G: TL;DR:
Yes. If the press is constitutionally protected, calling it “the enemy of the people” implicitly casts the Constitution itself as hostile to the people whenever it constrains him. That logic tracks his behavior.

Expanded, cleanly:

• The First Amendment explicitly protects a free press. It is not decorative; it is structural.
• When entity["politician","Donald Trump","45th us president"] repeatedly labeled the press “the enemy of the people,” he wasn’t just attacking journalists. He was attacking a constitutional function that exists specifically to limit executive power.
• Once you accept that framing, the next step is trivial: any constitutional restraint that blocks his will can be recast as illegitimate, obstructive, or treasonous.
• This is why the move isn’t rhetorical excess; it’s ideological. The Constitution becomes conditional—valid only when it serves him.
• That places him not merely at odds with critics, but at odds with the constitutional order itself.

This also explains the consistency across his actions:

• hostility to oversight,
• contempt for courts,
• casual disregard for lawful process,
• and the portrayal of all constraints as sabotage rather than governance.

In short: if law is treated as optional and limits are treated as betrayal, then the Constitution is functionally an enemy—at least to anyone who wants power without accountability.

日本語（にほんご）:
報道（ほうどう）の自由（じゆう）は 憲法（けんぽう）で 守（まも）られている。 — Freedom of the press is protected by the Constitution.

日本語（にほんご）:
制限（せいげん）を 敵（てき）と 呼（よ）ぶ 人（ひと）は、憲法（けんぽう）も 敵（てき）に なる。 — Someone who calls limits “the enemy” ends up treating the Constitution as the enemy too.

That conclusion is not inflammatory. It’s a straight-line inference from his own premises.