Published in Slate, this article identifies the pattern that the Trump administration has repeatedly invoked an emergency or a national security to justify extraordinary action—from stripping union rights from federal workers and deploying the National Guard to cities including Chicago and Los Angeles to, most recently, barring several major news organizations from the White House grounds. It then asks courts to defer to its judgment—or argues they cannot review the decision at all. And in many cases, it uses the resulting federal power to push aside states, regulators, courts, or other institutions that would ordinarily have a say. The pattern is particularly prominent in the administration’s attempts to transform the energy sector to the president’s liking, with more fossil fuels and fewer constraints on their development.
When the same moves appear again and again, courts, and the public, can start to recognize the pattern for what it is—an effort to concentrate power in the president’s hands for issues entirely unrelated to national security. And increasingly, courts are doing just that: looking past the label, examining the facts, and asking whether the law actually gives the president the authority he claims. “Because I said so” is for kings, not American presidents.