'American Caesar' – A Systemic Assault on Checks and Balances
This is a call to reclaim our democratic institutions against the rising power of the executive
In theory, modern democracies are composed of three coequal branches of government. The legislative (Congress/Parliament), the judicial (courts), and the executive (the President/Prime Minister and cabinet). The first two exist primarily to keep the third one in check. The will of the people is (theoretically) expressed in Parliament, and the law of the land is (again, theoretically) upheld in the courts, acting as constraints on those in power. That’s how it’s all meant to work.
But in recent decades, and not just in the United States, it’s become increasingly acceptable for executives to bypass those safeguards. Boris Johnson’s 2019 prorogation of Parliament – not to mention his constant use of so-called ‘Henry VIII’ clauses in legislation – was a clear example of executive overreach. But it pales in comparison to what’s happening in the United States right now.
In his first week back in office, Donald Trump immediately enacted a flurry of executive orders, memorandums, and proclamations. It was a sweeping power grab, radically shifting official US policy on immigration, climate, the conduct of federal agencies, and much more – all without any congressional oversight whatsoever.
It represents the next phase in the expanding use of executive power. Trump’s first actions in the Oval Office directly threaten the separation of powers that allows democracy to function.
Back on the campaign trail, Trump had pledged to “restore executive branch impoundment authority to cut waste, stop inflation, and crush the Deep State.” He was bemoaning a Nixon-era law (the 1974 Impound Control Act, or ICA) that restricts the President’s executive power to ‘impound’ (withhold) Congressionally-approved spending. Trump’s appointee to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Russel Vought, has echoed these complaints in his recent confirmation hearings.
On Monday, January 27th, Trump issued a directive through the OMB to “temporarily” halt the disbursement of up to $3 trillion in federal spending, effective January 28th. No deadline was given. The freeze would have wide-reaching ramifications from healthcare to housing to disaster relief to universities to state governments and beyond. This is all spending that was officially approved by Congress.
Professor Michael Dorf, a Constitutional Law Scholar at Cornell University, argued that "the President's unilateral suspension of congressionally approved funds poses a serious threat to the separation of powers, as it effectively nullifies legislative decisions."
Trump’s executive overreach on Monday will be fought in court. It’s already been paused for review by a federal judge. But federal judges – not to mention the Supreme Court itself – are increasingly on Trump’s side. Should he win the ensuing legal battle, it will establish an incredibly dangerous precent: that the executive can effectively override Congress.
This week’s spending freeze is by no means the only recent example of executive overreach. Here’s a (by no means exhaustive) list of other alarming changes we’ve seen since Trump took office:
Dismantling the Civil Service: One of Trump’s executive orders reclassifies federal workers into a new category lacking job protections. It will enable the mass firings of civil servants (as laid out in Project 2025), and the installation of MAGA loyalists in their stead;
Criminalising Dissent: The DOJ, at Trump’s behest, has directed prosecutors to target state and local officials resisting Trump’s immigration agenda, threatening charges under the Supremacy Clause (part of the constitution that establishes the primary of the federal government);
Revoking Police Accountability Measures: Trump rescinded Biden-era rules phasing out private prisons and enforcing anti-discrimination policies in law enforcement;
Curtailing Judicial Independence: Trump’s executive orders and appointments aim to reduce the judiciary’s ability to check executive power, such as by limiting judicial review and appointing loyalists to key positions;
Dismantling Advisory Committees: Trump disbanded multiple advisory committees, including those focused on cybersecurity and disaster preparedness, reducing expert input and transparency in policymaking;
Withdrawing from International Agreements: Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization, signalling a retreat from multilateralism and global democratic cooperation;
Pardons for January 6 Defendants: Trump issued blanket pardons for individuals convicted of violent crimes during the January 6 Capitol attack, including those who assaulted police officers. This move has been criticized for undermining accountability and the rule of law;
Threatening to Adjourn Congress: Trump hinted at using his powers to adjourn Congress to make recess appointments if Democrats delay confirming his nominees. This would bypass constitutional norms and further concentrate power in the executive branch.
We’ve seen a bit of this before in the United States. The clearest example is the subordination of the Supreme Court to blatantly partisan interests. In July 2024, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president (supposedly, only acts within their ‘core constitutional purview’ – a loosely defined term). For acts on the ‘outer perimeter’ of their official responsibilities, Presidents receive ‘presumptive immunity.’
And we’ve seen it elsewhere. A few examples, again, by no means exhaustive:
Hungary: Viktor Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” has neutered courts, silenced media, and rigged elections since 2010.
Turkey: Recep Erdoğan jailed dissenters and centralized power after a 2016 “failed coup.”
India: Modi’s government weaponizes tax raids and sedition laws to crush opposition.
At a global level, we’re witnessing a systemic assault on checks and balances. It’s a lesson worth learning for us in Britain: autocrats don’t always seize power through coups; they exploit legal tools to hollow out democracy from within.
‘American Caesar’
In niche internet forums, ideas about expanding executive power in the United States have been percolating since the mid 2000s. Curtis Yarvin, formerly known under the pseudonym ‘Mencius Moldbug,’ is a software engineer and blogger known for his extreme set of anti-democratic beliefs – a philosophy he refers to as the ‘Dark Enlightenment.’
