Checks and Balances Under Siege: The Courts vs. Trump’s Power Grab
JD Vance’s reckless claim on executive power is just one piece of a broader strategy to erode legal constraints.
In a shocking statement, Vice President JD Vance claimed, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." This is not only wrong - it is absurd. Any student who has taken a basic constitutional law class knows this. I assume Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, knows this, too. In fact, on the first day of law school, students learn about Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review. That decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, made it clear: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This means that courts have the power to decide whether an action by the executive branch is legal. The president is not above the law, no matter what JD Vance says.
Throughout history, courts have stepped in to block unconstitutional executive actions. President Nixon was forced to hand over the Watergate tapes after the Supreme Court ruled against him in United States v. Nixon. President Biden has had multiple executive orders blocked, including his vaccine mandate for federal contractors and his student loan forgiveness plan. Even President Trump’s first term saw numerous executive orders halted by the courts, including his travel ban, his attempts to block asylum seekers, and his efforts to exclude undocumented immigrants from the Census. This is not new. Courts have checked presidents many times before and are doing so again now.
But here is the real danger: JD Vance’s statement is not just a reckless misunderstanding of history. It is part of a larger strategy to justify ignoring court rulings. The Trump administration has already signaled reluctance to reinstate affected employees and comply with judicial decisions. Over 40 lawsuits have been filed against Trump's executive orders, covering issues from immigration to budget freezes. The refusal to comply with court orders is not just a bureaucratic delay but a direct challenge to the rule of law. If the executive branch refuses to follow legal rulings, the entire system of checks and balances is at risk.
This moment demands action. There are historical parallels to past crises, such as Nixon’s defiance during Watergate, but Trump’s recklessness goes beyond what we have seen before. Nixon, for all his corruption, ultimately obeyed the Supreme Court. Trump, however, has repeatedly shown a willingness to challenge every norm and legal constraint. His strategy is clear: overwhelm the system, ignore the courts, and see if anyone stops him. If the judiciary is disregarded, democratic governance itself is at risk. We cannot afford to wait - we must act now to ensure the rule of law is upheld.
Trump and his closest allies, including JD Vance, are testing how far they can push the limits of judicial enforcement. He will continue if he believes he can ignore the courts without consequence. The courts may hold the line for now, but how long can they if the executive branch refuses to obey?
Order #1: Stopping the USAID Purge
Judge Carl Nichols issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the Trump administration’s effort to gut the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The administration had attempted to place 2,200 employees on administrative leave and force an additional 1,400 foreign service officers to return to the United States on an expedited timeline. The judge found that these actions posed serious risks to national security, endangered employees, and violated congressional authority over agency restructuring.
The court ruled that the administration’s actions violated the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, which requires congressional approval before major agency reorganizations or downsizing. The judge noted that the government failed to provide a legitimate reason for the mass firings and evacuations, rejecting their vague claims of “corruption and fraud” within the agency.
Beyond harming thousands of civil servants, the administration’s reckless decision disrupted vital humanitarian aid programs, leaving vulnerable populations without food, medicine, and shelter. Charities and aid organizations have warned that lives are at risk due to this sudden cutoff of funding, with one official calling it a "life or death" crisis. The United States made commitments to assist struggling nations, and breaking those promises overnight is not only cruel but also damages America’s credibility abroad.
While this ruling temporarily halts the administration’s actions, whether Trump will comply remains to be seen. The administration has already signaled reluctance to reinstate affected employees, raising concerns that they may ignore the court order entirely. This creates a dangerous confrontation between the judiciary and an executive branch that appears willing to defy the rule of law.
Order #2: Blocking the Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal court has blocked Trump’s executive order attempting to revoke birthright citizenship, ruling it unconstitutional. The order sought to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and certain legal immigrants. This directly contradicts the 14th Amendment, which plainly states: "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".
The court firmly rejected Trump’s attempt to reinterpret this foundational principle. In his ruling, Judge John C. Coughenour, a Reagan-appointed judge, wrote, "Citizenship by birth is an unequivocal Constitutional right." He stated, "The President cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order". This decision is consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that birthright citizenship applies to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.
Trump’s effort to challenge the Constitution through executive fiat is unprecedented and dangerous. If this order had been allowed to stand, it would have stripped citizenship from countless Americans, creating stateless individuals and widespread legal chaos. It is expected that Trump will appeal this decision, likely taking the case to the Supreme Court, where the fate of birthright citizenship could become a legal battleground.
Order #3: Halting the Budget Freeze
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze $3 trillion in federal funding, ruling that the action was unconstitutional and a blatant violation of Congress’s control over government spending. The court found that the freeze would have halted funding for essential programs, including disaster relief, Medicaid, housing assistance, and food aid. The administration attempted to justify the freeze as a necessary financial review, but the judge ruled that only Congress can determine how federal funds are allocated.
Despite this ruling, the White House has already signaled resistance, raising concerns that agencies may continue to delay releasing funds. The administration’s defiance threatens a broad range of essential services relied upon by millions of Americans. Courts reaffirmed that the power of the purse belongs solely to Congress, not the president. If Trump refuses to comply, it will be another step toward unchecked executive authority.
Order #4: Protecting January 6 Investigators
A federal court has blocked the Trump administration from releasing the names of FBI agents involved in the investigation of the January 6 insurrection. The ruling prevents the Department of Justice from handing over a list of agents to Trump loyalists, citing serious safety concerns and the potential for retaliation.
The court recognized that publicizing these names would put law enforcement officials at risk. Many of these agents have already faced threats and harassment from extremist groups, and exposing their identities could lead to further violence. The judge emphasized that these officials were simply doing their jobs - investigating an attack on democracy - and should not be subjected to intimidation.
But that is what Trump wants. He wants to invite vigilantism. Why else would he pardon 250 violent Jan 6th criminals?
This attempt to release their names is unprecedented. No past president has ever sought to expose law enforcement officials investigating their supporters. Legal experts warn that this is a clear effort to undermine ongoing prosecutions and deter future investigations into Trump and his allies. The court’s ruling sends a strong message that the judicial system will not allow the administration to weaponize federal agencies against law enforcement.
Despite this ruling, the administration has signaled its intent to challenge it. There is growing concern that Trump may attempt to bypass the court order through appeals or by directing officials to ignore it. This case highlights the broader effort by the administration to obstruct accountability and weaken the rule of law.
Order #5: Restricting Political Appointee Access to Treasury Systems
A federal court has blocked the Trump administration from granting political appointees and Trump allies access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems. The court found that the administration’s attempt to bypass standard security protocols and allow unvetted individuals access to sensitive financial records posed a serious national security risk.
These include a self-proclaimed white supremacist and a guy who was fired from his last job for giving away corporate secrets!
The lawsuit, brought by 19 state attorneys general, argued that Trump’s executive action violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the Treasury Department's statutory authority. The judge agreed, ruling that granting politically appointed individuals access to Treasury’s financial systems, which contain confidential taxpayer data, undermined the integrity of federal financial oversight.
One of the greatest concerns raised by the court was the heightened risk of financial manipulation. By allowing unqualified political figures access to these systems, the administration opened the door to potential misuse of taxpayer funds. This decision is particularly alarming given Elon Musk’s reported involvement in efforts to reshape government policies to benefit his business interests.
The ruling bars the Treasury Department from providing payment system access to anyone other than vetted civil servants with proper security clearances. The judge emphasized that financial oversight must remain independent from political influence, warning that unchecked access by Trump’s allies could set a dangerous precedent.
Despite the court’s order, there are indications that the administration may attempt to circumvent this ruling. Legal experts caution that continued defiance would escalate constitutional concerns and destabilize confidence in U.S. financial institutions. This case underscores the broader effort by Trump’s administration to erode institutional safeguards and place political loyalty above national security.
The Signs of Defiance
The Trump administration is already showing clear signs of defying court orders. Compliance has been slow or nonexistent despite multiple rulings against key executive actions. Agencies have been given quiet directives to stall implementation, delaying the reinstatement of employees and the release of funds that courts have ordered restored.
Trump loyalists in the executive branch may refuse to carry out court orders. Political appointees in key positions - especially those overseeing budgets, law enforcement, and federal agencies - can obstruct compliance by creating bureaucratic roadblocks. There are reports of officials dragging their feet in restoring federal funds that courts have ordered unfrozen.
JD Vance and other Trump allies are laying the groundwork to justify outright defiance. Their statements rejecting judicial authority are not just rhetoric - they prepare the public for a scenario in which court orders are ignored. This effort conditions Americans to accept a reality where the executive branch operates without legal limits. If this rhetoric continues unchecked, it could embolden agencies and officials to refuse compliance under the guise of executive independence.
The country will face a full-blown constitutional crisis if defiance becomes official policy. The courts rely on the executive branch to enforce their rulings. If Trump orders agencies to ignore the judiciary, there will be no clear mechanism to ensure accountability. The U.S. Marshals Service, which typically enforces federal court orders, falls under the Department of Justice - an agency already under heavy political influence. If federal law enforcement is directed not to act, judicial authority itself could be meaningless.
