The International Bar Association has published an article by Michael Goldhaber, IBA US Correspondent, titled “Fake Rule of Law,” which critically examines how former U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly invoked the phrase “rule of law” while fundamentally misrepresenting its meaning.
Goldhaber contrasts the accepted definition of the rule of law—laws that are equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and aligned with international human rights—with Trump’s politicised use of the term. Rather than respecting legal impartiality, Trump routinely attacked judicial independence and used law enforcement as a tool to protect allies and punish adversaries. He publicly called for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, criticised the Justice Department for indicting Republican congressmen, and demanded personal loyalty from officials such as FBI Director James Comey.
Trump also undermined judicial neutrality by branding judges who ruled against his policies as biased or dangerous, especially in immigration-related decisions. His rhetoric suggested that any legal challenge to his authority was a threat to the rule of law itself. Judicial appointments were praised not for impartiality but for ideological alignment with his administration’s goals, particularly in curbing regulation and immigration.
In immigration policy, Trump equated border enforcement and construction of a wall with upholding the rule of law, despite international legal obligations toward asylum seekers and the disproportionate targeting of minorities. Supporters echoed this view, portraying the wall as a monument to legal order. Goldhaber argues that this interpretation confuses law enforcement with legality itself.
Ultimately, the article contends that Trump’s version of the rule of law centres on executive power and political loyalty rather than legal equality and accountability. His use of the term, especially on social media, reflects a distorted understanding that subverts the very principles it is meant to protect.