Now that Trump has declared “total” authority to reopen the American economy, insisting he “calls the shots” and governors do not, many commentators are pointing to an apparent contradiction.

How can Trump make this claim after spending weeks insisting that the states are largely on their own when it comes to procuring urgently needed medical supplies? How can he say this after having flatly declared “I don’t take responsibility at all” for his administration’s catastrophic failure to ramp up testing?

AD

AD

As former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara put it, Trump is basically arguing that “my authority is total but my responsibility is zero.”

But in a sense, this isn’t really a contradiction at all, when you view the situation from Trump’s perspective: Both arguments serve precisely the same overarching goal.

When everything is all about maintaining appearances, with no concern whatsoever for underlying substance, this seeming contradiction disappears in a puff of Trumpian chaos pixie dust. Trump asserts “total” authority to be seen as taking charge in some general sense, while refusing to accept responsibility for specific bad outcomes to avoid being seen as at fault for them.

AD

Right now, Trump appears to be on a collision course with governors over who has the authority to lift social distancing restrictions and reopen American society.

AD

“The authority of the president of the United States, having to do with the subject we’re talking about, is total,” Trump asserted on Monday. “The president of the United States calls the shots.”

But two groups of governors — one on each coast — announced that they are setting up multistate committees to reach joint agreements on how and when to reopen. New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, told CNN: “We don’t have a king.”

And it’s true: As many constitutional scholars noted, even in times of emergency, Trump does not have anything resembling such total authority.

What Trump can’t do

The idea that Trump might assert quasi-dictatorial control after declaring a national emergency is rooted in popular legal misunderstanding. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, noted that when presidents declare national emergencies, it does not create a separate and independent source of power outside of existing statutes.

AD

AD

“It unlocks a series of existing statutory authorities that are only available in national emergencies,” Vladeck told me. Many of these are budgetary, Vladeck noted, such as when Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the border empowered him to repurpose funds toward his wall.

Other examples include federal surveillance law, in which additional presidential authorities are unlocked by emergency declarations, Vladeck said. But all these authorities are stautorily grounded and limited.

“The president doesn’t get any sort of general power to do what he wants by declaring a national emergency,” Vladeck told me.

In the case of Trump’s desire to reopen the economy, Vladeck noted, Trump has very few “coercive actions” at his disposal. He might be able to order the federal workforce back to their offices, Vladeck suggested, or try to withhold federal disaster relief funds to compel states to undo social distancing, but that would quite possibly fail in the courts.

AD

AD

The states are exercising their own powers grounded in state law and state constitutions, which vary from state to state, Vladeck noted, adding: “Every state government has some ability to exercise police powers in a public health crisis.”

Indeed, Trump didn’t instill social distancing measures; the states themselves did. So for Trump to threaten to override states to undo those things seems ridiculous.

‘A lazy authoritarian’

All this points to a deeper absurdity here. If anything, Trump has been deeply reluctant to employ expanded powers to address this crisis. He has not fully deployed the Defense Production Act to commandeer private-sector resources to get medical supplies to hospitals.

AD

Meanwhile, Trump endlessly hypes his restrictions on travel from China as an act of singularly decisive leadership. But in reality, his executive dithering and inability to absorb warnings led to repeated delays on crucial actions, such as standing up a federal tracking system and even issuing strict social distancing guidelines. (Note that those are only guidelines.)

AD

Writing at the Atlantic, Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes suggest that this crisis has revealed Trump to be a “lazy authoritarian,” who “loves the trappings of dictatorship” but cannot be bothered to put in the “hard work” of “wielding actual authority."

“If you wield actual authority, you become accountable for outcomes,” they write. “Trump hates accountability beyond all things.”

AD

The problem for Trump is that, having catastrophically botched the initial response, he needs to erase responsibility for those early decisions while also appearing to take charge of the recovery. He bore no responsibility — or blame — for the original missteps. But he will decisively lead the country back to greatness.

Trump is chafing to put on a reelection show of presiding over the recovery, so he’s working to create the impression that he’s cracking the whip at states. It doesn’t matter that he has little power to actually compel action, since few voters will pay attention to the legal details.

AD

Indeed, from his perspective, that’s ideal. Trump knows governors (some, anyway) will try to do the responsible thing and insist that people continue putting their lives on hold with social distancing, if it’s necessary.

AD

Meanwhile, Trump can offer his performative insistence on a rapid recovery. And he can try to reap the credit for it if — God willing — it actually happens that way.