Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup. Depending on the event/circumstances, it's congress being overthrown, or the constitution, etc.
Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" there's a reasonable case to be made.
> Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup.
That ship sailed several decades ago, at the least. Presidents have been routinely testing the limits of executive authority longer than I've been alive. Everyone is perfectly happy to rationalize it with motivated reasoning until it is their ox being gored. The histrionics over the current flavor of the month betrays an ignorance of what has been historically routine in Washington DC for a long time or hypocrisy. People only pay attention when they are told to pay attention.
As a matter of principle, one side doesn't get to reserve tools of abuse for themselves. I'd rather a system where this was not a thing at all, but since it is, a lot of the shrillness has a "leopards eating faces" vibe. The wheel turns, and it will continue turning.
Calling this "routine" is completely insane. When has a President ever done something like the instant unilateral dismantling of USAID? Talk about motivated reasoning. This is completely unprecedented and is an attempt to sideline Congress entirely. And it looks likely to succeed.
Why would that weaken the argument? Until Congress passes a law authorizing this stuff, it's still a blatant power grab and very much not like what has come before.
The bureaucracy isn't actually a branch of government recognized by the Constitution. Nominally it's within the executive branch, which the president is in charge of.
> Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup
Not accurately. It would apply to probably every president. Biden with student loans for example.
This definition is also too broad: "alteration of an existing government by a small group". That would apply to every President. Every president has a cabinet and changes the government. I think you need more precision in your definition.
Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" there's a reasonable case to be made.