Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #presidentialpower, aggregated by home.social.
Trump Offers Putin Economic Relief in Hopes That Russia Will Return the Favor
For years, critics of President Trump accused him of welcoming help from Russia to tilt elections in his…
#EuropeSays #Russia #DonaldJ #EmbargoesandSanctions #Graham #LawandLegislation #Lindsey #MidtermElections(2026) #PresidentialPower(US) #Putin #trump #UnitedStatesInternationalRelations #UnitedStatesPoliticsandGovernment #VladimirV
https://www.europesays.com/russia/77359/
https://www.europesays.com/unitedstates/35729/ On the Dark Side of the Appointments Clause – Beau Baumann #BeauBaumann #ExecutiveBranch #POTUS #PresidentOfTheUnitedStates #PresidentialPower #UnitaryExecutive #WhiteHouse #WhiteHouse&ExecutiveBranch
Retribution and the Machinery of Government: When Presidential Power Becomes Personal
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — October 13, 2026
A president is allowed to have enemies.
He is allowed to criticize them. He is allowed to believe prosecutors treated him unfairly, journalists misrepresented him, universities became ideologically captured, former officials betrayed him, and political opponents abused governmental power.
The Constitution does not require presidential forgiveness.
It does require something considerably more important: the powers of the United States government belong to the United States, not personally to the president.
Donald Trump openly promised retribution before returning to office. During his second presidency, federal authority has subsequently been directed toward numerous people and institutions with histories of opposing, investigating, prosecuting, criticizing or otherwise angering him.
That sequence is evidence worth examining.
It is not, by itself, proof of unconstitutional retaliation.
The constitutional question is narrower: Has Trump used governmental authority to punish perceived personal or political enemies because they are his enemies?
THE EVIDENCE: FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS
Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were prosecuted after Trump publicly demanded action against adversaries including them. Comey had overseen the FBI investigation involving Trump’s 2016 campaign before Trump fired him. James successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump and his business after his first presidency (Reuters, 2026a).
Both denied criminal wrongdoing and alleged retaliatory prosecution.
The cases encountered an unusual procedural problem. Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally and former personal attorney who lacked previous prosecutorial experience, obtained the indictments after the previous U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, left the position amid pressure surrounding the investigations. A federal judge subsequently dismissed the prosecutions after concluding Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. The Justice Department appealed (Reuters, 2026a).
As of September 15, 2026, judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals were considering the government’s attempt to revive those cases (Reuters, 2026a).
Those are documented events.
They do not establish that Comey or James could never legitimately be prosecuted. They do not establish that Trump fabricated evidence. They do not establish, by themselves, that the prosecutions were ordered for retaliatory reasons.
What they establish is a sequence that Congress could legitimately investigate: Trump publicly demanded action against political adversaries; prosecutorial personnel changed; indictments followed; and a federal court later found the prosecutor’s appointment unlawful.
The conclusion that this constituted presidential retribution requires additional evidence concerning motive, direction and prosecutorial decision-making.
THE EVIDENCE: INVESTIGATING THE INVESTIGATORS
The Justice Department has also pursued a criminal investigation examining whether Trump was victimized by a conspiracy involving former federal law-enforcement and intelligence officials.
The investigation has examined matters involving the intelligence assessment concerning Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and the federal investigation involving classified documents retained at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property after his first term. Former CIA Director John Brennan has been informed that he is a target of that investigation (Reuters, 2026b).
Again, the evidence and conclusion must be separated.
Former government officials do not become immune from investigation because they previously investigated a president. If officials committed crimes, the Justice Department has authority to investigate them.
The existence of an investigation therefore does not prove retaliation.
The relevant questions are why particular investigations were initiated, whether normal evidentiary standards were followed, whether career prosecutors supported the decisions, and whether presidential demands influenced prosecutorial judgments.
Those questions require records and testimony.
THE EVIDENCE: TRUMP’S OWN WORDS
Trump’s public statements provide another category of evidence.
He has repeatedly named people he believes wronged him and called for investigations or prosecutions of adversaries. Public presidential statements are not themselves unlawful. Presidents retain broad political and expressive rights.
But statements can become relevant evidence of intent when governmental action subsequently affects the people being discussed.
