The Monument and the War
A 250-foot arch in Washington. A statue of Christopher Columbus near the White House. A statue of himself at his Florida golf course. A $250 bill in production. And a war in the Middle East that has cost American households $100 billion [2][3]. At 80, President Trump is building monuments while presiding over the highest inflation rate in three years, and the constitutional system designed to constrain executive power has done neither.
The pattern emerged clearly in recent months. Trump dropped a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for creating a $1.776 billion compensation fund [1]. The symbolism was deliberate: $1.776 billion for the nation's 250th anniversary. He envisions the planned arch to stand 250 feet tall [1]. His broader vision includes a Garden of Heroes, a monumental "Freedom" arch, a huge ballroom, and turning the reflecting pool at the Washington Monument the color of a Bahamian luxury hotel pool [2]. The Treasury is preparing to print the new $250 bill [2]. The Columbus statue went up [2]. So did the statue at Doral [2].
While Trump planned these monuments, the US-Israel war on Iran that began in late February has reshaped the global economy [2]. Israeli planes assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on a Saturday, opening hostilities [2]. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil passes, has been effectively closed since the start of the conflict, after Iranian threats to ships and maritime insurers cancelled war risk cover [2][3]. Inflation reached 3.8% in May, the highest increase recorded since 2023 [3]. Moody's Analytics estimated the Iran war and resulting high energy prices cost American households about $100 billion [3].
A May Economist/YouGov survey found 59% of Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of Iran, while only 31% approved [1]. Yet the war expanded. Israel launched ground troops into southern Lebanon to protect people in northern Israel [2]. Hezbollah's deputy head declared "open war" with Israel in response [2]. When asked about negotiations, Trump said he rejected Iran's attempt to restart talks, stating "Too Late!" [2]. The Israeli military now controls 53% of Gaza under the first stage of Trump's plan, including much of its farmland, Rafah in the south, parts of Gaza City, and other urban areas [1].
The monuments and the war reveal the same mechanism: an executive with the power to reshape the capital, the currency, and the Middle East simultaneously, with minimal institutional constraint. The $1.776 billion compensation fund will be overseen by five commissioners, four of whom would be appointed by the attorney general and removable by Trump [1]. The reconciliation law Trump signed in July provided $170 billion for immigration enforcement activities, including $45 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for expansion of immigration detention centers [1]. Congress continues funding his priorities even as his approval on the war sits at 31%.
The scale of Trump's fiscal decisions becomes clearer against the backdrop of the national debt, which stood at $19.9 trillion in January 2017 when he first took office [1]. The $1.776 billion fund, the $170 billion immigration package, the monument projects, these are choices about how power translates into spending and legacy. The IRS settlement shows he can still negotiate favorable terms for himself while directing billions toward projects that bear his mark or advance his vision.
Talk of Trump as a lame duck misreads what's happening. A lame duck cannot close the Strait of Hormuz, expand a regional war into Lebanon, or commission a 250-foot arch in the nation's capital. A lame duck does not control a $1.776 billion fund or sign $170 billion reconciliation packages. Low approval ratings measure public opinion. They do not measure institutional constraint. The system that allows an 80-year-old president with 31% approval on his war to continue prosecuting that war while building monuments to himself is not broken. It is working exactly as designed, which is to say, with few meaningful checks on executive action once Congress has authorized spending and the courts have declined to intervene.
The monuments will outlast the administration. So will the war's economic consequences. American households absorbed $100 billion in costs between late February and May. Inflation at 3.8% compounds that burden monthly. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Oil prices remain elevated. The Israeli military controls more than half of Gaza and has moved into southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has declared open war. And in Washington, the arch is still being planned, 250 feet tall, funded by a settlement that ended a $10 billion lawsuit, overseen by commissioners the president can remove.
The question is not whether an 80-year-old president should have this much power. The question is whether any president should, and what it means that the answer, in practice, appears to be yes.
The constitutional architecture offers no automatic brake pedal. It offers only the mechanisms Congress chooses to use and the political will required to use them, neither of which have proven sufficient to constrain a wartime president with a vision for permanence and eighteen months left in office.
