- Sunday, October 19, 2025

I found myself at the baptism of one of my great-nephews on Thursday. He joins quite a mob. About 40 people now can be characterized as my great-nieces, great-nephews or cousins. It is a big crowd, and I am very happy to be part of it.

Despite that, the baptism (held midafternoon on a weekday) was a fairly small gathering. There were only 15 or so of us, mostly family and a few close friends. The attendance was much like the funerals I served as a boy: a few close friends and a small clutch of family.

That is the reality of the world, especially if one is fortunate enough to die in old age. There are never really more than a handful of witnesses to our lives at any particular moment. The limits of our physical world and our ability to communicate do not readily permit anything else. We all have limits, even if they are only those imposed by mortality. The clock is already ticking on my newly minted nephew, although he has no way of knowing that and will not feel the immense gravity of time (like all of us) until it is well too late.



I thought about limits Thursday as some of my friends decided to express their concerns with the seemingly limitless view that President Trump has of his authority. Those who have reservations about whatever might be the news of the day are concerned that there seem to be no limits to presidential acquisitiveness. On the other hand, the president himself is keenly aware that he is limited by time, by energy, by judges, by political competitors, by history, by tradition, by his personnel and on and on.

Indeed, as this column has noted before, one of the durable features of the American political system is that the winners of elections are usually disappointed because they achieve less than they believed possible, and the losers are usually pleasantly surprised because the winners did not achieve everything the losers feared they would. In short, everyone — from my nephew all the way to the president — is subject to limits.

Let’s take a couple of recent examples. The Department of Defense recently decided to require its beat reporters to agree to adhere to rules that would have vitiated the freedom of the press. Almost every single media outlet — including this one — did the right thing and demurred. It’s a small thing, but it matters and it sets an important boundary on governmental authority.

Or consider the universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Southern California, Brown and University of Pennsylvania) that have decided against taking up the president on his offer of preferential treatment for research cash if the schools rein in the transgender agenda and institute a five-year tuition freeze. At the moment, no school has agreed to participate.

How about something a bit more immediate? In fiscal 2024, the federal government spent about $6.75 trillion and finished the year with a deficit of about $1.8 trillion. In fiscal 2025 (the one just completed), the federal government spent about $7 trillion, and had (again) a deficit of about $1.8 trillion. This, despite Elon Musk promising to save $2 trillion and the Department of Government Efficiency crew moving fast and breaking things.

Advertisement

All that talk ran up against the limits imposed in various ways by either the legislative system or the voters and their preferences, or both.

Even now, once the government “shutdown” is over, Team Trump and the federal government will almost certainly operate for all of fiscal 2026 under a continuation of President Biden’s budget for fiscal 2024 because the votes are not there to materially change that budget.

Let’s think about judicial limits. It seems likely that juries, especially juries in New York City, Atlanta or the District of Columbia, will not hurry to find former FBI Director James B. Comey or New York Attorney General Letitia James guilty of whatever. Again, the limits of political power and an abiding belief among Americans in the relative sanctity of the judicial system will probably work to complicate and retard the president’s preferences in this instance.

We are all subject to limits — of time, of place, of history, of law and of our own choices. Selecting one thing — whether a career path or a spouse or whatever — often precludes other paths. Despite all that, I hope my nephew and the current president make the most of their time here within the limits that they face.

• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor to The Washington Times and has about three dozen or so nieces and nephews, grand or otherwise.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.