In May, the Trump administration announced plans to suspend the constitutional right of people to challenge their detention in court. It’s one of several sweeping changes Trump has launched since the start of his second term. He is seizing powers from Congress and the courts, ignoring laws, and pushing for measures that border on a reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution — all under the slogan of “making America great again.”
The U.S. system of checks and balances once served as the model for democratic polities, but there’s no guarantee it will succeed in constraining Trump’s autocratic tendencies. While Congress has largely withdrawn from any potential confrontation with the president, signs of resistance are emerging from the judiciary. Yet the greatest constraints on Trump’s may not be not political or civic institutions, but public opinion, the stock market, and the broader economy.
The law of expediency
After surviving two impeachments, a criminal trial, and an assassination attempt, Donald Trump returned to the White House with an even more radical agenda. He is moving aggressively to implement the conservative “Project 2025,” which aims to overhaul federal institutions and expand presidential power. Citing budget concerns, he has effectively shut down several federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Voice of America, and NPR. He has issued a directive requiring nominally independent government agencies to report directly to the White House. With the president-elect’s blessing, Elon Musk is dismantling large parts of the public sector.
Despite the fact that these institutions were created and funded by Congress, Republican lawmakers have shown little willingness to push back, and legal experts are increasingly alarmed by Trump’s loose interpretation of his powers. He is attempting to carry out mass deportations using an outdated wartime statute and is invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to enlist the military in these efforts. He even claims the authority to block congressional funding if its intended use contradicts White House policy.
When asked whether he is obligated to follow the U.S. Constitution, Trump gives a blunt reply: “I don’t know.”
When asked whether he is obligated to follow the U.S. Constitution, Trump replies bluntly: “I don’t know”
A tug-of-war
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds primacy among the three branches of government. It has the exclusive power to pass laws and control the national budget. Taxation, trade, and declarations of war are, at least on paper, the sole prerogatives of Congress. Lawmakers also confirm the president’s appointments, they can override his vetoes, and they hold the power to impeach him. Yet after twice being impeached by the House of Representatives in his first term and twice acquitted thanks to the Senate’s Republican caucus, the threat that “high crimes and misdemeanors” could lead to the president’s political downfall no longer holds the same menace it once did.
In practice, the branches of American government are constantly locked in a tug-of-war for control, with each periodically expanding its powers beyond what the framers of the Constitution intended. There have been moments in U.S. history when the presidency assumed near-unchecked authority. The administrations of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt both suspended civil liberties — Lincoln during the Civil War, Roosevelt during World War II. Lincoln freed the slaves, stripping hundreds of thousands of slaveowners of what had been legally recognized as their “property,” while during the Great Depression, Roosevelt led the country’s recovery virtually single-handedly, with only minimal involvement from Congress.
But power can also shift back. After Lincoln’s assassination, Congress effectively sidelined his successor, Andrew Johnson, and carried out Reconstruction without regard for the preferences of the president.
The judiciary also controls certain levers of power. As early as the 19th century, the Supreme Court claimed oversight authority over both the executive and the legislative branches. It has also handed down rulings that effectively function as laws, reshaping American life. The most recent example was the overturning of the constitutional right to abortion, which had stood for fifty years.
At the same time, Congress itself has spent decades enabling the expansion of presidential power by gradually surrendering its own authority. The United States hasn’t formally declared war in a long time, even as it continues to conduct military operations around the globe.
For decades, Congress has enabled the expansion of presidential power by gradually surrendering its own authority
The executive branch no longer seeks a Congressional declaration of war before taking military action, and when it does ask for the legislature’s approval, it tends to interpret any mandate as broadly as possible. The authorization for the wars in Iraq and Syria, for example, was based on a congressional resolution that was originally passed in connection with combat operations in Afghanistan.
In addition, Congress has delegated sweeping authority to the president to impose tariffs — something Trump has eagerly taken advantage of.
Congress steps aside
Republicans legislators, who currently hold majorities in both the House and the Senate, have so far refrained from intervening in Trump’s efforts to increase his authority. Over the past decade, the Republican Party has become the party of Trump, and any resistance from its old school conservative establishment has faded entirely. Presidential appointees now show loyalty to Trump personally, not to abstract principles or democratic institutions.
