Republican Strategies and Political Power Struggles Under Trump

President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on November 5, 2025. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images.

Nine months into the presidency, Republicans in Congress largely fell silent as President Donald Trump advanced steps that expanded the White House’s powers, undermining established norms and bypassing laws. Later, attention to the consequences of these actions grew: what it would mean when Democrats are back in power, and how this would affect the party as a whole. It seems indifference is increasing.

From the vantage point of events, the most notable scene was the meeting in the bipartisan arena of the Supreme Court during hearings on the so-called worldwide tariffs proposed by Trump. A day earlier, CNBC’s host asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about the risks of power abuse by a Democratic president who might use hawkish statements about economic policy. Host Joe Kernan suggested that the future president could impose sweeping energy tariffs following a climate emergency declaration. Bessent replied evasively: “I would doubt that a climate emergency exists.”

I would doubt that a climate emergency exists.

However, this is not the main point. The essence was that the Trump administration effectively interpreted: it doesn’t matter whether a real emergency exists; the declaration is what matters, and the courts have no authority to question such a claim.

Although Bessent on Tuesday dodged the hypothetical, on Wednesday at the Supreme Court the situation did not unfold in his favor. Three justices, including Neil Gorsuch, questioned the attorney general’s position on such an approach. Direct questions concerned the possibility of imposing a 50-percent tariff on internal-combustion engine cars and parts through a simple declaration of a climate emergency. Sauer expressed doubts, but conceded: “Very likely, that could be done. Very likely.”

This would be a situation where at least judicial review of such a designation would be very, very limited.

Such discussions highlighted the costs of Republicans aligning with the tariff policy backed by Trump. The administration aimed to set a precedent whereby a future liberal president could employ similar steps on a scale that would provoke opposition from the opponent. Although Congress could simply block this by clearly exercising its tariff powers, it would require resolve against Trump himself.

Another example was the controversy over disagreements in the conservative camp regarding scrapping the filibuster. Trump apparently concluded that the so-called “nuclear option” could be a tool to end the presently lengthy federal government shutdown: he wants Republican senators to back legislation that requires only a majority, not 60 votes.

This would be a radical move, but the discussion revealed serious objections among Republicans: such a strategy could backfire if Democrats suddenly came to power. House Speaker Mike Johnson rationalized the position: “The filibuster keeps us from the Democrats’ worst impulses.”

«The filibuster keeps us from the Democrats’ worst impulses»

Senators Roger Marshall of Kansas, Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, and David McCormick of Pennsylvania voiced similar cautions about the risks. In a conversation with the media, McCormick warned: imagine a world without the filibuster and with the power of the radical wing of the Democratic Party – “we would become a socialist country.”

Writing about the possible use of the National Guard, other politicians warned against overreach. Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina expressed concern that a Democratic president could send troops from New York, California, or Oregon to North Carolina. Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt warned about the danger of a precedent when the president works with governors to deploy troops across state lines.

Washington State Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh also hinted that future presidents could overuse the National Guard. Vice President J. D. Vance, in his remarks, also stressed that one cannot stay on the sidelines, because “the left may use such steps in the future. The left is already planning to do this, regardless of whether we do it.” – J. D. Vance

“This is an important part of my entire political philosophy – we cannot be afraid to do something now, because the left may do it later,” said Vance. “The left is already planning to do it, regardless of whether we do it.”

Despite the hypotheses, there is no evidence yet that the Democrats are really preparing to use such steps with the National Guard. At the same time, history underscores that consequences for the conservative bloc could appear very soon if political factors shift under the pressure of events in the country.

It seems Trump’s answer is simple: if he gains full powers, he can convince that Democrats will never enter the corridors of power. “Now, if we do what I say about the filibuster, they will probably never come to power,” Trump told Republican senators. “Because we will go through every single thing you can imagine.”

Right now, much remains open, but the rhetoric is shifting: Republicans are beginning to realize that preserving the president’s powers could cost the party dearly if Democrats return to power. And while answers may be cautious now, future decisions could determine the balance between the branches of government and shape political reality for the coming decade.