In this second of a two-part series of columns discussing Donald Trump and Republicans’ efforts to dismantle Social Security, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that despite public reassurances, Republican initiatives—especially those supported by figures like Elon Musk—are methodically weakening Social Security, threatening a vital, efficient, and historically successful program that prevents elder poverty and supports millions of Americans. Professor Buchanan contends that these efforts are based on false narratives, including misleading comparisons to Ponzi schemes and deceptive efficiency claims, all aimed at undermining public confidence in the system—particularly among younger generations—in order to justify harmful privatization schemes that would ultimately benefit Wall Street at the expense of working Americans.
University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan addresses the Trump administration’s attacks on Social Security, particularly through cutting the budget to force the system to deteriorate, and he debunks the false claim—recently amplified by Elon Musk—that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Professor Buchanan argues that Social Security is a sustainable, pay-as-you-go system that functions similarly to private banking and retirement savings, and that calling it a Ponzi scheme reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both financial systems and economic sustainability.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate Andrew Babbitt examine President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose and threaten tariffs on multiple countries during his second administration, bypassing the typical legislative and procedural requirements for tariff implementation. Professor Estreicher and Mr. Babbitt argue that this strategy represents an unprecedented and legally questionable expansion of executive power, circumventing congressional intent and oversight, raising serious constitutional concerns about the broad and unchecked use of the IEEPA.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Trump administration’s apparent disregard for judicial authority, focusing on its defiance of a court order prohibiting the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations and its broader pattern of legal manipulation. Professor Dorf argues that even if technical compliance with court rulings is maintained, the administration’s deceptive tactics and overt hostility toward judicial oversight severely undermine the rule of law and pose a grave threat to American constitutional democracy.
University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to avert a government shutdown by supporting a controversial continuing resolution (CR), despite backlash from Democrats and anti-Trump groups who saw it as a capitulation. Professor Buchanan argues that while Schumer is not typically a progressive hero, he made the right decision to prevent lasting harm, as a shutdown would have handed excessive power to Trump and Musk. Professor Buchanan calls upon Democrats to stop infighting so that they can effectively resist the rise of authoritarianism.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses President Donald Trump’s attempt to use Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility for migrants, highlighting the legal and logistical obstacles that make such plan infeasible. Professor Margulies argues that Trump’s real goal has never been about policy implementation but rather about shaping public perception—using Guantanamo as a symbol to dehumanize immigrants and redefine the national identity around exclusion.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s late-night deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members despite a federal judge’s order to halt the process and examines the implications for constitutional law and executive power. Professor Sarat argues that by defying the court order, the administration dangerously undermined the rule of law, demonstrating its willingness to consolidate power and disregard constitutional checks, marking a troubling crisis for American democracy.
Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto analyze the impact of the Prioritizing Military Excellence Order, which restricts transgender military service, comparing it to past policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and detailing the order’s effects on transgender service members, military law, national security, and unit cohesion. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the policy forces transgender troops to either leave service or suppress their identity, ultimately harming military readiness, morale, and legal integrity, and they advocate for legal challenges, state-level protections, and continued resistance to discriminatory policies.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses a bankruptcy court decision in In re: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, in which Judge Christopher Klein ruled that survivors of clergy sexual abuse could address the court despite objections from the church’s insurers. Professor Griffin argues that while bankruptcy is often used to delay and minimize liability for abuse claims, Judge Klein’s ruling affirms that all courts can and should provide survivors with a platform to be heard, acknowledging the profound human and psychological impact of their experiences.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the role of universities and their faculty in defending democracy, arguing that higher education institutions should take a more active stance against authoritarian threats. Professor Sarat expands on an op-ed by Harvard professors Ryan Enos and Steven Levitsky, asserting that while university presidents should lead efforts, faculty members also have a civic responsibility to publicly advocate for democratic principles rather than waiting for administrators to act.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron reviews Scott Turow’s latest legal thriller, Presumed Guilty, focusing on the evolution of Turow’s writing and the transformation of his protagonist, Rusty Sabich, from prosecutor to defense attorney in a rural setting. Professor Citron argues that Turow continues to craft compelling courtroom dramas with thoughtful legal realism, highlighting how Presumed Guilty expands on themes of justice, race, and personal growth, making Rusty not only an older character but a more mature one.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the scope and original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, particularly in response to a recent executive order issued by President Trump that seeks to limit birthright citizenship. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the executive order (and the few legal scholars who endorse its legal basis) misinterprets the Constitution by imposing parental status requirements that are not present in the text, and they explain that both historical and legal precedent overwhelmingly support the conventional interpretation that all persons born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws are citizens.
