You’ve undoubtedly heard the phrase “with power comes responsibility” It has shaped political philosophy for centuries. Effective leadership balances authority with accountability, ensuring that national strength fosters stability rather than oppression. However, history provides countless examples of power being used irresponsibly, whether through intimidation, institutional erosion, or political manipulation. The recent events surrounding the Trump administration serve as a modern case study in this dynamic.
Military Parade as Political Theater
Donald Trump presented the June 14 military parade as a celebration of the Army’s 250th anniversary, but its roots tell a different story. His transition team first asked the Pentagon about a military parade in 2016, hoping to include it in his inauguration. The idea was met with skepticism. Then, after seeing France’s Bastille Day parade in 2017, Trump became fixated on hosting something similar.
Unlike past American military parades that marked major moments in history, this one wasn’t about honoring service. It was about display. It was power without responsibility, more spectacle than substance. In contrast, Union veterans marched past Lincoln in 1865 as the country healed from the Civil War, a tribute of gratitude and unity. In 1991, troops paraded before George H.W. Bush to celebrate victory in the Gulf War. Trump’s event lacked this historical significance, leaning instead toward militarized nationalism.
The $45 million price tag deepened the divide. While funding for education, healthcare, and social services shrank, taxpayer money flowed into this show of force. Such grand parades are common in authoritarian states like Russia and North Korea, where leaders use them to intimidate opposition and project dominance. Trump’s version echoed that model. Tanks rolled through Washington and troops marched under his gaze. Most Congressional Republicans avoided the event. His warning that protesters would face “very big force” reinforced the authoritarian tone.
At its core, the parade wasn’t about national unity or military tradition. It was leadership without duty, a theatrical display rather than meaningful recognition of service. Power without restraint benefits no one but those who wield it.
Immigration Raids and the Militarization of Law Enforcement
Trump’s immigration enforcement isn’t about detaining violent criminals. It’s about power without restraint. He claims ICE targets violent immigrant criminals, but the numbers don’t back that up. Since October, fewer than 10% of those detained had serious criminal records. Still, agents have staged broad raids, sweeping up both legal and undocumented immigrants in workplaces and public spaces. It’s less about security, more about control.
The push for mass arrests further exposes the administration’s lack of measured leadership. ICE agents, often backed by federal and local officers, have detained people with no criminal history. Deportation quotas have skyrocketed, forcing officers to increase daily arrests from 1,000 to 3,000. Many caught weren’t even original targets but were picked up simply for being near enforcement actions. These tactics don’t solve immigration challenges. they deepen fear, erode trust, and disproportionately harm communities.
Instead of shaping policy with power guided by responsibility, the administration leans into political spectacle. The raids project strength but sidestep real solutions. This is governance by intimidation, prioritizing fear over fairness and force over foresight.
Politicization of the Military
Trump sent National Guard troops into Los Angeles without consulting California Governor Gavin Newsom – against his explicit wishes. Traditionally, governors control Guard deployments, but Trump federalized California’s troops, overriding state authority. He sent 4,000 troops to Los Angeles amid protests against immigration raids. Newsom sued to challenge the move.
The escalation didn’t stop there. Trump also ordered 700 active-duty Marines into the city, violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal military forces from domestic law enforcement. Passed in 1878, the act was designed to prevent military power from becoming a tool of political repression.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced this shift, telling Congress the National Guard and Reserves were becoming “critical” for homeland security. This rhetoric signals a growing reliance on federal troops to suppress dissent rather than protect citizens. Trump’s Fort Bragg speech further blurred the lines—soldiers were screened for political alignment and appearance before being placed in the audience.
Internal communications from the 82nd Airborne Division instructed service members to alert superiors if they held political views opposing the administration, allowing them to be removed from the event. Troops were also selected based on physical appearance, with one directive stating, “No fat soldiers.” Traditionally, the military remains neutral, avoiding partisan displays. But Trump’s speech turned service members into props, encouraging them to cheer or boo in response to political attacks, particularly against California leaders and former President Biden.
Deploying troops against civilian protests and politicizing the military reflects authority without accountability. It prioritizes force over fairness, setting a dangerous precedent for American democracy.
Dismantling of Agencies and the Centralization of Authority: Power Without Responsibility
Trump’s administration is dismantling federal agencies with power wielded carelessly. Millions who rely on essential services will feel the impact. Within weeks of returning to office, he signed executive orders gutting the Social Security Administration, Department of Education, and U.S. Postal Service. These agencies serve seniors, students, and working-class communities, yet they’ve been slashed in favor of privatization and budget cuts. The administration claims it’s about efficiency, but the mass layoffs and loss of civil rights protections tell another story.
Beyond agency cuts, Trump is reshaping the federal workforce itself. Thousands have been fired based on recommendations from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. This weakens institutional safeguards and wipes out expertise needed for sound policymaking. His push for authority without oversight—the unitary executive theory—would give the president unchecked control over the executive branch, tipping the balance of power away from Congress and the courts.
By undermining democratic institutions and prioritizing personal influence over governance, Trump’s actions reflect leadership without duty. Millions, including his own supporters, now face reduced access to education, healthcare, and financial protections. His reckless moves don’t just shift policies, they hurt the very people he claims to serve.
Conclusion: Power Without Responsibility
Ethical leadership demands power with accountability. Those in authority, whether individuals or nations, must balance strength with transparency and a duty to serve. When wielded responsibly, power can strengthen institutions, protect civil liberties, and promote stability. But reckless or self-serving leadership erodes democracy, weakens trust, and harms the American people.
Trump’s presidency has repeatedly shown authority without integrity. His military parade prioritized spectacle over service. ICE raids spread fear instead of shaping thoughtful policy. Law enforcement was militarized against civilian protests. His dismantling of agencies, politicization of the military, and push for centralized control reflect a government more focused on optics than solutions. Rather than using power to serve the greater good, Trump has wielded it for division, control, and self-promotion.
Leadership isn’t about dominance. It’s about responsibility to the people. A true leader strengthens institutions for all, not just political allies. They weigh their decisions carefully, knowing future generations will live with the consequences. Trump’s presidency has defied these ideals, proving that unchecked power destroys rather than builds. The real question now is whether America will reclaim its commitment to responsible government before the damage is irreversible.