Abuse of presidential power takes many forms. Sometimes it looks like American troops in American streets, or CEOs presenting trophies to the President in the Oval Office.
And sometimes, it looks like the page above.
The New York Times reported this week that the administration has moved to cancel a series of wind power projects—not only those still on the drawing board, but also some that were already in progress. These were major public works projects: hundreds of turbines, billions of dollars of investment, thousands of jobs. They would have generated clean energy for decades, and with little explanation, the administration threw the industry into chaos.
On one level, this is a story about energy policy. I still struggle to understand why an American president would oppose a growing source of electricity that creates jobs, advances American energy independence, and helps drive innovation in a market with global demand. Even if you don’t believe we need to address climate change, why go out of your way to cancel ongoing projects that state governments want and that are nearly complete?
At a deeper level, this is not a story about electricity, but a different kind of power, arbitrary and wielded without accountability.
The administration’s stated reasons for the cancellations were thin. There were vague claims that wind projects are “experimental” and “proven failures,” though wind already provides a significant share of U.S. power and is among the cheapest new sources of energy. They gestured at national security, without specifying what they meant. When they released the rationale for one of the cancellations through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the relevant report was released with the pages entirely blacked out (including the page above). Looking at page after page of black rectangles, you can almost appreciate the dark humor of releasing it.
High school civics students learning about the Constitution are taught that James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Madison’s lesson was that we have to check ambition with ambition and that no one should hold unlimited power, which is why we have the separation of powers, checks and balances, and so on.
But the reality of modern governance is that we’ve invested more and more power in the presidency. The speed and complexity of the world—wars, natural disasters, diplomatic crises, financial crises, pandemics—require coordinated, expert decisions. So, we’ve given the executive branch extraordinary discretion and counted on presidents to use it responsibly. We rely on restraint and good faith, and for the most part it’s worked, with presidents of both parties.
When a president decides not to honor that tradition, the system collapses. The immediate effects are obvious: in this case canceled wind projects, but it could be needless tariffs, or inexplicably canceled research funding, etc. Over the long term, that behavior eats away at trust in government, in markets, and in our shared future.
Democrats have two main responses to this problem. The first is to say that, when we win back power, we should wield it just as ruthlessly. If Trump governs by fiat, then so should we. The second is to focus on structural reforms, building new guardrails that would prevent future presidents from taking such actions.
I understand the appeal of both of these, but they’re both wrong.
If, once we are back in office, we govern with impunity the way the President does, we will be complicit in the spiral into authoritarianism. And if we build a system around the worst presidents, we will paralyze government altogether. The United States can’t act with the clarity and speed needed to lead in this century if our executive is stripped of discretion.
The only way forward is to build our system for capable leaders with integrity, retaining the basic checks we have today, and then win elections to put those leaders in office. We need presidents who will use executive power boldly to advance progress, but also responsibly, within the spirit of the Constitution. We need citizens who demand that combination, and who reward it at the ballot box.
That’s why the next two elections are so pivotal. In the near term, our ability to stop illegal executive action is limited. Courts move slowly, and Congress can’t check a President unbound by ethics, norms, or the law. Democrats need to show the American people what bold, responsible leadership looks like, so we can inspire them to join us, win big, and get back to building.