Trump's maximalist assertion of presidential power tests the rule of law

Washington: Nearly every president has pushed the bounds of executive power to try to achieve something specific. And a handful of presidents who took office during a true national crisis, such as the Civil War or the depths of the Great Depression, swiftly made a series of legally aggressive moves to grapple with the challenges facing the country.

But the sheer volume and intensity of the power grab President Donald Trump has undertaken in the first 100 days of his second term -- an assault on legal constraints untethered to any equivalent catastrophe -- is unlike anything the United States has experienced.

"They are trying to do a moonshot on executive power," said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

The rule of law in the United States has been traditionally understood to use checks and balances to prevent too much concentration of arbitrary executive power. But the maximalist cascade in the early days of Trump's second term is testing the fundamental structures of American democracy in a way that has never been seen.

Trump, pursuing a confrontational style of presidential politics, has unleashed an assault on counterweights to his authority: attacking judges, sidelining Congress' role in making decisions about taxes and spending, steamrolling internal limits on the executive branch, and using the levers of government to try to force outside centers of power including law firms and universities to submit to his will.

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale Law School professor, said the broader picture was of an administration that was "proudly lawless and anti-law." The danger, he added, "is that Trump is the most powerful person in the world, and he does not seem to be very good at restraining himself and he's not getting any younger."

In a recent interview with Time magazine, Trump was repeatedly pressed on his attempts to increase presidential power. While his answers largely meandered off topic, he denied that he was expanding executive authority, said he was deploying power as it was meant to be used and claimed an electoral mandate for his actions.

"I think I'm using it properly, and I'm also using it as per my election," he said.

Yet Trump has flaunted his disrespect for the other branches of government. When it comes to the courts, he has denounced judges who rule against him and called for their impeachment while his administration has exploited loopholes and sidestepped complying with some of their injunctions.

He and the president of El Salvador all but openly mocked a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of a man who was deported to a Salvadoran prison despite an immigration judge's order not to send him there, acting as though bringing him back was impossible. Trump's appointees fired a prosecutor because he spoke candidly to a judge about that mistake.

When critics accuse Trump of being too aggressive in his use of executive power, his team dodges the question of whether he is abusing his authority by stating that the power legally exists. But the administration is also pushing to change mainstream understandings to expand the authorities available to him.

For example, Trump has repeatedly challenged the power of the legislative branch. He unilaterally dismantled agencies Congress has said shall exist as a matter of law. And he fired civil servants, inspectors general and independent agency heads in defiance of job protections lawmakers wrote into statutes.

His goal appears to be to get the Supreme Court's conservative majority to strike down those statutes and enshrine into law the so-called unitary executive theory. Developed by the Reagan administration's legal team, the theory is a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution. It would undercut the power of Congress to structure the government and expand presidential power, rendering the executive branch more comprehensively subject to Trump's whims.

Trump has also assumed some of the traditional constitutional control delegated to lawmakers over decisions about government spending and taxation. He froze the expenditure of funds that Congress appropriated, and he unilaterally imposed taxes on almost all imported goods from around the world.

Trump claimed the power to institute those sweeping tariffs by invoking a 1977 emergency powers law that allows him to impose economic sanctions to address an "unusual and extraordinary threat" from abroad. That law does not mention tariffs and has never been used in that way.

Scholars of presidential power can identify seeds for some of Trump's moves in precedents set by past presidents, but they expressed shock at the number of contestable actions he has initiated and the aggressive use to which he has put them. Many of his executive orders, they say, are difficult to connect to the law.

"We've been for a long time marching toward greater executive power and more feckless Congresses -- Republicans and Democrats both, but a couple things seem to be different here," said Michael McConnell, a Stanford University law professor and a former federal appeals court judge appointed by Bush.

"One is just the volume -- it's an incredible spate of activity on all kinds of different fronts, and at some point volume begins to have a qualitative feel to it," he said. "The second is that it seems to me that a lot of it is being done with much less legal care. Every president makes mistakes, but there has been a lot more sloppiness and I just can't believe they could possibly have been approved by the Office of Legal Counsel."

