A NECESSARY FUDGE:

Two Rulings That Are Impossible to Reconcile (David Dayen, June 29, 2026, American Prospect)

You can make at least a colorable argument that a president should be allowed to have control over their subordinates, despite the damage it does to an agency structure set up by Congress. But when you add in the carve-out for the Federal Reserve, it quickly becomes totally ridiculous. There is no way to hold the two rulings together at once.

This is entirely accurate: as a constitutional matter, the Fed can not be independent.

WE ARE ALL GORSUCHIAN NOW:

After Trump: Proposals for a Post-Authoritarian America (Shikha Dalmia and Andy Craig, Jun 15, 2026, The Bulwark)

The Declaration not only affirms the right of a self-governing people to “alter or abolish” an abusive government; it affirms their duty to “institute new Government.” And our constitutional system established mechanisms by which Americans could restructure our government when necessary. After FDR broke the two-term norm, the Twenty-second Amendment imposed presidential term limits. Following Nixon’s abuses, Congress enacted a suite of guardrails—the National Emergencies Act, the War Powers Resolution, the Impoundment Control Act—to constrain an overweening presidency.

Trump knocked down each of these, and they will need to be not just rebuilt, but strengthened. Internal guardrails such as inspectors general, expert commissions, and the nonpartisan civil service must be insulated from at-will removal by the president. But Trump has created a blueprint for future authoritarians, so restoring the pre-Trump status quo won’t be enough. Two deeper structural reforms are essential.

First, strip the executive of the massive powers that have accumulated over the last century. Congress must claw back discretion over war, economic policy, and emergency powers it has ceded to the president. Many statutes will have to be completely rewritten. Most urgently, Congress should enact an automatic thirty-day sunset on presidential emergency powers unless it approves an extension—reversing the current perverse arrangement wherein Congress must pass a veto-proof resolution to stop powers already invoked. Had such a rule restricting the exploitation of emergency powers been in place, Trump could not have used them to impose his “Liberation Day” tariffs.

Second, make the powers retained by the executive subject to greater oversight with real consequences for abuse. No president should fill the cabinet with loyalists and rogues whose chief qualification is personal allegiance, or fire experienced officials for refusing to do his illegal bidding. Congress should sharply limit acting appointments and ensure major executive roles cannot be filled indefinitely without Senate approval. White House staff, advisory by design, should be statutorily barred from issuing directives to Senate-confirmed agency heads—as Stephen Miller has done, creating a shadow chain of command beyond constitutional accountability.

Congress must also adopt “for cause” standards for oversight officials, require written findings before removals take effect, and—most crucially—tie department funding to compliance with these safeguards. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent might have thought twice before stonewalling the Senate Finance Committee this month on whether Trump and his family retain IRS audit immunity if he feared having Treasury’s funding halted.

Reseparate the powers.

WE ARE ALL GORSUCHIAN:

PODCAST: Neil Gorsuch on the Declaration of Independence, Originalism, and Separation of Powers: “There was nothing inevitable about it. Absolutely nothing,” the Supreme Court justice tells Reason’s Nick Gillespie. (Nick Gillespie, July 2026, reason)

Reason: What is the main lesson America should be thinking about as we approach our 250th birthday?

Gorsuch: We’re going to have a lot of fireworks, and there are going to be some good barbecues and parades, but I hope we take a moment, too, to reflect on the gift we’ve been given and the challenge we face. What I mean by that is, the Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it: that all of us are equal; that each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government; and that we have the right to rule ourselves.

Our nation is not founded on a religion. It’s not based on a common culture even, or heritage. It’s based on those ideas. We’re a creedal nation. I hope we take a moment to reflect on that and to recommit ourselves to that.

One more thing: the courage it takes to defend those ideas. They were not inevitable. The stories of the men, women, and children in the book, I hope, will inspire children to realize the courage it takes to carry those ideas forward in their own time.

THE RESTORATION:

A Small Step Towards Restoring the Separation of Powers (Joseph K. Griffith II and Gabriel Perez-Polanco, 4/16/26, Ford Leadership Forum)

But by striking down a Republican president’s signature “legislative” victory under the major questions doctrine, the Supreme Court correctly exercised its constitutional role by saying what the law is, not what it should be. And in doing so, it has made an able defense of Congress’s role in our constitutional government. Unlike the executive branch, the Constitution equips our bicameral legislature for the deliberation necessary for the creation of moderate, stable, and maybe (just maybe) just laws.

To be sure, intra-Court debates portend a rocky road ahead for the major questions doctrine. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett disagree on the best way to characterize it. Though concurring in the judgment, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson refused to sign onto the Chief Justice’s reasoning. And in the dissent, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the doctrine should not apply in foreign-policy contexts, and Justice Thomas argued (unpersuasively) that “Congress may hand over the President most of its powers, including the tariff power, without limit.” Moreover, after the decision, President Trump quickly appealed to other statutes, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, in order to reinstate versions of many of his tariffs (though, as Jack Goldsmith has pointed out, these laws require procedures that limit the President’s ability to act quickly and expansively).

Still, taken as a whole, the Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump represents a small step towards Madison’s vision of a government of separated powers.

A FOUNDING FOR THE FALLEN:

What the American Revolution Secured: Order, Justice, and Freedom (Russell Kirk Center, Mar 15, 2026)

The moral and political principles Americans defended in 1776 were already generations, even centuries, old. The moral principle of the dignity of man carried forward the convictions of the ancient Hebrews through the religious impulse of the Puritan settlers. From those convictions arose protections for natural rights, tempered by the needs of circumstance.

Yet the same religious inheritance that affirmed the glory of man also recognized the stain of original sin. Human dignity existed alongside human imperfection. Seen in this light, the supposed “split personality” of Publius in The Federalist disappears. The tension between a sober view of human nature requiring institutional restraint and a confidence in the possibility of public virtue simply reflects the Framers’ religious understanding of the human heart. Humane order accounts for both tendencies: the glory of the Imago Dei rising toward the heavens and the weight of original sin pulling toward the abyss.

The political principle of ordered liberty likewise emerged through historical development, growing out of the constitutional experience of medieval and early modern England. Through English constitutional institutions—often more fully developed in the American colonies—order, justice, and freedom were sustained.