When asked in May whether he needed to uphold the Constitution of the United States, President Donald Trump responded, “I don’t know.”

That answer seemed to shock many, but perhaps it shouldn’t have. Rather than signaling disregard, Trump’s response reflected a rare, if blunt, honesty about the serious constitutional flaws that have allowed our federal government to grow unbounded and fiscally reckless.

To question whether one can fully uphold something so deeply compromised is not a betrayal. Instead, it is a challenge to do better.

It is easy to argue that Trump must preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, no matter what. That oath is solemn, and it matters. So does the substance of the document he and every president and other government officials have sworn to uphold.

However, the Constitution has been eroded over time, particularly since the 1930s, when the Supreme Court lowered the standard of judicial scrutiny for economic liberties. Since then, Congress has been permitted to justify nearly any economic legislation with the vaguest link to public welfare. The result has been the dramatic expansion of federal power and the weakening of constitutional checks and balances.

One of the Constitution’s most dangerous omissions is the lack of constraints on the federal government’s ability to tax, spend and borrow. For much of U.S. history, an informal culture of fiscal prudence kept these powers in check. Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that no generation should burden the next with debt is a sentiment that guided policy. Specifically, debt was acceptable during wartime, but it was expected to be paid down in peacetime.

States have acted where the federal government has failed. In the 19th century, when states defaulted on canal and infrastructure debt, they responded by adding balanced budget provisions to their constitutions.

In the 20th century, citizens again took matters into their own hands. California’s Proposition 13 launched a national tax revolt, and Colorado’s TABOR amendment imposed strict limits on government growth. These reforms were citizen-led, constitutional in nature, and driven by the realization that unchecked government leads to unsustainable fiscal paths.

Today, the federal government is hurtling toward a debt crisis. Statutory fiscal rules passed by Congress have been routinely waived or ignored by both parties. The “Big Beautiful Bill” recently approved by the House — championed by Trump — recognizes the expanded role of government but also underscores the need for structural reform. Without clear constitutional boundaries, any administration — Republican or Democratic — will face the temptation to spend without restraint.

This is why Trump’s seemingly offhand remark deserves a deeper reading. When he said, “I don’t know,” he wasn’t rejecting the Constitution. He was expressing concern about a document that no longer functions as an effective barrier against government overreach. He was holding up a mirror, not lighting a match.

Other countries, such as Switzerland, have amended their constitutions to impose fiscal discipline, and it has been effective. Balanced budgets and sustainable debt are achievable when rules are constitutional and binding.

The United States has tried for a century to pass such an amendment. Despite repeated attempts, Congress has failed to muster the two-thirds’ vote needed to move it forward.

Fortunately, the Founders anticipated this. Article V of the Constitution empowers citizens and states, as well as Congress, to propose amendments. By the late 1970s, two-thirds of the states had submitted applications for an Article V convention to propose a fiscal responsibility amendment. Congress ignored its ministerial duty to count those applications.

Now, private organizations and state legislators are once again pressing for action, including legal petitions to require Congress to fulfill its constitutional role.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention had created, he replied, “A republic — if you can keep it.” Keeping it today means more than defending the Constitution as it exists; it means improving it when its failures are apparent. Citizens and states must act where Congress will not.

Trump’s critics see his comment as a disavowal of the Constitution. I see it as a provocation to fix what’s broken and a call for Americans to do what the Constitution itself empowers them to do. That is not a failure to preserve, protect or defend the Constitution. It is one of the most faithful expressions of that oath in modern times.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Barry Poulson is on the board of directors of the Prosperity for US Foundation. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC