This article was originally featured in UJ’s What Matters newsletter. To receive it for free in your inbox, sign up here.
Washington
UJ
—
We invited our readers of UJ.com and the What Matters newsletter to send us their questions about the recent developments surrounding Trump 2.0, and we received thousands of inquiries.
I’ve selected a variety of questions, attempting to address them or reaching out to UJ reporters for insights. Additionally, I’ve used first names and states from those who provided that information, along with making minor edits to the questions.
Some respondents criticized UJ for being overly critical towards President Donald Trump, while others felt we were too lenient. This range of opinions might suggest a balanced approach, although some future inquiries could benefit from being less vitriolic. A number of responses were inappropriate for publication.
The question that came up the most was regarding what actions can be taken if Trump disregards court directives.
One individual expressed frustration that their congressman wasn’t responding. Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey also declined to provide answers to my inquiries.
If you would like to have your question addressed by our reporters, please submit it here.
This inquiry was posed to former Representative Joe Crowley by UJ’s Laura Coates.
CROWLEY: We’re all against waste, fraud, and abuse. Nobody wants that. Yet at the same time … government operates more slowly.
He continued by questioning if Trump and Elon Musk are genuinely revealing corruption or merely targeting expenditures they oppose and subsequently laying off workers.
CROWLEY: They haven’t uncovered any corruption. They haven’t revealed any abuses. Their actions only serve to dismantle and destroy. They’re proceeding by suggesting that they’ll identify abuses later, but for now, the priority is to eliminate personnel. To me, that seems cynical and incredibly disheartening. As previously stated, everyone opposes waste, fraud, and abuse. That’s not a novel statement.
He asserted that any changes should occur through bipartisan agreement, rather than solely by Trump.
CROWLEY: It’s not something that can happen overnight. You’re not a monarch. You’re not a dictator.
UJ’s Devan Cole has examined what would occur if Trump were to ignore court rulings, especially since some Republicans have suggested he might do so, prompting me to present this question to him.
COLE: The straightforward answer is “not really.” According to legal experts, the courts have limited recourse to compel compliance with a ruling.
Judges may hold an official or agency in civil or criminal contempt — but that’s essentially the extent of it. The likely court response to an administration defying its orders would be to declare the defiant agency in civil contempt, allowing a judge to impose fines for noncompliance.
Criminal contempt would represent a much stronger reaction from the court to such defiance. However, this might be a futile endeavor since it would need to be initiated by the Justice Department, making it unlikely due to the president’s control over it. The US Marshals Service, responsible for enforcing federal court orders, is also under the Department of Justice.
“The possibility of imprisoning someone is a last resort,” noted Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
This inquiry references the special immunity the Supreme Court granted Trump (and all presidents) concerning most of their actions. Chief Justice John Roberts, in support of Trump before his reelection, argued that presidents require “maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially” with their responsibilities.
However, in that ruling, Roberts dismissed the notion that Trump, having evaded conviction in two impeachment trials during his first term, could completely avoid accountability. Roberts differentiated between the criminal justice system and impeachment, describing the latter as a distinct “political process.”
Nevertheless, Trump currently enjoys considerable power. It’s challenging to envision the scenario that would lead to a third impeachment in the existing political climate.
I reached out to Smith’s office and emailed his press secretary twice, yet received no reply. Data from the Office of Personnel Management indicates that the federal employment level in New Jersey’s 4th congressional district is not particularly high, with fewer than 6,000 federal employees, accounting for about 1.5% of all workers in the area.
Nationwide, approximately 77,000 federal employees opted for the “Fork in the Road” deferred resignation offer. Currently, the Trump administration is implementing mass layoffs, terminating thousands of probationary employees across the nation in its push to reduce the size of the federal workforce.
UJ’s Tami Luhby, an expert in Medicaid, assisted me in formulating this response:
Medicaid, which is jointly funded by the federal government and the states, provides health care coverage to over 72 million low-income Americans. It has been a long-standing target for Republicans, with Musk claiming that “the significant financial misconduct is occurring” at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The critical question ahead is how far Trump and Musk can go in making cuts to any funding that Congress has approved. Trump aims to leverage the principle of “impoundment” to withhold spending that Congress has authorized.
Additionally, Grace-Ann should be concerned about the potential cost-cutting measures that congressional Republicans are proposing for Medicaid. House Republicans are seeking to achieve a saving of at least $880 billion over ten years to finance the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. Another significant matter will be whether lawmakers will advocate for savings in Medicare, which covers health benefits for older adults and people with disabilities.
Under President Joe Biden, law enforcement agencies have already stated that marijuana should be reclassified as having medical value, but Trump could disrupt that trajectory. Trump’s Health and Human Services nominee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., remarked during his confirmation hearings that the impacts of marijuana should be investigated.
Trump appointed Virginia’s Secretary of Public Safety, Terrance Cole, to lead the Drug Enforcement Agency. Cole has expressed opposition to the legalization of marijuana.
Trump has indicated his support for legalizing recreational marijuana use in Florida by 2024. This mirrors the view of over 55% of the voters. However, Republicans in the state have raised the threshold for such amendments to 60%, allowing a minority to keep recreational marijuana illegal in Florida. It remains unclear how Trump will approach this issue as president.
This remains a matter of personal interpretation for each American. Trump asserted during his campaign that he had not read Project 2025, which could indeed be true. However, many individuals in his administration were involved in Project 2025, and his policies exhibit striking similarities to it.
Throughout the campaign, Trump frequently discussed drastically reducing the size of the government, and many of his followers support these initiatives. He focused on combating the bureaucracy, which he has termed the deep state.
It is true that he sought to dissociate himself from Project 2025—the conservative plan aimed at redefining government functions. Nevertheless, he has indicated intentions to dismantle certain government agencies, such as the Department of Education. Musk, campaigning for Trump, also frequently discussed reducing the government’s scale.
Such developments might not be wholly surprising, although the extent of these efforts is more significant than many anticipated.
Polling indicates that there is a general agreement on the need to shrink the government, yet it will be fascinating to observe public reactions to the magnitude of these cuts.
Nevertheless, Trump has certainly devoted more effort as president towards reducing the size of government than on addressing price reductions.
This comment pertains to Trump’s directive to cease enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law prohibiting international business bribery. While Trump cannot repeal the law outright, he claims he won’t enforce it, asserting that American businesses should not face penalization for attempting to remain competitive in line with their foreign counterparts. Most ethics experts disagree. Bribery within the US is also illegal, and there’s no indication he intends to suspend enforcement of those laws.
That’s quite amusing! Although I think Ted should have referenced Blue and Yellowland since blue and yellow combine to create green. But I digress.
Perhaps Ted was alluding to Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter from Georgia, who introduced a bill authorizing Trump to pursue the acquisition of Greenland and to rename it “Red, White, and Blueland.”
It is concerning that Trump’s administration has barred the Associated Press due to the agency’s refusal to exclusively use the term “Gulf of America.” Furthermore, it’s no trivial matter that Trump regards his potential second term as a time for renewed US expansion. He has expressed intentions to regain control of the Panama Canal, acquire Greenland, and allegedly seeks to make Canada the 51st state. His efforts to rename the Gulf of Mexico and rebrand military bases are indicative of his focus on a specific version of American dominance and history.