on October 2, 2018, officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) proceeded with the deportation, disregarding the injunction outright. The administration’s actions did not stop at ignoring the judicial order; they extended to launching a public attack on the presiding judge, accusing the jurist of bias and of hindering the executive’s mandate to enforce immigration laws. In framing the judge’s decision as not only mistaken but also as a politically motivated error that needed to be rectified at any cost, the administration effectively declared that the rule of law—a rule that had been diligently maintained by generations of lawmakers and jurists from both major parties—was expendable in the pursuit of its own vision of national security and American greatness.

The rhetoric employed in these instances speaks volumes about the administration’s underlying philosophy. Trump’s approach has often been characterized as “slash and burn”—a term that evokes images of radical, uncompromising change where the old order is obliterated to make way for a new, unencumbered vision. In his view, the rules and regulations that had been arduously maintained by both the elephant and the donkey were seen as relics of an era that hindered progress. To him, these rules were not immutable principles but obstacles that could be swept aside in order to forge a new path—a path defined by bold, unorthodox actions and a ruthless pursuit of a reimagined American greatness. This reimagining is not without its critics. Many argue that such a vision is inherently destructive, as it dismisses the careful balance of power that has long been the cornerstone of American democracy. By treating rules as mistakes to be corrected rather than as hard-earned safeguards, the administration risks eroding the very foundations of governance that have kept the nation stable through countless challenges.

What makes this strategy particularly effective for its supporters is the context in which it operates. Much of the chaos that has characterized recent years has been self-inflicted—a product of policies and decisions that have intentionally disrupted the status quo. In creating an environment of constant upheaval, the administration has not only made its confrontational style seem reasonable but has also opened the door for opportunists and grifters to capitalize on the ensuing confusion. These figures, who thrive on controversy and immediate gratification, have found fertile ground in a political landscape where long-term institutional stability is frequently sacrificed at the altar of rapid change. The spectacle of defiance, of rules being overturned in the name of national security and American greatness, has become a rallying cry for a segment of the electorate that is disillusioned with what they perceive as an outdated and overly cautious establishment.

This self-created chaos, combined with the administration’s willingness to exploit every perceived opportunity, has reconfigured the nature of political discourse. No longer is success measured solely by favorable court rulings or by incremental policy improvements; instead, victory is now defined by the ability to dominate the narrative—to declare that the rules of the past are obsolete and that new, even if controversial, approaches are the only way forward. In this new framework, the act of disregarding judicial orders, of publicly attacking those who dare to uphold them, is transformed from a mere policy decision into a symbolic gesture of defiance against an entrenched system. It is a gesture that, for many, encapsulates the very essence of a leadership style that prizes disruption over continuity and immediate impact over careful deliberation.

At the heart of this transformation is a deliberate effort to recast the meaning of American greatness. Trump’s vision of the nation is one that rejects compromise and incrementalism in favor of a more aggressive, almost combative approach. In his narrative, the very notion of American greatness has been stripped of its traditional underpinnings—those shared values and principles that have long been the common ground for both Republicans and Democrats. Instead, greatness is now defined by an uncompromising pursuit of national strength, even if that pursuit requires dismantling the very structures that have historically maintained the balance of power. The rule of law, which both elephants and donkeys have fought for across generations, is cast aside as an outdated constraint, a mistake that must be rectified regardless of the cost. The realities that once anchored American governance are plowed under by a relentless drive to achieve a vision of greatness that is as much about spectacle as it is about policy.

This redefinition has profound implications for the future of the nation. When an administration treats long-held rules as expendable, when it declares that the hard-fought traditions of bipartisan consensus are nothing more than impediments to progress, it fundamentally alters the social contract between the government and its citizens. The checks and balances that have long served to moderate the exercise of power are weakened, and the norms that once ensured a degree of continuity and stability are replaced by a volatile, ever-changing landscape. In such an environment, the consequences of today’s actions may well reverberate far into the future, reshaping not only the nature of executive power but also the very foundations of American democracy.

Critics argue that the cost of this approach is incalculable. By prioritizing immediate gratification and by exploiting every opportunity to challenge established norms, the administration risks undermining the institutional structures that have safeguarded the nation’s democratic processes for centuries. The backlash from judicial authorities, the erosion of trust in the legal system, and the potential for long-term destabilization are all risks that cannot be ignored. Yet, for those who support this approach, the short-term gains—manifested in bold actions, decisive rhetoric, and a reassertion of national pride—outweigh the potential long-term costs. In their view, the willingness to take such risks is a necessary part of reclaiming a vision of American greatness that has been, in their eyes, lost to political correctness and bureaucratic inertia.

The Trump administration’s strategy, with its combination of self-inflicted chaos, opportunistic exploitation, and a sweeping invocation of national security, has thus transformed the way political battles are fought in America. The legacy of these actions will not be measured solely by court decisions or legislative outcomes but by the broader shift in public discourse—a shift in which the old rules, hard fought for by both the elephant and the donkey, are discarded in favor of a new, albeit more volatile, conception of American power and greatness. It is a legacy marked by confrontation, defiance, and an unwavering commitment to a vision that sees no room for compromise, regardless of the cost.

In the end, what emerges is a political reality in which the established order is not simply challenged but is actively dismantled. The rules that once provided a stable framework for governance are treated as obstacles to be eradicated—a mistake that must be rectified at any cost. This “slash and burn” approach to American greatness, as it has been displayed in the flouting of judicial orders, the public attacks on institutional authority, and the relentless pursuit of policies justified under the banner of national security, defines a new era of executive power. By suspending national security clearances for his female rivals Harris and Clinton. Then cancelling security details for family members of his political rivals, he outs them to the elements with unapologetic, petulant indifference to the consequences. It is not normal this is an administration of predatory politics propagated as a revolution for the modern era. Whether this new era will lead to lasting reform or irreversible damage remains a subject of intense debate. It is likely both. What is clear, the transformation has been profound, reshaping not only the political landscape but also the very principles upon which the nation has long been built and the path it has walked.