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.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Knowledge
Metro Board Advances Sepulveda Transit Corridor as C Line South Bay Extension Remains Under Review
The Los Angeles Metro Board meeting addressed progress on two key rail projects: the approved underground Sepulveda Transit Corridor, enhancing regional connectivity, and the debated extension of the Metro C Line into the South Bay, which remains undecided.
The future of Los Angeles transit was the focus of a recent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board meeting, where directors considered progress on two major rail projects: the Sepulveda Transit Corridor and the long-planned extension of the Metro C Line into the South Bay.
While the meeting resulted in a decisive vote on one project, the other continues to generate debate among Metro officials, local cities, and residents.
Sepulveda Transit Corridor: Underground Heavy Rail Moves Forward
The Metro Board unanimously approved the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, marking a major milestone for a project that has been discussed for decades.
The approved alternative calls for a fully underground heavy rail subway connecting the San Fernando Valley to the Westside, running from the Van Nuys Metrolink Station to the Metro E Line’s Expo/Sepulveda Station. The line would pass beneath the Sepulveda Pass, UCLA, and other high-demand travel areas.
Metro officials emphasized that the underground alignment offers the fastest travel times, highest passenger capacity, and the fewest surface-level impacts when compared with earlier aerial or monorail alternatives. The project is expected to significantly reduce congestion along the 405 Freeway corridor and improve regional connectivity.
With the LPA now selected, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor advances toward final environmental clearance, engineering, and eventual construction — a process that will continue over the coming years.
Metro C Line Extension: South Bay Alignment Debate Continues
The Board also discussed the Metro C Line extension into the South Bay, a project intended to extend light rail service approximately 4.5 miles from the current Redondo Beach station to the Torrance Transit Center.
Metro has released the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which incorporates years of technical analysis and public input. However, unlike the Sepulveda project, the Board did not take final action to certify the FEIR or formally adopt a locally preferred alignment at this meeting.
Hawthorne Boulevard vs. Metro Right-of-Way
At the center of the C Line discussion is the question of alignment.
Metro staff has identified a “hybrid” alignment using an existing Metro-owned rail right-of-way as the preferred option. This route would largely follow the historic Harbor Subdivision corridor, minimizing new street disruptions while blending at-grade, elevated, and below-grade segments.
Some South Bay cities, however, continue to advocate for a Hawthorne Boulevard alignment, which would place rail tracks within the median of the busy commercial corridor. Supporters argue it offers better street-level access, while Metro has cited higher costs, longer construction timelines, and greater traffic impacts as key concerns.
Metro officials indicated that additional coordination with local jurisdictions and further Board action will be needed before a final decision is made.
What This Means for LA Transit
The contrast between the two projects was clear at the meeting: the Sepulveda Transit Corridor is now firmly on a defined path forward, while the C Line extension remains in a critical decision-making phase.
Together, the projects highlight both the ambition and complexity of expanding transit in Los Angeles County — balancing regional mobility goals, neighborhood impacts, and long-term funding realities.
Further Reading & Official Project Information
Metro Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Page
– Official Metro overview of the Sepulveda Pass project, including alternatives, maps, timelines, and environmental documents.
Metro Board Considers Locally Preferred Alternative for Sepulveda Corridor
– Metro’s summary of the Board action and rationale behind selecting the underground heavy rail option.
Metro C Line Extension to Torrance Project Page
– Background, station concepts, and status updates for the South Bay light rail extension.
Final Environmental Impact Report: C Line Extension
– Details on the Final EIR, public comments, and next steps toward Board certification.
Metro Project Updates – The Source
– Ongoing Metro blog updates covering major transit projects, board actions, and construction milestones.
LA Metro Board of Directors
– Information on Metro Board members, meeting schedules, agendas, and voting records.
STM Daily News will continue to follow both projects closely, providing updates as Metro moves toward final approvals, construction timelines, and funding decisions that will shape how Angelenos travel for decades to come.
