Across the world, the defining political struggle isn’t left versus right — it’s whether institutions can restrain leaders who demand personal loyalty over constitutional limits. In Hungary, Turkey, and El Salvador, leaders are reshaping democracies by concentrating power, weakening independent courts, and demanding obedience. Until recently, Americans could watch these trends from afar, confident that our Constitution, our courts, and our Congress would provide sufficient guardrails.
We are having this discussion now because the United States is no longer a bystander. The Supreme Court has expanded presidential immunity, Congress routinely defers to the executive branch, and political loyalty is increasingly valued more than institutional duty. Whether one supports Donald Trump or not, the question is evident: Should any president operate with fewer restraints than those envisioned by the Constitution?
This is not a partisan argument. It is about a principle that conservatives have championed for generations — the belief that liberty depends on strong institutions, not powerful personalities.
This tradition stretches across 250 years of American history. James Madison designed a system in which no one person could dominate government, because, as he wrote, “freedom survives only when ambition checks ambition.” In other words, no one can be trusted with unlimited authority; the system works only when each branch can hold the others in check.
Abraham Lincoln demonstrated during the nation’s greatest crisis that even the presidency must remain subject to the rule of law. Ronald Reagan reminded modern conservatives that liberty depends on the strength of institutions, and that a leader, however charismatic, cannot substitute for a functioning system of checks and balances. For generations, conservatives have long recognized the importance of these principles.
That lineage underpins the warnings we are hearing today from long-standing conservative voices. As Peter Wehner observes in The Atlantic, there are signs that some of America’s central institutions — including the courts — may struggle to assert their traditional checks on the presidency, raising questions about whether constitutional limits will apply.
Judge J. Michael Luttig echoes this concern, noting that the Constitution “rejects the idea of a president who rules by personal loyalty rather than law.”
It is fair to acknowledge critics who argue that presidents must be empowered to act decisively in turbulent times, noting that gridlock can hinder effective governance. Strong executives, they argue, are necessary to respond to economic shocks and global crises.
Those points are valid: institutions should not obstruct for the sake of obstruction. Government must function. But the logic that justifies unchecked authority elsewhere — from Hungary to Turkey to El Salvador — carries a warning label: when power is concentrated around one leader and institutions are weakened, we don’t just lose checks and balances. We begin to lose the basic liberties we take for granted: fair trials, a free press, and public trust in government.
A veteran conservative lawyer, who has represented presidents, has warned that it could take a generation to restore the freedoms that have been quietly eroded today. Citizens could gradually lose their basic freedoms, including due process and freedom of speech. And this is not just a warning for other countries: it’s a shot across the bow for Americans, reminding us that democracy is fragile and must be actively defended.
This country’s strength rests on the systems that Madison, Lincoln, and Reagan valued: judges who adhere to the law, lawmakers who think critically and question public policy, and citizens who remain engaged and insist on accountability. Our freedom depends not on any one person, but on the resilience of institutions.
This is not about condemning those who support Donald Trump or any president. Many voters have legitimate concerns about government overreach, cultural change, or policy disagreements. Democratic societies function best when citizens’ grievances are taken seriously. But those passions must be balanced against the principle that no individual, including a president, should be above the law.
The presidency belongs to the people, not the person who occupies the office. To honor that tenet, we must stay vigilant at home, pay attention to how democracies are tested abroad, and recognize that freedom depends on the rule of law. Democracy is not self-sustaining; it requires participation, awareness, and institutions that serve the greater good — not charismatic, power-hungry leaders.