Is Trump undermining his own “Make America Great Again” mantra with a shift towards “Make Trump Great Again,” effectively paralyzing the American Constitution?

Introduction

The resurgence of Donald Trump’s presidency in 2025 has ignited a fierce debate over whether his administration’s aggressive use of executive power aligns with the constitutional principles that underpin his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda.

Since returning to office, Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders and policy shifts that critics argue undermine the separation of powers, judicial independence, and foundational constitutional guarantees.

Supporters, however, argue that these actions are necessary to dismantle bureaucratic inefficiency and restore national sovereignty.

FAF report examines the tension between Trump’s vision of “greatness” and his administration’s constitutional controversies, drawing on legal challenges, scholarly analysis, and the broader implications for democratic governance.

The Origins and Evolution of “Make America Great Again”

Reagan’s Legacy and Trump’s Revival

The MAGA slogan, first popularised by Ronald Reagan in 1980, encapsulated a promise to revive American economic and global standing during stagflation and geopolitical uncertainty.

Trump revitalized the phrase in 2015, framing it as a rejection of globalism, multiculturalism, and bureaucratic overreach.

Central to this revival was the idea that external influences had eroded America’s “greatness,” necessitating a return to protectionist economics, strict immigration controls, and traditional social values.

MAGA as a Constitutional Vision

Trump’s interpretation of MAGA increasingly conflated presidential authority with national renewal.

His campaign rhetoric emphasized dismantling the “deep state,” reducing regulatory oversight and centralizing decision-making—a platform that relied heavily on expansive executive power.

This approach resonated with supporters who viewed constitutional checks as obstacles to effective governance.

However, critics argued that such a vision risked undermining the very system of checks and balances that have historically prevented authoritarian overreach.

Executive Actions and Constitutional Challenges

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

One of Trump’s most contentious moves was his January 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, directly challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens”.

Federal judges in Boston, Seattle, Maryland, and New Hampshire swiftly blocked the order, ruling it unconstitutional.

Legal scholars noted that the 14th Amendment’s plain language leaves no room for executive reinterpretation, with Judge Leo Sorokin declaring, “The Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly.”

Despite these rulings, the administration continued to defend the order, testing the judiciary’s authority to curb presidential overreach.

Schedule F and the Politicisation of the Civil Service

Trump’s reinstatement of “Schedule F” reclassified tens of thousands of federal employees as political appointees, stripping them of civil service protections and enabling mass dismissals for alleged disloyalty.

Unions and advocacy groups sued, arguing the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Critics warned that Schedule F could erode the nonpartisan expertise of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Election Commission, replacing merit-based governance with ideological conformity.

Defiance of Judicial Orders

The administration’s resistance to court mandates has further strained constitutional norms.

After U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the restoration of frozen federal funds in March 2025, Trump dismissed the ruling as “a disgrace,” while Vice President Vance implied judges lack authority to “control the executive’s legitimate power.”

Such rhetoric echoes the “unitary executive theory,” which posits that presidential authority supersedes congressional and judicial constraints.

Legal experts like Kristin Hickman cautioned that while outright defiance of court orders remains rare, the administration’s delaying tactics and rhetorical attacks on the judiciary risk normalizing constitutional brinkmanship.

The Unitary Executive Theory and Constitutional Revision

Expanding Presidential Authority

Trump’s legal strategy has increasingly relied on the unitary executive theory, a conservative interpretation of Article II that grants the president near-total control over the executive branch.

This theory underpinned efforts to fire inspectors general, dismantle independent agencies, and direct regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission to align with White House priorities.

Frank Bowman, a constitutional scholar, likened these actions to “an open declaration of dictatorship,” arguing that they replace congressional mandates with unchecked presidential discretion.

Testing the Supreme Court’s Limits

The administration’s boldest constitutional claims aim to reshape the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

By nominating judges sympathetic to the unitary executive theory, Trump has sought to legitimize assertions of immunity from congressional oversight and judicial review.

Legal analysts note that the Court’s 2024 ruling in Collins v. Yellen, which affirmed presidential authority to remove agency heads at will, has emboldened these efforts.

However, the Court’s willingness to uphold extreme interpretations—such as nullifying birthright citizenship—remains uncertain, with lower courts consistently rejecting such overreach.

Scholarly Warnings of a Constitutional Crisis

Systemic Erosion of Checks and Balances

Prominent legal scholars, including Erwin Chemerinsky and David Super, have warned that Trump’s actions constitute a constitutional crisis.

Chemerinsky highlighted “systematic unconstitutional and illegal acts,” such as defunding programs without congressional approval, purging civil servants, and targeting critics for deportation.

These measures, he argued, reflect a “radically new conception of presidential power” that bypasses legislative and judicial safeguards.

