Over the past month, concerns have grown that former President Donald Trump is seeking to consolidate power in a way that resembles a monarchy or dictatorship. While his supporters dismiss such claims as exaggerated, recent developments indicate otherwise.
Beyond Trump’s own statements hinting at monarchical aspirations, his latest executive orders—particularly one that aims to dismantle the independence of federal agencies—along with the actions of Justice Department officials, signify a major step toward authoritarian rule.
A dictatorship, like absolute monarchy, is defined by the idea that law—its creation, interpretation, and enforcement—stems solely from the will of one individual. King James I of England expressed this notion in his 1598 work The True Law of Free Monarchies, where he wrote that kings existed:
“before any estates or ranks of men, before any parliaments were holden, or laws made, and by them was the land distributed, which at first was wholly theirs. And so it follows of necessity that kings were the authors and makers of the laws, and not the laws of the kings.”
Acting on this philosophy, James ruled without Parliament for extended periods, granted legal exemptions to allies, and governed through special courts that ruled according to his will. His son, Charles I, took this belief in absolute sovereignty even further, sparking a civil war that ended with his execution in 1649 and Oliver Cromwell’s rise to power.
Following the monarchy’s restoration in 1660, British rulers conceded that statutory law could only be established through collaboration between the crown and Parliament. They also acknowledged that laws applied to the monarch’s actions and that judges, rather than the king, were responsible for legal interpretation.
The next major constitutional shift occurred in 1688 when King James II was deposed and replaced by his daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange. To secure the throne, they had to accept the English Bill of Rights, which abolished the monarch’s power to nullify statutory law, either broadly or for individuals. Parliament also revised the coronation oath to require monarchs to govern according to laws enacted by Parliament and the established legal traditions of the realm. By the time of the American Revolution in 1776, even King George III—whom the American colonies viewed as tyrannical—was bound by the rule of law.
The founders of the United States sought both democratic governance and the rule of law, fearing that unchecked democracy could allow a demagogue to manipulate the public and seize absolute power. To prevent this, they designed a system with separate branches of government, ensuring that lawmaking and judicial interpretation remained outside the president’s sole control. They also borrowed from Britain’s constitutional system by requiring the president to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear … that I will … to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The founders’ fears of dictatorship were validated shortly after the Constitution’s adoption. In 1799, a Corsican officer named Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the post-Revolution French government, first declaring himself “First Consul” and later assuming the title of Emperor. Trump’s recent reference to Napoleon’s alleged claim that “he who saves his Country does not violate any Law” echoes the mindset of a leader our founders despised. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1815, Napoleon was a “Usurper” and “Autocrat” driven by a “tyrannical soul” and a “ravenous thirst for human blood.”
While the end of European monarchies after World War I might have seemed like a victory for democracy, it instead gave rise to modern non-hereditary dictatorships, with Adolf Hitler’s regime as the most infamous example. The Nazi doctrine of Führerprinzip (leader principle) placed Hitler above all legal authority, rendering him the ultimate arbiter of law and policy. Dissenters faced dismissal, financial ruin, imprisonment, torture, or execution.
An American dictator would exhibit similar characteristics—proclaiming himself above the law, acting without legal constraints, and targeting those who uphold legal principles.
This brings us to Trump’s recent executive order on independent agencies. In the 20th century, Congress recognized its limitations in crafting highly technical legislation and increasingly delegated regulatory authority to executive agencies. These agencies create regulations following strict procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Additionally, the judicial system lacked sufficient expertise and manpower to handle all regulatory disputes, leading to the creation of administrative law judges within federal agencies. This resulted in a system where law is developed and interpreted not just by Congress and the courts, but also by specialized executive officials.
Some of these regulatory agencies operate within Cabinet departments, whose heads are appointed and removed by the president. However, Congress deemed that certain agencies should function with greater independence. Institutions like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) were established as “independent agencies,” meaning their leaders could only be removed under specific circumstances.
On Tuesday, Trump issued an executive order seeking to eliminate this independence.
First, the order attempts to revoke the autonomy of congressionally established agencies, subjecting their leadership to performance standards determined by the White House Office of Management and Budget. This blatant power grab directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent.
Second, it reinforces Trump’s previous claim that he can disregard Congress’ directives on how appropriated funds should be spent. The ease with which he asserts this suggests he is confident that Republican lawmakers will not challenge his usurpation of Congress’ constitutional authority over federal spending, implying that the legislative branch has already submitted to his will.
Beyond independent agencies, the order asserts that the president and attorney general hold the final authority in interpreting all laws. It states:
“No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.”
In essence, Trump is declaring that he alone determines how laws should be written, interpreted, and enforced.
For instance, if Trump decides that SEC regulations do not apply to Elon Musk, then no SEC commissioner may challenge this stance.
If he declares that procedural protections for immigrants outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act are invalid, then no Homeland Security official or immigration judge can argue otherwise.
If he determines that regulations on oil and gas industries should be loosened to benefit campaign donors, then his ruling is final.
Perhaps most alarmingly, if Trump asserts that the FBI and Justice Department may launch criminal investigations against his political opponents without factual basis, then that, too, is an “authoritative interpretation of law.” The recent forced resignations of multiple Justice Department prosecutors in New York and Washington, D.C., demonstrate that those who oppose such actions will be dismissed, branded as disloyal, and possibly investigated themselves.
While some may dismiss Trump’s social media posts featuring Napoleonic quotes or images of him wearing a crown as mere theatrics, his executive orders and the actions of his Justice Department paint a far more serious picture. Having already neutralized congressional opposition, Trump has now proclaimed that his will is the supreme legal authority within the executive branch. Those who resist will be removed.
This is not just an assertion of presidential power—it is the adoption of Führerprinzip, a system where dissent is crushed, the law is whatever the leader declares, and government officials serve only at his pleasure.
Ambassador S.D Muni, a renowned expert in South Asian politics and international relations, offers readers an unparalleled glimpse into the world of diplomacy. His memoir, “Dabbling in Diplomacy: Authorised & Otherwise” provides an insider’s perspective on critical political developments in South Asia, including Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Laos. The book combines Prof. Muni’s extensive academic knowledge with his personal experiences, making it a compelling read for scholars, policymakers, and anyone interested in international affairs.
