WASHINGTON — In a whirlwind of activity, Donald Trump is amassing power, stretching the limits of executive privilege while effectively silencing various dissenting voices that threaten his objectives.
Trump is wielding the numerous tools available to a president to weaken institutions he has criticized and to boost those that share his perspective.
Through a series of strategic moves, he is subduing purportedly independent entities under the weight of his influence. Trump’s focus has encompassed the legal field, educational institutions, the arts, seasoned civil servants, and the media, often bending them to his will, whether they submit willingly or not. Law firms with even slight connections to previous inquiries involving Trump now face punitive repercussions that could jeopardize their existence.
Should Trump succeed by the end of his term, he would have a monumental impact on voter participation in American elections, immigration policies, student loan repayment, and even who gets to challenge his authority.
Facing some resistance, he is determined to eliminate it. A compliant Congress has largely neglected its oversight responsibilities since Trump returned to office, leaving the judiciary as the primary barrier to his ambitions. Trump is now contesting their authority with a conviction that has brought the nation perilously close to a constitutional upheaval, a situation unseen in the past fifty years.
Pessimistic regarding the government’s capacity to hold Trump accountable, one U.S. senator remarked that a mass uprising might be the only way to thwart his plans.
“Ultimately, popular mobilization” is the only way to rein in Trump, said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in an interview. The nation’s destiny may hinge on “the people from both the right and the left rising in protest and demanding reform.”
Pressuring universities and law firms
As he embarks on reshaping the nation, Trump has been employing a variety of blunt tactics.
Venturing into social and cultural realms previously left untouched by past presidents, he has leveraged federal funds to pressure Columbia University into making alterations that could alter the curriculum concerning the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. (Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, resigned last week.)
In a move that may stifle free speech, the Trump administration has been detaining foreign students believed to be linked to last year’s pro-Palestinian protests.
Most students affected have been in the U.S. legally, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Thursday that he has revoked over 300 student visas to date and intends to continue doing so.
“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” Rubio remarked during a news conference.
One student facing deportation is Momodou Taal, a Cornell University graduate student and U.S. visa holder who participated in protests supporting Palestinians in Gaza.
In an interview, Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff indicated that the university “hasn’t gotten direct notification” regarding the revocation of the student’s visa.
“It’s very challenging to discuss this because we lack clarity on the basis for many of these actions,” he explained.
“If someone is being targeted for expressing their political views, naturally that would raise concerns,” Kotlikoff added. “We would advise those affected to take the necessary steps.”
Trump pressured the renowned law firm Paul Weiss into committing millions of dollars toward pro bono work for causes he endorses by threatening actions that could severely impact the firm’s business.
In an executive order aimed at the firm, Trump singled out former partner Mark Pomerantz, who had worked on building a criminal case against Trump during a previous role with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
“I’m the biggest supporter of President Trump and I was shocked by how quickly they capitulated,” said Steve Bannon, a former senior White House official in Trump’s first administration. “This should serve as a lesson; we must do this with every university and every law firm.”
On Thursday night, Trump signed an additional executive order penalizing another law firm that has opposed him. He terminated government contracts with WilmerHale and enforced other sanctions, citing its hiring of Robert Mueller and two others involved in the Justice Department’s investigation concerning allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election that benefited Trump. Mueller departed the firm four years ago.
“WilmerHale rewarded Robert Mueller and two of his colleagues by allowing them to join the firm after they used the power of the federal government to lead what can be deemed a partisan ‘investigation’ against the president and others,” the action states.
The other two lawyers mentioned by Trump, James Quarles and Aaron Zebley, co-authored a book about the investigation, “Interference,” published last year. Quarles is listed on the firm’s website as a retired partner; Zebley as a current partner.
Trump denied any unlawful activity, asserting he was never charged during the investigation. He has consistently dismissed the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt.”
WilmerHale filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Friday, asserting that the president’s actions against such firms are “unprecedented and unconstitutional.” Later that day, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to cancel contracts with the firm and barred federal agencies from hiring its employees.
“There’s no doubt that this retaliatory action stifles free speech and legal advocacy, qualifying it as a constitutional violation,” the judge ruled.
