[[link removed]]
TRUMP TREATS LAWS AS OBSTACLES, NOT LIMITS − AND THE ONLY REAL
CHECK ON HIS RULE-BREAKING CAN COME FROM POLITICAL PRESSURE
[[link removed]]
Andrew Reeves
May 21, 2025
The Conversation
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
_ Trump is not the first president to test the limits of authority.
But the pace and scale of his defiance are without precedent. Courts
are issuing rulings against many Trump decrees, but if there is a
limit on presidential power, it is political. _
At his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, Donald Trump swore to
‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States’, screen grab
Lately, the headlines have been clear: President Donald Trump is
headed for a showdown with the courts
[[link removed]].
If he ignores their rulings, the courts have few tools
[[link removed]]
and limited power to make him comply.
But the real contest is not legal. It is political.
As a political scientist [[link removed]] who studies
presidential behavior
[[link removed]]
and public responses to unilateral action
[[link removed]],
I have spent my career examining the boundaries of executive power.
Those limits, aimed at constraining the president, are set in law.
The Constitution outlines the powers of Congress and the president in
articles 1 and 2. It formally gives Congress the power of the purse
[[link removed]]
and requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed
[[link removed]].”
Statutes dictate how agencies operate, how appointments are made and
how funds must be spent. Courts interpret and enforce these rules.
These legal constraints reflect the founders’ concern with unchecked
executive power
[[link removed]].
That concern is embedded in the country’s political origins – the
Declaration of Independence
[[link removed]] was a
direct rebuke to royal overreach.
But law alone has never been enough to prevent presidents from abusing
their power. The law’s force depends on political will. Presidents
often follow the law not simply because they must, but to avoid
backlash from Congress, the media or the public.
What the United States is witnessing in 2025 is not just a president
testing the system. It is a transformation of the presidency into a
fully political institution. The president acts until political
resistance becomes strong enough to stop him.
President Donald Trump criticizes judges whose decisions he doesn’t
like.
Testing the limits
These political constraints are informal and fluid.
They arise from public opinion, media scrutiny, pressure from party
leaders and other elected officials, and the threat of electoral
consequences. While legal rules rely on institutions, political limits
depend on reputation, norms and the willingness of others to resist.
Trump’s presidency operates within this second framework. Legal
boundaries are still present, but they are often treated by his
administration as optional and without deference.
Trump, for example, has sidelined the Office of Legal Counsel
[[link removed]],
the executive branch’s source of legal guidance. His focus appears
to be not on legality, process or constraint
[[link removed]],
but on headlines, polling and control of the narrative.
Courts still issue rulings, but their power depends on a broader
political culture of compliance
[[link removed]],
and that culture is weakening
[[link removed]].
Trump is not the first president to test the limits of authority. But
the pace and scale of his defiance are without precedent
[[link removed]].
He appears to be betting that pushing boundaries will continue to pay
off.
Lag between law and action
The legal challenges facing Trump are real.
In his first 100 days back in office, he took aggressive steps on
federal spending, appointments to key executive branch positions,
tariffs and deportations
[[link removed]].
Trump has announced he will not enforce legislation
[[link removed]]
that the Supreme Court confirmed was constitutional. Many of these
actions have already triggered legal challenges
[[link removed]].
These are not isolated incidents. Taken together, they reveal a
broader pattern.
Trump appears to treat legal rules not as limits but as obstacles to
be negotiated or ignored. One recent scholarly paper has described
Trump’s approach as “legalistic noncompliance
[[link removed]],” where the administration
uses the language of law to give the appearance of compliance while
defying the substance of court orders.
The executive branch can move quickly. Courts cannot. This structural
mismatch gives Trump a significant advantage
[[link removed]].
By the time a ruling is issued, the political context may have changed
or public attention may have moved on.
Judges have begun to notice. In recent weeks, courts have flagged not
only legal violations but also clear
[[link removed]]
signs
[[link removed]]
of intentional defiance
[[link removed]].
Still, enforcement is slow, and Trump continues to behave as though
court rulings are little more than political talking points
[[link removed]].
Politics the only real check
Trump is not guided by precedent or legal tradition
[[link removed]].
If there is a limit on presidential power, it is political. And even
that constraint is fragile.
In a February 2025 national survey by the Weidenbaum Center
[[link removed]], a research institute that I head at
Washington University in St. Louis, just 21% of Americans said the
president should be able to enact major policy without Congress. The
public does not support unchecked presidential power: A further 25% of
respondents, including more than one-third of Republicans, neither
agreed nor disagreed that a president should have this type of
unchecked power. Of those with an opinion, a solid 72% of Americans
oppose unilateral presidential action, including 90% of Democrats, 76%
of independents and 42% of Republicans.
These findings align with nine earlier national surveys conducted
during the Obama and Trump administrations. Jon Rogowski
[[link removed]] and I
report these results in our book, “No Blank Check
[[link removed]].”
But one important shift stands out in the recent survey. Support for
unilateral executive action among the two-thirds of Republicans who
expressed an opinion has reached an all-time high, with 58% of them
endorsing presidential action without Congress. That is more than 16
points higher than in any previous wave.
Despite that rise in partisan support, Trump’s broader political
position remains weak.
His approval ratings remain underwater
[[link removed]].
His policies on tariffs and federal spending cuts are unpopular
[[link removed]].
Consumer confidence is falling
[[link removed]].
Congressional Republicans continue to offer public support, but many
are watching their own polling numbers closely
[[link removed]]
as the midterms approach.
If the economy falters and public opinion turns more sharply against
the president, political resistance could grow. I believe that’s
when legal rules may begin to matter again – not because they carry
new force, but because violating them would carry higher political
costs.
Real test still ahead
So far, no judge has held the Trump administration in contempt of
court. But the signs of erosion are unmistakable. Trump recently
accused the Supreme Court of “not allowing me to do what I was
elected to do
[[link removed]]”
after it temporarily blocked his administration’s effort to deport
migrants with alleged ties to Venezuelan gangs. Treating the judiciary
as just another political adversary
[[link removed]]
and ignoring its rulings risks an even deeper constitutional crisis.
The most meaningful check on presidential power will be political.
Courts rely on the broader political system for enforcement. That
support can take many forms: elected officials speaking out in defense
of the rule of law; Congress using its oversight and funding powers to
uphold court rulings; bureaucrats refusing to implement unlawful
directives; and a press and public that demand compliance. Without
that support, even the clearest legal decisions may be ignored.
The legal fights unfolding today are serious and must be watched
closely. But Trump is not focused on the courts. He is focused on
politics – on how far he can go, and whether anyone will make him
stop.[The Conversation]
_Andrew Reeves
[[link removed]] is Professor
of Political Science and Director of the Weidenbaum Center, Washington
University in St. Louis
[[link removed]]_
_This article is republished from The Conversation
[[link removed]] under a Creative Commons license. Read
the original article
[[link removed]]._
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT
Submit via web
[[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]
Twitter [[link removed]]
Facebook [[link removed]]
[link removed]
To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
