Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Is the First Step Toward a Bukele-Style America

A clause buried in Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill will make defying court orders the new normal — and that’s just the beginning.

May 23, 2025

📌 If this piece helps you, consider tapping the 🤍 at the top or bottom. It helps more people find their way here, by telling the algorithm this work matters.

Dear friends,

For a long time now, I've been pondering the reason why Trump so clearly admires Putin, Modi, Orban and Bukele. Yes, they're all authoritarian leaders, but there are plenty of those around the world — none of whom have quite captured Trump's attention (or affection) as much as these four have. So, why them?

Why does Trump speak of them so highly? Why has he formed such strong bonds with them? Why does he keep returning to them?

And finally — at 04.23 this morning — it clicked.

Legitimacy.

Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán and Nayib Bukele all came to power through legitimate democratic processes. They didn’t seize control in coups. They didn’t suspend elections. They were voted in, often with strong majorities. Formally, their legitimacy rests on them having won elections, sometimes repeatedly.

After that, each of these leaders used their power to rewrite the rules. And they did it through existing mechanisms: parliaments, courts, referendums.

Putin (Russia)

It could be argued that Putin followed Russia’s constitutional amendment process step by step. His government introduced the proposed changes through the State Duma, which passed them by the required majority. The Federation Council signed off. A majority of regional legislatures approved them, as required by law. The Constitutional Court, the highest legal authority in Russia, confirmed that the proposed amendments were lawful. Then, even though it wasn’t required, the government held a nationwide referendum to show public support. Over 60% of voters turned out, and nearly 80% voted yes.

From this perspective, all the formal boxes were ticked: legislative approval, judicial review, and public endorsement. Even if critics questioned the fairness of the process, supporters can say the letter of the law was followed.

Modi (India)

In Modi’s case, his government used its parliamentary majority to make constitutional changes through legal channels.

When Article 370 was removed, the government passed a resolution and legislation in both houses of Parliament, with support from the president. This followed the procedures set out in India’s constitution — there was no emergency rule or military intervention.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which changed how citizenship was granted to certain refugees, also went through the standard legislative process. The government was elected with a strong public mandate in 2019, and supporters would say it had every right to implement its agenda. From this viewpoint, whether or not one agrees with the policies, the process was democratic and lawful.

Orbán (Hungary)

Orbán’s party won a two-thirds majority in Hungary’s parliament in a free election in 2010, which gave them the legal authority to rewrite the constitution.

Hungarian law allows a supermajority in parliament to adopt a new constitutional framework without a referendum. That’s what Orbán’s government did in 2011. They passed the new Fundamental Law through Parliament, followed it with amendments, and made changes to the electoral and judicial systems — all within the formal powers granted by the constitution.

No rules were broken, no courts were dissolved, and the new constitution was published and enacted according to the legal timeline. From this angle, the process may have been one-sided, but it was still lawful under Hungary’s democratic system.

Bukele (El Salvador)

Bukele's party won a supermajority in the 2021 legislative elections, giving it the power under El Salvador’s constitution to appoint new judges. They used that power to remove and replace Constitutional Court magistrates — controversial, but not outside the law. The new judges later ruled that the constitution allowed Bukele to run for a second term, reinterpreting a clause that had previously been seen as a ban. That ruling was followed by the electoral authority, and Bukele registered to run again.

From this view, all branches of government acted according to their legal roles, and the people later confirmed their support by re-electing him in a landslide. While critics called it a power grab, supporters could say it was a lawful use of democratic institutions.

Legitimacy is what sets these leaders apart. It's not about the authoritarian outcomes, but the lawful pathways they used to get there.

They all used existing structures — laws, votes, courts — to concentrate power, working through their constitutions, not around them. They changed the system from within, hollowing it out while keeping the democratic façade intact. The rules still looked like rules. The elections still looked like elections. And it’s that performance of legitimacy, however thin, that seems to resonate with Trump.

I suspect this is not because Trump personally craves legitimacy (I doubt he cares much about process) but the people around him do. The donors. The legal architects. The politicians looking to lock in their agenda, not just for a term, but for a generation. They know it can’t look like a power grab. It has to look like law. Like order. Like the Constitution working as intended.

This, I believe, is what drives Trump. Not a commitment to law, but the opportunity to use it to its limit.

He’s done it before. From the hush money case to his civil liability for rape, even through two impeachments, he has used the machinery of law not for justice, but for self-preservation.

And if he can dismantle democracy not by force but by procedure — and do it in the most powerful nation on earth — he becomes something more than president. He becomes the man who proved it could be done. The one who outplayed the system from inside. That’s what wins him the credibility he craves, the grudging respect of every strongman he’s ever admired. Not because he broke America, but because he did it legally.

That’s why he says things like, “If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.”

Why, when asked whether he has to uphold the Constitution, he said: “I don’t know. Again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

And, when asked about Abrego Garcia, "I have the power to ask for him to come back if I'm instructed by the attorney general that it's legal to do so."

Of course, these statements also serve other purposes. They create plausible deniability. They keep his intentions unclear, which allows him to maintain flexibility. They create media bait and confusion, which pull focus away from deeper or more complex issues.

And they also buy him time.

Because while he's saying one thing but doing another, the real power moves are quietly unfolding behind the scenes, and no-one is watching closely enough.

Buried in the fine print of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” is a clause that would quietly nullify every outstanding court order Trump is currently defying:

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued…”

If the bill passes, this clause will bar federal courts from taking any action to enforce those rulings — including issuing fines, ordering arrests, or compelling government officials to comply — unless a financial bond was posted at the time the original order was issued. And in every one of the current cases, no bond was required.

That’s standard practice in urgent constitutional cases, where delay could mean unlawful detention, deportation, or worse. But this provision would retroactively strip those rulings of enforceability. Judges would still issue orders. But the government would be free to ignore them.

The legal process remains intact in form, but becomes hollow in function.

This is not a test of the system. It is the system being quietly rewritten, one procedural clause at a time.

And it doesn’t stop there. Trump and his backers are also laying the groundwork to ‘legitimately’ rewrite the foundational rules on which America is built.

The only way they can do this — and, to be clear, I mean rewrite the Constitution — is through an Article V Convention.

They are six states away from achieving it.

Six states.

We all think a power grab comes from the outside, but this is a rewrite from within. It’s legal, or close enough to pass. And that’s the whole point.

No wonder they’re pushing hard. They’re flooding legislatures with resolutions and model bills. They’re working state by state, quietly building the numbers they need.

The people behind this aren’t shouting about revolution — they’re quoting Jefferson, and cloaking their ambitions in patriotism, legality, and original intent. This isn’t a fringe movement. It’s disciplined, strategic, and moving fast.

And Trump? He’s the perfect figurehead for this move. Unstable on the surface, but fully aligned with the goal. Always insisting he’ll follow the law — while doing everything he can to bend it to his purposes.

Legitimacy isn’t a side note in this story. It’s the strategy, and it’s working.

It’s time to throw everything we’ve got into countering it.

— Lori