All articles tagged with #checks and balances
The Washington Post Editorial Board argues that a Supreme Court ruling blocking President Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook without due process reinforces the separation of powers, showing that presidential power has limits and preserving Fed independence amid political pressure.
Washington Post analysis argues that Trump’s administration is expanding executive power at Congress’s expense, citing actions like initiating war with Iran without explicit congressional authorization and sweeping tariffs, raising serious concerns about the constitutional balance of powers.
A PBS News/NPR/Marist poll taken Jan. 27–30, 2026 finds about two-thirds of Americans say the system of checks and balances isn’t working well, up sharply across parties as Trump expands executive power. Despite a Supreme Court ruling striking down his tariffs, most see Trump’s policies changing the country for the worse (55%). Analysts differ on whether this signals constitutional erosion or a return to pre-Watergate norms. The survey, which included 1,462 adults and 1,326 registered voters, notes Trump has signed 243 executive orders this term, and it comes ahead of his State of the Union and the midterms.
NPR portrays Trump’s second-term agenda as expanding executive authority, weakening congressional checks, and pressuring the media and DOJ, actions critics say erode democratic norms and threaten the rule of law, even as supporters claim the Constitution allows a strong presidency. The piece also notes cuts to science and public health, and a blending of policy with family interests, signaling a broad centralization of power across government.
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether Trump’s tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, are constitutional; the piece argues that legality does not equal wisdom, highlighting how unilateral, changing tariffs concentrate power away from Congress, create investment-uncertainty, and reduce accountability, potentially serving as a stealth tax and inviting rent-seeking—contingent on the tariffs’ legality, such a framework could raise over $2 trillion in revenue over a decade if allowed to stand.
The Trump transition team is considering using recess appointments to bypass Senate confirmations for Cabinet positions, a move that would challenge constitutional norms. The Constitution allows the president to make temporary appointments during Senate recesses, but only under specific conditions, such as extraordinary occasions and disagreements between the House and Senate on adjournment. Legal experts argue that Trump's plan to create a recess for this purpose is unconstitutional, as it undermines the Senate's advice-and-consent role. The Biden administration and Senate are urged to oppose this strategy.
The failed nomination of Matt Gaetz for attorney general highlights the limits of President-elect Donald Trump's influence, as Senate Republicans resisted the appointment. This incident serves as a reminder that despite Republican control of Congress, there are still checks on Trump's power. However, experts caution against overgeneralizing from this case, given Gaetz's controversial background.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has not ruled out the use of recess appointments to expedite the confirmation of President-elect Trump's Cabinet nominees, a move that would bypass the Senate's traditional advice-and-consent role. This comes amid a partisan atmosphere in Washington, with Trump demanding Senate cooperation to ensure timely confirmations. While some Republican leaders, like Sen. John Thune, are open to the idea, others warn it could undermine constitutional checks and balances. The strategy reflects Trump's aggressive approach to staffing his administration.
The Supreme Court cannot stop the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, as it falls under the Senate's constitutional authority. While the Court may rule on specific legal questions related to the trial, it cannot prevent the Senate from conducting the trial itself. This underscores the principle of checks and balances within the U.S. government.
French Justice Minister Éric Dupond-Moretti is on trial for allegedly using his position to settle personal scores, marking the first time a government minister has been tried while in office. Dupond-Moretti, who denies wrongdoing, faces charges of illegal conflict of interest and could receive up to five years in prison and half a million euros in fines if convicted. The trial has raised concerns about checks and balances in French democracy, as Dupond-Moretti has refused to resign or step aside from his role overseeing the justice system during the trial. Critics argue that serving government ministers should be tried in traditional courts instead of a special court with its own rules.
The Supreme Court rejected the "independent state legislature" theory in a 6-3 ruling, affirming the role of state courts in weighing in on legislative decisions affecting federal elections. The theory, which had gained traction in mainstream Republican politics, sought to strip state courts of their authority to review federal-election-related policies or maps. The court's decision upholds the system of checks and balances on legislative authority over elections and recognizes the importance of state constitutions as independent sources of rights and protections. However, the dissenting justices, who are facing accusations of accepting inappropriate gifts from Republican megadonors, advocated for eliminating the ability of everyday Americans to challenge elected officials in state court or via ballot initiative. The ruling highlights the need for a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices and the overturning of previous decisions on partisan gerrymandering to restore the court's legitimacy.
The Supreme Court rejected the legal theory that state legislatures have unlimited power to determine the rules for federal elections and draw partisan congressional maps without interference from state courts. This theory was raised by Trump allies in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election outcome. The ruling in the case known as Moore v. Harper is seen as a repudiation of the independent state legislature doctrine and a defense of checks and balances in the American system. The decision sends a signal that the Court will stand against attempts to manipulate future elections. However, more safeguards are needed to prevent coordinated efforts to overturn future presidential elections.