April 26, 2026

By Stephen Stofka

My younger brother and I used to argue a lot about the rules when we played card games. One rainy Saturday, our dad walked into the room, slapped down a book on the table where we were playing and said he was tired of listening to us argue. The book was a used copy of Hoyle’s Rules of Games (Source). Instead of arguing, we could just look up the rule. That helped a lot but we still argued over terms like discard. If I put a card down on the discard pile but my finger is still touching the card, does that mean my turn is over? Can I still change my mind, pick up the card and lay down an alternate card? There was nothing about that in the rule book. Without knowing it, we were noticing a difference between rules and regulations, one of the topics I want to explore this week.

In casual conversation, we use the two terms interchangeably and it surprised me that Congress treats the two terms as synonyms (Source). There are subtle differences between the two terms. Regulations are published implementations of law by some governmental agency. Rules are designed to augment or address gaps in regulations as they apply to specific situations (Source). If those rules affect the behavior or obligations of an outside party, then an agency like the IRS makes those rules public. Otherwise, the rules are internal to the agency. I guess the rules in Hoyle’s rule book were more like regulations. My brother and I still had to make up a rule to deal with the fine points of discarding a card.

Regulations and rules usually have some enforcement mechanism, and some punitive process. Typical language might include the maximum amount of a fine and the maximum jail sentence. In international relations (IR), there are rules published by international organizations like the United Nations but there is no clear enforcement mechanism other than violence. Two countries cannot agree on what is a threat and the degree of that threat. The leaders of countries have to deal with the internal politics of their own country and the very real threat that they will look weak or stupid. We know from recordings of President Johnson’s conversations that he thought Vietnam would be a boondoggle, but didn’t want to look like a weak and circumstantial president after the assassination of President Kennedy. To save face, he sent thousands of young men to die in the jungles of southeast Asia to support a corrupt and unpopular government (Source).

Will Donald Trump, the candidate who promised no more foreign wars, follow in those footsteps? President Johnson, like Trump, had a gargantuan but fragile ego. Unlike Johnson, President Trump has achieved a cult-like status among his followers and that makes him even more dangerous. He thought the February 28^th attack on Iran would be an intimidating strike that ushered in regime change as it did in Venezuela. He was wrong. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Trump is never wrong, at least not in his own mind. The rest of the world has to suffer as he tries to make reality agree with his distorted vision of himself.

In many court cases, President Trump has shown that he considers himself above regulations or rules. In the 2024 Trump v United States decision,the Supreme Court bestowed on Trump the immunity that he has claimed throughout his life, whether President or not (Source). He fights rules made by others, then gets angry when others fight his rules because he expects his power to be recognized and respected as absolute.

He has attacked Supreme Court justices that he appointed because they voted against his tariffs (Source). The conservatives on the Court have given him many victories on the so-called “shadow docket.” These were decisions for his administration that have not worked their way through the lower courts. There is little formal briefing and no oral argument. On several occasions, Trump has thanked Chief Justice Roberts for his partisan support. Thinking that the court had his back, Trump felt betrayed because of one legal rebuke. Relationships is the second topic I want to explore this week.

America was founded on the premise that we would be a nation of laws – that rules, not relationships, would be the dominant governing principle of the new country. The Constitution forbade the granting of titles which cemented political relationships in many European countries. Yes, it was an aspiration more than a reality. As a center of power, Washington runs on relationships and each President has a style of leadership that emphasizes rules or relationships. A President cannot act effectively if he forsakes either of those approaches.

Lincoln’s greatest strength was his ability to use both rules and relationships to manage a nation that was tearing itself apart. When he broke the rules, he fitted the action to the emergency. Lincoln first suspended habeus corpus at the start of the Civil War, when rebels were in control of the region surrounding Washington. The suspension was limited to that general region (Source). Unlike Lincoln, Trump used the pretext of emergency to impose tariffs. When he attacked Iran, he did so under the pretense that Iran was a week away from a nuclear weapon. Lincoln went to Congress to get authorization for habeus corpus as the Constitution calls for, but Democrats loyal to the rebel states blocked action on several bills for 18 months. Finally, in 1863, the Habeus Corpus Suspension Act passed. Trump has not gone to Congress to authorize his war against Iran.

To achieve his political ends, Lincoln tolerated ambitious politicians like William Seward, his Secretary of State. Seward was a good strategist who kept Britain and France from recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate sovereign. Lincoln valued outcomes above all. Trump values relationships more than rules, but values loyalty in a relationship, loyalty above competence and experience. To negotiate with Iran, Trump appointed his son-in-law and his golfing buddy, neither of whom have any diplomatic experience. Unlike Lincoln, Trump does not have a clear vision of his political ends.

Preserving the Union was Lincoln’s primary goal. A secondary objective was a moral goal, the end of slavery, but Lincoln was a practical man, willing to strike a bargain if the southern states would abandon their dream of expansion into western territories. What are Trump’s goals? Historical importance, personal wealth and the political power to avoid any recrimination for his decisions and behavior while in office or out of office.

Each of uses some combination of rules and relationships to manage our lives. We develop an instinctual preference for one or the other. What is your preference? On that note, I hope to see you next week.

/////////////////

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash