I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.
A majority of voters did not actually vote for Trump. And a majority of voters laughed off his promises because nobody thought he would be elected.
The foundation of "checks and balances" in the United States was that we have representatives that would speak for the people. Those congressional representatives would move the ball forward. The president was never supposed to have the power to create unilateral policy. In a sense, the people need protection from someone they never wanted in the first place. The majority of Trumps views are held only by the minority. This is what people need protection from.
A liberal democracy is not a tyranny of the majority (aka ochlocracy). Checks and balances exist, inter alia, to protect the minority who didn't vote for the president. (And in this case, possibly a majority.)
Plus, there's the problem of a gradual (or even sudden) erosion of checks and balances when one person has too much power and the distinct possibility that the electorate did not foresee all the long term consequences of getting such a person elected.
Of course, you may also go for Mencken's view that "democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." But that would require a fair amount of cynicism.
The foundation of "checks and balances" in the United States was that we have representatives that would speak for the people. Those congressional representatives would move the ball forward. The president was never supposed to have the power to create unilateral policy. In a sense, the people need protection from someone they never wanted in the first place. The majority of Trumps views are held only by the minority. This is what people need protection from.