The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, will play a crucial role in determining whether Trump’s defiance of judicial authority is allowed to continue. The question remains: will the Court uphold the limits of executive power, or will it enable an unchecked presidency?
The Trump administration may gamble that the conservative justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump himself, will side with the executive branch. The Court has historically shown deference to presidential authority, but there are limits. In United States v. Nixon, a unanimous Court ruled that even the president must comply with judicial subpoenas. If a similar ruling were to come down against Trump, it would test whether he would obey or escalate his defiance.
If the Supreme Court does rule against Trump, the next question is whether he will comply. Given his past behavior, there is significant reason to doubt that he will simply accept an unfavorable ruling. Instead, he may continue delaying compliance, using legal maneuvers to run out the clock, or outright refusing to adhere to the Court’s decision. This would present the greatest constitutional crisis in modern history.
The legitimacy of the judiciary itself is at stake. If Trump disregards a Supreme Court ruling, it would mark a fundamental breakdown of the separation of powers. The courts rely on their authority being respected - if a president openly defies them and faces no consequences, the judicial branch could be rendered powerless. This would set a dangerous precedent, signaling that future presidents can rule without legal limits, further eroding American democracy.
Five Actions We Must Take Now to Defend the Rule of Law
The threat to the rule of law is no longer theoretical - it is happening now. Trump and his allies are openly challenging the legitimacy of the courts, ignoring judicial rulings, and conditioning the public to accept executive overreach as normal. If we do nothing, we risk allowing the foundations of democracy to erode beyond repair. But this fight is not lost. We still have the power to act, to push back, and to ensure that no president - regardless of party - can place themselves above the law.
This moment demands bold action, and there are clear steps we must take to defend our democracy. Congress must reaffirm the judiciary's authority, the public must mobilize, legal institutions must challenge overreach, state governments must take a stand, and the American people must make their voices heard at the ballot box. These five actions are not optional; they are necessary to preserve the principles of our Constitution and protect the future of democratic governance.
Action #1: Contact Congressional Leaders
Congress must take a stand against executive defiance. Lawmakers must publicly affirm that court rulings are binding and that ignoring them is unacceptable. They should push for emergency legislation reinforcing judicial enforcement mechanisms, ensuring that no president can override the courts unilaterally. Additionally, congressional committees must launch investigations into executive defiance, holding hearings on officials who obstruct judicial rulings. If necessary, contempt of court charges must be considered to hold those responsible accountable.
Action #2: Mobilize Public Protests
History has shown that peaceful public demonstrations can serve as a powerful check on government overreach. Americans must take to the streets to demand compliance with court rulings. A strong, visible show of force will counteract the administration’s attempt to normalize judicial defiance. Lawmakers must see that the public will not tolerate an unchecked executive. Ensuring widespread media coverage will also help keep pressure on both elected officials and government agencies to comply with the law.
Action #3: Strengthen Legal Challenges
Legal organizations must be fully supported in their efforts to challenge executive overreach. Funding and resources should be directed toward groups filing lawsuits to uphold the Constitution. Courts must act swiftly to issue contempt rulings against officials who refuse to comply with judicial orders. Bipartisan legal action is essential - Democrats and Republicans must unite to defend constitutional governance. Every available legal tool must be used to slow Trump’s unlawful actions and reinforce the judiciary's authority.
Action #4: Demand Action from State Governments
State leaders have a vital role to play in resisting illegal executive actions. Governors must refuse to implement any orders that courts have ruled unconstitutional. State attorneys general should coordinate legal strategies to challenge federal overreach. State legislatures can pass resolutions affirming their commitment to judicial authority. Additionally, states can take direct action to protect programs that Trump’s administration seeks to dismantle, ensuring that vital services remain available to residents despite federal obstruction.
Action #5: Prepare for the 2026 Elections
The upcoming elections will be a referendum on the rule of law. Every candidate running for office must take a clear stand in defending the courts. Voters must prioritize judicial independence as a central campaign issue. Supporting candidates who are committed to holding the executive accountable is crucial. Above all, voter turnout must be maximized to reject those who enable authoritarianism. The electorate can send a strong message: no president is above the law, and defying the judiciary will not be tolerated.
This Is the Fight for Democracy Itself
Trump’s strategy is not new, but its scale is unprecedented. While past presidents have tested the limits of executive power, none have so openly defied the judiciary or encouraged others to do the same. The courts hold the line but cannot do it alone. Without public support and action, judicial rulings risk becoming meaningless.
The choice is stark: Accept a lawless executive or fight to preserve democracy. The rule of law is not self-enforcing - it requires people willing to stand up and demand accountability. We must act now before the damage to our institutions becomes irreversible. Democracy survives only when its defenders refuse to back down.