In the first weeks of his second term, President Donald Trump has wasted no time in flexing his political muscle. That much is clear.
Since taking office in January, he has ordered the suspension of all new asylum claims, cancelled refugee resettlement, frozen government hiring and spending, gutted agencies established by Congress, banned gender transition care for teenagers and offered a buyout deal for hundreds of thousands of federal workers.
The whirlwind of unilateral action on his campaign promises has pushed the limits of presidential power – and prompted legal challenges from Democrats, unions and legal groups. So far the federal courts have been the only substantive roadblocks to Trump’s agenda, as judges have temporarily suspended some of the most contentious proposals, including an end to automatic citizenship for anyone born on US soil.
But Trump is pressing on – and seems headed for a showdown with the judiciary that could eventually end in the highest court in the land. This week, a Rhode Island judge said the Trump administration was clearly and openly defying his court order to unfreeze billions in federal funds. The White House responded by saying that “every action” the president took was “completely lawful”.
If Trump’s orders do reach the US Supreme Court, six of the nine justices there – including three appointed by Trump in his first term – are conservative. Just last term, the court issued a decision holding Trump, and all future presidents, largely immune from prosecution for official actions while in office.
At the time, it was a landmark expansion of presidential authority. But some observers have suggested that Trump’s latest moves could be part of a strategy to expand his powers even further. If the high courts agree to uphold some of his executive orders, it could strengthen his ability to enact policy changes without the help of Congress.
And even if the courts rule against the president, says Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional expert at the Manhattan Institute, those legal defeats might be politically advantageous.
“There could be political benefits to being challenged in court and then even losing in court because then you can run against judges and make political hay of it.”
There is another scenario, however. Trump could simply refuse to comply with any court that tries to stop his exercise of unfettered presidential power.
In Oval Office comments on Tuesday, the president hinted that this might be an option, in his typically oblique way.
“We want to weed out the corruption,” Trump said. “And it seems hard to believe that a judge could say we don’t want you to do that.”
“Maybe we have to look at the judges,” he continued. “I think it’s a very serious violation.”
On Sunday, Trump’s vice-president, JD Vance, was even more blunt. (BBC)