A total of six prominent law firms have faced Trump’s scrutiny. Another — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — avoided an executive order and subsequent punitive actions by what Trump called a “settlement.” The firm agreed to provide $100 million in free legal services as part of that agreement, according to Trump.
The firm’s managing partner, Jeremy London, remarked in a prepared statement: “We engaged proactively with the president and his team to constructively reach this agreement. The firm anticipates continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his administration. We firmly believe that this outcome serves our clients, our personnel, and our firm best.”
‘It’s all gas, no brakes’
In another initiative, Trump issued an executive order this month which may discourage individuals from employment in public service organizations engaging in activities objectionable to him.
This could potentially deny student loan forgiveness to those employed by organizations assisting undocumented immigrants and youth transgender care, or participating in protests considered a “public nuisance.”
“What we’re witnessing is an unprecedented consolidation of power within the presidency,” stated Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general. “No president has ever exerted this kind of control over the media, universities, free speech, law firms, dissenters, the judiciary, the electoral process, and the personnel of the federal government.”
“They’re following an authoritarian playbook, doing as many things as quickly as possible to the extent that it becomes nearly impossible to keep pace,” he added.
The free press also faces renewed pressure. The Trump administration discontinued a long-standing practice wherein journalists could select their peers from print and radio outlets admitted into a restricted pool covering smaller presidential events.
Instead, the White House is incorporating more right-leaning media outlets and exercising greater control over who is granted access. Among those welcomed into the Oval Office on Friday for a Q&A with Trump was a reporter from One America News Network, who queried the president, “What has enabled you and your team to be so effective in locating, apprehending, and deporting these violent, illegal migrants?”
“I love this guy,” Trump replied, not for the first time.
Excluded from the event was The Associated Press, the wire service that incurred Trump’s wrath by refusing to modify its style guide to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” his preferred name for the region.
The arts are also coming under Trump’s influence. He has reorganized the board of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., and taken over its chairmanship, making him a tastemaker in the realms of music and theater.
At a recent board meeting, Trump expressed his disapproval of the types of individuals previously honored by the center for lifetime artistic achievement. One of the names suggested as a potential honoree was Sylvester Stallone, who last year described Trump as “the second George Washington.”
“Previously, these have been radical left individuals chosen for honors. I disapproved greatly. I couldn’t bear to watch it. The host was always terrible,” he commented, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by The Washington Post.
In response to Trump’s actions, the musical “Hamilton” canceled a scheduled appearance at the Kennedy Center, creating a series of ironies. A production centered around the architects of America’s delicate system of checks and balances is boycotting a president who is testing those very constitutional safeguards.
Alexander Hamilton mentioned in the Federalist Papers that “energy in the executive” is vital for effective governance. Two centuries later, the pressing question is whether Trump is exerting too much energy too quickly, with insufficient restraint.
Brendan Smialowski / Pool via AP
“Some of this occurred previously,” remarked Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government at American University. “What’s alarming today is that he [Trump] appears to be experiencing greater success with these tactics. Companies are settling lawsuits with him. Columbia and Paul Weiss are capitulating to his demands. That’s troublesome.”
“I doubt this will satisfy him,” he added. “He will always seek more.”
Those aligned with Trump desire even more significant actions. Now that his strategies have shown some success, Bannon contends Trump should be emboldened to push further.
“Target the major state universities and instruct them to either eradicate radical individuals from their faculties or face funding cuts,” Bannon suggested. “These institutions lack sufficient pushback. They make big claims, but when you cut their funding, they yield. They are dependent on government money. So turn their dependency against them.”
“It’s all gas, no brakes,” Bannon declared.
Election changes
Indeed, indications show Trump is not slowing down. A comprehensive executive order he signed Tuesday is set to overhaul the nation’s electoral process — a significant concern for a president who continues to assert victory in the 2020 election that ousted him. Some of Trump’s backers, including Bannon, are eager to find a way for him to run again in 2028, even though the Constitution prohibits a third term.
The order mandates that the Election Assistance Commission requires proof of citizenship for voter registration, necessitating individuals to present a U.S. passport or a similar document to register. With nearly half of all Americans lacking a passport, Trump’s directive could disenfranchise millions. In the order, Trump claims that these measures are essential for preventing noncitizen voting, though occurrences are infrequent.
