In a recent post, I looked at how differently modern presidents approach conflict.
For most presidents, the law is something the state uses.
Agencies investigate. Regulators act. The Department of Justice files suit. Conflict moves through institutions, slowly and impersonally, buffered by process and precedent. The president may set priorities, but the machinery does the work.
That model has been remarkably consistent across administrations.
Donald Trump disrupted it.
Rather than routing conflict exclusively through institutions, he often handled it personally. Lawsuits became responses to criticism, counters to pressure, and signals to allies and opponents alike. Media companies, banks, technology platforms, universities, business partners, and even government agencies found themselves on the other side of a filing.
Some of these cases aimed to win at trial. Others appeared designed to reshape behavior long before a courtroom was reached. In many instances, the damages sought were so large that the lawsuit itself functioned as leverage.
At a certain point, litigation stops being just a legal remedy.
It becomes a policy instrument.
Large claims deter. Repeated filings exhaust. Public complaints signal grievance or strength. Even unsuccessful cases can change incentives, reputations, and negotiations. The law becomes not just a forum for resolution, but a terrain on which power is exercised.
This approach blurs a boundary that had previously held—informally, if not legally—between private grievance and public authority.
Institutional power diffuses responsibility.
Personal power concentrates it.
One treats law as a system.
The other treats law as a tool.
Most presidencies fit comfortably into the first model. Trump’s does not.
Whether this represents adaptation to a more adversarial environment, or erosion of institutional restraint, is a question for historians—and voters. Reasonable people will come to different conclusions.
What’s clear is that the role of litigation itself has shifted.
When lawsuits become policy, they don’t just resolve disputes. They shape behavior.
And that’s worth thinking about.
I’m still adding this one up.
If you disagree, I’d be interested to hear where you draw the line.
MaxSigma — Thinking in public. Summing what matters.
