When President Donald Trump sat for a wide-ranging interview on Meet the Press on May 4, a short exchange sparked a long wave of commentary — and controversy. Asked whether he, as president, had to uphold the Constitution of the United States, Trump replied, “I don’t know.”
That three-word phrase, when lifted out of context, has fueled headlines and floor speeches, particularly from Vermont’s own U.S. Representative Becca Balint, who labeled the remark “deeply disturbing” and “horrifying.” But a full review of the interview transcript, paired with an understanding of how constitutional disputes are adjudicated, suggests Trump’s statement was not only honest — it was constitutionally appropriate.
What Was Actually Said
During the interview, Trump was asked about the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Venezuelan national removed from the country despite a protective order and a unanimous Supreme Court ruling mandating his return. The administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — a wartime-era statute — has already been the subject of multiple federal lawsuits.
NBC’s Kristen Welker posed the following question:
“Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”
Trump replied:
“I don’t know.”
“I have brilliant lawyers that work for me.”
He continued by defending his policies, emphasizing that his team believed the deportations were legally justified and that the courts would ultimately decide the outcome. He made no sweeping declaration of authority above the Constitution, nor did he reject his oath of office. He acknowledged the role of the legal system in resolving such questions — a key distinction that is often missing from the coverage.
Legal Context Matters
Presidents are not constitutional referees. They enforce laws passed by Congress and interpret executive powers in consultation with the Department of Justice and the courts. When an action is challenged — especially one involving due process, immigration enforcement, or wartime statutes — the proper legal response is not unilateral assertion but deference.
Saying “I don’t know” in this context does not mean “I don’t care.” It means: This matter is under legal dispute, and I rely on my legal team and the courts to determine the constitutionality of the policy.
This is not unique to Trump. President Obama made similar statements during challenges to the Affordable Care Act. President Biden deferred to legal review when his student loan forgiveness plan was questioned. Even George W. Bush repeatedly leaned on DOJ interpretations when dealing with post-9/11 executive powers. These are normal, constitutionally respectful answers — not deflections.
The Reaction: Becca Balint’s Rhetoric
Despite this nuance, Vermont’s Rep. Becca Balint seized on the moment to launch a media push. She spoke on the House floor, saying:
“It has been five days since President Trump told a reporter ‘I don’t know’ when asked if he had to uphold the Constitution… and five days of silence from my Republican colleagues.”
Balint went on to say that if President Obama or President Biden had said the same, Republicans would be “tripping over themselves” to condemn it. She framed the remark as an abdication of duty, and called on Republicans to denounce it.
There’s just one problem: That’s not what Trump actually said or meant. Her speech omitted the legal context, the immediate follow-up comment about relying on lawyers, and the ongoing nature of the litigation at hand. In doing so, she misled her audience — including Vermont voters — about what was said and why it matters.
To add to the irony, Forbes Breaking News misidentified Balint as Rep. Andrea Salinas (D-OR) in their video title, drawing attention to just how rushed and unexamined much of the coverage has become.
🔁 Side-by-Side Comparison: Executive Deference During Legal Challenges
| Element | Trump (2025) | Obama (2012–2016) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal dispute in progress | Yes – immigration enforcement, Alien Enemies Act, due process | Yes – ACA, DAPA immigration executive action |
| Deference to lawyers/DOJ | “I have brilliant lawyers that work for me.” | “We’ve run this by the lawyers.” |
| Avoidance of legal absolutism | “I don’t know” (not claiming to be the final authority) | “I believe it’s legal” / “I’m confident…” |
| Acknowledges legal limits | Yes | Yes |
| Avoids saying ‘I am the law’ | Yes | Yes |
| Democratic reaction | “Horrifying!” “He won’t uphold the Constitution!” | Supportive, praised as prudent and measured |
| Republican reaction | Generally quiet or defensive | “Executive overreach!” “He’s trying to intimidate SCOTUS!” |
A Pattern of Misrepresentation?
Balint’s public comments often lean heavily on theatrical outrage. In this case, her characterization of the Trump interview appears less like honest concern and more like calculated messaging designed to score political points — at the expense of truth.
Instead of acknowledging that constitutional questions are resolved by courts — not on cable news or the House floor — Balint presented the quote as if Trump had casually discarded his oath of office. That’s not journalism. That’s spin.
Conclusion: Soundbite vs. Substance
When a president says “I don’t know” in the face of ongoing constitutional litigation, that may sound awkward. But it’s not disqualifying. It’s honest. It reflects the reality of how separation of powers and legal interpretation function in practice.
Weaponizing that moment for political gain — especially without explaining the context — is a disservice to the public. The people of Vermont, and the nation at large, deserve better than soundbite-based misinformation.
If we’re going to debate immigration policy, executive authority, and due process, let’s do so honestly — and with the full facts.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #TrumpInterview #MediaSpin #VTPolitics
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply