To watch the floor speech click here

WASHINGTON, D.C.— U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) today spoke on the Senate floor to share his growing concerns over the Trump Administration’s largely unconstitutional and unprecedented overreach -- adding historical perspective to the decisions facing the Senate. In the speech, King also shared his position on Russell Vought, the nominee to become Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

“We began our careers here with the following words, ‘I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the united States against all enemies foreign and domestic.’ 

“When each of us arrived here in the senate, we took this oath to support and defend the constitution and as it says against all enemies foreign and domestic. I think it's interesting that the framers concede that there might be domestic enemies to the constitution. Our oath was not to the Republican Party, not to the Democratic Party, not to Joe Biden, not to Donald Trump, but our oath was to defend the constitution. 

“And right now -- right now literally at this moment that constitution is under the most direct and consequential assault in our nation's history. An assault not on a particular provision but on the essential structure of the document itself. It's hard to grasp what is happening because of all the events that are swirling around us over the last several weeks. It's coming from so many different quarters and so many different actors. It's hard to get a picture of what's really happening fundamentally. 

“But this is an assault, and how we respond to it will define our life's work, our place in history, and the future of our country. None of us will ever face a greater challenge. 

“Before we get to the challenge, however, I think it's important to ask why we have a constitution in the first place, why ours has so far stood the test of time. 

“The answer to the first question, why have a Constitution in the first place, is contained in the preamble -- we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, there's number one, establish justice, number two, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.’

“You want to know what the Constitution is for? There it is. There's the list -- ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. 

“But there's a paradox at the heart of the creation of any government, whether it's here or anywhere else on Earth, and anywhere else in history. There's a paradox built in, because the essence of creating government is to give it power, give it our power, in order to look after us, in order to provide for the common defense, to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide justice to our people. 

“In other words, we're giving our power to this separate entity. But we have to do so with the realization that the power that's being given has the potential to be abused. In other words, how do we give power to this entity, this government, and ensure that the government itself doesn't use that power to abuse us as citizens? This is a question at the heart of all political discussion throughout history. 

“The Romans even had a question that captured it. The question was, “quis custodiet, ipsos custodes?” It means who will guard the guardians? Who will guard those who we have given power to guard us? It's a fundamental question that's confronted every society and every government throughout history. 

“Madison put it this way, and by the way he used a gender-specific term. I suspect if he were writing today it would be more broadly phrased. In the 51st federalist, ‘if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to cover govern men, neither internal nor external controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this -- you must first enable the government to control the governed.’ That's the function. And in the next place, oblige it to control itself. 

“Our framers understood this. They were deep students of history and also human nature. And they had just won a lengthy and brutal war against the abuses inherent in concentrated governmental power, George III. The universal principle of human nature they understood was this -- power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's a universal principle, all over the world throughout history. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

“So how did they answer the question? How did they answer the question who will guard the guardians? They answered it by building into the basic structure of our government two essential safeguards. One was regular elections. In other words, returning the control of the government to the people on regular scheduled elections. By the way, this is what we learned in sixth grade, checks and balances. But the other piece that's built into our system that's the other essential safeguard is the deliberate division of power between the branches and levels of government.

“This is important, Mr. President. The cumbersomeness, the slowness, the clumsiness is built into our system. The framers were so fearful of concentrated power that they designed a system that would be hard to operate. And the heart of it was the separation of power between various parts of the government. The whole idea, the whole idea was that no part of the government, no one person, no one institution had or could ever have a monopoly on power. 

“Why? Because it's dangerous. History and human nature tells us that. This division of power as annoying and inefficient as it can be, particularly to the executive, I know because I used to be a governor, is an essential feature of the system, not a bug. It's an essential, basic feature of the system, designed to protect our freedoms. 

“Now, this contrasts with the normal structure of a private business, where authority is purposefully concentrated, allowing swift and sometimes arbitrary action. But a private business does not have the army, and the President of the United States is not the CEO of America. 

“Power is shared, principally between the President and this body, this Congress, both houses. In fact, this herky-jerkiness, the two houses, the war power divided between the President and Congress, this unwieldy structure is the whole idea. No one has or should ever have all the power. 

“So the concern I'm raising today isn't some academic exercise or manifestation of political jealousy or abstract institutional loyalty. It's the guts of the system, designed to protect us from the inevitable. And I mean inevitable abuse of an authoritarian state, the inevitable abuse of an authoritarian state. It's the guts of our protection. In fact, this clumsy system is the main spring of our freedom. By the way, it's worked so far, so far, and distinguishes us from the historical norm.

“We have to understand, we are an anomaly in history. The historical norm is pharaohs, kings, dictators, emperors, presidents for life. But the fact that we're such an anomaly, and we've seen in our lifetimes other governments, other systems based upon ours slip into authoritarianism and dictatorship tells us how fragile what we have is. What we have in this country is an anomaly in history and it's fragile, and it needs to be, must be, protected from generation to generation. This makes this moment all the more urgent and portentous. 

“Now, the nominee before us today is one of the ring leaders of this assault, one of the ring leaders of the assault on our Constitution. He believes in a presidency of virtually unlimited powers. He's written extensively about this. And explicitly rejects, for example, the exclusive power of congress to authorize and appropriate funds for the operation of the government. He espouses the discredited and illegal theory that the president has the power to selectively impound funds appropriated by congress, thereby rendering the famous power of the purse a nullity. I am not talking about the specifics and I will touch on A.I.D and other issues, but what I'm really worried about are the implications, the structural implications for our freedom and government of what's happening here. 

