as though they had never been. “Death is the solution to all problems. No man—no problem.” The law was irrelevant; morality was a fiction. He was the state, and the state was terror. To stand in his way was to cease to exist.
Adolf Hitler, standing before adoring crowds or dictating policy in the marble halls of power, made no pretense of governing within the limits of law. “I am the law,” he declared, his word overriding constitution, court, and conscience alike. Democracy had been swept away; justice was whatever he willed it to be. There were no checks, no balances—only his will, unchallenged and unbound.
Francisco Franco, having crushed his enemies in war, sought to ensure that no one would rise against him again. “One state, one country, one chief,” he declared. There would be no rivals, no opposition, no competing visions of Spain. The nation was his to mold, its people his to command, its future his alone to decide.
Ferdinand Marcos ruled the Philippines with a clenched fist, justifying his grip with grandiose pronouncements. “I am the Philippines,” he boasted, as though the land, the people, and the nation’s fate were all contained within his singular being. His corruption, his decrees, his brutal enforcement of order—these were not abuses, in his mind, but the natural order of a country that existed only through him.
Vladimir Putin, the heir to an empire of autocrats, has never needed to say outright what his actions make clear. “The state is me, and I am the state,” he is alleged to have declared, echoing the czars and dictators before him. The courts bend to his will, the press speaks only with his approval, and opposition melts away in exile, imprisonment, or sudden death. Russia’s laws shift as he sees fit, for he is the only law that matters.
On February 15, President Trump posted on Truth Social and X (formerly Twitter): “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” This phrase, often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, suggests that actions taken in the nation’s interest are inherently lawful, even if they contravene established laws. The White House amplified this message by reposting it on its official X account. Critics swiftly condemned the statement, viewing it as an alarming indication of authoritarian intent. Senator Adam Schiff of California responded, “Spoken like a true dictator.” Legal experts warned that such rhetoric undermines the foundational principle that no individual is above the law, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis.
Trump made further headlines on February 19 with two declarations many interpreted as assertions of monarchical authority. With the first, he announced the termination of New York City’s congestion pricing plan by posting on Truth Social: “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!” This proclamation drew immediate criticism from New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who responded, “We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king.”
Shortly thereafter, during a White House meeting with governors, President Trump engaged in a heated exchange with Maine Governor Janet Mills. The confrontation centered on a federal executive order banning transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. When Governor Mills expressed her intent to adhere to state and federal laws, President Trump retorted, “Well, I’m—we are the federal law.” He further warned, “You better do it because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t.” Governor Mills retorted, “See you in court.”
And now, America’s leader echoes the same claims of limitless power once voiced by kings