The Erosion of Founding Principles: Trump Governance and the Emerging Resistance

Introduction

The second Trump administration has rekindled debates about the relationship between presidential power, constitutional principles, and democratic norms in the United States.

As the administration pursues an aggressive agenda of institutional transformation, questions arise about whether these actions undermine America’s founding principles and what forms of resistance are emerging across both public and private sectors.

FAF examines the tension between Trumpism and constitutional governance, analyzes resistance movements responding to perceived threats to democratic foundations, and explores how similar principles motivate struggles for institutional change across American society.

The Nature of Trumpism and Its Constitutional Implications

Trumpism, also known as the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement, represents a political ideology with distinct characteristics that many critics argue challenge traditional democratic norms.

This movement incorporates ideologies such as right-wing populism, right-wing antiglobalism, national conservatism, and neo-nationalism, with some scholars noting it features “significant illiberal, authoritarian and at times autocratic beliefs.”

Perhaps most concerning to constitutional scholars is that Trumpism has been “associated with the belief that the President is above the rule of law,” a direct challenge to one of America’s core founding principles.

The Trump administration’s approach to governance has unprecedentedly pushed constitutional boundaries. Legal experts note that “foundationally what the Trump administration is doing pushes the law's limit as we understand it,” particularly in its expansive view of executive authority.

This includes asserting control over traditionally independent agencies, challenging congressional authority over appropriations, and dismissing or reinterpreting statutes that limit presidential power.

Critics argue that these actions represent a fundamental departure from the constitutional system of checks and balances designed by the founders. As one analysis puts it: “Trump’s brazen acts of retribution against political opponents, open hostility towards dissent, and disregard for democratic norms make it clear that he intends to wield power with even fewer restraints than before.”

The administration’s approach has led some to question whether the Constitution provides adequate safeguards against such power exercises, with some arguing that “elite privilege and authoritarianism are part of the DNA of the US Constitution.”

Executive Orders and Agency Dismantling

One of the most visible manifestations of Trump’s approach to governance has been his use of executive orders to reshape the federal government.

Recent orders have targeted several agencies for elimination or severe restriction, including the United States Agency for Global Media (which oversees Voice of America) and the U.S. Institute of Peace.

In one flamboyant example, officials backed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) forcibly took control of the U.S. Institute of Peace headquarters despite legal challenges to the administration’s authority to do so.

Critics have characterized these actions as executive overreach and a threat to institutions designed to operate independently of direct political control.

The administration, however, frames these moves as necessary to eliminate what it views as inefficient or ideologically biased government elements.

The Resistance Movement: Past and Present

The First Trump Resistance

During Trump’s first term, a significant resistance movement emerged that was “unique in U.S. history in the range of issues it addressed, the diverse constituencies it engaged, and the multiple forms of action it exhibited.”

This movement, often identified by the hashtag #Resistance, began on social media platforms shortly after the 2016 election and expanded to include Democrats, independents, and Republicans who opposed Trump.

The first Trump resistance employed various strategies, from large-scale protests like the Women’s March to local organizing efforts. Contrary to some critics’ claims that these national demonstrations detracted from local organizing, evidence suggests they fostered “a synergistic interaction between gatherings of millions of people and the formation of tens of thousands of local organizations.”

The movement exercised power through expanded participation in electoral politics, direct actions, and public pressure campaigns that constrained some of the administration’s policy initiatives.

Current Resistance Efforts

As the second Trump administration pursues an even more aggressive agenda, new forms of resistance are emerging. One notable example is the work of “data hoarders”—archivists, librarians, and other information professionals who work to preserve government data they fear might be erased or altered for political reasons.

These individuals, affiliated with organizations like the Internet Archive and universities including MIT, are “constructing informational arks to navigate the ensuing chaos.”

Legal resistance continues to be significant, with organizations like the ACLU preparing to “use the courts, Congress, state and local power, and our organizing muscle to challenge unlawful attempts to surveil Americans, suppress speech, and undermine democracy.”

