Trump’s Moves to Become the Last Elected President of the United States

Donald Trump’s political strategy transcends traditional partisan governance—he has systematically reshaped the judiciary, law enforcement, congress and the military to consolidate power and protect himself from accountability. Through strategic judicial appointments, exerting executive control over law enforcement, and eliminating independent oversight, Trump has steadily dismantled the system of checks and balances designed to restrain executive authority. His goal extends beyond reelection to establishing a regime immune to accountability, potentially positioning him as the last elected president of the United States.

However, Trump is not acting alone. He is backed by a coalition of conservative groups, each pursuing its own objectives. White Christian evangelicals view Trump as divinely ordained, a leader fulfilling a biblical mission. Wealthy conservatives regard him as instrumental in achieving extensive tax cuts and deregulation. Meanwhile, the architects behind Project 2025—a strategic plan orchestrated by right-wing think tanks—see a second Trump presidency as their chance to radically reshape the federal government without interference from Congress or the courts.

Though Trump currently faces constitutional restrictions limiting presidents to two elected terms, he is proactively laying groundwork to circumvent these restrictions. His rhetoric around “voter fraud” and questioning election integrity aims to convince supporters that election suspensions or unconstitutional extensions of his presidency are justified. If successful, Trump could effectively remain in office indefinitely.

This essay analyzes how Trump’s embrace of the unitary executive theory, strategic judicial appointments, control over federal agencies, restructuring of the military, intimidation of legal opposition, and support from right-wing allies have set the stage for potential authoritarian governance. Professor Kim Lane Scheppele and Stacey Abrams make a different argument, or show a different path for achieving the same result.

The Unitary Executive Theory and Trump’s Legal Strategy

At the core of Trump’s consolidation of power lies the unitary executive theory, which asserts presidential supremacy over the executive branch, effectively placing the president above legal scrutiny.

1. Supreme Court Appointments and Presidential Immunity
   Trump strategically appointed Supreme Court justices sympathetic to the unitary executive theory, prioritizing presidential immunity over conventional conservative issues like abortion or gun rights. This approach bore fruit when the Supreme Court reinforced protections against prosecuting a sitting president for official acts.
2. Federal Judicial Appointments
   Beyond the Supreme Court, Trump appointed hundreds of federal judges aligned with his philosophy, particularly in crucial jurisdictions such as Florida, where cases involving Trump have faced delays or favorable rulings. These appointments significantly diminish the judiciary’s capacity to check executive overreach.

Purging Law Enforcement and Ensuring Personal Protection

Trump has systematically targeted law-enforcement bodies to ensure personal loyalty over institutional integrity.

1. Loyal Attorney General
   By considering personal allies—like Matt Gaetz, and then Pam Bondi —for Attorney General, Trump signaled his intention to subordinate the Department of Justice to his political interests, enabling the weaponization of federal prosecutions and the shielding of himself and his associates.
2. Control over the FBI
   Efforts to install loyalists such as Kash Patel in top FBI positions would neutralize investigations into presidential misconduct. Control over the bureau provides a shield against federal scrutiny.
3. Elimination of Independent Inspectors General
   Trump removed or sidelined Inspectors General—key watchdogs charged with rooting out agency misuse—thereby dismantling vital internal checks and enabling unchecked executive actions.

Military Restructuring to Neutralize Opposition

Trump extended his consolidation strategy to the armed forces, ensuring obedience even against constitutional parameters.

1. Removing Independent Military Leaders
   Senior officers like General Mark Milley, who resisted politicized orders, were marginalized. By staffing top ranks with loyalists, such as Pete Hegseth, Trump guaranteed that the military would follow his directives—constitutional or not.
2. Implications of Military Control
   In a constitutional showdown, a compliant military leadership could refuse to enforce court orders or congressional mandates, precipitating a severe crisis in which armed forces side with the president over democratic institutions. Or enforce Marshall law while the courts “figure it out.”

Intimidation of Legal Opposition

Trump’s aggressive tactics against lawyers and law firms further weaken democratic safeguards. Law firms in fear of losing business have agreed to stop taking cases that oppose the Trump administration out of fear of retribution. By securing enormous pro bono commitments—reported at $940 billion—from powerhouse firms like Skadden Arps, he created a chilling effect: attorneys fear professional or financial retribution and thus hesitate to mount robust challenges.

Impact on Political Opposition

This intimidation campaign dramatically reduces legal resources for political challengers, civil-rights organizations, and grassroots activists. Without effective legal advocacy, opposing unconstitutional maneuvers becomes significantly harder, muzzling dissent.

Threat to Electoral Integrity

Trump has successfully argued for and won positions that no one thought he would win, like his position on presidential immunity.  Trumps team would argue that the constitution says you are limited to two consecutive terms, not limited to two terms. He would therefore announce that he is running again. Those who would challenge him in court would have limited resources versus the resources of the DOJ, and as law firms would be hesitant to take the case for fear of retribution. They would likely face a Trump appointed judiciary and ultimately a Trump supporting Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would most likely let Trump run while the case was working its way through the legal system.

Should Trump ultimately lose, a DOJ loyal to him could refuse to enforce the Twenty-Second Amendment’s two-term limit. Or if Trump suspended elections because in his determination they wouldn’t be free and fair, there is no one in place to stop him, or enforce the courts decision.

If college students take to the streets to protest, the Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to force colleges to get their students in check or face the loss of millions or even billions in federal aid and/or contracts like it has done with Harvard and Columbia.  The Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to call out the California National Guard and Marines. Is this a foreshadowing of things to come?

Legislative Paralysis and Complicity

Widespread partisan polarization, fear of retaliation, and political calculation have left Congress largely inert. If legislators fail to assert their oversight powers, executive overreach will proceed unchecked, further eroding the separation of powers.

Long-Term Consequences for Democracy

The cumulative effect of Trump’s actions—judicial stacking, DOJ and FBI manipulation, removal of watchdogs, military politicization, and legal intimidation—risks normalizing authoritarian practices. Public trust in democratic institutions could collapse, altering America’s political landscape and leaving future administrations with weakened accountability mechanisms.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s orchestrated control of the judiciary, federal law enforcement, the military, and the legal profession—backed by powerful conservative interests—poses a direct threat to the constitutional system of checks and balances. Only robust resistance from civil society, independent media, bipartisan lawmakers, and fearless legal advocates can prevent this concentration of power from transforming the presidency into an unaccountable, lifelong office.