After Trump’s firing of inspector generals with neither the specific explanation nor 30 day notice required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, an obvious question arose. What happens when Trump shamelessly breaks the law? It may not be the biggest deal law ever, but it’s still a law. You may not like the law, or believe the law is constitutional, but it’s still the law. And Trump just, well, broke it.

Josh Blackman tried his very hardest to muster some rational explanation for Trump’s actions, but, despite his best efforts, came up empty. In response, David Post made the obvious observation that Josh tried so hard to avoid.

Let me respectfully suggest that Josh has overlooked the most obvious answer to the question, which is:  He [Trump] couldn’t care less.  He has figured it out: He can do whatever he wants, and nobody can stop him. Unilaterally impose 25% tariffs on Colombian imports? Do it.  Withhold federal disaster relief to cities that don’t assist ICE agents carrying out their raids? Absolutely. Halt all payments due for dispersal under NIH research grants until grantees dismantle their DEI programs? Sure.

Does anyone actually believe that, during the discussion in the Oval Office concerning those moves, Trump asked: “Are we sure we have statutory and constitutional authority to do this?”?

I know I don’t, and I suspect no one else who is concerned with such niceties does either. This raises a rather profound question. What mechanism exists to prevent a president from simply doing whatever he pleases? I gave the short list of how this works on the twitters.

There are three primary checks on presidential power:

1. Virtue
2. The military’s refusal to support unlawful action
3. Revolution

Some replied that this was wrong, ignoring the constitutional separation of powers, court rulings, Congress’ laws, even elections and impeachment. They missed the point. Honoring all the guardrails built into the system falls within the first check, virtue. It only matters if the president respects the law and the Constitution. Andrew Jackson realized this when he mumbled, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” What if the president just says “no”?

What is Congress or the Supreme Court going to do if the President tells them to kiss his executive butt? Congress may have the spending authority, but it’s the Treasury that holds the cash and writes the checks. The Supreme Court may have the authority to hold an action unconstitutional, but the military serves under the Commander in Chief.

If the president abides by the limitations of law or constitutional authority, as has generally been the case up to now despite the occasional overstep, then the mechanics of our society work. But what if he doesn’t?

When it comes to Trump’s firing of the inspectors general, an act of some concern because their role in keeping the various departments of government from acting corruptly is undermined if their independence from the administration acting with deliberate corruption, what’s to be done about it? Will Congress stand up against the president? Heck, the Senate didn’t even have the guts to call bullshit on the second, possibly third or fourth, least qualified secretary nominated when it confirmed Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.

And even if Congress arose in outrage at Trump’s violation of law, so what? Assuming there was a way to take it to the courts, would Trump obey a court ruling? If he Jackson’d the ruling, what then?

To some, the only thing that truly matters is that they support whatever Trump is doing, lawful or not. After all, isn’t the outcome, like the elimination of DEI or cost-prohibitive deportation of immigrants, all that matters, regardless of how he gets there? Then again, few outside of the core MAGA believers agree with all of Trump’s plethora of initiatives, and even the most hardcore believers may come to a realization should they realize that he failed to end the war in Ukraine, bring down the cost of eggs or protect United States business from the Chinese.

Perhaps there’s a line even Trump won’t cross, whether because there is some iota of shame within his rotund orange exterior, or because he eventually grasps that his desperate need for validation will be lost when his schemes collapse. But until then, David Post’s question matters because we knew he lacked any virtue when we elected him, and yet here we are. But if there is no line, and Trump has no virtue, then the options are limited.

Consider what you would do if, in 2028, Trump announces that there will be no election, that he will remain president and that you will do whatever he tells you to do. What will you do then?