The ACLU notes that Trump’s first term was “marked by gross abuses of executive power, including efforts to trample protest and dissent,” and it anticipates that these efforts will “double down” in a second term.

Transformational Struggles and Founding Principles

The principles motivating resistance to Trump’s governance – concerns about checks and balances, equal protection, freedom of expression, and the rule of law – also animate other struggles to transform American institutions.

These movements view their work as defending and extending founding ideals rather than undermining them.

For example, the struggle against privatization in higher education (while focused on Greece in the search results) mirrors concerns about preserving educational institutions as public goods serving democratic purposes rather than private profit.

Similarly, movements for diversity, equity, and inclusion in educational and workplace settings, now under direct attack from the Trump administration, frame their work as efforts to fulfill America’s founding promise of equality under the law.

These movements highlight a tension in American political life: different actors invoke the same founding principles to justify opposing visions for the country’s institutions.

While Trump has promoted “patriotic education” that emphasizes traditional narratives about American history, resistance movements often emphasize the gap between founding ideals and historical realities, pushing for transformation that would more fully realize these principles for all Americans.

Private Institutions and the Necessity of Resistance

A concerning trend in the current political landscape is what some observers characterize as private institutions “rolling over” for Trump. Major companies from Silicon Valley to Wall Street are seen as “prostrating themselves before Trump and kissing the ring.”

This represents a marked shift from 2016, when there was “even a modicum of resistance-styled liberalism by American employers.”

Notable examples include media companies like CBS and ABC making settlements with Trump that critics deemed “unnecessary and preemptive” and corporations like PepsiCo, Meta, and Walmart rolling back their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in response to Trump’s opposition to such initiatives.

Even Columbia University cooperated with the “unexplained detention of campus protest leader Mahmoud Khalil” after the administration cut $400 million in funding to the institution.

Not all private entities are acquiescing, however. Companies like Costco and Delta Airlines have reaffirmed their commitments to DEI. Wesleyan University President Michael S. Roth has argued that “‘neutrality’ toward Trump’s authoritarian policies is a ‘betrayal of our academic mission.’”

These examples suggest that private institutions must make important choices about whether to resist or accommodate actions they may view as undermining core democratic values.

Strategies for Effective Resistance

The literature on managing change and overcoming resistance provides valuable insights for organizations considering joining resistance efforts.

Effective resistance to problematic change requires “strong leadership, clear communication, and inclusive planning.” Organizations must identify the sources of the problem, employ strategic communication, and build coalitions across diverse constituencies.

Social movements constrained Trump in his first term “more than people realize,” and similar approaches could be practical again.

However, traditional protests alone may be insufficient. As one analysis notes, “While large demonstrations can elevate public awareness and facilitate connections among activists, they alone will not be sufficient to obstruct Trump

To achieve that, the movement must adopt more disruptive strategies”. This suggests that private institutions must consider more direct forms of opposition, potentially including economic pressure points.

Corporations, in particular, “can often curtail the administration’s actions if their profits are jeopardized.”

This suggests that resistance from the business community could be incredibly impactful, particularly if it extends beyond verbal criticism to concrete actions that impose economic costs for policies that undermine democratic principles.

Conclusion

The tension between the Trump administration’s approach to governance and America’s founding principles represents a significant challenge to the nation’s democratic institutions.

While the Constitution provides certain safeguards against executive overreach, many of the norms and customs that have traditionally constrained presidential power are being tested in unprecedented ways. In this context, resistance movements framed around defending founding principles have emerged as essential counterbalances.

These struggles extend beyond partisan politics to fundamental questions about how American institutions should function and who they should serve.

Private institutions face tough choices about accommodating or resisting actions they may view as undermining core democratic values. As the situation continues to evolve, these institutions' responses may prove crucial in determining whether America’s founding principles remain vital forces in shaping the nation’s future.