The “Counter-Constitution” Framework

Some scholars frame Trump’s agenda as a “counter-constitution”—a parallel governance model prioritizing executive supremacy over institutional checks.

This framework mirrors tactics employed by authoritarian leaders like Viktor Orbán, who consolidated power by rewriting legal norms while maintaining a veneer of procedural legitimacy.

By invoking national renewal to justify extra-constitutional measures, Trump’s administration has blurred the line between reform and subversion, challenging the judiciary to either acquiesce or provoke a direct institutional clash.

Does MAGA Contradict Constitutional Principles?

Supporters’ Perspective

Efficiency Over Bureaucracy

Proponents argue that Trump’s actions align with MAGA’s promise to “drain the swamp” by streamlining federal operations and reducing bureaucratic inertia.

Schedule F, for example, is framed as a necessary step to eliminate perceived inefficiencies and partisan resistance within agencies.

Similarly, immigration crackdowns are justified as restoring sovereignty, even if they test constitutional boundaries. For many supporters, the ends of national renewal justify aggressive means, particularly when congressional gridlock obstructs Trump’s agenda.

Critics’ Response

Undermining Foundational Values

Opponents counter that America’s historical “greatness” stems from its commitment to checks and balances, not unilateral executive action.

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, the civil service system, and judicial independence are seen as pillars of democratic accountability that Trump’s policies erode.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton historian, noted that while presidents have historically tested constitutional limits, Trump’s “chaotic flood of activity” risks normalizing lawlessness and destabilizing the rule of law.

Assessing “Is Trump’s America Great Again or a Hellscape?”

FAF fact-based answer depends on whom you ask.

Public opinion is sharply divided, and the data reveal a complex, polarized reality.

Public Opinion and Approval Ratings

As of spring 2025, only about 40% of Americans approve of Trump’s performance, with a majority (around 54-59%) disapproving.

About half of Americans describe his presidency as poor or terrible, while roughly 3 in 10 view it as good or excellent.

Most Americans (54%) report being worried about his administration's prospects, with only 37% feeling hopeful.

Approval is highly polarized: Republicans overwhelmingly approve, while Democrats and independents largely disapprove.

Economic and Policy Outcomes

Trump’s administration touts past economic achievements—such as job growth, low unemployment, and rising incomes for many groups—especially before the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, most Americans view recent policies—like sweeping tariffs and deep federal cuts—negatively. For example, 59% disapprove of tariff increases, and 55% disapprove of federal cuts.

Economic outlooks have turned negative, with more Americans expecting the economy to worsen in the coming year.

Trump’s handling of immigration remains his strongest area, with about half expressing confidence.

Societal and Cultural Shifts

Trump’s second term has seen aggressive moves to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, restrict federal funding for gender and race theory, and reorient cultural institutions toward a nationalist vision.

His base has praised these actions as restoring “truth and sanity” but criticized by opponents as eroding civil rights and protections for minorities.

Executive orders targeting DEI and affirmative action have undone decades of anti-discrimination protections.

Democracy, Institutions, and Global Standing

Many Americans (55%) agree that Trump has overstepped his authority, especially regarding mass firings in federal agencies.

There are concerns about eroding checks and balances, attacks on political opponents, and undermining U.S. soft power and global influence.

Half of Americans say Trump’s policies weaken the U.S.’s international standing.

Polarization and Partisan Lens

The country is deeply divided: Republicans see Trump’s America as being put “back on the right track,” while Democrats and many independents view it as a dangerous departure from democratic norms and social progress.

Most Americans say Trump’s presidency is proceeding as expected, but far more think he is focusing on the wrong priorities than the right ones.

There is no consensus: for Trump’s supporters, America is becoming “great again” through nationalist, anti-liberal policies and cultural transformation.

For opponents and many in the middle, the country is experiencing democratic backsliding, economic uncertainty, and increased division—closer to a “hellscape” than a renaissance.

The reality is a nation more polarized than ever, with Americans’ lived experiences and perceptions diverging sharply along partisan and demographic lines.

Conclusion

A Nation at a Constitutional Crossroads

The Trump administration’s confrontational approach has placed the U.S. constitutional order under unprecedented strain.

While lower courts have thus far resisted the most extreme overreaches, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming rulings on presidential immunity and agency authority will determine whether Trump’s “counter-constitution” gains legal legitimacy.

At its core, the debate over MAGA and the Constitution revolves around competing visions of national identity.

For Trump’s base, greatness is synonymous with decisive leadership unencumbered by institutional checks.

For constitutionalists, it resides in the enduring strength of a system designed to prevent concentrated power.

As legal challenges mount and scholarly warnings intensify, resolving this conflict will shape Trump’s legacy and the future of American democracy.