The Architects of Abdication: How Three Guardians of the Republic Paved Trump's Path Back to Power

 

The Architects of Abdication: How Three Guardians of the Republic Paved Trump's Path Back to PowerIn the dimming light of American democracy, the story of Donald Trump's improbable return to the White House in 2024 is not one of triumph but of tragic omission. It is a tale woven from the threads of institutional caution, judicial overreach, and political expediency—threads held by three men who, in their respective roles as stewards of justice, law, and legislation, might have stemmed the tide but instead allowed it to surge. Merrick Garland, the soft-spoken Attorney General whose deliberate pace bordered on paralysis; John Roberts, the Chief Justice whose court reshaped the boundaries of presidential power; and Mitch McConnell, the Senate's master tactician whose grudges and alliances reshaped the judiciary itself. Over the four years from 2021 to 2025, their decisions—or lack thereof—created a vacuum that Trump exploited, regaining the presidency and embarking on what critics now decry as the systematic dismantling of democratic norms.To understand this unraveling, one must begin not with Trump's victory speeches or his post-election purges of federal agencies, but with the quiet corridors of power where accountability was deferred. These men, each a pillar of the establishment, embodied the very institutions designed to check authoritarian impulses. Yet, in the face of Trump's unrelenting assault on electoral integrity, they prioritized process over urgency, precedent over peril. The result? A former president, indicted on multiple fronts for attempting to subvert the 2020 election, walked free into another campaign, his legal shadows lengthening but never quite catching him. As Trump now consolidates power—firing inspectors general, pressuring the Justice Department to investigate rivals, and floating plans to deploy the military against domestic protests—the question lingers: How did we get here? The answer lies in the choices of Garland, Roberts, and McConnell.Merrick Garland: The Cautious CustodianMerrick Garland arrived at the Justice Department in March 2021 with a mandate to restore faith in the rule of law after the chaos of the Trump era. A former federal judge known for his meticulousness, Garland had himself been a victim of partisan gamesmanship: In 2016, McConnell had blocked his Supreme Court nomination, citing an invented rule about election-year appointments. Now, as Attorney General under President Joe Biden, Garland vowed to depoliticize the DOJ, insisting on investigations free from White House interference. But in the crucible of January 6, 2021—the Capitol riot that left democracy teetering—this commitment to caution proved fateful.Investigations into the insurrection began almost immediately, with the FBI pursuing low-level rioters by the hundreds. Yet, when it came to Trump himself, Garland's approach was glacial. Critics, including some within his own party, argued that he waited too long to escalate probes into the former president's role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It wasn't until November 2022—nearly two years after the attack—that Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to handle the federal cases against Trump, including election interference and mishandling classified documents. By then, Trump had already announced his 2024 bid, complicating the timeline further under DOJ guidelines that discourage actions influencing elections.Defenders of Garland point to his early directives: Within days of taking office, he instructed deputies to scrutinize every aspect of Trump's post-election conduct. But as months turned to years, the delays mounted. A tantalizing tip about Trump's inner circle emerged in mid-2021, yet the DOJ's focus remained on peripheral figures. By 2024, none of the federal cases had reached trial. The election interference indictment, unsealed in August 2023, was bogged down in appeals, while the documents case faced similar hurdles. Democratic lawmakers later lambasted Garland for "slow-rolling" the process, calling it a "fatal mistake" that assured Trump's victory by denying voters a pre-election verdict.In hindsight, Garland's methodical style—rooted in a fear of appearing partisan—played into Trump's hands. Trump weaponized the delays, portraying himself as a victim of a "witch hunt" while campaigning unimpeded. As one former prosecutor put it, Garland's insistence on "turning over every rock" turned into a race against the clock he couldn't win. By Election Day 2024, the cases were in limbo, and Trump, unconvicted, rallied his base with promises of retribution. Now, with Trump back in power, those same cases have been dismissed or shelved, underscoring how Garland's deference to norms allowed a norm-breaker to escape scrutiny.Garland's caution extended into 2025, even after Trump's inauguration. As Attorney General until January 20, 2025, Garland released a final report from special counsel Jack Smith affirming that evidence against Trump for election interference was sufficient for conviction—but only if not for Trump's reelection and DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting president. This move, while upholding transparency, was criticized as too late to impact the 2024 race and insufficient to deter Trump's post-election purges. Garland's farewell address on January 16 emphasized DOJ independence, urging staff to "remember who you are" amid looming upheaval. Yet, within days, the incoming administration fired career lawyers involved in Smith's probes, including those who prosecuted January 6 rioters. Garland's delays had left the DOJ vulnerable, enabling Trump's swift weaponization of the department to target rivals, from probing "Russiagate" origins to investigating New York Attorney General Letitia James over her fraud case against Trump. By prioritizing impartiality over urgency, Garland's legacy is one of abdication, allowing the very interference he sought to prevent.John Roberts: The Arbiter's OverreachIf Garland's sin was hesitation, John Roberts's was hubris. As Chief Justice since 2005, Roberts has long styled himself as an institutionalist, wary of the Supreme Court's politicization. Yet, in the Trump era, his court became a bulwark for executive impunity, culminating in the July 2024 ruling on