Trump is normalizing things that would have been scandals in his first term
Trump is normalizing things that would have been scandals in his first term
Trump is normalizing things that would – Donald Trump’s tenure in the White House has seen a remarkable shift in how his actions are perceived. What once sparked significant controversy now appears almost routine, as the president’s demands for loyalty have evolved from a specific claim in 2017 to a broader assertion of influence over the judiciary. The recent social media post by Trump, in which he openly questioned the loyalty of Supreme Court justices he appointed, underscores this transformation. While the FBI director he had just fired, James Comey, testified in 2017 that Trump had demanded his loyalty, the president and his allies dismissed the claim. Today, a similar demand from Trump is met with little public outcry, reflecting a decade of gradual normalization.
The Loyalty Test: From FBI Director to Supreme Court
The 2017 incident involving Comey marked a pivotal moment. The former FBI director, who had been fired by Trump just weeks prior, alleged that the president had pressured him to remain loyal during the early stages of the Russia investigation. This was problematic for two reasons: first, FBI directors are expected to operate independently of political pressures, and second, Comey was actively probing Trump’s activities. Trump’s legal team, including Marc Kasowitz, downplayed the testimony, insisting the president never explicitly asked for loyalty. “The president never told Mr. Comey, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty’ in form or substance,” Kasowitz stated, framing the claim as a misrepresentation of Trump’s intentions.
“I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say, ‘I want you to pledge allegiance,’” Trump said at the time, adding: “It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that.”
Fast forward to 2026, and the president’s approach has become more overt. In a recent post, Trump criticized the justices he appointed, suggesting they should prioritize his interests over their impartial duty. “They have to do the right thing,” he claimed, “but it’s really OK for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them to ‘almost’ the highest position in the land, that is, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.” This statement, though framed as a call for loyalty to the country, clearly pointed to personal allegiance. The focus on his own appointees, rather than the broader concept of judicial independence, highlights a strategic shift in how Trump frames his expectations.
Trump’s public criticism of the Supreme Court justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, has drawn attention to their rulings against him on tariffs. Yet, the tone of his remarks contrasts sharply with the intensity of the 2017 scandal. Where once a demand for loyalty from an FBI director was a major point of contention, today’s pressure on the judiciary feels more routine. This evolution is emblematic of how Trump has systematically eroded the perception of controversy surrounding his actions.
Boiling the Frog: A Decade of Escalation
The concept of “boiling the frog” has taken on new meaning in the context of Trump’s presidency. Over nine years, he has gradually increased the stakes, transforming once-unthinkable behavior into accepted norms. This strategy has been evident in several areas: politically motivated investigations of opponents, self-enrichment while in office, and a series of high-profile firings of officials deemed critical of his policies.
“I don’t want loyalty, but I do want and expect it for our Country.”
While the phrase “for our Country” sounds patriotic, the context reveals a self-serving agenda. Trump’s criticism of the Supreme Court justices he appointed, for instance, overlooked the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts—nominated by George W. Bush—also ruled against him on tariffs. This selective focus on loyalty underscores a pattern of behavior that prioritizes personal influence over institutional integrity.
The shift in public reaction is not coincidental. In 2017, Comey’s testimony was a catalyst for heated debates and significant media coverage. By contrast, Trump’s recent remarks on the Supreme Court have generated minimal attention, even as they touch on key policies and potential legal consequences. The court, which has since heard cases involving Trump’s personal criminal liability, now faces a president who openly challenges its independence without the same level of alarm.
Normalizing Power: From Scandal to Standard Practice
Trump’s ability to normalize his actions is rooted in a decade of incremental provocations. In 2017, his legal team argued that the term “loyalty” was being misapplied. Today, the same term is wielded as a tool to justify influence over the judiciary. This transition reflects a broader trend: Trump has turned what once seemed like extraordinary demands into routine expectations, blurring the lines between political pressure and institutional accountability.
Other examples of this normalization include the shift from the “emoluments” scandal to open disregard of ethics rules. While Trump faced scrutiny for accepting foreign payments during his first term, his second term has seen a more brazen disregard for such norms. Similarly, the mass firings of inspectors general, once seen as a significant move by Republicans like Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, now appear as a standard practice.
Trump has also mastered the art of framing his actions as necessary for leadership. Politically oriented pardons, once a cause for congressional investigations, are now viewed as routine. His increasingly open xenophobia, which was met with initial resistance, has also become a normalized aspect of his political strategy. Each of these steps has contributed to a cumulative effect: the public and critics alike have grown accustomed to the president’s assertive use of power.
The current demand for loyalty from the Supreme Court is, in some ways, a more profound shift than the 2017 incident. While an FBI director’s loyalty might have been a partisan issue, the justices’ role in shaping major policies and interpreting the law gives Trump’s requests added weight. Yet, the lack of public reaction suggests that the threshold for controversy has lowered. This is not merely a matter of time—it is a result of deliberate tactics designed to shift the narrative.
As Trump continues to press his agenda, the normalization of his actions serves as a testament to his ability to adapt and dominate the political discourse. What was once a scandal in 2017 is now a defining feature of his leadership style. The president’s public missives, which once felt like breaking news, now seem like a natural extension of his governing approach. This evolution highlights how Trump has redefined the boundaries of executive power, making once-unthinkable demands feel increasingly familiar to both supporters and detractors.
The long-term impact of this normalization is clear: it has allowed Trump to consolidate authority without the same level of resistance. The metaphor of “boiling the frog” aptly describes this strategy—each incremental step in the process of demanding loyalty from the judiciary has made the final act seem less remarkable. As the Supreme Court continues to play a central role in shaping Trump’s legacy, the question remains whether the public will continue to view his actions as routine or whether the next decade will reveal a new era of political tension.
