A New York Post opinion column published Sept. 7 argues that what its author calls Democratic reliance on “lawfare,” executive orders and federal interventions has backfired, empowering former President Donald Trump and enabling a series of policy successes he otherwise might not have achieved.
Victor Davis Hanson, in the column, credits Trump with a rapid turnaround on several fronts, saying the former president has effectively ended a prior era of illegal immigration without comprehensive legislation, brokered pauses in multiple foreign conflicts, and presided over strong economic indicators. The piece frames those outcomes as the political and practical result of policies and precedents established by Democrats over recent years.
The op-ed advances a series of assertions: that the flow of undocumented migrants has been curtailed; that military recruitment, which had reportedly slipped in earlier years, has recovered since Trump took office; that Republican voter registration has risen while Democratic registration has fallen; that oil and gas prices are at historically low levels; and that diplomatic efforts associated with the Trump administration have led to pauses in fighting in multiple theaters. The column also contends that some elements of progressive policy and institutions have been weakened or sidelined.
Hanson’s piece attacks Democratic strategy as lacking a governing alternative and instead relying on aggressive legal and political tactics — prosecutions, federal interventions in state affairs, widespread use of executive orders and litigation — that, he argues, ultimately energized Trump’s political standing. He names several high-profile prosecutions and political figures by way of example and suggests those tactics produced a political boomerang.
The column mixes empirical claims with interpretive judgments. It notes that deporting an estimated 10 million to 12 million undocumented migrants who entered in recent years would be difficult in practice, while contending that the perception of lawbreaking by some Democratic officials helped normalize the erosion of federal immigration enforcement. It also portrays the Biden administration’s handling of migration as at best incompetent and at worst strategically designed, an assertion the piece presents as rhetorical and partly speculative.
Representatives of the Democratic Party and other critics described the column’s account as partisan and selective. Democrats generally maintain that increased use of executive authority and litigation in recent years reflected efforts to expand civil rights, protect voting access and address climate and social policy in the face of congressional gridlock. They also contend that criminal and civil investigations of Trump and his associates are the result of independent prosecutorial processes, not political coordination.
Legal scholars and policy observers said elements of Hanson’s argument reflect ongoing debates about the role of executive power and litigation in American governance. Some experts noted that the term “lawfare” is often used politically to describe the use of legal mechanisms to achieve political ends, but that determining the independence or propriety of specific investigations requires case-by-case analysis. Others cautioned that many of the column’s broader causal claims — for example, attributing diplomatic outcomes solely to one administration’s efforts or linking registration shifts directly to particular legal strategies — need corroboration from empirical studies and public records.
On foreign policy, the op-ed credits Trump with brokering pauses or cease-fires in a range of regional disputes and asserts that Iran and some allied groups are weaker now than when he took office. Administration officials have pointed to diplomatic outreach, sanctions, and security cooperation in public statements, but independent analysts say attributing complex regional dynamics to a single leader’s intervention oversimplifies long-standing geopolitical trends and multilateral efforts.
Economic claims in the column highlight low gasoline prices, steady GDP and employment, and resilient markets. Economists caution that such indicators can reflect a mix of global and domestic factors — including energy market shifts, Federal Reserve policy, technological changes in energy production, and international trade patterns — and that assessing the effect of any single presidency requires longer-term analysis.
The column also raises questions about the judiciary’s role, noting injunctions by lower courts affecting parts of Trump’s trade and regulatory agenda, and warning that the outcomes of litigation will be decisive for policy implementation. That observation aligns with broader consensus among scholars that the federal judiciary can be a crucial arbiter of executive and congressional power.
Hanson’s piece concludes by arguing that Democrats have no coherent shadow governing agenda and are instead committed to a strategy of maximal opposition that risks self-destructing the party. The op-ed further suggests that the tactics Democrats institutionalized during their time in power ultimately empowered a conservative resurgence.
The New York Post identifies the column as opinion and the author is a fellow at the Center for American Greatness; the piece advances an interpretive argument rather than presenting new research. Journalists and analysts reviewing the column noted the difference between editorial analysis and empirical reporting, and urged readers to consider multiple sources and data points when assessing claims about migration, military recruitment, economic performance and international diplomacy.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, debate over the legacy and effects of recent administrations, the role of the courts and the proper balance between executive action and legislative deliberation is likely to remain central to political coverage and policymaking. The claims laid out in the Sept. 7 column contribute to that debate but will face scrutiny from policymakers, legal experts and independent analysts seeking to verify causal links and factual assertions.