Checks, Balances, and the DOGE Contradiction

What the Federalist Papers Tell Us About Executive Overreach

Cybertruck Man - A cartoon in defiance of Musk (c) ZEZ VAZ...

Introduction

The United States was founded on the principle of limited government, where power is divided among branches to prevent tyranny. Yet, under Donald Trump’s leadership, the federal government has undergone an unprecedented restructuring, consolidating authority in the executive branch through his special government employee Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE, which has bypassed congressional approval and seems intent on dismantling entire agencies and programs, raises a fundamental constitutional question for all of us: Does a president have the unilateral power to reshape the federal government, or is he bound by the limits set by the Founding Fathers? The answer lies in the very documents that defined the American system of government—the Federalist Papers.

Penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the Federalist Papers were meant to persuade the American people to adopt our Constitution. In doing so, the authors laid out a vision for a government built on checks and balances, a system designed to prevent any one branch from amassing unchecked power. Madison, in particular, warned that the accumulation of all powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—“may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” By examining the Federalist Papers, we can determine whether Trump’s restructuring aligns with this constitutional vision or represents the kind of power grab the Founders feared.

Trump and his supporters often frame his actions as a defense of the American people against a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy. However, the Constitution does not grant the president the authority to unilaterally eliminate or restructure government agencies without congressional approval. The very foundation of American governance rests on the idea that laws and policies are made by elected representatives in Congress, not dictated by a single executive. If we accept Trump’s argument that he can ignore these constitutional constraints in the name of efficiency, we must ask: What stops future presidents from bypassing Congress altogether?

This question should be particularly unsettling to those who claim to revere the Constitution. Many Trump supporters, particularly those who identify as conservatives, argue that they are defending the original intent of the Founders. But if Trump’s actions contradict the principles laid out in the Federalist Papers—principles they claim to uphold—how can they continue to support him? The very same conservatives who once decried executive overreach under Barack Obama now find themselves justifying even greater abuses of power under Trump. This is where the cognitive dissonance begins.

If the Founding Fathers designed the American system to prevent the rise of an all-powerful executive, can a true patriot support a president who disregards these safeguards? This essay will examine how the Federalist Papers explicitly reject the kind of executive overreach Trump is engaging in. By using the words of the Founders themselves, we will confront Trump’s supporters with a fundamental question: Is their loyalty to the Constitution or to the man who seeks to override it?

Our Founder’s Fear of Executive Overreach

The architects of the American Constitution were deeply concerned about the dangers of unchecked power, particularly in the executive branch. James Madison emphasized the necessity of a government structure that would prevent any single branch from gaining excessive authority. In Federalist No. 51, he famously wrote, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” This statement underscores our foundational belief that each branch of government must be designed to limit the power of the others, ensuring that no one individual or institution dominates the political system. Without this safeguard, the very structure of American democracy is at risk.

Trump’s unilateral restructuring of the federal government—through Musk’s so-called DOGE—undermines these checks and balances. By bypassing congressional approval and dissolving or reconfiguring agencies through executive fiat, he is consolidating power in a way that directly contradicts Madison’s vision. The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to create and dissolve federal agencies. If Trump can single-handedly reshape the government without legislative oversight, then the entire purpose of having separate branches of government is eroded.

This raises a fundamental question for Trump supporters who claim to uphold the Constitution: If the Founding Fathers designed the government to prevent such accumulation of power, why do they now justify Trump’s actions? If Madison’s principle that ambition should counteract ambition was meant to safeguard democracy, then allowing the executive branch to act without meaningful checks contradicts this core American ideal. If Trump consolidates power to dismantle agencies without Congress, how is that different from the tyranny the Founders warned against?

Madison was even more explicit in Federalist No. 47, where he wrote, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The entire purpose of the American constitutional system is to prevent such consolidation, ensuring that no single person wields absolute control. The Founders were deeply familiar with the dangers of monarchies and autocracies, and they deliberately structured the U.S. government to prevent any president from assuming too much authority.

Yet, Trump’s actions as our 47th President demonstrate precisely the kind of power grab that Madison warned against. By unilaterally reshaping the federal bureaucracy and ignoring congressional authority, Trump is sidestepping the separation of powers and placing an enormous amount of decision-making in the hands of a small group of unelected operatives. This is not merely a procedural violation—it is a fundamental rejection of the constitutional framework that has defined American governance for over two centuries.

