The Perils of Executive Overreach

Donald Trump and Andrew Jackson — déjà vu?

This has happened to America before and the consequences weren’t pretty.

In American history very few presidents have exhibited a disregard for constitutional norms, prioritizing personal power over the institutional framework designed to constrain it. Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump stand out as two leaders who embraced populist rhetoric while simultaneously undermining the very system they claimed to champion.

Their presidencies — marked by an overt contempt for constitutional governance — produced lasting consequences for American democracy. While Jackson’s presidency fundamentally altered the executive branch’s relationship with the judiciary, the press, and Congress, Trump’s twin presidencies (separated by an administration of the opposition party) demonstrate an increasingly aggressive assault on democratic institutions.

By comparing their approaches to governance, we can better understand the dangers posed by leaders who reject institutional constraints in favor of personal rule.

The rise of populist strongmen

Both Jackson and Trump ascended to power by tapping into the frustrations of voters who felt disenfranchised by the political elite. Jackson, a war hero, positioned himself as a man of the people, battling against a corrupt aristocracy that he believed controlled the government. Trump, leveraging his status as a political outsider, built a movement around the idea that he alone could dismantle the entrenched bureaucratic “swamp” in Washington.

However, beneath their populist rhetoric lay an overt willingness to sidestep democratic norms. Jackson and Trump framed themselves as direct representatives of the people, arguing that their mandates superseded the checks and balances designed to constrain executive power. In practice, this meant an aggressive expansion of executive authority that disregarded legal and constitutional precedents.

Defying the judiciary and undermining the rule of law

One of the most alarming similarities between Jackson and Trump was their open defiance of the judiciary. Both viewed the courts not as a coequal branch of government, but as an impediment to their authority.

Jackson’s most infamous act of defiance came after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), in which Chief Justice John Marshall declared that Georgia’s attempts to impose laws on Cherokee land were unconstitutional. Jackson, whose administration was committed to removing Native Americans from their ancestral lands, apocryphally responded, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

By refusing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Jackson undermined the judiciary’s authority, leading directly to the forced relocation of Native Americans and the subsequent Trail of Tears — a humanitarian disaster that resulted in the deaths of thousands.

Trump, too, has demonstrated contempt for the judiciary, particularly when it ruled against his administration. He has repeatedly attacked federal judges who issued unfavorable decisions, referring to one as a “so-called judge” and decrying the judicial system as “rigged.”

However, his most egregious defiance of constitutional governance came at the end of his first administration, when he sought to subvert the legal system to overturn the results of the 2024 election. Trump and his allies pressured state officials, courts, and even his own vice president to invalidate legally certified election results — an unprecedented assault on the rule of law that culminated in the January 6th insurrection.

The abuse of executive power

Both presidents aggressively expanded executive power, often using it to settle personal or political scores.

Jackson pioneered the spoils system, firing government officials en masse and replacing them with loyalists regardless of qualification. His destruction of the Second Bank of the United States — an institution that played a crucial role in stabilizing the economy — was rooted more in personal and political vendettas than in sound policy. His war on the bank contributed to the Panic of 1837, one of the worst economic depressions in American history.

Trump, in a similar vein, seeks to transform the executive branch into a tool for personal loyalty rather than governance. Throughout his presidencies, he has systematically purged officials who failed to demonstrate absolute loyalty. From FBI Director James Comey to multiple inspectors general, Trump viewed public servants as expendable if they did not serve his interests. This behavior is escalating in his second administration, as he is weaponizing the Justice Department to investigate political opponents and seeking to politicize the intelligence community to shield himself from scrutiny.

Assaults on a free press and political opponents

Both Jackson and Trump treated the press as an adversary rather than as a pillar of democracy. Jackson rewarded loyal newspapers and attempted to silence dissenting voices, setting a precedent for using government resources to control public perception.

Trump, however, takes hostility toward the press to an unprecedented level. Branding journalists as the “enemy of the people,” he has relentlessly attacked the credibility of mainstream media, undermining public trust in factual reporting. His administrations have sought to sideline critical journalists while elevating sycophantic media outlets that parroted his talking points.

Moreover, both men embraced the politics of personal vengeance. Jackson fought duels and engaged in physical altercations with political opponents, while Trump has publicly berated and smeared adversaries, often encouraging his supporters to do the same. This culture of retribution has further eroded democratic norms, making governance increasingly about personal loyalty rather than policy.

The lasting damage to American democracy

The long-term consequences of Jackson’s presidency were profound. By normalizing executive defiance of the judiciary and politicizing government appointments, he set dangerous precedents that later leaders could exploit. His policies deepened sectional divisions, particularly over states’ rights, which contributed to the conditions that led to the Civil War.

Trump’s presidencies are inflicting even greater damage, particularly during his second term, where his authoritarian tendencies are on full display. His refusal to accept electoral defeat led to the first attempted coup in modern U.S. history. His continuing influence has placed American democracy in a fragile state, with large segments of the population now believing in unfounded conspiracy theories about election fraud.

The perils of Constitutional contempt

Both Jackson and Trump represent cautionary tales about the dangers of unchecked executive power. Their presidencies highlight the fragility of constitutional governance and the ease with which democratic norms can be eroded when leaders place personal interests above governmental integrity.

While Jackson’s legacy was cemented through his defiance of the Supreme Court and his use of patronage, Trump’s long-term impact is still unfolding. However, one thing remains clear — when presidents treat the Constitution as an obstacle rather than as a guiding framework, the entire democratic system is put at risk.

By studying these historical parallels, we can better appreciate the need for robust institutional safeguards to prevent future leaders from exploiting the presidency for personal power. The lessons of Jackson and Trump must serve as warnings, lest history repeat itself with even more catastrophic consequences.

“Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” ~ George Santayana