That does not mean Trump’s rhetoric automatically proves retaliatory motive.
It means Congress examining possible abuse of power would be justified in comparing his statements with subsequent governmental actions.
The sequence matters.
So does evidence establishing who ordered what.
THE EVIDENCE: LAW FIRMS
The administration also took action against major law firms associated with lawyers or causes Trump opposed, including Perkins Coie.
Trump issued executive actions affecting matters including government contracts, security clearances and access to federal facilities.
Perkins Coie challenged the action.
A federal judge struck Trump’s order down, concluding that it violated constitutional protections including the First Amendment. The administration appealed (Reuters, 2025b).
That judicial ruling is evidence considerably stronger than political accusation because a federal court actually evaluated the government’s conduct.
Even here, however, precision matters.
The federal government legitimately controls security clearances, contracts and access to government facilities.
The constitutional problem arises if those authorities are exercised to punish lawyers because of clients they represented or political positions associated with their firms.
A court concluded that constitutional lines had been crossed in the Perkins Coie case.
Whether that episode forms part of a broader presidential system of retaliation is a separate conclusion requiring broader evidence.
THE EVIDENCE: THE PRESS
Trump’s confrontations with news organizations provide another documented example.
During his second term, the White House restricted Associated Press access after the organization declined to adopt Trump’s preferred “Gulf of America” terminology for the Gulf of Mexico.
A federal district judge appointed by Trump concluded that the government likely violated the First Amendment by retaliating against the AP because of its editorial choices and ordered access restored. Subsequent appellate proceedings continued over the scope of White House authority concerning press access (Reuters, 2025c).
The dispute expanded in September 2026 when Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, describing their reporting as “FAKE NEWS” (Reuters, 2026c).
The affected organizations challenged the decision.
Legal experts told Reuters that Trump’s stated justification created significant First Amendment concerns because government generally cannot distribute access according to whether officials approve of a news organization’s viewpoint (Reuters, 2026d).
Again, evidence and conclusion are different.
The president possesses substantial authority over access to sensitive White House spaces. Journalists do not possess unlimited rights to enter every presidential workspace.
But when the stated reason for excluding particular organizations is their journalism, the First Amendment question becomes substantially different from an ordinary security or logistical decision.
THE EVIDENCE: UNIVERSITIES
Harvard University has also become a major battleground.
The administration has challenged Harvard over federal funding, hiring practices, international students, antisemitism and diversity policies.
Some of those matters fall squarely within legitimate federal authority. Universities receiving federal funds must comply with federal law.
On September 30, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Harvard seeking records connected to an investigation of alleged discriminatory hiring practices. Harvard denies discrimination and has characterized the administration’s broader actions as retaliation for refusing to comply with administration demands concerning academic and hiring policies (Reuters, 2026e).
Harvard’s characterization is an allegation.
The federal investigation is a fact.
Neither proves the other.
Determining whether enforcement is legitimate or retaliatory requires comparing the government’s treatment of Harvard with applicable law, enforcement standards, comparable institutions, internal communications and the reasons officials gave when decisions were made.
THE EVIDENCE: JUDGES
On September 30, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against Minnesota federal judges who publicly discussed immigration litigation and what they described as administration disregard for judicial orders.
Justice Department officials argued that the judges violated ethical restrictions and demonstrated bias.
Defenders of the judges pointed to federal judicial ethics guidance allowing judges in some circumstances to defend judicial independence and the rule of law publicly (Reuters, 2026f).
Here the evidence establishes a dispute.
It does not establish retaliation.
Judges have ethical obligations. The Justice Department may raise complaints it considers legitimate.
The relevant constitutional question would require evidence showing that disciplinary mechanisms were being used not to enforce judicial ethics but to intimidate judges because their rulings or public statements opposed administration interests.
That conclusion cannot simply be assumed.
THE EVIDENCE: TAXPAYER-FUNDED MESSAGING
Another controversy emerged shortly before the 2026 midterm elections.
Nationally broadcast advertisements featuring Trump aired with disclaimers stating that they were “Paid for by the US Government.”
The advertisements promoted themes associated with Trump’s political messaging, including a “golden age of America” and criticism of the “deep state.” Reuters reported that one closely resembled a Trump campaign advertisement from 2024 (Reuters, 2026g).
