A constitutional course correction that ended a governing model, not a presidency
By Bear Howard
Sedona, AZ — It’s the start of the year. And the end of a challenging year for people who believe in facts and are not swayed by emotional sales pitches from the far right and the Trump 2.0 administration. It would be helpful and healthy to consider what 2029 could look like if the American and world order were revitalized by a new administration that is honest about the need to make structural changes in America. And they had the votes to do it! Here it goes, my prophecy…
––––––––––––––––––––
Prologue: The Work That Began Years Before Power Returned
In January 2029, the United States was not collapsing—but it was clearly vulnerable.
The election of November 2028 gave the Democratic Party control of the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. That alone did not make the moment historic. What made it different was what Democrats had learned—and prepared for—in the years before the election.
After Donald Trump returned to the presidency in 2024, Democrats were aware that the Republicans had spent the two to three years after he lost the 2020 election laying groundwork for long-term control of government. Conservative organizations, legal networks, and political strategists openly coordinated plans to reshape the federal system. Documents such as Project 2025 described how to weaken career civil servants, expand presidential authority, politicize the Department of Justice, and align federal power with far-right and religious nationalist goals.
This planning was not secret. It was systematic.
Republicans recruited loyal personnel, trained lawyers, drafted executive orders in advance, and identified legal gray areas they could exploit. The lesson for Democrats was clear: modern political power was no longer just about winning elections. It was about controlling institutions before and after the votes were cast.
So Democrats decided they would not improvise if they ever regained complete control.
From 2026 through 2028, Democratic lawmakers, constitutional scholars, former judges, career civil servants, and policy experts quietly prepared. They studied how election laws had been abused after 2020, how emergency powers had been stretched, how inspectors general had been removed, how disinformation had been used as an official governing tool, and how courts had struggled to intervene because laws were unclear.
They did not focus on expanding power.
They focused on limiting it.
By the time the 2028 election arrived, Democrats did not just have campaign promises. They had draft legislation, legal analysis, court-tested language, and a timeline for action.
When the election produced unified Democratic control—and when a small group of Republican senators signaled they would support institutional reforms—the window opened. Democrats believed they had roughly one hundred days before political momentum slowed and opposition hardened.
Their goal was not to win news cycles.
Their goal was to change the rules permanently.
The Core Problem Facing the New Administration
By 2029, several weaknesses in the American system were no longer theoretical. They had been tested.
Presidents could pressure the Department of Justice without clear legal penalties. Emergency powers could be declared broadly and extended indefinitely. Election certification laws were vague and exploitable. Ethics rules depended largely on voluntary compliance. Official government disinformation had few consequences.
The Trump years showed that democracy relied too heavily on norms—unwritten expectations that leaders would act responsibly.
The conclusion drawn during the 2026–2028 preparation period was blunt:
Norms are not safeguards.
Laws are.
So the governing strategy of 2029 was disciplined and straightforward:
Replace trust with procedure.
Replace tradition with enforcement.
Replace ambiguity with statute.
Days 1–10: Stabilizing the Executive Branch
The first ten days focused on stopping immediate institutional damage using presidential authority.
The administration issued an executive order formally separating the White House from criminal investigations at the Department of Justice. Political appointees were prohibited from influencing active cases unless communications were documented and reviewed by inspectors general.
Inspectors general who had been removed or weakened in previous administrations were reinstated, and Congress quickly guaranteed their funding by statute so future presidents could not quietly eliminate oversight.
Civil service protections were restored, blocking attempts to fire large numbers of career federal employees and replace them with political loyalists. Employees could now only be removed for documented cause.
Election security standards were issued that required states to meet minimum cybersecurity and physical security benchmarks for voting machines and voter databases, while preserving state control of elections.
Republican leaders immediately filed lawsuits claiming executive overreach. However, several Republican senators refused to participate, signaling that opposition was not unified.
That fracture mattered.
Days 11–30: Rebuilding Democratic Guardrails
With executive agencies stabilized, Congress moved next.
The Democracy Protection Act criminalized threats and harassment against election workers and standardized election certification timelines. It made clear that state legislatures could not retroactively overturn election results after Election Day.
This law directly addressed the pressure campaigns and legal confusion that followed the 2020 election.
Congress then passed the Presidential Emergency Powers Reform Act. Emergency declarations were limited to thirty days unless Congress approved extensions. Courts were given fast-track authority to review emergency orders, and emergency powers could no longer be used to override election laws.
Three Republican senators voted in favor. They made clear they were not endorsing the administration—but they did not want any future president, Republican or Democrat, to inherit unchecked emergency authority.
With those votes, the filibuster collapsed as a barrier.
Days 31–50: Ending Impunity Through Enforceable Ethics
The next phase addressed corruption and accountability.
The Federal Ethics and Transparency Act required presidents and vice presidents to release tax returns, disclose business holdings, and divest or place assets into blind trusts. Failure to comply now carried criminal penalties, not just political criticism.
Foreign financial ties had to be disclosed immediately.
The Truth in Government Communications Act followed. It prohibited federal officials, acting in their official capacity, from knowingly spreading false information about elections or democratic processes. Government communications were required to meet factual standards, enforced by an independent review board insulated from White House control.
Courts upheld the law, ruling it regulated official conduct, not private speech.
Days 51–70: Restoring Economic and Global Stability
By mid-spring, the focus shifted to restoring predictability.
Congress strengthened the independence of financial regulators and criminalized political interference in investigations of market manipulation or fraud. The U.S. rejoined international anti–money-laundering agreements, making it harder to hide illicit funds.
Markets responded calmly. Stability returned not because of massive spending, but because rules were clear.
The administration reaffirmed alliances and restored intelligence-sharing agreements, including recommitment to collective defense obligations under NATO. This reduced uncertainty for allies and investors alike.
Days 71–90: Locking the System in Place
The final legislative phase closed remaining loopholes.
The Electoral Count Reform Completion Act clarified that the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes is ceremonial, not discretionary. State certification authority was clearly defined, and courts were given strict deadlines to resolve disputes.
Judicial ethics rules were strengthened. Federal judges were required to disclose conflicts of interest and the funding sources behind advocacy groups connected to cases before them.
Without unified Republican resistance, procedural delays collapsed. Courts declined to intervene politically.
The system held.
Days 91–100: No Victory Lap
There was no major speech on Day 100.
That was intentional.
By then, the Department of Justice operated independently. Elections were protected by statute. Emergency powers were constrained. Ethics laws were enforceable. Courts had clearer rules to apply.
The presidency remained powerful—but it now had firm boundaries.
The governing style associated with Donald Trump did not disappear overnight. But it lost the conditions it depended on: unclear laws, weak enforcement, and institutional confusion
What History Would Later Say
The hundred days of 2029 were not spontaneous.
They were the execution of a three-year plan.
Democrats had learned from watching Republicans prepare for power after 2024. They used the same discipline—but aimed it in the opposite direction.
They did not entrench a party.
They hardened the system.
The most uncomfortable truth, historians would later agree, was this: the reforms succeeded not because one party dominated, but because a small number of Republicans chose the stability of the constitutional system over party loyalty.
After 2029, American democracy was not perfect.
But it was far harder to break.
And that, ultimately, was the most permanent change of all.
What do you think? Leave your comments here –
Bear Howard
This is an advertisement