presidential immunity that effectively shielded Trump from timely prosecution.The case, Trump v. United States, stemmed from special counsel Smith's indictment over January 6. Trump argued for absolute immunity from criminal charges for official acts. In a 6-3 decision penned by Roberts, the court granted former presidents absolute immunity for "core constitutional powers" and presumptive immunity for other official actions. Conversations with Justice Department officials about election results? Immune. Pressure on state officials to "find" votes? Potentially protected. The ruling remanded the case to lower courts for parsing, ensuring no trial before the election.Behind the scenes, Roberts drove the outcome. He circulated a memo advocating broad immunity, claiming it balanced presidential duties against accountability. Critics saw it as a partisan gift: The conservative majority, bolstered by three Trump appointees, delayed justice just as Trump's campaign gained steam. "It paved the way for Trump's return," one legal scholar lamented, arguing it signaled to authoritarians that the court would not stand in their way.Roberts's court had already tilted the scales. Earlier rulings limited states' ability to remove Trump from ballots under the 14th Amendment and curtailed federal agencies' regulatory powers—decisions that emboldened Trump's deregulatory agenda. Conservative voices praised the immunity ruling as protecting the presidency from overzealous prosecutors, but liberals decried it as enabling tyranny. With Trump now invoking similar immunities to shield his allies and target foes, Roberts's legacy as the "umpire" who called balls and strikes has morphed into that of an enabler who redrew the field.By August 2025, Roberts's influence continued to enable Trump's overreach. The court, in a 5-4 decision, lifted injunctions blocking Trump's cuts to NIH grants tied to diversity initiatives, with Roberts dissenting alongside liberals but failing to sway the majority. Rulings upheld Trump's firings of agency heads and allowed Schedule F's revival, stripping civil service protections and facilitating purges of up to 50,000 workers. In Trump v. United States' shadow, the court greenlit broad executive actions, including military deployments for domestic enforcement, with Roberts's opinions emphasizing deference to presidential authority on "national security" matters like immigration and protests. His "institutionalist" facade masked a tilt toward unchecked power, directly tying back to how his immunity ruling evaded Garland's prosecutions, allowing Trump to dismantle agencies unhindered.Mitch McConnell: The Strategist's ReckoningNo figure bridges the actions of Garland and Roberts quite like Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky senator whose mastery of Senate procedure shaped the judiciary that both men navigated. McConnell's role in Trump's resurgence was less about direct action than calculated inaction—and eventual capitulation.Post-January 6, McConnell seemed poised to break with Trump. He condemned the former president as "morally responsible" for the riot during the second impeachment trial but voted to acquit, citing jurisdictional concerns. Privately, he called Trump a "despicable human being" and "stupid." Yet, by March 2024, as Trump clinched the GOP nomination, McConnell endorsed him, declaring, "He will have my support." This reversal, after years of tension, signaled to Republicans that Trump was inevitable, consolidating party unity.McConnell's fingerprints were everywhere in the judicial landscape. His 2016 blockade of Garland's Supreme Court bid preserved a vacancy for Trump to fill, leading to a conservative supermajority that delivered the immunity ruling. During Biden's term, McConnell obstructed Democratic priorities, from voting rights legislation to judicial confirmations, creating gridlock that amplified public disillusionment with institutions—fuel for Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric.Conservatives viewed McConnell's endorsement as pragmatic party loyalty, but detractors saw it as a betrayal of his post-January 6 clarity. By not using his influence to back a Trump alternative, McConnell helped normalize the former president's return, even as he stepped down from Senate leadership in 2024.Into 2025, McConnell's legacy as enabler persisted, albeit from the backbench. Retiring in 2026 after announcing in February 2025 he wouldn't seek reelection, McConnell opposed some Trump nominees like RFK Jr. for HHS and Tulsi Gabbard for DNI, voting against them as the sole Republican dissenter. Yet, his earlier stacking of the judiciary with Trump appointees ensured Roberts's court upheld Schedule F and agency purges, while his 2024 super PAC spending—$55 million in Ohio alone—flipped Senate seats to MAGA allies, enabling Trump's legislative rubber-stamp. McConnell's grudging support and judicial architecture directly facilitated Trump's 2025 actions, from DOJ weaponization to military domestic use, as a GOP Senate deferred to the executive.The Interwoven Path to PerilThese threads converged in 2024: Garland's delayed prosecutions fed into Roberts's court for immunity delays, while McConnell's stacked judiciary ensured favorable outcomes. Trump, unencumbered, campaigned on vengeance, winning amid economic anxieties and voter fatigue. Now, as president in 2025, he has begun democracy's dismantling: Implementing Schedule F to purge up to 50,000 civil servants, firing inspectors general without notice, and closing agencies like USAID (83% of programs eliminated by March). The DOJ, under Garland's successor, probes "Russiagate" and rivals like Letitia James, while military plans expand domestic deployments—Guard to Chicago, Marines for "reaction forces" against protests. Roberts's rulings shield these moves, and McConnell's Senate enables them.In interviews, allies of these men insist they acted in good faith—Garland to uphold impartiality, Roberts to protect the presidency, McConnell to preserve GOP viability. Yet, as one Atlantic contributor noted, their "miscalculations" amounted to abdication. Democracy, fragile as it is, requires guardians willing to confront threats head-on. In their caution, these three men opened the door to a man who vows to close it behind him. The republic, once resilient, now teeters, a casualty of the very institutions meant to save it.