For ongoing coverage of Metro projects, transportation policy, and infrastructure across Southern California, visit STM Daily News.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
From FIFA to the LA Clippers, carbon offset scandals are exposing the gap between sports teams’ green promises and reality
Under Steve Ballmer’s ownership, the LA Clippers have made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet concerns arise over the efficacy of their carbon offsets, especially following issues with their partner, Aspiration. Many sports organizations face scrutiny for their offset claims, highlighting a need for transparent, verified carbon reduction strategies and a reassessment of sustainability practices in the industry.
Brian P. McCullough, University of Michigan and Edward Carrington, University of Michigan
If you go to a pro sports event today, there’s a good chance the stadium or arena will be powered at least in part by renewable energy. The team likely takes steps to reduce energy and waste. Some even claim to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, meaning any emissions they still do produce they offset by paying for projects, such as tree-planting, that reduce greenhouse gases elsewhere.
The venue upgrades have been impressive – Seattle’s hockey and basketball arena runs on 100% renewable energy, makes its rink ice from captured rainwater, and offers free public transit for ticket holders.
But how much of the teams’ offset purchases are actually doing the good that they claim?
It’s an important question, in part because fans may ultimately pay for those offsets.
The cost of carbon offsetting in sports varies by organization, with no industry standard for who pays. Some teams and leagues absorb costs through their operational budgets, treating carbon neutrality as a core responsibility. Others pass costs to consumers: Some teams add sustainability fees to ticket prices to offset each attendee’s carbon footprint. The payment model ultimately reflects whether an organization views offsetting as an institutional obligation or a shared responsibility with fans.
Carbon offsets in sports are also in the news, with scandals erupting around them in connection with sports from FIFA’s 2022 World Cup to basketball’s LA Clippers.
As sport management researchers, we have been following offset agreements and other sustainability commitments that teams and sports leagues such as FIFA have been making to see whether they translate into measurable environmental outcomes. We see lots of good intentions but also a disturbing amount of failures and outright fraud.
Where sports teams’ emissions come from
The vast majority of a sports team’s climate footprint comes from team’s and fans’ travel, which they have little control over. Leagues can reduce teams’ travel somewhat with creative scheduling, but unlike other industries, sports teams have few ways to reduce the bulk of their emissions.
What many of them do instead is offset those travel emissions by buying carbon credits.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/C9q2E/1
Carbon credits are generated by projects that reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or prevent greenhouse gas emissions. Many of those projects involve planting trees to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; others expand clean energy to reduce fossil fuel use. Each carbon credit is supposed to represent the reduction or prevention of one metric ton of carbon dioxide.
However, carbon offset projects have come under scrutiny in recent years. Tree-planting projects, the most common type, take time to meet their promise as the trees grow, and wildfires and logging can wipe out the benefit. Studies have found that companies tend to buy cheap, low-quality carbon credits, which run a risk of exaggerating their carbon reduction claims or providing results that would have happened anyway, leaving no real climate benefit.
Unfortunately, several teams, perhaps unknowingly, have been purchasing fraudulent or low-quality credits.
Reputations at risk
FIFA brought the sports world’s carbon offset problem into the spotlight during the 2022 Qatar World Cup.
FIFA claimed the event would be carbon neutral, but that claim relied on creative accounting that understated the event’s construction and travel emissions. Organizers also used low-quality offsets. Many of those offsets were renewable energy projects with a high likelihood of being built anyway.
A year after the tournament, FIFA had completed offset purchases for less than a third of the World Cup’s estimated emissions, the nonprofit Carbon Market Watch found. And Switzerland’s advertising regulator ordered FIFA to stop claiming the World Cup had been “carbon neutral.”
The Clippers and baseball’s Boston Red Sox ran into problems when they publicly partnered with Aspiration, a now-bankrupt finance technology company and carbon credit broker, to meet their “carbon neutral” claims.
The Clippers had a US$300 million partnership with Aspiration that included paying the company at least $56 million for carbon credits in mid-2022, The New York Times reported. Both teams also had plans with Aspiration to offer fans a way to buy carbon credits to cover their own travel when purchasing tickets.
However, Aspiration officials claimed to have supported millions more tree-plantings than what had actually happened, a ProPublica investigation found. Aspiration co-founder Joe Sanberg pleaded guilty in 2025 to wire fraud involving false statements about financing to secure loans and attract investors, who lost at least $248 million.
