By Andrew C. McCarthy
Saturday, January 10, 2026
You’ve got to hand it to President Trump: He has
definitely shifted the terms of public discussion and debate.
My attention was drawn to a report in Wednesday’s New
York Times headlined: “Rubio Tells Lawmakers Trump Wants to Buy Greenland.” That
would be bracing if there were not already an inane history to this topic — a
history that, remarkably, lends the report an undertone of relief rather than
astonishment: It’s actually a comedown from commentary by White House officials
Karoline Leavitt and Stephen Miller suggesting, respectively, that the president
had not taken off the table the use of military force to seize Greenland from
our NATO ally, Denmark; and that it was unnecessary to contemplate using
military force since our allies are too impotent to challenge a U.S. seizure in
our might-makes-right world.
Everything old is new again.
Well, not quite. What got my antennae pinging was the
fact that nowhere in the Times report is it mentioned that a president
lacks constitutional authority to unilaterally add territory to the United
States. It’s as if President Trump has now done this sort of thing enough times
that we no longer need discuss legality — just audacity.
Still, whether it’s a topic of discussion or not, and
whether what’s at issue is purchase or conquest, congressional approval —
including any necessary funding — is required to add property to the United
States.
For example, the Louisiana Purchase was carried out by
treaty. Back in a time when presidents worried about such things, Thomas
Jefferson had misgivings about whether the Constitution even permitted the
acquisition of new territory. He briefly thought about (but decided against)
seeking an amendment, concluding that a treaty in conjunction with
congressional funding would suffice. The issue, though, was whether the law
permitted the national government to acquire territory; it would not
have dawned on President Jefferson that he could just take it or buy it with
funds Congress had appropriated for other purposes. His administration made the
agreement with France in 1803, the Senate approved it, and Congress
appropriated the $15 million to complete the purchase — a gargantuan sum in
today’s dollars, but still a bargain. (Napoleon needed the money for his wars
in Europe and hoped to strengthen the United States vis-à-vis his rival,
Britain.)
The Times report quotes two retiring senators —
Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) and Thom Tillis (R., S.C.) — expressing concerns that
the president is paying insufficient respect to “treaty obligations” and the
“territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.” Well sure . . . but how
about respect for the constitutional authority of Congress?
The president of the United States is the chief executive
in a government of divided powers. The president is not the sovereign, and he
has no authority to confer American sovereignty on foreign territory.
Moreover, as we discussed in the context of the Trump plan to take a 25
percent cut of the profits on Nvidia’s microchip exports and the equity shares
he is taking in private corporations — and as I imagine we’ll be discussing
presently on the latest announced scheme to seize and sell Venezuelan oil (see our editorial) — the executive branch has no
constitutional authority to raise revenue or buy property in the absence of a
clear delegation of authority by Congress.
And it doesn’t matter — or at least it shouldn’t — if the
targets of these money and property grabs agree to be fleeced. In a
constitutional government of limited powers, if the president doesn’t have the
authority to do something, it doesn’t become legitimate just because the target
submits. Not if we still consider ourselves a nation of laws, not men.
Obviously, the New York Times is not supportive of
President Trump. It must relish the thought, however, of the next Democratic
president’s pouncing on and running with the precedents Trump is trying to set
for unilateral executive action and hands-on management of the economy — including
government control of formerly private businesses and monetization of its
enforcement powers. Perhaps that’s why the legality of these machinations is,
less and less, a first-order media concern.
Still, shouldn’t it concern Congress? I get that
progressives are salivating over the prospect of a Democratic administration
turbo-charged by Trump’s approach to governance. But are Republicans so cowed
that they fail to see what the future holds — and that no one will pay them any
mind when a Democrat does what Trump is doing if they don’t speak up now?
No comments:
Post a Comment