The Unitary Executive Madman Theory

After the election, @SenBlumenthal & his allies think they can intimidate Americans for their constitutionally protected associations w/ President Trump. Congress is not a weapon to be wielded against the American people. I'm taking the first step to stop this abuse of power. https://t.co/SxKJflB1t6

— U.S. Attorney Aaron Reitz (@USAttyReitz) November 11, 2026

@USAttyReitz @SenBlumenthal The First Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from infringing the speech and association rights of Americans. DOJ will defend against threats to those rights, period.

— Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter (@PADAGMcCotter) November 11, 2026

Do they think they are going to court on this? Do they think the Sinister Six will side with them? Trump’s only power over the Court is to appoint Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress can eliminate their funding (save their salaries), and render them chamberless (as they were for much of their first 100 years). Congress can alter their jurisdiction. Congress can fuck them over. Hard.

And even a first year would know there’s no 1st Amendment issue here.

The Sinister Six can’t order Congress to give them a building, or fund their staff. And they dare not tread on the separation of powers by ruling on what actual limits there are to legislative oversight and investigation. That would just invite Congress to set limits on the jurisdiction of the Court.

These people should quit now. They can’t intimidate the Congress, they can’t win in court, and Trump won’t say “Well, you tried.” (Ask Harmeet Dhillon).

This is Trump going down in flames.🔥 And taking everybody in the Administration with him. Which, yes, is a problem for the rest of us. Oh, Trump can go to hell. It’s the institutions, like the DOJ, I’m worried about. We’re going to suffer those damages long after Trump is drooling into his sippy cup.

(Let me address the elephant in the room: Trump v. US. Yes, Roberts gave the President immunity, but of a limited kind. It rests on the President’s execution of “official duties.” But what are those? That is a bone the Court left to the lower courts to chew on. The immediate effect of the ruling was to gum up the federal prosecutions. Roberts could not have foreseen, as a fact, that Trump would win reelection. His aim (misguidedly) was to protect the office. The effect was not to give Trump immunity in the cases; but to add a whole new burden to the legal fight, one that would keep the cases in court for a decade or more. A very bad decision, but not an ending to the prosecutions. Trump’s election did that.

And yes, Roberts has given the office an excess of powers; but not the power to tell Congress to fuck off and leave the President a monarch. Even Alito and Thomas know their limitations.

Presidential immunity was made up out of whole cloth; and like the “unitary executive,” it’s a terrible concept which needs correcting with a constitutional amendment (well, both do). But it didn’t give Trump an automatic get out of jail free card. He might still be spending his (much smaller) fortune defending those cases had the 2024 election gone another way. So, would the Court tell Congress to leave the President alone and let him do as he damn well pleases? And, by the way, quit sending out letters because, you know, 1st Amendment?

Not likely. The reasonable response to Trump v. U.S. is to amend the Constitution. The reasonable response to a Court that accepts the arguments in the tweets above, is to remind them who literally, under Article III, made the Court and set it up in business. And still has the power to undo it.)