Criminal defense attorney Jon May critiques Professor Alan Dershowitz’s defense of the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss criminal charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams and argues that the deal is unlike typical plea bargains in federal criminal cases. Mr. May contends that Adams’s agreement, which involves no criminal penalty, dangerously expands the scope of prosecutorial discretion and could lead to a system where defendants barter extrajudicial favors to avoid prosecution, undermining principles of justice.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses how several state legislatures, particularly Alabama, are passing laws allowing the death penalty for child rape despite a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Kennedy v. Louisiana, that declared such punishment unconstitutional. Professor Sarat argues that this strategic legislative defiance represents a dangerous trend that threatens constitutional order, as lawmakers are deliberately passing unconstitutional laws hoping the current conservative-majority Supreme Court will overturn precedent, similar to the strategy that led to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
Hofstra Law professor James Sample examines President Donald Trump’s conduct that facilitates corruption, particularly the launch of a cryptocurrency scheme and the broader erosion of anti-corruption safeguards, including weakened bribery laws, de-prioritized enforcement of foreign influence regulations, and the dismissal of government watchdogs. Professor Sample argues that these actions, along with Supreme Court rulings limiting bribery prosecutions, have systemically undermined the rule of law, fostering an environment where public officials can engage in transactional governance that threatens democracy itself.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the long history of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church and the role of various popes in either ignoring or covering up allegations against clergy, drawing from investigative journalist Philip Shenon’s book on the topic. Professor Griffin argues that successive popes—Pius XII through Francis—failed to take meaningful action against abusers, instead prioritizing the protection of the Church’s reputation, and she suggests that the election of the next pope will determine whether real change ever occurs.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a recent symposium on constitutional law casebooks, highlighting the challenges of teaching constitutional law at a time when the Trump administration and the Supreme Court are reshaping legal precedents. Professor Dorf argues that while these changes present difficulties, it remains essential to teach established legal principles and encourage students to critically engage with unresolved legal questions, including, in some cases, through the use of rhetorical questions in casebooks.
University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton critiques President Donald Trump’s handling of foreign policy, particularly his recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and argues that Trump’s deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin stems from ideological alignment with the religious right rather than merely personal or financial motivations. Professor Hamilton argues that Trump’s pro-Russia stance reflects the religious right’s alignment with Putin’s anti-LGBTQ policies, and that evangelical leaders are willing to support autocrats who share their “family values” agenda while undermining democratic principles and the separation of church and state.
Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto discuss the unprecedented removal of top military legal advisors (TJAGs) by the Trump administration and its potential consequences for military legal independence, the rule of law, and democratic governance. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that these firings undermine the TJAGs’ role as independent legal advisors, threaten adherence to military justice and international law, and could either facilitate unlawful actions or create a chilling effect on military lawyers, potentially threatening democracy and national defense.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Montana’s death penalty status, noting that capital punishment is legally permitted but rarely used in the deeply Republican state, with only three executions since 1976 and recent legislative rejection of a proposal to facilitate more executions. Professor Sarat argues that even as a symbolic punishment, maintaining capital punishment on the books causes harm to both the abolitionist cause and the entire country by making extreme prison sentences seem more humane by comparison, contributing to America’s high incarceration rates.