The Aspiration partnership is also under investigation by the NBA over an endorsement deal the company made with Clippers all-star Kawhi Leonard at about the same time and questions about whether it was used to violate the league’s salary cap. Team owner Steve Ballmer, who personally invested at least $50 million in Aspiration, told ESPN he and the team did nothing wrong. “They conned me,” he said.
While the scandal focused on financial fraud and the salary cap, it also raised questions about the team’s sustainability claim.
Without verification, who knows?
In some cases, the value of offset projects is difficult to verify, even when trees are being planted nearby.
The Seattle Sounders FC declared itself the first carbon-neutral professional soccer team in North America in 2019 by cutting its waste, water and energy use and offsetting its remaining emissions through the nonprofit organization Forterra, which plants trees in the Puget Sound region.
While the effort positioned the club as a sustainability leader, the offsets lacked what’s known as third-party verification. Similar to how organic food must be certified by reputable agencies, third-party validation of carbon credits ensures credits truly represent the removal of carbon from the atmosphere or avoided emissions.
Without verification, it’s unclear whether claimed emission reductions are permanent, accurately tracked and transparently reported.
Potential legal consequences
Even the most prominent venues are susceptible to issues with unreliable credits.
Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle has been celebrated as the world’s first “zero-carbon” certified arena, with electric Zambonis, recycled materials, renewable energy and free public transit. It represents one of the most ambitious pushes to develop sustainable sport infrastructure globally.
To offset unavoidable construction emissions, the arena’s owner relied on carbon credits tied to projects meant to reduce rainforest loss in Colombia. However, an analysis by the carbon rating company Calyx Global found that while the arena’s credits may prevent some deforestation, the numbers likely overstate the benefits.
A 2023 report suggested that over 90% of rainforest carbon credits from the leading certifier of offsets lack evidence that they reduced deforestation. The certifier disputed that conclusion but is working to revise its review process.
When credits fail to offset real emissions, that erodes public trust and can expose organizations to potential legal consequences.
Delta Air Lines, for example, is facing a lawsuit over its carbon neutrality claim. The suit alleges that Delta misled passengers by describing itself as a “carbon-neutral airline” while relying on carbon offset projects that were ineffective or “junk.”
Time for some strategic reassessment
These and other failures in the carbon credit market suggest the industry needs to fundamentally reassess how sports teams achieve their climate goals.
To provide meaningful sustainability commitments, sports organizations and facilities can start at home by lowering their fossil fuel use and increasing their energy efficiency. Many arenas do this.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/O1mkr/1
Leagues can design game schedules to reduce team and fan travel. Many of the Paris Olympics venues in 2022, for example, were connected by subway or bus. The 2026 FIFA World Cup, in contrast, has venues hundreds of miles apart across North America, meaning potentially higher emissions from fan travel.
Where offsets will still play a role, teams can ensure that they partner with verified carbon credit providers that deliver measurable, transparent carbon reductions.
In a field where public trust and reputation matter as much as performance, the sports industry cannot afford foul play on climate. We believe a shift toward strategies that cut emissions first, and then use only the most credible offsets, will be the difference between striking out and leading the sustainability game.
Brian P. McCullough, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Michigan and Edward Carrington, Assistant in Research in Sports Management, University of Michigan
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
STM Daily News
HGTV Unveils the HGTV Dream Home 2026: A $2.4M+ Lake Wylie Retreat Near Charlotte
HGTV unveils the Dream Home 2026 on Lake Wylie near Charlotte, NC—a 3,000+ sq.-ft. waterfront retreat. Enter daily through Feb. 13, 2026.
HGTV just pulled back the curtain on its HGTV® Dream Home 2026—a newly built, fully furnished waterfront escape set on a secluded peninsula along Lake Wylie near Charlotte, North Carolina. And yes, the stakes are big: the sweepstakes winner takes home a grand prize package valued at more than $2.4 million, including the home plus $100,000 cash.