This should be deeply concerning for self-identified constitutional conservatives. Many on the right have spent decades arguing against executive overreach, particularly during the Obama administration, decrying what they saw as an abuse of presidential power. But if executive overreach was unacceptable under a Democratic president, why is it permissible under a Republican one? If the Founders feared a powerful executive who overrules Congress, why are Trump’s actions not alarming to my fellow constitutional conservatives?

If the answer is simply that Trump’s policies seem more favorable to conservatives, then it reveals a deeper contradiction. The Constitution was not designed to be selectively defended based on partisan preference—it is meant to protect the nation from the dangers of absolute power, regardless of who holds office. If Trump’s supporters truly believe in the original intent of the Founders, they must ask themselves whether they are defending the Constitution or simply defending Trump.

Congress as the Sole Legislative Authority

The Founding Fathers deliberately designed Congress as the primary legislative body, ensuring that the power to create, modify, or eliminate laws rests with the people's elected representatives. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton emphasized the separation of powers by stating, “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” This means that while Congress crafts laws, the judiciary interprets them, and the executive enforces them. Nowhere in this framework is the president given the unilateral power to reshape the government or bypass congressional authority. Trump’s attempts to dismantle or restructure federal agencies without legislative approval defy this foundational principle, undermining the very checks that prevent executive overreach.

Trump’s supporters often argue that his actions are necessary to combat government inefficiency and remove bureaucratic obstacles. However, the Constitution does not permit efficiency to override legal process. If laws are flawed, the president must work within the system, urging Congress to reform them rather than taking matters into his own hands. The Supreme Court has already pushed back against executive overreach in cases like Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference and curtailed the executive branch’s ability to interpret ambiguous laws without clear congressional authorization. This ruling aligns with the constitutional structure the Founders envisioned—one where the judiciary, not the president, determines how laws are applied. If the judiciary has ruled against Trump’s overreach, why do MAGA supporters oppose judicial checks on his power?

Even Hamilton, the staunchest defender of federal authority, warned against executive overreach. In Federalist No. 33, he wrote, “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed.” This statement makes it clear that the government exists at the will of the people and that when it exceeds its constitutional limits, citizens must hold it accountable. Trump’s restructuring of the government without congressional approval is precisely the kind of power grab that Hamilton cautioned against, demonstrating that even the most centralized vision of federal authority had clear boundaries.

This raises another important contradiction for Trump’s supporters: they often position themselves as defenders of the Constitution and champions of limited government. Yet, by endorsing Trump’s executive overreach, they abandon the principle that no president should wield unchecked power. Many of these same individuals decried Obama-era executive actions as unconstitutional expansions of presidential authority. Why, then, should Trump’s far more aggressive efforts to consolidate power be excused? The standards for executive power cannot change based on partisan preferences.

If Trump’s supporters believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, they must ask themselves whether they are willing to uphold it consistently. Hamilton’s warning in Federalist No. 33 makes it clear that when the government oversteps its authority, it is the responsibility of the people to push back. If the people are the ultimate check on power, should MAGA supporters not demand accountability rather than loyalty? The Constitution does not ask Americans to pledge allegiance to a single leader—it demands fidelity to the rule of law. To the Constitution.

Ultimately, defending the Founders’ vision means resisting any attempt to centralize power in the hands of a single executive. If conservatives wish to remain true to the principles of the Constitution, they must recognize that Trump’s actions are not just politically controversial but fundamentally unconstitutional. The question is whether we the people will continue to rationalize his behavior or confront the reality that their own ideological framework rejects the kind of unchecked executive authority Trump seeks to wield.

The Danger of a Cult of Personality

The Founding Fathers designed the American government to prevent the rise of a single, all-powerful leader. They had seen firsthand how unchecked authority in monarchies and autocracies led to oppression, and they crafted a system where no one individual could claim absolute power. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 1, warned against leaders who manipulate public sentiment to consolidate power, writing, “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” His warning is especially relevant today as we witness the transformation of political leadership into something resembling a cult of personality. This danger is not exclusive to any one party—it is a threat to our Republic itself, regardless of who holds office.

