Comment: Trump can go only as far as the courts will allow

Most of Trump’s executive orders are likely to face court challenges, setting the limits of presidential power.

By Carl P. Leubsdorf / The Dallas Morning News

President Trump has spent a lifetime in the courts as both plaintiff and defendant, filing lawsuits to justify his actions and benefit his businesses or to defend himself against charges of illegality.

For the next four years, however, he will mainly be a defendant as he forces the federal judicial system to confirm or reject his effort to vastly expand the president’s role.

Already, Trump has precipitated a whole new round of court cases with a broad swath of sweeping executive actions, many based on the unproven theory that the Constitution’s Article II gives the president unlimited power.

Other presidents have sought unlimited power in limited cases. But Trump’s actions represent the most concerted challenge ever to the federal government’s balance of powers, in general; and the power of Congress, in particular.

He is basically daring the courts to stop him, seeking to wield nearly unlimited power until — or if — they do.

Trump has long questioned traditional limits on presidential power. In a 2019 speech to the conservative Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit, he said that, under Article II, “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Trump hopes that courts all the way up to and including the Supreme Court — bolstered by his first term nominees — will uphold that theory and ratify his moves to reshape the government.

That would further erode the limits the Founding Fathers imposed on presidents to protect Americans from the prospect of tyranny.

Article II gives the president “the executive power,” details some specific powers and says, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The Reagan administration’s Justice department interpreted that language broadly, accepting the conservative legal circles’ view of a “unitary executive theory” that gives the president inherent power over all governmental agencies.

Trump agrees but moved slowly in his first term to apply it. But, in 2020, he used it in seeking to re-classify thousands of non-political civil servants into jobs requiring them to support administration policies.

His 2024 campaign explicitly called for expanding presidential power over the Justice Department and other agencies, and his new administration has taken sweeping, often questionable, actions, justifying them by citing the president’s inherent powers.

They include:

Ending “birthright” citizenship: Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to stop granting citizenship to babies of non-citizens, rejecting the 14th Amendment requirement that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

“This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “We are prepared to fight this all the way up to the Supreme Court if we have to.”

A federal court promptly blocked its action, but the administration is appealing. It claims the amendment only refers to the formerly enslaved people freed after the Civil War, a narrow interpretation that past Supreme Courts rejected.

Unilaterally halting federal spending: Though the Trump White House quickly reversed its order freezing all federal spending, it unilaterally cut off foreign aid and other federal programs and maintained its right to do so.

A federal judge in Rhode Island disagreed, saying “no federal law” justified such unilateral action.

Administration officials have long questioned the constitutionality of the 1974 law barring the president from impounding funds appropriated by Congress except in certain cases.

Budget Director Russell Vought took that position in a 14-page letter at the end of Trump’s first administration. Trump said in the campaign he would “do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court.”

Nominated to return to the OMB job, Vought refused at his confirmation hearing to promise adherence to the 1974 law.

Firing federal officials: Trump fired an array of officials, including FBI agents who investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, Justice Department lawyers who investigated him, staff members of the Office of Personnel Management and other agencies, both political appointees and those in civil service jobs.

Challenges are certain, either via civil service procedures or lawsuits.

The White House defended the action. “He is the executive of the executive branch, and therefore he has the power to fire anyone within the executive branch that he wishes to,” Leavitt said.

Offered buyouts: In a move resembling how presidential adviser Elon Musk cut Twitter, now X, OPM offered all federal workers a job buyout, effective this Thursday, saying they would be paid until Sept. 30.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., whose state has thousands of federal employees, urged workers to reject the offer, noting there is no authority to pay workers who leave their jobs.

“He doesn’t have any authority to do this,” Kaine said. “Do not be fooled by this guy.”

Fired independent agency personnel: Trump fired 17 agency Inspectors General without giving the required 30 days congressional notice, and commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board whose terms had not ended. The dismissed NLRB commissioner has filed suit to get her position back.

Trump has long urged greater presidential control of such panels.

His actions sparked predictable Democratic criticism, but far less from Republicans, who control both houses of Congress. Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, long a champion of the independence of inspectors general, merely joined with Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin in requesting an explanation.

The stakes in these cases are enormous. They’ll redefine the limits – if any — of presidential power, possibly for decades.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Email him at carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com. ©2025 The Dallas Morning News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Feb. 10

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

bar graph, pie chart and diagrams isolated on white, 3d illustration
Editorial: Don’t let state’s budget numbers intimidate you

With budget discussions starting soon, a new website explains the basics of state’s budget crisis.

Comment: Trump can go only as far as the courts will allow

Most of Trump’s executive orders are likely to face court challenges, setting the limits of presidential power.

Comment: Civil service needs reform; Trump means only to gut it

It’s too difficult to hire and fire federal workers. A grand bargain is possible, but that’s not what Trump seeks.

Saunders: U.S. Iron Dome isn’t feasible now, but it could be

Trump is correct to order a plan for a system that would protect the nation from missile strikes.

Harrop: Trump has no sense of damage from tariff threats

Even if ultimately averted, a trade war with Canada and Mexico could drive both from U.S. exports.

A young man carries water past the destroyed buildings of a neighborhood in the Gaza Strip, Feb. 2, 2025. President Donald Trump’s proposal to “own” the Gaza Strip and transfer its population elsewhere has stirred condemnation and sarcasm, but it addresses a real and serious challenge: the future of Gaza as a secure, peaceful, even prosperous place. (Saher Alghorra/The New York Times)
Comment: ‘Homeland’ means exactly that to Gazans

Palestinians have long resisted resettlement. Trump’s plan to ‘clean out’ Gaza changes nothing.

Curtains act as doors for a handful of classrooms at Glenwood Elementary on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 in Lake Stevens, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Schools’ building needs point to election reform

Construction funding requests in Arlington and Lake Stevens show need for a change to bond elections.

FILE- In this Nov. 14, 2017, file photo Jaìme Ceja operates a forklift while loading boxes of Red Delicious apples on to a trailer during his shift in an orchard in Tieton, Wash. Cherry and apple growers in Washington state are worried their exports to China will be hurt by a trade war that escalated on Monday when that country raised import duties on a $3 billion list of products. (Shawn Gust/Yakima Herald-Republic via AP, File)
Editorial: Trade war would harm state’s consumers, jobs

Trump’s threat of tariffs to win non-trade concessions complicates talks, says a state trade advocate.

A press operator grabs a Herald newspaper to check over as the papers roll off the press in March 2022 in Everett. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald file photo)
Editorial: Push back news desert with journalism support

A bill in the state Senate would tax big tech to support a hiring fund for local news outlets.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Feb. 9

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Rent stabilization can keep more from losing homes

Thank you to The Herald Editorial Board for its editorial, regarding rent… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.