The White House described the advertisements as public-service announcements promoting patriotism.
Critics, including members of both parties, questioned whether taxpayer money was effectively financing political promotion shortly before an election and whether restrictions involving government propaganda or political activity were implicated (Reuters, 2026g).
The existence and government financing of the advertisements are evidence.
The conclusion that they constitute unlawful campaign activity requires a separate legal analysis.
THE PATTERN IS EVIDENCE TOO — BUT NOT A VERDICT
Prosecutors.
Former intelligence officials.
State attorneys general.
Law firms.
Universities.
Journalists.
Judges.
The number and variety of confrontations involving institutions or individuals previously opposed to Trump are themselves relevant evidence.
Patterns can matter when determining intent.
But patterns can also mislead.
A president undertaking enormous changes across the federal government will inevitably clash with many political opponents. The existence of numerous disputes therefore cannot automatically establish that those disputes share a retaliatory purpose.
Congress would need something more.
Internal communications.
Presidential directives.
Testimony from officials.
Departures from ordinary enforcement procedures.
Evidence that career personnel objected.
Comparisons showing political allies were treated differently under equivalent circumstances.
Records connecting presidential demands to governmental decisions.
Those are the kinds of evidence that could transform suspicion of retaliation into a demonstrable abuse-of-power case.
POLICY IS NOT RETALIATION
This limitation is essential.
Trump was elected to change government policy.
He may lawfully reverse Biden administration priorities.
He may replace political appointees.
He may investigate genuine misconduct.
He may enforce immigration law aggressively.
He may challenge university practices his administration believes violate federal civil-rights statutes.
He may criticize journalists.
He may change Justice Department priorities.
He may seek prosecution when prosecutors possess legally sufficient evidence.
Calling every Trump policy “retribution” would make the term meaningless.
The constitutional case becomes serious only when governmental authority is exercised because a person or institution opposed, investigated, represented clients against, criticized or otherwise personally offended the president.
That is a conclusion that must be demonstrated from evidence rather than presumed from political disagreement.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
If Congress were eventually able to establish that Trump systematically directed federal powers against personal or political enemies, the constitutional theory would be familiar.
Trump’s first impeachment involved a related abuse-of-power argument: the House alleged that presidential authority involving Ukraine had been used to advance Trump’s personal political interests rather than the national interest. The Senate acquitted him.
The broader constitutional principle remains important.
Presidential powers are granted for public purposes.
Prosecution exists to enforce laws.
Government contracting exists to obtain goods and services.
Security clearances exist to protect national security.
Federal grants exist to execute programs authorized by law.
Regulatory investigations exist to enforce statutes.
Press-access rules exist to manage presidential facilities and security.
If those powers are deliberately redirected toward punishing personal enemies, the issue ceases to be ordinary policy disagreement.
It becomes a possible abuse of office.
But the word “if” matters.
The evidence must establish the connection.
THE COST OF NO ACCOUNTABILITY
Remove Donald Trump’s name from the problem.
Imagine a future Democratic president.
A conservative newspaper publishes damaging investigations. The White House removes its reporters.
A law firm represents Republican officials challenging the administration. Federal contracts involving that firm disappear.
A conservative university refuses administration demands. Federal grants freeze and regulators arrive.
A former Republican attorney general investigates the president. After leaving office, that attorney general becomes the subject of federal criminal investigations.
A television network relentlessly criticizes the president. Federal agencies begin scrutinizing its corporate parent.
Republicans would immediately ask whether presidential power was being used for retaliation.
They would be right to ask.
Reverse the parties and the constitutional principle remains identical.
Government cannot become an extension of presidential grievance.
The larger danger is not limited to people who actually experience retaliation.
Others begin anticipating it.
Law firms may decline controversial clients.
Universities may avoid confrontations with government.
Corporations may hesitate before criticizing policy.
Journalists may reconsider aggressive coverage.
Civil servants may learn that objection carries professional risk.
Prosecutors may discover which cases leadership wants.
Officials may decide loyalty is safer than independence.
None of that proves it has already happened throughout the federal government.
It explains why evidence of presidential retaliation must be taken seriously.
The president controls enormous machinery: prosecutors, investigators, regulators, contracts, grants, security clearances, immigration enforcement and the extraordinary public influence of the presidency itself.