During Trump’s first term, there was a real Republican base of opposition on Capitol Hill that included big name party members Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and John McCain. In 2021, a total of ten Republicans voted to impeach Trump — then most of these either stepped down voluntarily or lost their primary races. Today, nearly all Republicans in Congress — even formerly influential Senators — are unfailingly loyal to the president.
In 2021, ten Republicans voted to impeach Trump — then most of them either stepped down voluntarily or lost their primary races
Republicans are not only unwilling to oppose the erosion of their own powers, they are also discussing possible measures that they can take to defend Trump’s policies against pushback from the courts. The only real check on Republicans may be their own political ambitions — namely, the fear that going too far would put them at risk of losing to the Democrats in the 2026 midterms.
The Democrats, meanwhile, have spent most of their time since losing the election embroiled in infighting. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has come under heavy fire for striking budget deals with Republicans, and yet the out party, as always, retains decent odds of taking back the House in a year and a half, even if the 2026 Senate map leaves them little hope of regaining the upper chamber.
Control of the House would be enough to allow Democrats to open investigations into Trump, subpoena members of his administration (under threat of jail time if they refuse to appear or if they lie under oath), and, most importantly, to force budget battles with the White House and demand compromises over spending. Until that happens, however, they have little to counterbalance the president.
Until Democrats win a majority in at least one branch of Congress, they will have little leverage to counterbalance the president
For now, any resistance from the current Congress will likely be minimal: for example, Trump may be pushed to cut taxes in line with Republican orthodoxy, but he will face no criticism for imposing tariffs — which, in practice, function as a tax on consumers. And even if Congress were inclined to act, its approval rating is even lower than the president’s, hovering just above 28%. Internal divisions in both major parties all but guarantee they won’t provide a meaningful check on Trump.
And who are the judges?
With Congress effectively putting up no resistance to Trump’s agenda, the country’s main internal check on presidential power has become the courts. Hundreds of federal judges have the authority to interpret the law and rule on the constitutionality of congressional statutes or presidential orders. Their decisions, however, are not final: they can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Trump supporters openly criticize individual judges, claiming they have no right to overturn executive decisions.
While the judiciary moves slowly, it has shown no intention of submitting to the president — and even judges whom Trump himself appointed during his first term have been among those to rule against the president. Judges have not hesitated to label Trump’s executive orders unlawful. Some rulings have reinstated thousands of dismissed federal employees and agency heads. The courts have also ordered a halt to the deportation of Venezuelans that were being carried out under the auspices of a 200-year-old law. Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, was quickly blocked.
Most of these cases are still ongoing and are likely to end up in the Supreme Court, where conservatives currently hold a 6–3 majority there. But that doesn’t mean they will side with Trump across the board. Justices value their independence and reputation, so the White House cannot count on their unconditional support.
Judges value their independence and reputation — so the White House cannot count on their full support
In the past, Trump repeatedly insulted judges he disliked, calling them “left-wing lunatics” and “a disgrace to the country.” But when the White House openly defied a court order and sent deportation flights into the air anyway, he was publicly rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts — in no small part due to the fact that Trump called for the impeachment of the judge who had issued the ruling,
“Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” the chief justice said.
Roberts clearly isn’t looking for a confrontation with the executive branch, but it’s hard to see how the Supreme Court could side with Trump on a number of contentious issues that might come its way. The most obvious is the president’s attempt to abolish birthright citizenship, which is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.
Still, the courts are only partially able to restrain Trump. More than 200 lawsuits against the president’s actions are currently under review, and judges have been met with insults and threats. Many legal experts are increasingly alarmed by the administration’s deliberate refusal to comply with court rulings. Prominent conservative former judge J. Michael Luttig warned that Trump had “declared war on the rule of law” and said America was now “in a constitutional crisis.”
The most high-profile case involved the deportation of Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran national who had twice crossed the U.S. border illegally but had no criminal record and was granted amnesty under Biden. The Trump administration admitted it had deported Abrego Garcia by mistake, but refused to take any steps to secure his return from a Salvadoran “anti-terror” prison notorious for its brutal conditions. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele openly mocked the Supreme Court ruling that required the White House to assist in bringing Abrego García back.
