Trump's Lawlessness by Personalizing the State in Him

Rev. Douglas Olds

January 27, 2025

The new administration, in this minister’s view, is pushing the envelope on governance by Diktat—dictatorship-- at the federal level as constitutional checks and balances are being vitiated, moving federal operations and policy warrant into the person of the executive order. Trump has now fired inspectors general, those whose purpose is to ensure executive department agendas are done legally in statutory compliance—i.e. in accordance with the legislature’s authority to set moral policy. So it is hard to deny that Trump will continue to implement his agenda by Executive Order, as they may have become presumptively allowable by the Supreme Court’s deference to the Executive Branch. These EOs face reduced likelihood of injunction given expanded immunity, yet remain justiciable under statutory constraints. To wit:

In July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in Trump v. United States, addressing the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. The Court held that a president possesses absolute immunity for actions within their "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," such as commanding the military, issuing pardons, and overseeing foreign relations. Additionally, the Court recognized presumptive immunity for other official acts, which can be challenged if prosecutors demonstrate that such charges do not threaten the executive branch's functions. However, the Court clarified that this immunity does not extend to unofficial acts.

This decision has profound implications for the balance of power within the U.S. government. (ChaGPT4o 1/27/2025).

This immunity climate intersects with security narratives now framing immigration as existential threat.The shifting political landscape is obscuring accountability for unofficial acts, as vigilantes  may now count on the precedent of presidential clemency for political violence done in support of Mr. Trump during the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol in Washington, DC that challenged the certification of Mr. Trump’s loss in the previous November’s presidential election. So while such unofficial acts fall outside legal presumptive immunity they have some precedent if not presumption of executive pardon.

And now, the return of a Trump administration has brought a sharpening and direction of political rhetoric raising alarm at “open borders” that constitute conduits for an “invasion” on the “homeland,” and that U.S. cities are being ravaged by immigrant “gangs and criminals.” Such framing, if accepted by the Trump-appointed Court, would allow the president to invoke extraordinary powers and expansion of Executive Orders under the guise of national defense or public safety.

The strong man of the executive order run rampant will not be checked by judicial review by the Supreme Court now dominated by Trump nominees that themselves delivered a significant expansion of absolute and presumptive immunity to Executive branch initiative. Whether or not supposed “legislative” gridlock was part of the rationale for the ruling, will a breaking of a deadlock, at some time in the future (midterms?), reduce the executive prerogative to act presumptively? The speed and scope of the first week of the new administration seems to me to indicate that the legal regime at the federal level of the U.S. is presenting churches with an entirely new and different context for which we in the local churches have no competence to entertain without significant legal guidance. Such guidance has not been forthcoming from either denominational or NGO circles relating to the changing conditions.

Therefore, we acknowledge the church’s historical role to provide moral guidance, witness, and sanctuary but cannot ally with non-church programs in requesting hardened refuge from protean changes in legal systems. We stand committed to moral witness on the dignity of all human beings and the aspirational spirit of American ideals of E Pluribus Unum, unalienable human rights, and melting pot virtues as being the characteristic American spirit contributing to the progressing Kingdom of God.

We now cannot guarantee that our sanctuaries constitute any legal protection in this uncertain changing political environment. In addition to this acknowledgment and commitment, we will be very clear that our small church does not have the capacity at the moment, by reason of infrastructure, to create a more robust “refuge.” Absent definitive guidance from our denomination on the legal issues involved, we must continue with an open sanctuary policy. We are not now endowed with the capacity or warrant to shut our doors against certain agencies. We do have confirmed faith in Matthew 16:18, that what gates are put up are subject to the offensive capacities of peacekeepers only.