Progressives’ selective criticism of Trump reveals a constitutional double standard

The column contends that progressive commentators have spent months accusing Donald Trump of ignoring the rule of law whenever he questions court rulings on matters such as birthright citizenship, trade policy, the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, or the addition of his name to the Kennedy Center. It points out that many of these critics endorse popular constitutionalism and departmentalism, frameworks that deny judicial supremacy and affirm the elected branches’ interpretive power.

Historical examples—including Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon—are offered to show that presidential resistance to judicial decisions is a recurring feature of American governance. The piece argues that the real friction stems from lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions that freeze executive actions, a practice the Supreme Court has recently begun to restrain.

By invoking past presidents’ similar tactics, the author frames Trump’s legal challenges as part of an established inter-branch dialogue rather than authoritarian overreach. The article concludes that the danger lies not in presidential defiance but in the selective outrage that turns constitutional debate into a partisan weapon.