Unchecked and Unchallenged: Trump’s Expansion of Executive Power
Since his inauguration, President Trump has wasted no time enacting the controversial rules and regulations he promised to his supporters. From freezing congressional funds to firing independent civil servants, his term has seen a use of Presidential power unlike ever before—possibly because this power does not exist within the confines of his role. Trump’s moves have widely been critiqued as unconstitutional breaches of presidential authority, and almost two dozen lawsuits have already been filed across the country to challenge his claims. However, with those lawsuits on sight to eventually be settled in the Supreme Court, it is uncertain whether the Trump Administration truly faces legal consequences. Already, cases like Trump v. United States, in which the Supreme Court established presidential immunity for actions while in office, have extended the abilities of the President and fueled Trump’s recent endeavors. Analysis of Trump’s legal infringements, alongside the recent precedent set by the Court, will prove that not only is it uncertain whether Trump will be punished for his actions, but if he is, it is unlikely to disrupt his current agenda.
One of the most blatant examples of Trump's overreach is his efforts to dismantle and reorganize federal agencies. His decision to eliminate the funding and existence of the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.) and transfer its responsibilities to the State Department—without congressional approval—constitutes an executive overreach that undermines Congress’s power to appropriate funds. Legally, the president has no right to impound Congressionally allocated funds, a stance that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held since Train v. New York. In fact, when President Nixon similarly attempted to withhold funds from agencies he disagreed with, the Supreme Court directly blocked his actions. This led to the passing of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, in which Congress allowed Presidential blocking of funds under two conditions: if they defer funding to later in the year, or propose a Congressional vote to rescind the funds while freezing the funds for 45 days. And yet, while Trump’s actions with U.S.A.I.D. could qualify as legal actions under the Impoundment Act, his lack of procedure has made it nearly impossible to claim any such legality.
Another example of Trump’s inability to follow Presidential procedure is his decision to fire several independent civil servants. To shut down agencies, Trump ousted several Democratic employees from the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Additionally, the Justice Department fired many high-level individuals tied to prior investigations or indictments of Trump. So far, his administration has aggressively pursued firing civil servants deemed disloyal, often targeting those involved in oversight, ethics enforcement, or policy implementation that conflicts with his agenda. While the Trump administration claims the legality of their actions under the Seila Law, which gives the President the power to fire executive officials, their administration blatantly disregards the necessary procedure and guidelines of the law. Trump specifically disregards the Supreme Court's “two exceptions to the President’s unrestricted removal power”—one for “multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power,” and one “for inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.”
Despite these clear violations of established legal precedent, Trump has faced little to no repercussions, and if the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States is any indication, he is unlikely to in the future. By granting broad immunity to presidential actions taken while in office, the Court has effectively shielded Trump from accountability, emboldening him to push the boundaries of executive power even further. His continued overreach—whether in defying congressional authority, dismantling independent agencies, or circumventing legal checks—suggests a deliberate strategy to expand presidential authority. Given that legal challenges to his actions will ultimately reach the Supreme Court, Trump may be attempting to manufacture rulings that codify his overreach as legitimate. While it is not certain how the court will rule in the case, currently, Trump has decent reason to believe that the majority-conservative court would rule in his favor as they have already allowed an expansion of his power. If successful, this decision would not only protect his administration from legal consequences but fundamentally reshape the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in his favor. Furthermore, if the Court rules against Trump, it is unclear whether that will stop him. For example, while the Supreme Court failed to honor his plea to halt the TikTok ban, Trump immediately issued a 75-day halt on the ban the day he returned to office. His current actions, including the speed at which he has disregarded the law, have led many to believe he is unlikely to stop.
President Trump’s approach to executive power represents an unprecedented expansion of authority, one that has consistently disregarded legal precedent and challenged the very foundations of checks and balances. His actions illustrate a broader pattern of overreach that pushes the limits of constitutional boundaries. While legal challenges to his actions continue to mount, Trump’s manipulation of the law reveals a different agenda than what appears at the surface. It remains clear that Trump is positioning himself to not only avoid legal consequences but to solidify his vision of presidential supremacy. The implications of these actions go far beyond his term in office. If left unchallenged, they could permanently alter the relationship between the branches of government, shifting the balance of power in favor of an ever-empowered executive.
Navyaa Jain is a Sophomore studying Computer Science - Economics at Brown University. She can be reached at navyaa_jain@brown.edu.
Maia Eng is a junior studying International and Public Affairs at Brown University. She is a blog editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at maia_lourdes_eng@brown.edu.