That office, an arm of the Justice Department, has traditionally been the center of executive branch lawyering and acted as an internal check. It decides which proposed actions would be lawful or go too far, including vetting the legal and factual claims in draft executive orders before approving them. But Trump has largely sidelined it.

Control over legal vetting of Trump's actions has shifted to inside the White House and the orbit of his most influential policy aide, Stephen Miller. While not a lawyer, Miller has played a key role in legal staffing decisions and has advanced a view that because presidential elections are conducted nationally, Trump embodies democratic legitimacy far more than lawmakers or judges.

"The whole will of democracy is imbued into the elected president," Miller told reporters in February.

That perspective has bled into legal filings. One spurned a judge's demand for information about the administration's decision to finish transferring a group of Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran prison under a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, despite his order to turn the planes around. The judge should back off, the administration insisted, claiming that Trump wields "plenary authority" over the matter derived from the Constitution and the "mandate of the electorate."

The administration made that claim as part of an unusually aggressive invocation of the state secrets privilege, a power the executive branch can use to prevent the exposure of sensitive national security information in court. Typically, presidents used it only for classified information, which they showed to judges in private. Neither is the case in the current clash.

Trump appears to see even less reason for self-constraint than in his first term. His hammerlock has only tightened over the Republican Party, which in turn controls the legislative branch, meaning he has no fear of impeachment. One Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, recently admitted that "we are all afraid" of Trump.

He has also been unleashed in part thanks to the Supreme Court, whose six Republican appointees last year granted presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed using their official powers, especially in their interactions with the Justice Department.

The president, far more than in his first term, has cast aside a post-Watergate norm that the White House should stay out of law enforcement decisions. After years of baselessly accusing Barack Obama and Joe Biden of directing investigations into him, he has made a reality the very weaponization of the Justice Department he once railed against.

Trump has ordered prosecutors to scrutinize a top cybersecurity aide during his first term, Christopher Krebs, who fell from his favor by contradicting conspiracy theories that voting machines had been hacked to rig the 2020 election in favor of Biden.

Trump directed a similar review by the Department of Homeland Security into Miles Taylor, another first-term official who criticized him. And last week, Trump ordered the Justice Department to scrutinize ActBlue, the Democratic Party's top fundraising platform.

Trump is turning the department into his personal instrument in other ways, installing his own defense lawyers as its leaders. Among other actions, they dropped a corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York in what a U.S. attorney denounced as an unethical abuse of power to coerce his help in enacting the president's deportation agenda. The move prompted a wave of resignations by prosecutors.

It is too early to know how the system will stand up to this broad and multifaceted effort to concentrate greater power over the government and American society in Trump's hands.

Congress is providing no check on him. If Democrats retake the House in the 2026 midterm elections, they could start trying to perform oversight or conduct impeachment hearings. Still, after the 2018 midterms, Trump vowed to stonewall their subpoenas. And while the House twice impeached him, Senate Republicans protected him from conviction.

Several judges have started to raise the possibility of holding Trump administration officials in contempt for defying their orders. But courts generally must rely on the Justice Department to prosecute criminal contempt. Even if a judge appointed a special prosecutor, the department controls federal marshals and prisons, and Trump could pardon a defendant.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the merits of any of Trump's moves. But in recent weeks, the justices issued an extraordinary order to block, for now, further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act even though the department said there were no plans for any. Some observers have interpreted the apparently 7-2 vote as a sign that a majority of the justices are skeptical that the administration can be trusted.

Amar pointed to another guardrail that appears to be somewhat effective: the financial markets, whose negative reaction to Trump's tariff policies and the prospect that the president would fire the Federal Reserve chair seem to have prompted him to pull back.

But most of what the president is doing is not subject to market feedback.

When Trump was blowing through norms in his first term, Goldsmith argued against alarmism, saying that institutional constraints would hold. But, he says, matters are "much more precarious this time" because Congress has been doing nothing to curb the White House, and Trump has neutralized internal checks on the executive branch.

"That is massively different, and it just leaves the courts out there by themselves with civil society," he said. "The administration hasn't crushed them yet, but they are trying to. I definitely think this situation is a much more dangerous threat to the rule of law than the last time."