Donald Trump: Testing the Limits of Presidential Power

All American presidents eventually reach a point where they wish they had more power. Most, however, accept that Congress and the courts play an essential role in governance. Donald Trump, in contrast, appears to interpret Article II of the Constitution as a carte blanche for presidential authority. He has frequently asserted to supportive audiences, "I have the right to do whatever I want as president." This week, he echoed that sentiment on social media, dismissing legal constraints with the proclamation: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law."

Trump's disregard for constitutional limits is not just rhetorical—his attempts to overturn the 2020 election stand as a testament to that. His first month back in office has only reinforced concerns about his intentions. On day one, he issued an executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, directly contradicting the 14th Amendment. He swiftly launched an aggressive campaign against the federal bureaucracy, led by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man. This has resulted in mass dismissals of civil servants, the cancellation of government contracts worth billions, and the effective dismantling of USAID, America’s principal foreign-aid agency.

Expanding Presidential Power

Trump’s interpretation of executive power is so expansive that some argue America is already in a constitutional crisis. Many of his orders have faced legal challenges, with judges blocking several. Even greater battles lie ahead. His allies argue that Article II grants him the power to "impound" federal funds—essentially allowing him to spend less than Congress has allocated, which would reduce the legislature’s "power of the purse" to a mere suggestion. If Trump pursues this aggressively, he may directly undermine the authority of both Congress and the judiciary.

Tracking Trump's frenetic activity is intentionally difficult. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day—three times the number Joe Biden signed on his first day. By the end of his first month, Trump had issued 72 orders, far surpassing recent presidents. His communication style further complicates matters; his bombastic rhetoric often leaves people unsure whether his threats—such as imposing extreme tariffs, occupying the Gaza Strip, annexing Greenland, or making Canada the 51st state—are serious policy proposals or mere political theater.

Trump overwhelms the media and his opponents with dramatic declarations, a strategy his former adviser Steve Bannon famously described as "flooding the zone with shit." When critics react with alarm, Trump and his allies dismiss their concerns as partisan hysteria. This tactic muddies the waters, making it challenging to gauge the true severity of his actions.

The Legal Boundaries of Power

Elections have consequences, and presidents wield significant power to shape policy. Some of Trump’s most contentious actions are legally permissible, such as his mass pardons of over 1,000 individuals convicted for their role in the January 6th Capitol riot. Likewise, he has broad authority to fire high-ranking officials, shift the Department of Justice’s focus from corruption to immigration enforcement, and impose tariffs. If he wants to create a hostile environment for the federal bureaucracy—as his new OMB head, Russell Vought, has suggested—he has considerable latitude to do so.

Trump’s actions appear particularly alarming because the executive branch operates faster than the legislative and judicial branches can respond. Musk’s hyperbolic rhetoric amplifies this gap. While Musk has vowed to dismantle agencies like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), both were established by Congress, meaning only Congress can abolish them. Federal agency budgets also carry the force of law.

When Trump’s administration has overstepped legal boundaries, the courts have intervened. His executive order on birthright citizenship never took effect. A judge blocked his broad spending freeze, and federal workers have sued to prevent his aggressive measures against the bureaucracy, securing temporary reprieves. In several cases, courts have ordered the administration to restore funding to USAID and the CFPB. Such legal battles, though particularly pronounced under Trump, are not unprecedented.

What would be unprecedented, however, is a direct refusal by Trump’s administration to comply with a court order. So far, he has not crossed that line. While he has protested unfavorable rulings, he has ultimately abided by them.

Some fear Trump may be laying the groundwork to defy the judiciary. After a judge blocked his spending freeze, his administration rescinded the memo but left affected programs unfunded, citing administrative delays. A judge ruled on February 10th that the administration was violating his order and demanded compliance. Similarly, a court ruling barring Musk’s deputies from accessing Treasury payment systems was so broad that it inadvertently excluded the Treasury Secretary himself, sparking Republican backlash. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the decision, asserting that "judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power"—though, as a lawyer, he surely knows that defining legitimate power is precisely what judges do.

Trump as the Heir to Executive Overreach

Trump’s approach is not entirely without precedent. Barack Obama attempted to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation through executive action, though he only succeeded in protecting those who arrived as children. Joe Biden attempted to convert student loans into grants, reallocating nearly $200 billion despite an adverse Supreme Court ruling.

Yet Trump’s ambitions dwarf those of his predecessors. His presidency marks the most aggressive expansion of executive power since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, during the Great Depression, received sweeping authority from Congress to reorganize the economy and even confiscate private gold. Roosevelt’s actions led to prolonged legal battles, with courts eventually curbing executive overreach. Similarly, Richard Nixon wielded executive power to combat cultural and political enemies, clashing with Congress over impounded funds—an overreach that led to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which Trump previously violated when he withheld military aid from Ukraine, prompting his first impeachment.

A prudent way to assess Trump’s presidency is to focus not on his rhetoric or actions alone, but on what the courts allow him to do. As Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith notes, "Everything turns on whether they’re going to play ball with the federal courts." While Trump reshaped the Supreme Court by appointing three justices, even his most extreme policies are unlikely to survive legal scrutiny. His birthright citizenship order, for example, contradicts a constitutional provision that has stood since 1868, making it unlikely to withstand judicial review.

Trump’s claim that he can impound funds allocated by Congress also faces strong legal opposition. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has consistently resisted executive overreach at the expense of legislative authority. Even Clarence Thomas, the Court’s most conservative justice, has repeatedly defended Congress’s power to create and fund regulatory agencies.

The Risks of Executive Overreach

Trump may still secure broader control over the executive branch. The Supreme Court has increasingly embraced the "unitary executive theory," which asserts the president’s authority over the federal government. This could allow Trump to fire independent regulators and, if the Court overturns additional precedents, dismiss thousands of civil servants at will, reviving the 19th-century "spoils system" of political patronage.

Yet if Trump succeeds in gutting the bureaucracy, he may not like the results. A strict hiring freeze is in place, and 75,000 workers have accepted buyouts—fewer than the administration hoped. The potential mass dismissal of 200,000 probationary employees could further paralyze government functions. Musk’s efforts to overhaul outdated federal IT systems, while ambitious, carry high risks of failure.

The Role of Congress

Trump’s aggressive approach may provoke resistance even from his Republican allies. While GOP leaders support cost-cutting, they may balk if programs benefiting their constituents are targeted. Achieving Musk’s promised trillions in spending cuts requires congressional cooperation—yet Republicans are more focused on extending Trump-era tax cuts, which would add nearly $4 trillion to the national debt.

Ultimately, Trump has never hidden his intentions. His most controversial actions—pardons for rioters, the purge of the "deep state," trade wars, and overtures to Russia—are not covert schemes but campaign promises fulfilled. As journalist H.L. Mencken once quipped, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." With 47 months still ahead, America is already feeling the consequences of its choice.