But as the administration continues to sabotage a number of court orders, the question arises: what can the judges actually do about it? Like Congress, they have no means stronger than words to counter the executive branch. If a confrontation becomes inevitable, they can only rely on public outcry. Neither Congress nor the courts have their own enforcement arms (aside from small security services). However, states do: National Guard units, which are supposed to answer to both state governments and the Pentagon. So far, there have been no instances in U.S. history in which National Guard troops have had to choose between the two.
Popular anger?
What remains hardest to predict is how American society will respond to Trump’s policies. In the early months of his second term, he has been more unpopular than any other U.S. president at a similar stage. According to a Reuters poll, Trump’s approval rating dropped to 42% at the end of April before inching back up to 44%. Most reputable pollsters indicate that roughly half of Americans disapprove of his policies.
Tracking by pollster Nate Silver’s website shows that Trump began his second term with a public opinion advantage on issues like trade, the economy, and immigration. Now, however, immigration is the only topic where public support and opposition are so much as evenly split. On the economy, trade, and especially inflation, Trump’s ratings are negative.
But polls don’t directly shape policy. In 2017, right after Trump’s inauguration, more than one million people took to the streets in Washington to protest. In 2025, there was nothing remotely comparable in the capital. Still, signs of public discontent are emerging. Republicans are facing criticism from their own voters. Corporations and farmers are lobbying for a rollback of the newly announced tariffs. And some constituents are confronting their representatives, calling Trump’s decisions — especially on immigration — shameful.
In the age of social media and memes, the internet has become the primary tool for public mobilization. Coca-Cola’s North American sales fell by 3% after a boycott call accusing the company of firing thousands of undocumented workers and of seeking help from U.S. authorities to terminate the rest. Coca-Cola’s leadership categorically denies doing this. The company’s CFO, John Murphy, acknowledged, however, that demand among Spanish-speaking residents of the continent had declined.
Yet protests from individual population groups are unlikely to affect Trump’s overall policy. The real question is when — and to what extent — voters will begin to feel economic harm due to the president’s actions. While the mass firing of government workers may be little more than background noise for most Americans, a potential economic shock would hit everyone.
While the mass firing of government workers may be little more than background noise for most Americans, a potential economic shock would hit everyone
The economy was Trump’s strong suit during the election campaign. Polls showed Americans trusted him more than Kamala Harris when it came to economic management. But his radical agenda has affected the financial sector as well. Trump launched an attack on the Federal Reserve, calling into question the independence of the U.S. central bank, and he imposed tariffs on most of the world’s countries.
According to the president, the U.S. trade deficit allows other countries to “rob” America. Even before his tariffs took effect, they had already triggered unprecedented panic among manufacturers and exporters worldwide and sent stock markets into a tailspin that immediately reduced Americans’ retirement savings. In the first quarter, U.S. GDP fell by a preliminary 0.3% instead of seeing the expected growth.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis blamed the GDP decline on importers stockpiling goods ahead of the tariffs: “The decrease in real GDP…primarily reflected an increase in imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP.” Economists disagree: money spent on imports counts toward GDP as either consumption or investment, so importing goods doesn’t cause the economy to shrink.
The president himself acknowledged that the introduction of tariffs might lead to some temporary difficulties. “Will there be pain? Yes, possibly (or maybe not!). But we will make America great again, and that’s worth the sacrifices we’ll have to make,” Trump said. He called the stock market drop a “transition period” and urged patience, claiming the situation would resolve in the best possible way.
He also blamed the previous administration for the economic problems, even though economists identified Trump’s own tariff policy as the main source of uncertainty and slowing growth. While Chinese bloggers depict Americans wearing animal skins and giving their children clay figurines instead of toys made in China, the American president reasons that “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls.”
Trump called the stock market decline a transition period and promised the situation would resolve in the best possible way
American voters, for the most part, have shown little inclination to take action in response to Trump’s policies. But with Congress having stepped aside and the courts proving powerless, public opinion is likely to become the main check on the White House over the next year and a half. And of course, public opinion with regard to Trump’s agenda will play the decisive role in determining who controls the House and the Senate following the midterms in November 2026.