Pool via AP
President Donald Trump stands in the presidential box of the Opera House as he tours the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, March 17, 2025.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, home of fact-bending and scorn directed at liberals, has been doing some soul-searching lately. The Tuesday page had four pieces that could have run in the Prospect. The lead editorial, titled “Trump, Deportations and the Law,” criticized Trump officials who “disdain the law in the name of upholding it.”
The op-ed page had four pieces. One, co-authored by Al Gore, no less, was titled “The Business Case for Green Energy.” A second scolded Trump for usurping Congress’s authority on tariffs. A third pointed to the prevailing hypocrisy on antisemitism, where the right, not the left, is the main threat. And the fourth was called “My Brother’s Hero and a Stranger’s Kindness.” It invoked Willie Mays. Shades of DEI.
Last week, Journal columnist Peggy Noonan celebrated the socialist muckraker Upton Sinclair, of all people, to make the point that “journalism can work as a public benefit, and government make things better.” Who knew?
Has it belatedly occurred to the Journal that maybe not all is well with its usual far-right allies? But does anyone in Trumpworld really care what traditional conservatives think? The Journal editorial page snidely helped dispatch Biden and Harris. Now, Trump doesn’t really need their love.
Meanwhile, one court after another is declaring the actions of Trump and Elon Musk illegal or unconstitutional. But if you read the decisions closely, the courts are mostly playing softball while the Trumpers are using bazookas.
The latest example is the decision by district court Judge Theodore Chuang in a case brought by USAID employees. Judge Chuang boldly declares that Musk’s actions were unconstitutional. Specifically, the judge said they violated the Appointments Clause and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. But then, Judge Chuang added that if the administration dotted the right i’s and crossed the right t’s, it was mostly free to shut USAID down. It’s just that Musk couldn’t do it.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had assumed control of the agency and had directed a variety of cuts in his own authority. The judge noted that Mr. Rubio could lawfully declare his intent to permanently close the agency’s headquarters.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, in polite and carefully circumscribed language, took exception to the call to impeach judges. He said, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Well, yes. But are the courts going to get real? I put the question to University of Michigan law professor and constitutional scholar Sam Bagenstos, a leading thinker on how courts constrain illegal executive actions, or don’t. He told me:
“Trump and Musk’s attack on the basic constitutional understanding of congressional power is beyond unprecedented. But judges—even really good ones like Judge Chuang—are really unlikely to respond in kind. With only a few exceptions, we have seen the judges respond to this unprecedented assault in the same way they would respond to garden-variety legal violations. That’s left the law at least a step behind Trump and Musk.”
See this extended analysis by Bagenstos of earlier cases.
In an earlier column, I pointed to seven Republican senators who have criticized Trump’s coziness with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his abandonment of Ukraine. The latest installment is the Trump-Putin phone call, in which Putin played Trump for a fool, or maybe Trump wanted to be played for a fool. The critical seven have been conspicuously silent.
My nominee for the most likely Republican to lead some pushback against Trump’s repeated violations of prerogatives that constitutionally belong to Congress is Senate Majority Leader John Thune, more of a traditional conservative. But I keep waiting.
In criticizing Judge James Boasberg, who has challenged the illegal deportation of Venezuelans, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment, calling him a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President—He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!”
Trump, as the Brits say, is barking mad.
How long with it take for courts, Republican legislators, and traditional conservatives to get serious about restraining him?
