Energi Media journalism in video, audio, and essays
YouTube Channel: Video energy news
Substack Essays: Thoughtful Energy Journalism
Energi Talks Audio Podcast
Website: Energy news
When I interviewed Kristen van de Biezenbos shortly after Donald Trump returned to the White House, she made a prediction that stuck with me: Trump would try to consolidate power in the executive branch and push hard against the constitutional guardrails meant to restrain a president.
Almost two years later, I asked the California Western School of Law professor the obvious question. Did the guardrails break?
Her answer was precise: they have bent, but they have not broken. Yet. For van de Biezenbos, the real constitutional test comes when Congress or the Supreme Court issues a clear instruction and Trump simply refuses to comply.
That would move the United States from a long argument about presidential power into something much more serious: an open confrontation between the branches of government.
That possibility gives the 2026 midterms unusual weight.
A Democratic House could revive investigations, subpoenas, and oversight of Trump officials. Control of both chambers could create a far more direct legislative check. But the Supreme Court’s broad presidential-immunity ruling, Trump’s pardon power, and the erosion of internal watchdogs all complicate the old checks-and-balances model.
Then there is Canada.
Trump’s own National Security Strategy says the United States intends to reassert pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere and deny outside powers control over strategically important assets. At the same time, Washington has imposed new tariffs on Canadian goods, and Ottawa has answered with matching counter-tariffs.
Canada is not watching this American power struggle from a safe distance. We are living inside its economic and geopolitical consequences.
Van de Biezenbos, a dual Canadian-American citizen who previously taught at the University of Calgary, also offers a useful lens on Mark Carney. She describes him as an almost perfect political contrast to Trump: technocratic, internationally connected, calm and willing to tell allies that Canada must reduce its dependence on the United States.
That contrast matters because this is no longer simply a personality clash between two leaders. It is a collision between different ideas about power: presidential power inside the United States, American power in the Western Hemisphere, and Canada’s determination to preserve room to manoeuvre.
That is what makes this interview worth watching now. The institutions have not collapsed. But they are under stress. And the next test may arrive very quickly.
