Authoritarian Ambitions: How Trump’s GOP Seeks to Dismantle Constitutional Protections
The United States Constitution has long been the cornerstone of American democracy, protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Yet, recent Republican efforts, driven by Donald Trump, signal a stark departure from constitutional norms. Attempts to dismantle birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, and repeal the 22nd Amendment’s presidential term limits reveal a calculated push to reshape fundamental democratic principles. Cloaked in rhetoric about national security and strong leadership, these moves instead serve a broader effort to consolidate power, undermining the very foundations of constitutional governance.
The GOP’s vision of executive authority and citizenship rights does not simply reflect pre-1950s America in the wake of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms but reaches further back to the 1860s oppression Abraham Lincoln fought to overcome. By reviving frameworks of exclusion and unchecked power, they drive a dangerous historical regression—one that threatens long-standing democratic norms in a bid to entrench Trump’s authority at the expense of constitutional integrity.
The Assault on the 14th Amendment: Ending Birthright Citizenship
Historical Context of the 14th Amendment
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was a monumental step forward of Reconstruction in post-Civil War America, granting citizenship to freed slaves and establishing the principle of jus soli (right of soil). This principle has provided a clear pathway to citizenship for those born on American soil, with limited exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats.
Trump’s Executive Order and It’s Response
In his first 24 hours in office, Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. This marked a significant departure from long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The executive order was immediately challenged in court, with Judge John Coughenour, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, issuing a temporary restraining order, calling the move “blatantly unconstitutional.” During the hearing, Judge Coughenour criticised the administration’s legal arguments, questioning the claim's validity that an executive order could override constitutional protections.
The legal challenges to Trump’s executive order underscore its tenuous foundation. Every state with a Democratic attorney general has sued the Trump administration to block the order, labelling it a flagrant violation of the Constitution and previous Supreme Court rulings. Twenty-two Democratic-led states, along with the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco, filed lawsuits in federal courts, asserting that the president had violated the 14th Amendment. Additional challenges were brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other immigrant rights organisations.
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson stated, “This executive order is a straightforward violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil.” Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul added, “For over a century, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court and remains a bedrock of our constitutional framework.” The lawsuits highlight that Trump’s order, set to take effect on February 20, would cause immediate and irreparable harm by rendering individuals stateless and subject to deportation.
Broader Implications
Trump’s framing of immigration as a crisis has been central to his political strategy. By targeting birthright citizenship, the administration not only sought to curb undocumented immigration but also to rally his base around nationalist rhetoric. However, such actions undermine constitutional protections, setting a dangerous precedent where executive power oversteps its bounds. Should this interpretation of the 14th Amendment gain traction, it could fundamentally alter the fabric of American identity and citizenship.
The Repeal of the 22nd Amendment: A Bid for Extended Power
Origins of the 22nd Amendment
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.”
The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, was introduced to prevent excessive consolidation of power following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four-term presidency. It limits presidents to two terms, reflecting a commitment to democratic transitions of power and the prevention of authoritarianism.
Ogles' Proposal
Congressman Andy Ogles has introduced a resolution to amend the 22nd Amendment, proposing that U.S. presidents be allowed to serve up to three terms. In a press release, Ogles explicitly linked the proposal to Donald Trump, arguing that his leadership is crucial for reversing the “chaos, suffering, and economic decline” of recent years. If passed, the amendment would enable Trump to seek re-election for a third term, potentially extending his presidency until 2032.
Notably, the proposed amendment is carefully worded to exclude anyone who has already served two consecutive terms from running again—effectively barring figures like Barack Obama from returning to office.
The proposal has sparked significant controversy, even within Republican circles. While some Trump supporters champion the idea, others caution against the risks of undermining democratic principles. Critics argue that extending term limits could lead to dangerous precedents, paving the way for indefinite rule. Some supporters expressed concerns about Trump’s age and the broader implications of repealing the 22nd Amendment.
Efforts to repeal presidential term limits challenge the foundational principle of checks and balances. By extending the potential for executive control, such moves risk weakening democratic institutions and fostering a culture of political exceptionalism. The rhetoric framing Trump as uniquely qualified to lead for extended periods reflects a troubling disregard for the broader principles of democracy and accountability.
Legal and Democratic Consequences
Trump and the GOP's attempts to undermine core constitutional values—such as birthright citizenship and the two-term limit—expose a growing disregard for the rule of law and democratic norms. Proposals to bypass constitutional processes through executive orders or amendments erode public trust in institutions and deepen partisan polarisation. While supporters view these moves as necessary to "restore" America, critics warn of creeping authoritarianism. This effort to centralise power mirrors global trends, where right-wing populists challenge democratic institutions under the guise of national revival. From Hungary to Israel to India, leaders have pursued legal reforms to extend their grip on power, raising concerns that the U.S. may be heading down a similar path. As legal battles escalate, the Supreme Court and a Republican-dominated Congress face a stark choice: Trump and tyranny or the Constitution and country.
Conclusion
These attacks on the American Constitution are just two of the sweeping measures undertaken during the chaotic first week of Donald Trump’s second term. His record-breaking wave of executive actions reveals a broader agenda to reshape the federal government and challenge constitutional norms. Such moves highlight the dangerous consolidation of power and the erosion of democratic safeguards. They reflect not only a threat to individual liberties but also a profound challenge to the wider legal and constitutional principles that underpin American democracy. In this pivotal moment, defending the rule of law and upholding constitutional integrity has never been more critical.