In his book The Stakes, Yarvin argues that America’s chaotic and decadent times call for an ‘American Caesar’ to serve as the Emperor-CEO of a newly forged America Inc. While many Republicans aim to roll back the inclusive policies of the 1960s or dismantle remnants of Roosevelt’s New Deal, Yarvin and his followers go much further. They advocate reversing the very Enlightenment ideals of the 17th century—the foundations of liberalism itself.
Once a fringe figure, Yarvin has recently stepped into the mainstream. Just days ago, he was profiled in The New York Times. His ideas were praised on national television by the Vice President of the United States. On the eve of inauguration day, he mingled with the President’s inner circle at a high-profile gala (also attended by the UK’s own Nigel Farage). He’s clearly influential in Silicon Valley, his ideas embraced by the likes of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and another Trump-aligned tech billionaire Marc Andreessen.
As Quinn Slobodian, Professor of International History at Boston University, explained to me, Yarvin and other far-right intellectuals envision a world where “authority is given to people who have a longer-time horizon and a desire to cultivate the value of the assets of the territory they are responsible for.” In this vision, government is no longer a democratic contract with citizens but an act of ownership over them.
“Caesarism is not tyranny,” Yarvin claims, “which, strictly understood, is a regime that usurps a legitimate and functioning government.” For Yarvin, the demos – the people – lack legitimacy.
While Yarvin is far from the mastermind of the rising far-right movement, he serves as a chronicler of its increasingly radical ideas. It’s a mindset that sees the executive as supreme, dismisses checks and balances as unnecessary, and treats democracy not as our collective voice, but as an obstacle for ‘Caesar’ to overcome.
Given Nigel Farage’s cozy relationship with Trump and the broader far-right anti-establishment movement, we’d be naive to think that this playbook won’t be relevant in Britain. Boris Johnson certainly engaged in executive overreach, but the 2019 prorogation may have just been the warning shot.
At the time of writing, Reform UK is placing first in national voting intention polls. Trump’s return to office is only likely to boost them further – not to mention Musk’s potential donation to the party and the increasing deluge of political disinformation on “X”.
So what can we do in Britain about executive overreach, and the broader decline in democratic norms and institutions?
Safeguarding Britain’s Democracy
Whatever you may think of Keir Starmer, it’s clear that he’s not a member of what some are calling the rising “Nationalist International.” He’s not part of Trump or Farage’s project.
As one of the few liberal Western leaders with a few solid years left in power, he’s got a rare window of opportunity to not only insulate Britain from the barrage of money and lies travelling across the Atlantic, but to build up strong institutions that won’t succumb to the whims of a strongman – in case Britain gets its own Donald Trump in a few years time.
To counter the rising tide of authoritarianism and restore faith in democracy, the UK must modernise its institutions and strengthen its democratic foundations. Firstly, there’s a lot we could simply to make the democratic process more fair and restore the trust that’s been lost in our politics:
Introduce Proportional Representation (PR): Replace the First Past the Post system with a fairer voting method that ensures every vote counts. New Zealand adopted PR in 1996, reducing the influence of extremist parties (despite some claims that PR encourages extremism – Open Britain CEO Mark Kieran has thoroughly debunked that idea) and fostering more cooperative governance.
Strengthening the Online Safety Act: In Europe and Brazil, where they’ve got much stronger laws around how social media platforms must operate, they’ve had better luck tackling disinformation and holding social media bosses accountable. Even our latest social media law, the Online Safety Act, does practically nothing to reign in the pervasive conspiracies spreading on X.
Regulating political donations, especially foreign ones. It’s uncertain whether Musk’s proposed $100 million donation to Reform UK will go through, but Starmer must take action to ensure that no foreign billionaire – or any powerful person, period – can buy out our political system.
But equally, Britain must also rebuild the broken institutions that allowed Boris Johnson to abuse the powers of the executive – and may allow a future leader to do much worse. Here’s how we’d advocate to do that – at least for a start:
Adopt a Written Constitution: Explicitly define the powers and limits of the executive, banning abuses like improper prorogation and protecting judicial independence. Germany’s ‘Basic Law’, for example, was enacted post-WWII. It limits emergency powers and ensures checks on executive authority.
Re-establish Fixed-Term Parliaments: Prevent snap elections from being weaponised for political gain, as seen in the chaos of 2017 and 2019. Fixed terms ensure stability and reduce opportunistic manipulation of the electoral calendar.
Legally Insulate the Civil Service: Safeguard roles like Cabinet Secretary from political coercion, ensuring that expertise and impartiality guide decision-making.
Unfortunately, America has a long way to go before it can hope to restore a fair and functional democracy complete with proper checks and balances. But in Britain, we do have that opportunity. We just might not have that long to get it done.
By codifying constitutional safeguards, reforming the electoral system, and protecting independent institutions, we can not only defend democracy at home but also inspire a global resurgence of democratic values.
Democracy is not self-healing. New technologies, concentrations of power, historical moments, and social dynamics constantly change the battleground. We’re living in a different world now, and our political system needs to reflect it. Having a democracy requires constant care, innovation, and courage.
Together, we can build a democracy that works for everyone. Learn more at Open-Britain.co.uk.