All articles tagged with #executive power
Democratic lawmakers are drafting legislation to restrict presidential emergency powers, insulate the Justice Department from political influence, and ban first-family self-dealing. These efforts aim to reverse structural changes from Trump's second term before the 2026 midterms. Critics argue such reforms are symbolic, while supporters view them as necessary to restore institutional norms.
Rolling Stone argues that Donald Trump’s second presidency represents a historic shift in American governance, merging public authority with private financial interests. The article details how Trump leveraged his control over tariffs, pardons, and regulatory agencies to benefit his family’s business ventures, including World Liberty Financial and various real estate projects. Key examples include a $500 million investment from the UAE in his crypto venture, which coincided with favorable U.S. chip export policies, and a $400 million White House ballroom funded by corporations seeking federal contracts. The piece asserts that this 'relational' corruption, rooted in Trump’s upbringing in New York’s political machine, has outpaced previous scandals by collapsing the distinction between the state and the president’s personal empire.
A massive Gallup-Kettering survey of over 23,000 U.S. adults reveals a sharp decline in confidence in democratic institutions, with 56% saying the rule of law is weaker than in 2016 and 53% doubting leaders will be held accountable to the Constitution. While 78% insist officials must always follow the law, only 28% trust that accountability exists. Concerns are driven largely by Republicans and independents, who increasingly view the executive branch as too powerful and express deep distrust of election officials. Despite this pessimism, 66% still call democracy the best form of government, and 68% prioritize speaking up against injustice over respecting authority. The findings highlight a public that remains committed to democratic ideals but is deeply frustrated with their practical application, especially at the national level.
A Washington Post report argues that President Trump is accelerating major White House construction projects—including a new ballroom—by leveraging legal loopholes and executive authority, reshaping Washington's power dynamics as Congress remains mostly passive and the courts race to adjudicate the approvals.
Slate’s Lithwick and Stern argue that Chief Justice Roberts’s Trump v. Slaughter decision dramatically expands presidential power over independent federal agencies while claiming to boost accountability; they say the history is distorted, the underlying political theory is false, and the ruling undermines democratic accountability and civil-service protections with broad implications for future administrations.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored two major decisions this term that pull in opposite directions: Slaughter ends independent agency status by allowing presidential firing for any reason, while Cook carves out a Fed-specific exemption to preserve independence, a split critics say is cynical and incompatible, revealing a judiciary agenda that strengthens executive power for business interests and undermines civil-service independence.
Senior White House officials discussed suspending habeas corpus, a constitutional protection against unlawful detention, to accelerate mass deportations of undocumented immigrants; the idea, linked to Stephen Miller and encouraged by Trump, faced internal scrutiny, and legal experts say such a suspension would require Congress.
Slate legal analyst Aziz Huq argues that acting AG Todd Blanche’s bid to grant Trump and his family “forever immunity” rests on a nonexistent constitutional power to bind future officials or to immunize future actions from the law. The piece stresses that no branch—Congress or the president—can unilaterally erase future accountability, and that presidential pardons are personal and limited. Blanche’s move would set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing any administration to permanently shield statutes from enforcement and undermine the rule of law; the article urges rejecting this power grab and reinforcing constitutional limits on executive authority.
Trump officials are shown defying lower court rulings in what appears to be an unprecedented display of executive power, raising concerns about checks and balances as legal battles unfold and prompting questions about the boundaries of presidential authority.
During a Supreme Court argument over Trump’s orders, Justice Jackson pressed to curb executive power while Justice Kavanaugh urged restraint in limiting presidential authority, underscoring a sharp ideological divide as the court weighs the case.
Stephen Pomper argues that decades of legal interpretations and political passivity have hollowed the War Powers framework, enabling Trump to launch strikes abroad without substantial congressional or public justification. The War Powers Resolution’s protections have become Swiss cheese; the 2001 AUMF has been stretched to cover groups beyond its original scope. He calls for concrete reforms—strengthen the War Powers Resolution, narrow or repeal the 2001 AUMF with sunset and oversight, shorten the authorization window, and condition funding on authorization—along with rescinding problematic Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Reform will be hard but is necessary to force deliberation, accountability, and a sharper check on presidential war-making.
A circulated draft emergency executive order, reportedly coordinated by MAGA activists with the White House, would let the president declare a national emergency and unilaterally take control of elections (including banning mail-in ballots and voting machines) based on debunked theories of foreign interference. Experts say the move would be unconstitutional and illegal because election authority rests with states, and courts would likely block such powers despite supporters arguing for emergency powers.
Federal judge Fred Biery grants habeas relief for 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, turning a potentially routine order into a pointed rebuke of the Trump administration’s expansive view of executive power by weaving literature, history, and Scripture into a swift, morality-informed constitutional argument.
Defense lawyers urged a federal judge to dismiss cases in New Jersey, arguing the U.S. Attorney’s Office is unlawfully run by unconfirmed appointees, creating legal uncertainty and highlighting a broader clash between executive power and the judiciary with no clear resolution in sight.
The Supreme Court signaled skepticism about President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, underscoring the Fed's independence and raising questions about presidential power over independent agencies; legal scholars warn that, even if the court pushes back, it may carve out exceptions for the Fed, with potential economic implications and renewed scrutiny of the unitary executive theory, with a decision expected by June.