Whether crossing lines or overreaching, few consequenes for Trump
In sports, there are penalties for breaching literal lines. And, until now, often in government. But, so far, none for the Trump regime. Elections? Maybe.
Where, exactly, is the red line for Republicans in Congress right now?
We have a president with pronounced authoritarian tendencies, who believes he "alone can fix it,” who signs sweeping executive orders reportedly without even briefing relevant Cabinet members on the logistical, humanitarian and national security consequences; who directs his staff and surrogates to lie about the tiniest and most ridiculous and easily fact-checkable of details; and whose staffers brought us to the brink of a constitutional crisis when they ignored federal court orders.
Democrats have few tools at their disposal to obstruct President Trump, let alone force him to double back, given their minority status in both chambers of Congress. They could slow business to a crawl if they wished through procedural measures. But that comes with longer-term strategic risks, and more to the point, can only slow things down; it cannot reverse actions the executive branch is already taking.
Does this sound familiar? Sadly, this ran in The Washington Post under the headline “If there were ever a red line for Republicans, Trump crossed it Friday. Or not.” The date? January 30, 2017, the start of Trump’s first term.
Since Donald Trump was restored to the presidency eight years later, his policies and Executive Orders have repeatedly challenged not only governing conventions but legal authority. He has repeatedly drawn on obscure statutes and stretched the bounds of logical interpretation beyond the breaking point.
In response, each time he threatened to or actually cited these extraordinary laws, numerous pundits, commentators, even jurists, have described such actions using some flavor of crossing a line, a line in the sand, a red line, or overstepping (a line) or overreaching.” Just last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, in his suit to block the federal deployment of the state’s National Guard, said Trump “crossed a red line.”
The administration invoked Title 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard in cases of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the United States. This provision permits the deployment of the National Guard without state consent. Several days later, a U.S. District Court rebuffed that order, and an Appeals Court let it stand. Even if the original District Court ruling is upheld, the only consequence for Trump is [I pause to think], none. On the contrary, the political point was successfully achieved.
Sports metaphors abound
Sports provide numerous instances where improperly crossing a line has consequences. In football, if a player encroaches on the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped, the offending team is penalized yardage. In baseball, a manager may be ejected from the game for arguing balls and strikes, using offensive language, or engaging in physical altercations. In ice hockey, improperly crossing a blue line results in stopping play and creating a faceoff (a call I find hard to follow). And basketball player fouls are called when specific lines of contact are violated, awarding “free throws” to the opponent.
Politics may be a sport, but it isn’t sports
However, in our government, the worst penalty seems to be the requirement that the offenders just stop doing what they had already done. The Constitution does provide for a real, substantial penalty in the form of impeachment, but recent history from Donald Trump’s first term suggests that even the most egregious actions have no consequences. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision really put a pin in that.
The only other penalty, of course, is the ballot box. In theory, voters can penalize an elective office holder who steps over the line. However, Donald Trump’s re-election despite his felony conviction in 2024, his tumultuous first term, ending with the storming of the Capitol, boldly demonstrated the limits even of the ballot box.
Instances of Trump II nudging right up to, as well as blowing past, all sorts of lines in the sand are plentiful. Indeed, in his first 100 days, Trump issued eight national emergency declarations, more than any modern president in the same period. There were more lines being crossed than yard stripes on a football field.
We can start with the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify mass deportations of non-citizens. The administration argued this authority permits the expulsion of nationals from "hostile nations" without trial.
A "national energy emergency" was declared to promote fossil fuel production and roll back climate regulations.
An “emergency” at the southern border supposedly justified military involvement.
An economic emergency was cited to impose significant tariffs, claiming the trade deficit posed a threat to national security, even though the U.S. has had a trade deficit for decades.
Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) were again applied to empower the president to suspend the entry of any class of aliens whose entry is deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Section 212(f), in particular, has historically been a sweeping authority invoked for national security or foreign policy reasons.
Moreover, recent Immigration and Customs Enforecement (ICE) policy asserts that immigration officials have “inherent authority” to terminate a student’s SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) status as needed, including for vague reasons such as “failure to comply” with visa terms or visa revocation by the State Department. The State Department can revoke student visas at its discretion, often citing national security, criminal activity, or failure to comply with visa conditions.
A Presidential Proclamation issued on June 4 Trump attacked Harvard’s international students en masse to ban entry of new international students to Harvard and directed the Secretary of State to consider revoking existing visas for current students who meet certain criteria, again citing Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 212(f) and 215(a). The cherry on top was spurious claims of national security for Harvard's “concerning foreign ties,” “radicalism,” and “deficient reporting” on foreign students.
An Executive Order greatly expanded "Schedule F,” which reclassifies certain federal workers as political appointees, making it easier to fire employees deemed disloyal. While not entirely obscure, it is a rare instance of executive authority being used to reshape the federal workforce, with significant implications for the civil service.
