When the US$16 million job was completed in time for the July 4 celebrations of America’s 250th birthday, it was clear something was amiss.
The algae that had long plagued the pool had returned. And the sealant covering the bottom of the pool immediately began peeling.
Trump attributed the damage to vandals, and one man, David Hearn, a former Olympian, was arrested after he put his hand into the pool and examined a piece of coating that had become detached from the floor.
The Trump-appointed US attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News presenter, opened a full investigation. Hearn was promptly indicted for destruction of property.
Late last week, however, the case was turned on its head when Pirro moved to dismiss the charges against Hearn. Her filing stated the damage to the pool was not due to vandalism, but a “botched installation” by the contractor in a rush to complete the project before the anniversary celebration.
Trump went ballistic, accusing Pirro of “folding like an umbrella”. But the prosecutor was undeterred. This week, she dropped the charges against three other defendants accused of vandalising the pool.
And at a testy White House meeting with Trump, she held her ground, reportedly lashing out at Interior Secretary Doug Burgum for misleading the president about the evidence.
How judges and prosecutors are pushing back
The wider context here is the loyalty Trump expects and demands from his appointees and staff.
This was one of the strongest lessons he took from his first term, when Trump found himself repeatedly blocked or tightly managed by many in his inner circle, among them:
- John Kelly, his chief of staff, who tried to keep Trump on a short leash and only lasted in the role for 17 months
- General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who refused to send troops into US cities to quell protesters, and
- Bill Barr, his attorney general, who told him he had definitively lost the 2020 presidential election.
In his second term, Trump has gone to extreme lengths to install Cabinet members who will be unswervingly loyal to him, as well as federal prosecutors who will follow his orders – and pursue cases against his enemies.
While Trump has maintained control over his Cabinet and largely kept the Republican Party in Congress in check, his attempts to manipulate or override the judicial system to get what he wants are increasingly being turned aside.
Consider his repeated attempts to prosecute James Comey, the former head of the FBI. A federal judge threw out the first case against Comey last year, saying Trump’s hand-picked prosecutor wasn’t lawfully appointed.
Under pressure from Trump, the Department of Justice indicted Comey again in May over a case involving seashells on a beach; Comey has requested a judge dismiss these charges, too.
Earlier this year, a grand jury also declined to indict six Democratic members of Congress, whom Trump accused of sedition after they posted a video reminding US service members they were obligated to refuse illegal orders.
In June, a Republican-appointed federal judge blocked the Trump administration from trying to subpoena Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. The judge called it a “blatantly unlawful and unethical use of the grand jury process”.
And last month, a Trump-appointed federal judge blocked the Department of Justice’s attempts to access the names and contact information of poll workers in the state of Georgia – part of Trump’s ongoing attempts to prove his 2020 election loss was rigged.
Trump: judges are ‘stupid people’
Trump has had far more success securing favourable rulings from the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court in his second term. According to legal experts, the court has considerably expanded the power of the presidency over the past 18 months.
Yet, the Supreme Court did not give Trump victories in two major cases this year over his tariff policy and his administration’s attempt to do away with birthright citizenship.
In the face of this growing opposition from the judicial branch, Trump has railed against judges and justices who “want to show that they’re independent”. He mocked their thinking:
‘I don’t care if Trump appointed me. I don’t care if he doesn’t make any difference to me. I’m voting against him.’ Because they want to show their independence. You know, stupid people.
Yet, this is precisely the role of the judiciary – it is meant to be one of the checks and balances in the US government. And right now, it is the independent judiciary – not Congress – that is curbing Trump’s excessive use of powers.
Trump may not continue to enjoy this imbalance of power for much longer. If the Democrats win control of the Senate and House of Representatives in the midterm elections, Congress will again provide another crucial check on his powers.
But Trump will continue to believe the reflecting pool has been vandalised, no matter what the evidence shows. And he will continue to go after his enemies, too. This may now include Pirro, who may not remain in her position for much longer.
Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.