Congress must determine from evidence whether Trump has used that machinery primarily to execute his administration’s lawful policies or whether portions of it have been redirected toward settling personal and political scores.
That determination cannot responsibly begin with the conclusion.
It must begin with the evidence.
And if the evidence ultimately establishes systematic presidential retaliation, Congress will then face the constitutional question it was given the impeachment power to answer:
When does the use of public power for personal purposes become a high crime or misdemeanor?
REFERENCES
Congressional Research Service. (2025). Impeachment and the Constitution (R46013). U.S. Congress.
Reuters. (2025a, November 26). Trump’s campaign of retribution: At least 470 targets and counting.
Reuters. (2025b, November 17). Law firms Ashurst, Perkins Coie agree merger to create global top-20 outfit.
Reuters. (2025c, November 24). U.S. appeals court to rule if Trump can ban AP from Oval Office.
Reuters. (2026a, September 15). Judges question DOJ bid to revive cases against Trump foes Comey, James.
Reuters. (2026b, September 29). Ex-White House election official leaves DOJ probe of Trump foes, sources say.
Reuters. (2026c, September 18). Trump says he is banning media outlets CNN, MS NOW, Politico from White House.
Reuters. (2026d, September 22). White House media ban faces long odds in court, legal experts say.
Reuters. (2026e, September 30). Harvard sued by U.S. agency seeking records in anti-white hiring probe.
Reuters. (2026f, September 30). U.S. Justice Department files complaint against Minnesota judges who gave interviews about immigration surge.
Reuters. (2026g, September 28). Trump government ads draw scrutiny weeks before midterm elections.
U.S. Constitution, amend. I; art. II, § 4.
#AbuseOfPower #DOJ #DonaldJTrump #donaldTrump #PoliticalRetribution #presidentialPower #WPSNews
Heather Cox Richardson questions if a president can truly do whatever they want as Donald Trump repeatedly asserted power on key October 7ths from the Access Hollywood tape to his challenges of the 2020 election. Her analysis traces this critical timeline exposing patterns in presidential overreach and threats to democratic norms. The piece offers vital lessons on the need for accountability to protect institutions from unchecked authority. Readers should explore the full article for deeper insight.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/october-7-2026
#USPolitics #Accountability #PresidentialPower
https://www.europesays.com/unitedstates/23310/ Investigations and a Billion-Dollar ‘Shakedown’: How Trump Targeted Higher Education #AcademicFreedom #BrownUniversity #CollegesAndUniversities #DonaldJ #HarvardUniversity #JusticeDepartment #LosAngeles #Mailman #May(1988) #Miller #PoliticalInvestigations #PresidentialPower(US) #ProPalestinianCampusProtests(2023) #Stephen(1985) #trump #UnitedStatesPoliticsAndGovernment #UniversityOfCalifornia
https://www.europesays.com/unitedstates/21108/ As presidents gain power, who keeps government accountable? #CongressionalOversight #ExecutiveAuthority #Humphrey'sExecutor #IndependentAgencies #PoliticalInvestigations #PresidentialPower #SeparationOfPowers #SupremeCourt #TrumpVSlaughter
The Presidency and the Power to Make War: When One Person Decides
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 29, 2026
The Constitution does not give the president of the United States an unrestricted power to take the nation to war.
It gives Congress the power to declare war.
It gives Congress authority to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, regulate the armed forces, and appropriate the money necessary to sustain military operations (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8).
The president, meanwhile, is commander in chief of the armed forces (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2).
For more than two centuries, presidents and Congresses have argued about where one authority ends and the other begins.
Donald Trump’s second presidency has brought that argument back with extraordinary force.
In June 2025, Trump ordered U.S. military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities without first obtaining specific authorization from Congress. The administration defended the operation as a lawful exercise of presidential authority. Critics in Congress argued that Trump had usurped a power constitutionally reserved to the legislature (The White House, 2025a; Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2025a).
The disagreement became so serious that Representative Al Green introduced an article of impeachment specifically accusing Trump of violating Congress’s constitutional war power (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025a).
That does not establish that Trump committed an impeachable offense.
But unlike some theoretical arguments surrounding a possible third impeachment, this one already exists in black and white.
