In his second term, President Trump has issued 383 executive orders, surpassing all predecessors since Eisenhower, with a pace exceeding even his own first term and that of President Biden’s entire presidency. Many of these orders, including those targeting transgender rights, immigration, and education, appear aimed at his political base. Significant early actions included rescinding numerous Biden-era orders and initiating controversial policy changes. While falling short of FDR’s record, Trump’s prolific executive order output is unprecedented in recent history.
Read More
Nationwide “No Kings” protests, targeting perceived authoritarian tendencies in the Trump administration, are planned for June 14th, coinciding with a large military parade in Washington D.C. and Trump’s birthday. The protests, organized by the 50501 Movement, aim to counter what organizers see as a display of excessive military power and challenge Trump’s leadership. President Trump dismissed the protests, stating he is not a king, while simultaneously promoting the military parade as a celebration of the U.S. Army’s history. The juxtaposition of the parade and protests highlights deep divisions regarding presidential power and democratic norms.
Read More
Approximately 300 National Guard troops were deployed to Los Angeles by President Trump, marking the first such deployment without a governor’s request in decades. This action, taken amidst protests against immigration enforcement, followed days of clashes between demonstrators and federal agents, resulting in arrests and the use of tear gas. Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass criticized the deployment as an overreaction, while the Trump administration justified it as a necessary response to quell unrest and protect federal facilities. The deployment has sparked significant political debate, with some viewing it as an overreach of presidential power.
Read More
The Trump administration is escalating its campaign to expand executive power, targeting the Library of Congress and claiming it falls under executive branch authority. This assertion, along with attempts to influence other independent agencies like the GAO, represents a broader effort to blur the lines separating government branches. The administration’s actions have faced some resistance, including legal challenges and pushback from Congress, though limited. The White House’s rationale centers on a claimed mandate to rein in spending and reshape governance, ignoring established norms of separation of powers. Control over the Library would grant access to vast amounts of sensitive data, including congressional research requests and copyright information.
Read More
Justice Barrett’s initial recusal from a case involving public funding for religious schools resulted in a 4-4 split, upholding a lower court decision. However, she subsequently joined a majority opinion in *Trump v. Wilcox et al.*, allowing the president to fire heads of executive agencies despite congressional mandates to the contrary. This decision, criticized by Justice Kagan’s dissent, potentially overturns a century-old precedent and weakens the independence of executive agencies, granting the president significantly more power. The ruling’s disregard for established legal procedure and precedent raises concerns about the concentration of presidential power, echoing historical anxieties about executive overreach.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump could remove two federal agency board members, Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris, while their lawsuits challenging their termination are pending. This decision, while allowing the removals, strongly implied that Federal Reserve board members possess unique protection against presidential dismissal. The Court’s majority reasoned that the executive power vested in the President allows removal of executive officers, subject to limited exceptions. However, a dissenting opinion argued this ruling undermines established precedent protecting the independence of administrative agencies, including the Federal Reserve, and creates an unnecessary exception. The Court’s stay order temporarily allows the removals but does not definitively resolve the broader constitutional questions involved.
Read More
A lawsuit, *V.O.S. Selections v. Trump*, challenges the legality of President Trump’s tariffs before a three-judge panel. The plaintiffs, small import businesses, argue the tariffs violate the “major questions doctrine” due to their significant economic impact, citing a predicted $4,900 reduction in average household income. Support for this claim comes from an amicus brief signed by numerous former Republican officials. The case’s outcome, however, remains uncertain, as the major questions doctrine is novel and its application to presidential actions, especially in foreign policy, is untested.
Read More
President Trump’s public statements asserting his authority to unilaterally return wrongfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, yet refusing to do so based on legal counsel, represent a defiance of the Supreme Court’s mandate. This action reveals the administration’s bad faith efforts to expand presidential removal powers unchecked. Trump’s admissions unintentionally undermine his legal position and broader agenda through his own incompetence. The situation highlights a fundamental breakdown of accountability within the administration.
Read More
During an interview, the President contradicted his prior commitment to comply with all Supreme Court orders. Despite a unanimous Supreme Court ruling mandating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the President claimed his legal team interpreted the order differently and he had not personally intervened, citing Garcia’s alleged MS-13 affiliation and violent past. He further stated that he hadn’t directly asked El Salvador’s President for Garcia’s release, attributing his inaction to a lack of instruction from his lawyers. The President ultimately expressed his belief that Garcia is not deserving of a trial.
Read More
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt referenced President Trump’s suggestion to deport violent U.S. citizens, conditionally stating it must be legal, a point Justice Sotomayor underscored in a dissenting opinion regarding potential unlawful deportations without judicial review. This concern is further highlighted by the Abrego Garcia case, where the government resists correcting a citizen’s erroneous deportation despite admitting error. Constitutional scholars warn of the executive branch’s unchecked power if this position prevails, impacting the scope of presidential authority. The upcoming Supreme Court decision in Abrego Garcia’s case will significantly determine the extent of this power.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker