https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html

If the only limit on power is “my morality,” then the limit is gone.

In an Oval Office interview conducted Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 (published Jan. 8), Trump was asked what constrains his commander-in-chief power. His answer wasn’t Congress, courts, treaties, or “international law.” It was: “My own morality… my own mind.” Then the escape hatch: “I don’t need international law,” and “it depends what your definition of international law is.”

That’s the whole move: define the rule, then appoint yourself the referee.

The founders built this country on the opposite idea: a separation of powers “to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” In other words: the point of law is that it still binds you when you’re convinced you’re right.

And here’s why this matters beyond geopolitics. I’ve watched the same structure get baptized in church language: “Yes, he’s flawed, but the other side is trying to codify sin.” That framing doesn’t just rank sins. It creates immunity. Once one category becomes the master issue, everything else becomes negotiable, including restraint itself. You don’t have to deny wrongdoing. You just have to rank it low enough that it never costs you your loyalty.

Now add the legal permission layer. In Trump v. United States, the Court describes areas of “conclusive and preclusive” presidential authority and states: “Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions.” Read that again. If the ruler defines the rule and the arena narrows where anyone can even examine it, you’re not talking about guardrails. You're talking about one man's will.

Failure modes aren’t theoretical:

• Treaties become optional (“If it expires, it expires” is a shrug at constraint).
• War powers become “handle it later” until Congress forces the fight.
• “Threat” becomes a blank check, and every other power learns the lesson.
• Domestic checks get treated as conditional and workaround-able, not binding.

Yes, foreign policy has gray zones. But “gray zone” is not a license to abolish external restraint.

If the goal is security, focus on enforceable guardrails (war-powers discipline, treaty discipline, transparent legal standards), not leader-dependent “morality,” and not a single-issue moral scoreboard that grants everything else a pass.

What limiting principle would you accept that still applies when you’re sure you’re right?