In Front of our Noses: Dictatorial Claims
Keeping a running list of examples of the dishonesty, unreality, poor governance, and authoritarianism of the Trump administration.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”-George Orwell.
Previous entries:
- Chronicling Trump Right in Front our Noses: The Case of iPhones
- In Front of our Noses: The Golden Dome
- In Front of Our Noses: Lies about Balancing the Budget
The point of these posts is to highlight specific, clear examples of Trump’s attempts at blatantly constructing his own authoritarian unreality. It is a list that may be of use to me in the future or to readers. It is also hopefully places seeds that I hope will germinate in the minds of supporters who may some day question that support.
This entry leapt out at me when I was reading James Joyner’s post about Trump’s speech at West Point. The emphasis is mine. (Source: Rolling Stone):
“We had the greatest election victory,” Trump told cadets of the elite United States Military Academy. “This was November 5. We won the popular vote by millions of votes. We won all seven swing states. We won everything.… We had a great mandate, and it gives us the right to do what we want to do to make our country great again, and that’s what we’re going to do.”
(If you need to hear and see him say it, it is roughly at the 27-minute mark.)
The most basic rejoinder to the bolded portion is simply no.
No, it doesn’t.
I know that is by no means the first time he has made this claim. He made some similar claims going back to his first term and his interpretation (I used the words advisedly) of Article II.
But this notion that his victory in 2024 equates to a magic mandate is one that he and his supporters constantly propagate. Granted, they can try and get away with as much as they can, and indeed, they have already gotten away with a lot. But his victory does not provide a “right” to “do what we want to do.” No electoral victory does.
That’s not democracy. That’s not American constitutionalism.
The president has the right to work within the established constitutional system, with all the constraints that go along with that.
Note that one of the things the president is charged with doing is taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. These laws precede the president, and he is bound by them.
A key aspect of non-personalistic governance, and therefore core to democracy, is that the fact that given official is part of a broader journey. A president, a Prime Minister, a Senator, or whomever, is a temporary cog in a much larger machine. They have to function within that which has been built before they arrived, and that is far bigger than they are. Sure, they can try and change things, but they have to do so within the confines of the established constitutional and legal order. And to change things requires convincing others that the change is worthwhile, not just installing change by fiat.
Governing by fiat is what dictators do.
I would hasten to note that we were all told that when he claimed he would be a dictator, he was just “joking.”
And yet, claiming the right to do whatever you want in government is to claim dictatorial powers.
I would ask people who thought he was joking to think about what he continues to claim are his rights as a result of winning.
He has, in fact, been trying to rule by decree (whether by Executive Orders or social media posts). He has not bothered to seek congressional approval for many very dramatic acts (see, DOGE). He and his cronies have ignored the courts when they think they can get away with it (see how they have failed to pretend to comply with the rulings regarding Kilmar Agbrego Garcia, to pick one easy-to-understand example).
It is worth noting, too, since truth matters: he won a fairly narrow victory in terms of the popular vote. He bested Harris 49.81% to 48.34%, a margin of 1.47%. Moreover, 50.19% of votes cast were not for him. And while yes, the Electoral College amplifies his victory, even his 58% to 42% win is hardly a historical margin (source).
I would hasten to add that margin of victory ultimately neither confers less power nor more power to the winner in any formal sense. But even in terms of symbolism and popular support, he has no legitimate claim to make. He is a man who lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020, and won a close victory in 2024. This is not he stuff of “I am so beloved that I can do whatever I want” (which, I would stress, would still be a violation of the constitutional order and an anti-democratic position).
A side note: he wore a blatantly partisan political symbol to give this speech. He continues to promote his own brand over that of the brand of the presidency. That is the move of someone who wants to be a dictator.
A coda on this event from Tom Nichols.
Indeed.
As I’ve said here before, Republicans are entirely limited to greed and cruelty. I don’t believe someone like @Connor can even perceive any issue that is not about money – his own money – and his rage at anyone he perceives as a drain on his money. It’s the Solipsism of the Dollar, a consciousness collapsed down to a single point.
Most MAGA prioritize the cruelty over the greed, others focus primarily on the greed and literally cannot see the cruelty. Neither is able to recognize the sheer stupidity so long as the stupidity serves either the greed or the cruelty, and preferable both.
These are not just people with whom I have political differences. They are bad people, vile and debased humans.
For enough money – and it wouldn’t take much – a MAGA would happily watch former friends and neighbors and even family tossed into prison. Or killed. Think that’s an exaggeration? At every stage rational people have thought people like me were exaggerating, and they’ve always been wrong.
This is why well-meaning attempts by some here to actually engage one of these creatures is pointless. You might as well try to debate a tapeworm.
To do so requires intelligence. Hence he cannot. His lack of intelligence dictates his behavior. He really has no choice in the matter.