Moreover, the order assumes powers that presidents do not possess, according to legal experts. U.S. elections are decentralized, with the Constitution granting authority to Congress and states regarding their management. Election law scholars assert that the president does not have the legal capacity to impose new requirements for voter registration or instruct the Election Assistance Commission, which is an independent, bipartisan entity.
Judicial pushback
Supporters of Trump argue that he is asserting authority he rightfully holds. Numerous legislative changes made during the post-Watergate era curtailed presidential powers. Trump is seeking to reclaim some of that power through what is termed the “unitary executive theory.”
This concept posits that the president, as the duly elected head of the executive branch, possesses the discretion to terminate any of the millions of federal employees under his jurisdiction.
And Trump has been doing just that. Thousands of workers have been displaced as Trump and his close associate, Elon Musk, endeavor to diminish the federal government’s size.
Surveys indicate that Americans do not necessarily favor expanding presidential power. An NBC News poll this month revealed that 43% of registered voters believe the executive branch currently holds excessive power, in contrast to only 28% who think the judicial branch wields too much authority, and 18% who believe Congress overreaches.
A White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, stated to NBC News: “With a mandate from the American populace, President Trump is decisively and swiftly eliminating unelected bureaucratic overreach, reducing the federal government’s scope, and returning authority to the states while putting money back in taxpayers’ wallets.”
Trump is also reaching into independent government boards, determining who remains and who is dismissed. He removed a member of the five-person National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, who had been nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021 and confirmed by the Senate for a term running until 2028.
Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the board that mediates labor disputes, has filed a lawsuit, and a federal judge has ordered her reinstatement.
“An American president is not a monarch — even an ‘elected’ one — and their power to dismiss federal officers and honest civil servants is not limitless but can be restricted under appropriate circumstances, as in this instance,” declared Senior Judge Beryl Howell in her ruling.
On Friday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Trump, affirming Wilcox’s removal.
In another era, Congress might have acted as a check against a president overextending his authority. However, Congress has progressively relinquished power to presidents over the years, and Republicans in the House have shown little inclination to restrain a president who enjoys significant support within his party.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, was candid about it. He informed reporters that limiting Trump’s fiscal authority is unfeasible.
“I don’t anticipate a Republican-majority House and Senate attempting to restrict a Republican president,” Cole stated. “We’re not going to impose limitations on the actions of a Republican president.”
Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has expressed no interest in investigating the discussions among senior Trump administration officials regarding military strategies in a group text that included a reporter from The Atlantic.
“I don’t believe anyone should have lost their position over that, as it was merely an errant member included in a dialogue among leaders,” Johnson commented to reporters.
This situation leaves the judiciary as the principal governmental bulwark against any presidential overreach, a role judges have embraced without hesitation.
The White House has expressed discontent as numerous judges have temporarily halted his attempts to dismantle agencies, freeze budget allocations, or deport migrants using a rarely invoked 18th-century law that does not mandate a hearing.
“It is rogue, activist judges eroding our checks and balances to deliberately obstruct the president from implementing his agenda,” stated a White House official.
In frustration, Trump has fixated on the notion that certain obstinate judges should face impeachment. However, legal experts argue this perspective diverges from established norms. The conventional method for addressing unfavorable judicial decisions is an appeal, not impeachment — a sentiment that Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court felt obligated to clarify.
“Congress could assist Trump by attempting to temper his most excessive urges,” suggested John Yoo, a former senior Justice Department official in George W. Bush’s administration and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a statement to NBC News. “We do not use impeachment to voice discontent with judicial decisions; such a concept contradicts the Constitution’s foundational principles.”
Impeaching judges who oppose Trump would be an arduous process, requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate. If his administration were to defy a court order — something Trump has pledged not to do — it would ultimately undermine the remnants of the checks and balances conceptualized by the nation’s founders.
“There’s hardly a day that passes without a court order overturning something blatantly unlawful that the White House has enacted,” remarked Murphy, the Democratic senator from Connecticut. “This constitutes a constitutional crisis, with no historical parallel.”