Designed to feel equal parts “weekend getaway” and “forever home,” the property leans hard into lake life—panoramic water views, warm natural finishes, and outdoor spaces built for slow mornings and long sunsets.
A lakeside home built for views (and actual living)
Spanning more than 3,000 square feet, HGTV Dream Home 2026 includes three bedrooms and three-and-a-half bathrooms, with a layout intentionally oriented to capture Lake Wylie views from nearly every angle.
HGTV describes the home as a calm, curated retreat—where indoor comfort and outdoor beauty are basically in constant conversation. The design palette is rooted in the landscape: earth tones, organic materials, hand-laid stone, custom millwork, classic furnishings, and vintage collectibles that keep the vibe warm and timeless rather than overly trendy.
Some of the standout interior features include:
- A central great room anchored by a reclaimed-wood mantle
- A welcoming dining space with a café-style door
- A chef-style kitchen featuring an over-grouted stone backsplash
- A morning room for casual coffee-and-light moments
- A garage with pantry access plus a dedicated pet wash
- A main bedroom suite with sweeping lake views and a spa-like bath, plus a closet that includes an all-in-one washer/dryer
Outdoor living takes center stage—hello, two-story dock
If the inside is designed for comfort, the outside is designed for the lifestyle. HGTV’s Dream Home 2026 leans into relaxed waterfront living with natural landscaping, laid-back outdoor furnishings, and a pebbled pathway leading to what might be the showstopper: a spectacular two-story dock.
It’s the kind of feature HGTV fans will immediately picture in use—sunrise coffee, sunset watching, and full-on lake days without leaving your property line.
Why Lake Wylie? Location meets laid-back Southern charm
Lake Wylie sits across the North Carolina–South Carolina border and is known for calm waters and an outdoors-first pace. HGTV highlights the lake’s 300+ miles of shoreline and its reputation as a haven for water activities—boating, paddling, and everything in between.
The location also hits that sweet spot of “peaceful but not remote”: it’s about 20 minutes from downtown Charlotte, and within easy reach of nearby towns like Belmont and Fort Mill.
The team behind the build and design
The home was built by Knotts Builders, with interior design led by Brian Patrick Flynn, who said he aimed to reflect Lake Wylie’s natural beauty while keeping the home “warm, inviting, and effortlessly livable.”
HGTV’s Howard Lee, Chief Creative Officer & President, US Networks, added that the home showcases the lifestyle of the Lake Wylie destination—and invited viewers to explore and enter for a chance to make it their own.
Sponsors featured throughout the home
HGTV Dream Home projects are also a showcase for sponsor products integrated into the build and lifestyle experience. This year’s lineup includes:
- Spectrum (connectivity)
- HGTV Home® by Sherwin-Williams (paint palette)
- Husqvarna (lawn tools)
- SimpliSafe (home security)
- Snuggle (laundry products)
- Stanley Steemer (cleaning)
- Trex (decking/outdoor materials)
- VELUX (skylights and sun tunnels)
- Wayfair (furniture, décor, appliances)
How to enter the HGTV Dream Home 2026 giveaway
The official entry window runs from 9 a.m. ET Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2025 through 5 p.m. ET Friday, Feb. 13, 2026. Eligible fans can enter daily at:
- HGTV.com
- FoodNetwork.com
HGTV notes that both sites will include full details, official rules, and additional home features.
When to watch the HGTV Dream Home 2026 special
Viewers can tune into the one-hour special HGTV Dream Home 2026 on Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2026 at 8 p.m. ET on HGTV, with streaming availability on Max and discovery+ the same day.
For fans who want a closer look right now, HGTV also has a dedicated Dream Home hub and photo tours online.
Sources:
- https://www.multivu.com/warner_bros_discovery/9364151-en-hgtv-dream-home-2026-sweepstakes
- https://www.hgtv.com/sweepstakes/hgtv-dream-home
- https://www.hgtv.com/sweepstakes/hgtv-dream-home/2026/tour-hgtv-dream-home-2026-pictures
If you tell me which outlet this is for (STM Daily News vs. another publication), I can tighten the lede and SEO it to match that site’s voice (headline options + meta description + suggested tags).
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