“The president sees the Constitution not as a repository of vales to be respected, but as an obstacle to be surmounted.” — Richard Primus, The Atlantic, May 14, 2025
You know Trump will run for a third term. And the MAGAs will be overjoyed.
I won’t even grant him that. Winning the popular vote, to the extent that it means anything, has to be at least 50%+1.
Relatedly, someone* is stirring up the BernieBros online to complain about how in the 2020 Democratic Primary the establishment Dems conspired against Bernie. He was the most popular candidate by far, you see, with 30-40% of the vote in a very crowded field, and he would have won the primary had everyone not dropped out and endorsed Biden. It’s unfair! If there was a national primary Bernie would have won with his 30-40%. He won the first three contests! Unprecedented!**
So, no, popular vote winner has to mean 50%+1 to have any useful meaning.
——
*: I assume the influence of right wing actors, and the “post-left” leftists like Matt Taibbi and Cenk Uygar. But this pot stirring is also what Russia has tried to do many times.
**: it really is impressive how few people had Bernie as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice. He gained roughly no votes as others dropped out.
@CSK: Obama and Bill Clinton should announce their 2028 intentions to run. Just nip this shit in the bud.
Hillary should too, just for good measure, just because the idea of her running against her own husband would be silly.
@Gustopher:
That is kind of brilliant.
Typical ‘discussion’ of open corruption in the Trump White House:
Democrat: “Musk paid Trump $270M for a White House co-Presidency Internship, $TRUMP Crypto is an open sewer of guests spending millions for a Salisbury Steak TV Dinner at the White House, and the government just accepted a $400M ‘gift’ of a plane from Qatari leaders to Trump.”
MAGA Republicans: “but … George Soros.”
Democrat: “You make a good point.”
Thanks for this whole post, Steven. I’m grateful you are compiling this running list as I think it is important even regardless of whether or not it turns a single MAGAt.
I believe the inverse of the lack of legitimate claim to any mandate is the lack of any legitimate claim that Trump’s re-election as an indictment of the American people writ large. I am seeing too much “most of us voted for this” of late.
When Democrats had majorities in both houses, they were frequently urged to get rid of the filibuster so they could achieve longstanding progressive legislative goals. This inevitably triggered outraged responses from Republicans, who raged that America was “a republic not a democracy!” Checks and balances against simple majority rule must be retained!
Now they control all the arms of the state, they suddenly talk about “mandates” and condemn Democrats and judges who “defy the will of the people”. Turns out they were in favor of the tyranny of the majority all along!
I was recently reading some history of England in the late 17th/early 18th century.
Not an exact mapping, but there are echoes.
The claims of the monarchs to rule by fiat by proscriptive right had to be beaten back repeatedly.
Even after the 1688 Glorious Reolution, the late Stuarts and Hanoverians sometimes tried it on.
The really remarkable thing is that in Europe in the 19th century, the monarchies worked out that the “rechtsstaat” ie the rule-bound, “lawful”, state was key to the operation of a functional modern society and economy.
Rule by executive fiat is destructive of the foundations of a modern socio/economic system.
For instance, I suspect at least part of the current rise in US bond yields is related to internatioanl markets starting to price in the possibile consequences of an arbitrary ruler in Washington.
Limits on bond payment transfers to overseas investors, anyone?
@Michael Reynolds:
Ultimately, greed entails cruely.
That’s just how it works.
See: entire history of the human race.
It was hoped that modern “liberal” and “republican” democracy had vitiated that.
Turns out, maybe not so much.
In my more depressed moments I contemplate writing a history entitled “America: the God That Failed”
I’ve just finished reading Robert Dallek’s An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy
It’s so bloody sad how pathetically petty, and frankly rather silly, the current US governance is compared to Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Johnson. Even Nixon and Reagan.
They all had their flaws, heaven knows, but at least they were not little men.
@Gustopher: @Michael Reynolds: What’s amazing is that Bill Clinton, first elected to the presidency 32 years ago, is younger than Trump. Indeed, we have this historical oddity:
*Clinton, elected 1992, born August 19, 1946
*Bush 43, elected 2000, born July 6, 1946
*Trump, elected 2016, born June 14, 1946
@Michael Reynolds: “For enough money – and it wouldn’t take much – a MAGA would happily watch former friends and neighbors and even family tossed into prison. Or killed.”
I’m not convinced it would even take money. Seems like “owning the libs” is a good enough reason to violate every moral precept you’ve spent your life vowing to uphold.
@Gustopher:
I have noticed this as well. The delusions are strong.
I was stuck in the ‘no-job’ loop until I found this online opportunity! I researched, joined the Home Profit System, and now I’m earning a 5-figure income from home! People are making $60-$90 per hour—it’s simple, legit, and anyone can do it! Don’t miss out!
Join now➤➤ HighProfit1.com