Donald Trump has positioned himself as the singular figure capable of “fixing” America, presenting his leadership as indispensable to the nation's survival. He repeatedly claims that the country cannot function properly without him, that institutions opposing him are corrupt, and that anyone challenging his authority is part of a "deep state" conspiracy. This rhetoric echoes precisely what Hamilton warned against: a leader who appeals to the people's frustrations and fears while concentrating power in his own hands. Historically, both Democrats and Republicans have criticized such authoritarian tendencies—whether they appear in leftist revolutionary movements or right-wing nationalist agendas. Yet, now that the danger emerges within their own ranks, many conservatives find ways to justify it.

Aside: Trump’s assertion that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” is a direct challenge to the constitutional framework the Founders established.

This idea—that the ends justify the means, and that a leader can operate outside the law if they claim to be acting in the country’s best interest—is fundamentally opposed to the principles laid out in the Federalist Papers and the Constitution itself. The Founders deliberately rejected the notion of a leader who could override legal constraints in the name of national salvation. In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned against figures who present themselves as indispensable, using crisis rhetoric to justify expanding their power beyond constitutional limits. The Constitution explicitly rejects the idea that any one person can be above the law, enshrining instead a government of laws and institutions that no individual, no matter how popular or powerful, can override. If conservatives believe in constitutional originalism, they must recognize that Trump’s statement is not just legally dubious—it is an outright rejection of the foundational principles of American democracy. If no leader is above the law, why should Trump’s claim to be “saving the country” exempt him from constitutional constraints?

This is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. The United States has always prided itself on being a nation of laws, not of men. That means no single individual—no matter how charismatic or influential—can be above constitutional constraints. The same Republicans who once feared Barack Obama’s executive power now defend Trump’s vastly more aggressive use of authority. Likewise, many Democrats who defended executive actions under Obama now see the risk in unchecked presidential power under Trump. If Americans on both sides of the aisle truly believe in constitutional democracy, they must be consistent in their principles and reject any leader who seeks to elevate themselves above the system.

Trump’s claim that he alone can save America should alarm conservatives and progressives alike. No leader should be seen as indispensable to a democracy; that is the logic of autocracy, not a constitutional republic. If an entire movement is centered not around ideas, policies, or governance but around loyalty to a single individual, then it ceases to be a political movement and becomes something far more dangerous. A healthy democracy thrives on debate, dissent, and the belief that leadership should change hands—not on the belief that one man is irreplaceable. If the Founders warned against leaders who claim to be the sole saviors of the nation, why should conservatives trust Trump’s claim that only he can fix America?

True patriots ought to recognize that the Constitution, not any one leader, is the foundation of American greatness. If Trump’s supporters argue that they are fighting for America’s future, they must ask themselves whether they are defending constitutional principles or simply defending Trump. The measure of a democracy is not whether one side wins or loses, but whether its institutions remain intact regardless of who is in power. The Founders gave Americans a system designed to outlast any one president. The real question for all of us, regardless of party, is whether we are willing to uphold that system—or whether we will allow it to crumble in the name of a single leader.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Upholding the Constitution

The Supreme Court exists as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes, ensuring that no branch of government exceeds its authority. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, described the judiciary as “the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.” He argued that courts must be independent and insulated from political pressure so they can serve as a check on both executive overreach and legislative overreach. This principle is not partisan—it was designed to protect all Americans from the rise of unchecked power, regardless of who occupies the White House or controls Congress. Yet, as the Supreme Court has ruled against some of Trump’s executive actions, many of his supporters have turned against the judiciary, dismissing its authority when it does not serve their preferred outcomes.

Elon Musk’s statement misunderstands the fundamental role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. The Founding Fathers designed the courts as a check against executive overreach, not as an obstacle to governance. Our Republic is not defined by the unchecked power of a president but by a system of laws that apply equally to all, including those in the highest office. Judicial review is not a threat to democracy; it is a safeguard against tyranny, ensuring that executive actions remain within constitutional limits. If a presidential action is lawful, it will withstand judicial scrutiny. If it is not, then the courts serve their proper role in upholding the rule of law. Dismissing judicial oversight only when it constrains a preferred leader is not a defense of democracy—it is an endorsement of authoritarianism.

