The Systematic Dismantling of American Institutions: Trump’s Multi-Front War on Checks and Balances

March 25, 2025 — by Morgan Treadwell

Beyond the Spectacle Analysis

The recent wave of attacks on judges, law firms, prosecutors, and independent agencies reveals a coordinated strategy to fundamentally alter the relationship between presidential power and America’s institutional constraints. While media coverage focuses on individual confrontations, the underlying pattern represents a systematic attempt to subordinate independent power centers to executive control, creating what legal scholars increasingly identify as an authoritarian restructuring of American governance.

This analysis examines the strategic pattern behind what might otherwise appear as disconnected acts of political retribution.

The institutional target list: a strategic progression

The administration’s actions against institutional constraints follow a discernible sequence, targeting first those with the least public visibility and constitutional protection before advancing to more prominent institutions. This graduated approach serves to normalize institutional subordination while minimizing immediate public resistance.

The regulatory foundation: independent agencies

The firing of two Democratic FTC commissioners [1] represents the most direct assault on independent regulatory structures. By violating the statutorily protected tenure of commissioners, the administration has signaled its rejection of nearly a century of established law limiting presidential control over independent agencies. Columbia Business School professor Shivaram Rajgopal captured the market implications: “If you can’t predict what regulatory policy is going to be, you can’t make investment decisions because you’re worried about decisions being overturned when the other side comes into power” [2].

This move follows February’s Justice Department declaration that “the statutory tenure protections for members of the [FTC] are unconstitutional” [3], indicating a deliberate strategy rather than an impulsive act. By targeting independent agency structure first, the administration establishes precedent for broader institutional reorganization.

Legal representation: law firm targeting

The executive orders penalizing three major law firms (Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss) for their past representation of administration critics reveals a second strategic vector: constraining access to legal advocacy. NYU law professor Stephen Gillers identified the dual purpose: “In the immediate term, he gets revenge against two firms that have offended him” while simultaneously warning “other law firms that they face the same punishment if they cross Trump by representing plaintiffs challenging his executive orders” [4].

This approach differs fundamentally from conventional political pressure on law firms, as it uses direct executive power rather than mere influence to impose financial penalties. Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling that the order against Perkins Coie “runs head-on into the wall of first amendment protections” [5] underscores the constitutional boundaries being tested.

Judicial independence: the impeachment pressure campaign

The most visible institutional target has been the judiciary itself, with calls to impeach judges who rule against administration policies. Chief Justice John Roberts’ extraordinary statement defending judicial independence [6] signals that this constitutional confrontation has reached the highest level of American jurisprudence.

The pattern extends beyond rhetoric to coordinated pressure, with congressional allies filing formal impeachment resolutions against judges who have ruled against executive actions. This represents an escalation from traditional criticism of judicial decisions to direct institutional threats against the judicial branch itself.

The strategic framework: institutional delegitimization

Behind these specific actions lies a consistent strategic framework described by Harvard Law School lecturer Nancy Gertner as “the authoritarian playbook” [7]. This approach requires systematically “delegitimizing institutions that could be critics” rather than merely disagreeing with their decisions. The goal appears to be fundamentally altering their relationship to executive power rather than arguing within established institutional boundaries.

What distinguishes the current approach from conventional political criticism is its use of direct executive action rather than rhetoric alone. By imposing concrete penalties through executive orders, firing officials with statutory protection, and threatening impeachment, the administration moves beyond persuasion to institutional reconstruction.

Coordinated amplification through private power centers

A notable aspect of this institutional pressure campaign is its amplification through coordinated private power centers. Elon Musk’s targeted attacks on Judge Paul Engelmayer, claiming he is a “corrupt judge protecting corruption” and calling for his impeachment [8], demonstrates how private authority is being leveraged to magnify institutional pressure.

This public-private coordination creates what legal scholars call “flooding the zone,” where institutional actors face pressure from multiple directions simultaneously, making resistance more costly and isolated. The strategic deployment of social media platforms with massive reach (in Musk’s case, approximately 200 million followers on X) creates unprecedented capability to mobilize public sentiment against specific institutional targets.

The compounding effect on market stability

The cumulative impact of these institutional confrontations extends beyond politics to fundamental market stability. As our previous analysis documented, market volatility has increased significantly as institutional uncertainty grows [9]. The apparent willingness to disregard long-established legal boundaries introduces fundamental unpredictability in regulatory, legal, and judicial spheres that directly impacts business planning horizons.

