Jim de Bree’s May 8 letter, “Fulfilling the Oath of Office,” criticizes President Donald Trump’s comments on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. De Bree suggests Trump’s “I don’t know” response and deferral to his lawyers show he either doesn’t understand his oath or fails to uphold the Constitution. While I respect de Bree’s passion, I think his take misses the mark, and I’d like to offer a different perspective on why Trump answered the way he did and whether he’s preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.
First, Trump’s “I don’t know” and why he leaned on his legal team. Kristen Welker asked him about Garcia’s deportation — a messy case where a Supreme Court order to “facilitate” Garcia’s return from El Salvador was interpreted differently by Trump’s administration, who argued it was El Salvador’s responsibility. She then pressed him on whether everyone on U.S. soil deserves due process and if he must uphold the Constitution. These weren’t simple yes-or-no questions; they were loaded with legal complexities that could easily be twisted into headlines accusing Trump of ignoring the Constitution or flip-flopping on his deportation stance. By saying, “I’m not a lawyer” and trusting his “brilliant lawyers,” Trump was sidestepping a trap, not admitting ignorance. He’s a president, not a constitutional scholar, and deferring to experts like Attorney General Pam Bondi on a case as thorny as Garcia’s was a strategic choice to avoid missteps.
De Bree calls this “dodging,” but I see it as focus. Trump repeatedly emphasized his mandate to deport dangerous criminals — people he called “murderers and drug dealers.” He complained about courts slowing his agenda, even joking about needing “a million or 2 million trials” for due process. This shows he knows his constitutional constraints but keeps his campaign promises. The “I don’t know” line gave critics like de Bree ammunition to claim he’s casual about his oath. But context matters — Trump wasn’t dismissing the Constitution; he was controlling the conversation on his terms.
Now, has Trump preserved, protected and defended the Constitution? De Bree implies he hasn’t, pointing to the Garcia case as evidence. I disagree, but it’s worth a fair look. The Constitution, particularly the Fifth Amendment, guarantees due process, and Garcia’s mistaken deportation — despite court rulings — raises legitimate questions. Critics argue Trump’s administration ignored the Supreme Court and he violated his oath. However, Trump’s team claimed they followed the court’s order by arranging with El Salvador, and the decision rested with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. Whether this holds up legally is for courts to decide. It’s not clear proof Trump disregarded the Constitution. His deportation policies are aggressive. They operate within legal frameworks set by Congress and the courts. He’s challenged judicial rulings he disagrees with, but so have past presidents. The Constitution allows for such conflict through checks and balances.
On the flip side, Trump’s supporters argue he’s defending the Constitution by securing borders and prioritizing citizen safety, as Article IV, Section 4, calls for protection against “invasion.” They see his submission to lawyers and the Supreme Court as respecting the constitutional process, not evading it. I believe this view of Trump’s actions, while messy and polarizing, does not equate to abandoning his oath. The Garcia case is a single case, not a conclusive verdict. Presidents entrust legal details to experts; that’s not avoidance, it’s governance.
I get why de Bree’s frustrated — Trump’s style can feel dismissive, and “I don’t know” isn’t inspiring. But accusing him of failing to understand his oath or the Constitution overstates the case. He’s navigating a complex job, balancing campaign promises with legal realities. Let’s debate his policies, but let’s not rush to assume he’s betraying the Constitution based on one interview clip.
Nancy Fairbanks
Valencia