“We have to keep our eye on the big picture. Not all the confusion and smoke that's going on over the last couple of weeks. Mr. Vought is one of the principal authors of the infamous Project 2025 which the President strangely hadn't heard of during the campaign but now seems to be the essential guideline for his presidency. Project 2025 is nothing less than a blueprint for the shredding of the constitution and the transition of our country to authoritarian rule. He's the last person who should be put in the heart of the operation of our government.

“Again, this isn't about politics. This isn't about policy. This isn't about Republican versus Democrat. This is about tampering with the structure of our government, which will ultimately undermine its ability to protect the freedom of our citizens. If our defense of the Constitution is gone, there's nothing left to us. 

“So Thomas Moore said, ‘I expected you to betray me, Richard, but for Wales?’ We should not betray the constitution for temporary expedient because we don't like this or that agency. 

“Now I want to speak to my Republican colleagues. It is your constitutional prerogative to confirm this nominee and any others. I do not question that right, only its wisdom. And this nominee is a place to say no to the undermining and destruction of our constitutional system. 

“But don't stand aside in the midst of these confirmations, ill-considered foreign policy pronouncements, flood of executive orders, none of which will do a thing about the price of eggs, cost of housing or availabilities of child care. Don't get caught up in all of that and ignore the steady and not-so-slow usurpation of congressional authority and fundamental alteration of the framers' scheme. 

“My colleague who preceded me, speaking from the Republican side, bemoaned Congress' lack of oversight and praised Elon Musk for doing what congress should have done. Maybe she's right and Congress should have done it, and we should do it, but not give away that power, which will never come back. Once this door is open, it's going to be very difficult to close it again, no matter who the president is. No matter who's in charge. 

“To my colleagues, are there no red lines? Are there no limits? 

“Just in the past ten days, we've seen the literal destruction of a statutorily, I emphasize that word, statutorily established and funded federal agency by people ostensibly working for the president understand vague authority, no transparency, and no guidance from the congress. Did they come to the Foreign Relations Committee and say what do you think about A.I.D.? Are there parts to work with or be reformed? No, zero. 

“This small group, and we don't know who they are, but this small group apparently it's reported in their 20's have no experience with government, no experience with foreign aid, no experience with the operation of the United States government, but they're making basically policy decisions and constitutional decisions. 

“The Constitution does not give to the President or his designee the power to extinguish a statutorily established agency. I can think of no greater violation of the strictures of the Constitution or usurpation of the power of this body. None. I can think of none. Shouldn't this be a red line? 

“By the way, I find it especially galling to read the sneering comment from the richest man in the world that, quote, ‘we spent the weekend feeding said into the chipper.’ Describing an action that will literally take food from the mouths of starving children. Forget red lines. Do we have no decency? 

“And then there is the executive order freezing funding, again, selectively, for programs the administration doesn't like or understand. I mentioned that I was a former governor and I would have loved to have had this power, but it's a fundamental violation of the whole idea of the Constitution, the separa[tion] of powers. 

“To say that the executive, you can pick and choose which laws you like, which funding programs, the level of funding, you can impound if you don't want to spend it. Richard Nixon tried to do that. He was rebuffed by the Congress who passed a specific statute, no impoundments. 

“In addition to the chaos, the uncertainty and demonstrable damage which my colleagues have been outlining all day brilliantly, there's nothing theoretical about cutting off funding to a rural health clinic, for example, or support for small farmers or grants to your fire department. But getting away from those specifics, it's easy to get pulled into those, and my office is hearing calls every day, we can hardly handle the volume, this again, to underline, is a frontal assault of our power, your power, the power to decide where public funds should be spent. 

“Isn't this an obvious red line? Isn't this an obvious limit? 

“Or finally, and I picked a few examples, but my final example is the power seemingly assumed by DOGE to burrow into the treasury's payment system, and now CMS for undefined purposes, zero oversight and raises questions up to and including threats to national security. Do these people have clearance? Are the doors closed? Are they going to leave open doors into these? What are the opportunities for our adversaries to hack into the systems? 

“We're already under unprecedented cyberattack and we're opening doors, although it's impossible to determine what they're taking. Remember there's no transparency or oversight. Access to social security numbers seem to be in the mix. All the government's personnel files, personal financial data, potentially everyone's tax returns and medical records. That can't be good. That can't be good. That's data that should be protected with the highest level of security and consideration of Americans' privacy. And we don't know who these people are. We don't know what they're taking out with them. We don't know whether they're walking out with laptops or thumb drives. We don't know whether they're leaving back doors into the system. There is literally no oversight. The government of the United States is not a private company. It is fundamentally at odds with how this system is supposed to work. 

“Shouldn't this be an easy redline? 

“In short, Mr. President, we're experiencing in real time exactly what the framers most feared. When you clear away the smoke, clear away the DOGE, the executive orders, foreign pronouncements, more fundamentally what's happening is the shredding of the constitutional structure itself. 

“And we have a profound responsibility it seems to be based on that pesky oath that we all took, to stop it, to stop it. […] But stop what's going on in terms of altering how our government is supposed to fundamentally function to protect our people. 

“The power of the majority is with you, my Republican colleagues. Together, together we have the power to right the balance, to reclaim the authority we thought was inherent in our jobs, and in the process save our country. 

“At a prior time of crisis, Abraham Lincoln defined the stakes for each of us, “Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We, of this Congress, and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.

“Now is the time to establish a redline—the Constitution itself.”

###