As President Donald Trump continues to make sweeping changes with executive orders, federal judges are starting to push back, signaling a potential showdown over the rule of law. While Trump’s actions, including slashing foreign aid, deploying troops to the border, and pardoning criminals, have faced little resistance in Congress, the judiciary is stepping in to challenge some of his policies.
A recent example came on Saturday when a federal judge in Manhattan temporarily blocked Elon Musk and his team from accessing Treasury Department systems that process trillions of dollars in payments. Other recent rulings have paused Trump administration policies on issues such as freezing federal grants, restructuring foreign aid, and revising transgender rules.
In a powerful message at a Seattle hearing, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour temporarily blocked Trump’s controversial policy to end birthright citizenship. Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, urged respect for the rule of law, drawing applause in the courtroom. He emphasized that moments like this could define history, asking, “Where were the lawyers? Where were the judges?” as legal norms face unprecedented challenges.
With few other checks on his power, Trump’s administration has increasingly come into conflict with the judiciary, which has emerged as a key barrier against his executive orders. This dynamic drew attention over the weekend, especially from Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance, who criticized judges on social media for their role in challenging Trump’s decisions.
Musk suggested that “the worst 1% of appointed judges” be fired annually, while Vance argued that judges shouldn’t control the executive branch’s power. As more policies clash with longstanding legal precedents, it’s clear that the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, is likely to decide key issues like birthright citizenship.
Trump’s aggressive executive orders—he has signed at least 60 so far, compared to 12 during his first term—are raising alarms among constitutional scholars. These orders have attempted to bypass Congress, rewrite agency structures, and remove safeguards such as inspectors general, prompting concerns that Trump lacks the legal authority to make such sweeping changes.
Despite warnings from legal experts, Republican lawmakers have supported Trump’s overhaul, which includes freezing funding that they themselves previously approved. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, traditionally independent, has shown little resistance to Trump’s actions. Trump’s former defense lawyer, Emil Bove, has purged the DOJ of officials involved in investigating the January 6th Capitol attack, further consolidating his influence.
However, legal resistance is beginning to take shape. Democratic state attorneys general, advocacy groups, and unions have filed at least 39 lawsuits, with some initial victories. Yet, most of these orders are only temporarily blocked, leaving courts to decide whether Trump’s actions can reshape legal norms or if his power will be constrained by long-standing laws.
One of Trump’s most controversial policies, ending birthright citizenship, is currently under appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will review whether Judge Coughenour’s ruling against this policy was correct, with the potential for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in.
Trump’s policy seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are temporary workers, tourists, or undocumented immigrants—an unprecedented move. Legal experts and conservative scholars have long argued that the president should have broader authority over the executive branch, including independent agencies and boards established by Congress. This theory could soon face a direct challenge, as Trump has fired an independent member of the U.S. labor board, an action that seems to violate laws designed to protect such officials.
In addition to these legal challenges, Trump’s actions have sparked battles over the president’s authority to spend less than Congress mandates on specific programs and to remove inspectors general from office. Meanwhile, figures like Musk have pushed for greater access to government systems, looking for waste to eliminate.
While the courts may play a crucial role in checking Trump’s actions, the legal process is slow. By the time policies like ending foreign aid are ruled illegal, it may be too late to undo the damage, especially to vulnerable programs such as refugee healthcare or mine clearance in war zones.
Dan Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, warned that courts may eventually need to rewrite laws to address the balance of executive power. He emphasized that while the judiciary is important, it may not be enough to prevent Trump from expanding his authority even further, changing the legal l
Read more:
