News
How constitutional guardrails have always contained presidential ambitions
The article discusses concerns regarding Trump’s second term and potential threats to American democracy, highlighting historical presidential power expansions and emphasizing the resilience of democratic institutions against authoritarianism in the U.S.
Victor Menaldo, University of Washington
As Donald Trump’s second inauguration fast approaches, concerns he threatens American democracy are rising yet again. Some warnings have cited Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric, willingness to undermine or malign institutions meant to constrain any president, and a combative style that strives to stretch executive power as far as possible.
Authoritarianism erodes property rights and the rule of law, so financial markets typically respond with alarm to political unrest. If major investors and corporations really believed the United States was on the brink of dictatorship, there would be large-scale capital flight, equity sell-offs, spikes in U.S. credit default swaps or rising bond yields unexplained by typical macroeconomic factors such as inflation forecasts.
Instead, there have been no systematic signs of such market reactions, nor an investor exodus from American markets. Quite the contrary.
This absence of alarm is not conclusive proof that democracy is safe forever, nor that Trump cannot damage American democracy at all. But it does suggest that credible institutions and investors who literally bet on political outcomes for a living do not view an American autocracy as imminent or even likely.
This is probably because the mechanics of upending American democracy would entail surmounting a thick tangle of constitutional, bureaucratic, legal and political obstacles. As a political economist who has written widely about the constitutional foundations of modern democracies, I submit it’s far more complicated than one man issuing brash executive orders.
Presidents have long seized more power
Throughout American history, presidents have achieved far greater expansions of executive power than Trump did in his first term.
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, allowing detention without trial. He bypassed Congress through sweeping executive actions, most notably the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared freedom for enslaved people in Confederate states.
Woodrow Wilson created administrative agencies and imposed draconian censorship during World War I via the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing plan failed to pass, but it still cowed the Supreme Court into deference. His New Deal bureaucracy centralized vast powers in the executive branch.
Lyndon B. Johnson obtained the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, transferring major war-making powers from Congress to the presidency. Richard Nixon invoked executive privilege and ordered secret bombings in Cambodia, steps that largely bypassed congressional oversight.
George W. Bush expanded executive prerogatives after 9/11 with warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention. Barack Obama faced criticism for the dubious legal rationale behind drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens deemed enemy combatants abroad.
These historical examples should not be conflated with an actual ability to impose one-man rule, though. The United States, whatever its imperfections, has a deeply layered system of checks and balances that has repeatedly stymied presidents of both parties when they tried to govern by decree.
Trump’s openly combative style was in many ways less adept at entrenching presidential power than many of his predecessors. During his first term, he broadcast his intentions so transparently that it galvanized numerous institutional forces – judges, bureaucrats, state officials, inspectors general – to resist his attempts. While Trump’s rhetoric was more incendiary, other presidents achieved deeper expansions of the executive branch more discreetly.
Trump’s Jan. 6 plan was never realistic
Trump’s failure to impose his will became particularly evident on Jan. 6, 2021, when claims that an “auto-coup” was afoot never translated into the real-world mechanics that would have kept him in office beyond the end of his term.
Even before the Electoral Count Reform Act made the process clearer in 2022, scholars agreed that under the 12th Amendment the vice president’s role in certifying the election is purely ministerial, giving him no constitutional basis to replace or discard certified electoral votes. Similarly, state laws mandate that certification is a mandatory, ministerial duty, preventing officials from arbitrarily refusing to certify election results.
Had Pence refused to certify the Electoral College vote count, it is more likely than not that courts would have swiftly ordered Congress to proceed. Moreover, the 20th Amendment fixed noon on Jan. 20 as the end of the outgoing president’s term, making it impossible for Trump to remain in power just by creating delay or confusion.
The idea that Pence’s refusal to certify could erase state-certified votes, or coerce Congress into accepting alternate slates, had no firm grounding in law or precedent. After Jan. 20, the outgoing president would simply cease to hold office. Thus, the chain of events needed for an auto-coup to occur in 2021 would have fallen apart under the weight of well-established procedures.
A massive bureaucracy
Potential avenues of power consolidation during Trump’s impending second term are equally narrow. The federal bureaucracy makes it exceedingly difficult for a president to rule by fiat.
The Department of Justice alone comprises roughly 115,000 employees, including over 10,000 attorneys and 13,000 FBI agents, most of them career civil servants protected by the Civil Service Reform Act and whistleblower laws. They have their own professional standards and can challenge or reveal political interference. If an administration tries to remove them en masse, it runs into protracted appeals processes, legal constraints, the need to conduct a bevy of lengthy background checks and a crippling loss of institutional knowledge.
Past episodes, including the George W. Bush administration’s politically motivated dismissals of U.S. attorneys in 2006 and 2007, illustrate that congressional oversight and internal department practices can still produce major pushback, resignations and scandals that thwart political interference with the Justice Department.
Independent regulatory agencies also resist being dominated by the president. Many are designed so that no more than three out of five commissioners can belong to the same political party, ensuring some measure of bipartisan representation. Minority commissioners can deploy a host of procedural tools – delaying votes, demanding comprehensive studies, calling for hearings – that slow down or block controversial proposals. This makes it harder for a single leader to unilaterally impose policy. Those minority commissioners can also alert the media and Congress to questionable moves, inviting investigations or public scrutiny.
In addition, a 2024 Supreme Court ruling shifted the power to interpret federal laws, as passed by Congress, away from executive branch government agencies. Now, federal judges play a more active role in determining what Congress’ words mean. This requires agencies to operate within narrower bounds and to produce stronger evidence to justify their decisions. In practical terms, an administration now has less leeway to stretch statutes for partisan or authoritarian ends without encountering judicial pushback.
Layers of defenses
American democracy has vulnerabilities, and other democracies have collapsed under powerful executives before. But in my view, it’s not reasonable to draw definitive lessons from a tiny number of extreme outliers, such as Hitler in 1933 or the handful of elected leaders who staged more recent auto-coups in fragile or developing democracies such as Argentina, Peru, Turkey and even Hungary.
The United States stands out for having a complex federal system, entrenched legal practices and multiple layers of institutional friction. Those protections have historically proven adept at limiting presidential overreach – whether subtle or bombastic.
In addition, state-level politicians, including attorneys general and governors, have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to challenge federal overreach through litigation and noncooperation.
The military’s professional culture of civilian control and constitutional fidelity, consistently upheld by the courts, provides another safeguard. For instance, in 1952 the Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer reversed President Harry Truman’s order that the military seize privately owned steel mills to ensure supply during the Korean War.
All those institutional checks are further buttressed by a robust civil society that can mobilize legal challenges, advocacy campaigns and grassroots resistance. Corporations can wield economic influence through public statements, campaign funding decisions and policy stances – as many did in the aftermath of Jan. 6.
Taken together, these overlapping layers of resistance make the path to autocracy far more challenging than many casual observers might assume. These protections also may explain why most Americans are resigned to Trump’s second term: Many may have come to realize that the nation’s democratic experiment is not at stake – and probably never was.
Victor Menaldo, Professor of Political Science, Co-founder of the Political Economy Forum, University of Washington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
News
How healthy is Sodastream?
The SodaStream Sparkling Water Maker is a device that forces carbon dioxide (CO2) gas (stored under pressure in a cylinder) into water, making it sparkling (fizzy)
Sodastream machines have been gaining popularity in recent years as an alternative to store-bought soft drinks. Not only are they more environmentally friendly, but they also offer several health benefits compared to traditional sodas.
Reduced Sugar Intake
One of the most significant health benefits of using a Sodastream machine is reducing sugar intake. Traditional sodas are loaded with sugar, and excessive sugar intake can lead to weight gain, obesity, and other health problems such as Type 2 diabetes. With a Sodastream machine, you can control the amount of sugar you add to your drink, allowing you to enjoy a refreshing beverage without the harmful effects of excessive sugar consumption.
No Artificial Sweeteners
Many store-bought soft drinks contain artificial sweeteners, which can have negative health effects such as headaches and digestive problems. Sodastream machines, on the other hand, allow you to use natural sweeteners such as fruit extracts, honey or agave nectar, giving you a healthier and more natural alternative.
No Preservatives
Another advantage of using a Sodastream machine is that you can avoid preservatives commonly found in store-bought soft drinks. Preservatives such as sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate have been linked to health problems such as cancer and allergies. By making your own drinks, you can avoid these harmful additives and enjoy a healthier, preservative-free beverage.
Eco-Friendly
In addition to the health benefits, using a Sodastream machine is also environmentally friendly. Traditional soft drinks are packaged in plastic bottles or cans, which contribute to environmental pollution. With a Sodastream machine, you can reuse the same bottle multiple times, reducing waste and helping to reduce your carbon footprint.
Variety
Finally, Sodastream machines offer a wide variety of flavors and options, allowing you to customize your drink to your liking. You can mix and match different flavors or create your own unique blends, giving you a healthier and more enjoyable alternative to traditional sodas.
In conclusion, Sodastream machines offer several health benefits compared to traditional store-bought soft drinks. By reducing sugar intake, avoiding artificial sweeteners and preservatives, and being eco-friendly, they offer a healthier and more sustainable alternative to traditional soft drinks. Moreover, with a wide variety of flavors and options, you can customize your drink to your liking, making it a fun and enjoyable way to stay healthy.
Consumer Corner
Behind the Product: What Sustainability Looks Like in Beauty Development
Beauty Development: Shoppers want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
s
(Feature Impact) Shoppers are paying closer attention to the products they bring into their homes. They want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
Responsible product lines rarely come from sweeping change. They are built through smaller, connected choices made throughout development. Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning influence how a product performs, how much waste it creates and how sustainably products can be produced.
Consider this beauty sustainability information from Laura Badcock, Chief Operating Officer of NourishUs Naturals.
Why packaging matters beyond appearance
“Packaging is often the first thing shoppers notice,” Badcock said. “It can shape how someone feels about a product before they ever try what’s inside.”
A package should look appealing, though appearance is only part of the equation. It also needs to protect the product, travel safely, store well and hold up through regular use. Once the product is finished, the packaging should allow easy recycling, refilling or responsible disposal.
There is no single packaging option that works best for every beauty product. A lightweight container may reduce shipping weight. A refillable option may stay in use longer. A recyclable material may work well in one area but create challenges in another if local recycling systems cannot process it. Even packaging that appears sustainable can create problems in practice if it leaks, breaks or requires excess shipping materials.
Why ingredient sourcing matters
“Ingredient lists have become an important part of how people evaluate beauty products,” Badcock said. “Shoppers often look for familiar oils, butters, botanical extracts and information about how ingredients were sourced, which plays a major role in the environmental impact.”
A product’s environmental footprint is influenced by many factors, including shipping distance, processing methods, storage conditions and supplier practices.
These factors can also affect product consistency and ingredient availability over time. Beauty brands working with wholesale skin care suppliers or private label manufacturers often need to balance ingredient goals with sourcing reliability and production needs.
How better planning can lead to less waste
“Packaging and ingredients are usually the first things people associate with sustainability, but how much product gets made, stored and discarded matters, too,” Badcock said.
Overproduction is one of the biggest hidden sources of waste in beauty and personal care. Products that sit too long in storage may eventually expire or remain unsold. Excess inventory can also create additional packaging waste, warehousing needs and disposal costs.
Smaller batch sizes give producers more room to adjust as trends or demand shift, and producing closer to expected sales windows helps reduce long storage periods and unnecessary waste. Testing new products in smaller volumes and restocking based on actual demand makes overproduction less likely.
How sustainable beauty choices are connected
Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning are closely connected throughout development.
“A packaging choice can affect shipping weight, storage needs and whether a package can be refilled,” Badcock said. “Ingredient choices can influence sourcing timelines and how products need to be stored. Production planning affects how much material gets used and how much product could eventually go unsold.”
Beauty shoppers want more transparency around sustainability claims
Sustainability claims carry less weight when those claims aren’t explained in practice.
This shift is pushing many beauty brands to focus more heavily on traceability, supplier relationships and clearer product information. Transparency is becoming part of the customer experience itself.
More responsible product lines are built over time
Responsible beauty products come together through ongoing choices around packaging, sourcing, production and inventory planning. For shoppers, those choices influence the products they bring into their homes.
“The brands that build sustainability into early decisions tend to have the easiest time maintaining it later,” Badcock said. “Once supplier relationships, packaging formats and production routines are in place, small adjustments are far easier than major changes. Treating sustainability as part of product development from the beginning, rather than something to fix later, is what makes it work in practice.”
To find more information on the intersection of beauty and sustainability, visitNourishUsNaturals.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Protect yourself from the latest online scams with STM Daily News. From AI-powered fraud schemes to consumer safety tips, our Consumer Corner delivers practical information to help you make informed decisions. Visit STM Daily News for more news you can use this moment, and don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Automotive
EPA removal of vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles, but will make it harder, slower and more expensive
The EPA’s move to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” and roll back vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles—but it will slow adoption, raise costs, and increase climate and public health harms.
Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis
The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.
The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.
Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.
That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.
Putting carmakers in a bind
The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.
Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.
The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.
The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.
For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.
A slower roll
The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.
The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.
Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.
But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.
Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.
But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.
The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.
Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.