Throughout American history, both Democrats and Republicans have criticized Supreme Court decisions that went against their policy goals. However, the difference today is that Trump and many in his movement are not just disagreeing with particular rulings—they are actively undermining the legitimacy of the Court itself. We have seen this pattern in many rulings where justices, including Trump-appointed ones, rejected his claims of election fraud in 2020. These rulings reinforced the idea that the president is bound by constitutional constraints, yet instead of acknowledging these legal checks, Trump’s allies have responded by attacking the legitimacy of the courts and even advocating for retribution against judges who rule against him.

This should be alarming to both conservatives and progressives who value constitutional governance. The same conservatives who praised the Supreme Court’s decisions when they struck down Obama-era executive actions now reject the Court’s authority when it limits Trump’s power. Likewise, progressives who previously called for reforming or packing the Court when it ruled against liberal policies must recognize the importance of judicial independence even when decisions do not align with their agenda. The Court is not meant to be a partisan tool; its function is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, even when doing so is politically inconvenient. If we only accept judicial authority when it benefits our side, we abandon the very principle of an impartial legal system.

Trump’s supporters must ask themselves: If they claim to be defenders of the Constitution, why do they dismiss Supreme Court rulings that go against his actions? If they argue that judicial review was essential to stopping Democratic overreach in the past, why reject it now? The legitimacy of the Court cannot be conditional on whether its decisions align with any one leader’s political ambitions. If MAGA conservatives respect the Constitution, why dismiss Supreme Court rulings that go against Trump’s actions? The integrity of the judiciary should not be up for debate—respecting its role is the foundation of constitutional democracy.

Ultimately, a democracy cannot function if the rule of law only applies when it is convenient. The Founders placed immense trust in the judicial branch to safeguard the system from authoritarian impulses. If Trump’s supporters claim to stand for the Constitution, they must accept that judicial review is a core part of that system. To reject court rulings simply because they do not serve a political leader’s personal interests is to reject the very structure of American democracy itself. The question facing Americans today—regardless of political affiliation—is whether they are willing to defend the institutions that have upheld the Constitution for over two centuries, or whether they will allow them to be discarded for the sake of temporary political gain.

Conclusion: A True American Patriot’s Duty

The Founding Fathers built a government not around individuals, but around enduring principles designed to withstand the ambitions of any one leader. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned against factions and the dangers of majority rule unchecked by constitutional safeguards. He and the other Framers understood that democracy is not simply about winning elections but about ensuring that power is restrained by law. The Constitution was crafted to limit authority—not to serve as a tool for those in power to reshape the government at will. The moment any leader claims they are above these limitations, they cease to operate within the framework of American democracy and instead move toward something far more dangerous.

Trump’s insistence that he alone can "fix" America, his rejection of judicial rulings against him, and his attempts to bypass Congress all directly contradict the principles laid out in our founding documents. A constitutional government does not function on loyalty to a single individual—it relies on a commitment to the rule of law. Our Founders were deeply concerned about executive overreach, so much so, they built an entire system to prevent it; and, if Trump’s actions align with precisely what they warned against, then a question must be asked: Can a true constitutional conservative continue to support him without betraying the very principles they claim to defend?

This question is not meant to provoke anger but to spark reflection. If one supports Trump because of his policies, that is a political preference. But if one supports his disregard for constitutional constraints, that is a rejection of the American system itself. Many of Trump’s staunchest defenders once opposed executive overreach when it was exercised by Democratic presidents—so what justifies accepting it now? A true commitment to the Constitution requires consistency, even when it is politically inconvenient.

Patriotism is not about unwavering loyalty to a leader; it is about fidelity to the nation’s founding principles. The Founders did not fight for a country where a single person’s will could override the law. They built a system of checks and balances precisely so that no leader—no matter how popular or powerful—could claim absolute authority. The challenge for conservatives and all Americans is to engage with this contradiction honestly. If constitutional principles only matter when they constrain the other side, then they were never truly principles to begin with.

A Closing Thought …

In the United States, patriotism means fidelity to the Constitution, not any one man.