Financial markets fundamentally depend on institutional predictability. When basic questions about agency independence, legal representation, and judicial review become uncertain, investment risk calculations must account for unprecedented variables. This explains why even business constituencies traditionally aligned with administration policy priorities have expressed growing concern about institutional stability.

Beyond partisan frameworks: the constitutional stakes

What makes the current moment particularly significant is that institutional resistance has emerged across conventional partisan divisions. When Chief Justice Roberts (a conservative appointee) issues an explicit defense of judicial independence against impeachment threats, it indicates that the conflict transcends normal political competition to involve fundamental constitutional principles.

Similarly, reactions from market actors, legal scholars, and former judges from across the political spectrum suggest recognition that these institutional confrontations involve system-level questions rather than policy disagreements. As Columbia law professor and former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman observed, “the more this occurs, the more it will look like Trump’s problem is less with those who practice law and more with law itself” [10].

The historical context: institutional stress testing

American history provides instructive precedents for periods of institutional stress testing. The crucial distinction between those episodes that strengthened institutional resilience and those that weakened it typically involved whether competing institutional actors maintained their independent functions.

The current pattern differs from historical conflicts between branches in its comprehensive scope (targeting independent agencies, law firms, prosecutors, judges, and media simultaneously) and its explicit rejection of institutional independence as a principle. When administration officials argue that “judges have no authority to administer the executive branch” [11], they reject not specific rulings but the judiciary’s constitutional role in reviewing executive action.

The path forward: institutional resistance and courage

The administration’s multi-front institutional pressure campaign has met significant resistance, with courts blocking executive orders against law firms, Chief Justice Roberts defending judicial independence, and former judges speaking out about constitutional boundaries. This institutional pushback represents the designed function of constitutional checks and balances.

However, as legal scholar Larry Noble observed, if the administration succeeds in “punishing lawyers who oppose him and ignoring the courts, he will be only steps away from becoming the king he seems to want to be” [12]. The ultimate outcomes will depend on whether institutional leaders maintain what our previous analysis called “institutional courage” in the face of mounting pressure.

Our view: the likely outcomes of continued institutional erosion

For market participants and institutional stakeholders, the implications extend beyond partisan considerations to fundamental questions about system stability and predictability. As the confrontation between executive power and institutional independence continues, its resolution will shape not just political arrangements but the foundational structures of American governance and economic organization.

If the systematic targeting of independent institutions persists and intensifies, several significant developments become increasingly likely.

Realignment of institutional power relationships 

First, we could see a fundamental realignment of institutional power relationships. The constitutional system of checks and balances depends on each branch maintaining its independence and willingness to constrain overreach. If courts become reluctant to check executive actions due to impeachment threats, or if regulatory agencies function as direct extensions of presidential will rather than independent entities, the practical distribution of power shifts dramatically toward the executive branch regardless of formal constitutional arrangements.

Increased market volatility 

Second, market volatility would likely increase rather than stabilize. Markets function best with predictable rules and institutional stability. When fundamental questions about regulatory independence, judicial review, and legal representation remain uncertain, investment planning becomes increasingly difficult. This uncertainty could manifest as capital flight to more institutionally stable jurisdictions, delayed business investments, or risk premiums built into financial models.

Potential institutional adaptation 

Third, we might witness institutional adaptation through unexpected channels. When formal institutional constraints weaken, informal constraints often emerge. This could include corporate self-regulation, state-level policy resistance, or private sector coalitions establishing parallel governance structures. The financial services industry, for example, might develop its own stability mechanisms if regulatory predictability erodes.

Pendulum swings 

Fourth, there’s likely to be a pendulum effect in governance. Historical patterns suggest that periods of institutional stress are typically followed by institutional reconstruction, though not necessarily returning to previous arrangements. The more dramatically institutional norms are challenged, the more forceful the eventual institutional response tends to be, though this often occurs over years rather than months.

Uncertainty and variable factors 

The critical variable may be whether institutional resistance remains isolated or becomes coordinated. When Chief Justice Roberts, CEOs, regulatory commissioners, and others act independently, their impact remains limited. A more coordinated institutional response – while unlikely given the diverse interests involved – would present a more formidable counterbalance to executive pressure.

The outcome ultimately depends on whether there’s sufficient institutional courage across multiple sectors to maintain functional independence despite mounting pressure.

---