The Show Must Go On: Trump and the Death of Consequences

What is more alarming: the fact that a president would contemplate, and announce, turning an execution into a livestreamed spectacle, or that the American political system allows him the power to do so? 

On the 9th of October, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the planned execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, would be livestreamed. Following substantial levels of worldwide condemnation (though there are other cases where such is not enough to change his mind,) Donald Trump cancelled the broadcast on 15 October. The execution itself, however, remains scheduled to proceed. The cameras may be switched off, but this episode in a long series of scandals emphasises a question far more consequential than Trump's penchant for spectacle: how has the world's most powerful democracy reached a point where such a proposal could be seriously entertained? 

The proposed livestream is a striking example. Hegseth justified the broadcast as a deterrent, while Trump described Hasan as ‘Terrorists and SCUM’ in announcing its cancellation. The language was almost theatrical, and the same instinct for spectacle was evident in Trump's creation of an AI-generated video depicting himself fighting a tiger, following a fatal tiger encounter at a Yorkshire wildlife park, even after the victim’s family had expressed distress after footage was shared after the incident. Trump’s response was another example of him casting himself as the centre of attention of a digital spectacle. In both cases, the distinction between governing and performing becomes increasingly difficult to discern. 

Trump's presidency increasingly resembles a reality show in which every scandal and outrageous announcement, blatant untruth, or unhinged truth social post becomes the next development in Trump’s personal drama, but what is more concerning is the apparent inability of America's political institutions to impose meaningful limits upon it. 

Consider Trump's recent agreement with Putin to import Russian diesel, announced despite existing restrictions on Russian energy imports that were introduced following the invasion of Ukraine. The administration subsequently authorised the imports through a Treasury licence, provoking bipartisan criticism over the financial benefit to Moscow and the implications for American support for Kyiv. The episode is yet another example of how quickly Trump’s actions can reshape foreign policy, leaving the rest of the world struggling to respond. 

For many of us, there seems to be a new scandal every day, and before one controversy has been properly investigated, another dominates the headlines. Public attention moves on and the outrage of yesterday fades into irrelevance. Whether deliberately engineered or simply an inevitable consequence of Trump's governing style, this constant barrage of news serves him well, acting as a distraction that becomes ‘just’ the way Trump operates. 

The midterm elections on the 3rd of November could potentially be an opportunity for Americans to make a change to their current political system, but elections alone cannot always be trusted to rebuild the systems that have been weakened by Trump and his supporters. Even if there was a change in congressional control, this would be only the beginning of that work. However, as has been demonstrated, America’s constitutional system cannot rely on the personal restraint of whoever occupies the Oval Office. Now more than ever, we are aware of its purpose of ensuring that presidential power remains accountable, including when the president shows little willingness to use it responsibly. 

The cancellation of the livestream demonstrates that even when some may think hope is lost, opposition can still work, but is it really such an extent of public backlash that should establish that state punishment is not entertainment? Or is it time to consider that it should not take another election to remind Congress that its constitutional responsibilities do not disappear when the president belongs to its own party. 

Trump's presidency may be the spectacle, but worldwide democracy is not supposed to be the audience. The question facing the United States, and the rest of the World perhaps, is whether its institutions can demonstrate the strength of enforcing global law, showing us at last that no president is bigger than the office he holds.