A novel interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is attempting to end birthright citizenship. The Trump legal team argued that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause refers to "political jurisdiction," which they defined based on a person's allegiance. In this reckoning, U.S.-born children should be denied citizenship if at least one parent was not legally allowed to reside permanently in the United States, proposing that these children lacked the required political allegiance. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, "This is hallmark Trump, doing what he wants, when he wants, how he wants, the U.S. Constitution be damned.
Crossing lines, whether red, in the sand, or otherwise
Trump’s words and actions have been cited as having crossed various lines of normal behavior, with few penalties. We can go back to his “Access Hollywood” tapes in 2015 about grabbing women. That would have ended just about any other politician’s future. Recall Al Franken, who had to resign his Senate seat after accusations of sexual inappropriateness.
When Trump threatened impeaching federal judges who ruled against his policies in March, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement in reposne, stating “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision” Although Roberts did not specifcially reference a “line,” it appeared to legal commentators that is exactly what he has done. “That seems to be the redline [sic] for the chief justice, the threat of using impeachment in a way the Constitution does not intend," explained Joyce Vance, a legal analyst and MSNBC commentator.
Pundit Charlie Sykes does notice a line. After California Senator Vince Padilla was wrestled to the ground and briefly handcuffed last week, he provided this insight:
Keep in mind that for this administration, chaos is a ladder. They embrace the chaos and this feeds into it….They are prepping their base to accept it, to ask for it and to cheer it on…..We should have no illusions that, in fact, this ratchet has moved today and is moving in real time right now with every reaction and non-reaction from members of Congress…So every moment that passes, that line is moving.
Even Trump’s foreign policy can be line-crossing. His suggestion of permanently relocating Palestinians from Gaza and creating a luxury resort in the territory prompted a Newsweek opinion piece headlined "Trump Just Crossed a Line in the Middle East. There's No Way Back." It criticized Trump's:"Trump has now given new life to the fantasy that the conflict can be solved through simply removing the Palestinian population."
Are “overstepping” and “gone too far” line-crossing equivalents?
Multiple polls found that Trump has “gone too far” in carrying out his immigration policy. A CNN poll found that "52% say Trump has gone too far in deporting undocumented immigrants." An AP-NORC poll also used the “gone too far” formulation, with a similar result. And a Washington Post-ABC-Ipsos poll found "Just under half of Americans, 48 percent, say Trump is going too far on his immigration enforcement efforts. Past tense or present tense, it’s still too far across the line.
Overstepped and Overreached
I’m boldly declaring that “Overstepped" and "Overreached” are equally line-crossing.
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that "Trump overstepped his authority by implementing a tariff regime," with the White House matching those judges by hammering the court for "judicial overreach." I’m not going to enter into discourse on whether oversteps or overreaches are more over the line. Perhaps it’s immaterial, as the Trump administration switched teams in arguing that judges "overstepped" their authority regarding federal worker rehiring orders and in blocking his executive order seeking to end birthright U.S. citizenship.
Based on my comprehensive search1, I found at least 8-10 distinct area where critics, courts, polls, or analysts have used formulations like "crossing/crossed red lines," "gone too far," "overstepped," "overreach," or similar language to describe Trump's actions since January 21, 2025
This is a strategic and deliberate overstepping of legal and traditional guardrails
This isn’t President Biden looking for a loophole to provide college loan forgiveness. Trump’s pattern shows sustained criticism across multiple policy areas, with courts, public opinion, and legal experts frequently describing his actions as exceeding proper executive authority. However, no one has been held in contempt by a court. Even when the courts have found overreach (I’ll use that as shorthand for the other terms), they have often allowed the orders to be implemented while legal arguments are adjudicated. Ordinarily, the voters should have the last and definitive word on punishing line-crossers. My nightmare is that certain lines will continue to be crossed, elections may be compromised via some combination of intimidation, legal maneuvering, and even fraud. Meanwhile, after eight years, Republicans in Congress are still searching for their line.
This is the 105th issue of The Two-Sided Pancake, that is, every week for two years, plus one double issue week. Thank you for your interest, as shown by your being here. Neither my substance nor style will appeal to all, but I am pleased to have created this community that is committed to understanding--if not always agreeing with—another side.
I used my pal Claude to conduct the laborious research.
Pretty gloomy, although accurate. Fortunately, the sun is out.
Good question. The shift in Biden to Trump voters in the 2024 election can be explained through both cultural and economic factors. If culture dominated more than economic, it will take a deep recession (Ala 2008) to move those voters. But if the economic (especially inflation) actually dominated, a standard recession may be sufficient. Since I lean toward the cultural as being more significant, I lean toward a deep recession before Congress will be forced to counter Trump's agenda, all other factors (such as the Israeli-Iranian war) being equal.