A member of Congress has formally alleged that Trump’s use of military force constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor.
The question is whether the constitutional argument holds.
The Constitution Divided the War Powers Deliberately
The Framers had experience with kings.
They understood the danger of allowing a single executive to decide when a nation would enter war.
The Constitution therefore divided military authority.
Congress received the power to declare war and control military funding. The president became commander in chief, providing the executive leadership necessary to direct military operations (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; art. II, § 2).
James Madison considered this division essential. He argued that the Constitution had deliberately transferred the power to initiate war away from the executive because executives historically were particularly inclined toward war (Madison, 1793/1906).
Alexander Hamilton—often associated with a strong executive—also distinguished the American president’s military authority from that of the British king. In Federalist No. 69, Hamilton emphasized that the president’s commander-in-chief authority was narrower than the British monarch’s authority to declare war and raise armies (Hamilton, 1788/1961).
The basic design was therefore intentional.
The president commands forces.
Congress decides whether the nation will legally commit itself to war.
At least, that was the theory.
Two Centuries Changed the Practice
American history complicated the constitutional arrangement almost immediately.
Presidents have repeatedly deployed military force without formal declarations of war.
Korea.
Vietnam.
Grenada.
Panama.
Kosovo.
Libya.
Operations in Iraq and Syria.
Numerous smaller interventions, strikes, raids, deployments, and covert operations.
Congress has sometimes authorized force without formally declaring war. At other times presidents have relied upon their Article II authority as commander in chief and chief executive.
The result is a constitutional gray area considerably larger than the text of Article I might initially suggest.
Modern presidents of both parties have asserted authority to conduct limited military operations without advance congressional authorization when they conclude that important national interests are involved and when the anticipated scope, nature, and duration of hostilities do not rise to the constitutional meaning of “war” requiring congressional authorization (CRS, 2025a).
Trump did not invent that theory.
Democratic and Republican administrations have used versions of it for decades.
That fact matters when evaluating whether his actions are impeachable.
Congress Tried to Reassert Itself After Vietnam
The Vietnam War produced an enormous backlash against unilateral presidential warfare.
Congress responded by enacting the War Powers Resolution of 1973 over President Richard Nixon’s veto.
The law requires consultation with Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated. It also establishes reporting requirements and generally requires termination of unauthorized military involvement after a statutory period unless Congress authorizes continued operations (War Powers Resolution, 1973).
Presidents from both parties have questioned aspects of the resolution’s constitutionality.
Nevertheless, administrations generally submit reports consistent with it while carefully avoiding language that would concede Congress’s interpretation of presidential war powers (CRS, 2025b).
That uneasy compromise has survived for more than half a century.
But it has never resolved the underlying question:
How much war can a president wage before Congress must say yes?
Then Trump Bombed Iran
On June 21, 2025, Trump announced that U.S. forces had struck three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
The operation involved American military aircraft and munitions directed against facilities inside the sovereign territory of Iran.
The White House described the strikes as necessary to eliminate or severely degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities and protect American national-security interests (The White House, 2025a).
Trump presented the operation as a spectacular military success.
Supporters argued that the president acted decisively against a serious threat and that limited strikes fell within presidential Article II authority.
Critics responded with a much simpler constitutional objection:
Congress had not authorized a war against Iran.
The Administration’s Legal Argument
The Trump administration subsequently provided Congress with its legal justification.
According to the administration, the president possessed constitutional authority to order the strikes because he determined that they served important national interests and because the anticipated nature, scope, and duration of the operation did not amount to “war” in the constitutional sense requiring prior congressional authorization (The White House, 2025b; CRS, 2025a).
That reasoning did not emerge from nowhere.
Previous administrations have used similar legal frameworks.
President Barack Obama’s administration relied upon comparable reasoning during the 2011 intervention in Libya, arguing that the limited character of the operation did not require prior congressional authorization under the Constitution.
Presidents have also ordered isolated missile strikes, retaliatory operations, rescue missions, counterterrorism raids, and other military actions without obtaining a declaration of war.
Trump therefore has a serious constitutional defense:
The presidency has accumulated substantial historical authority to conduct limited military operations without Congress first passing an authorization.
If impeachment is going to be considered, that defense cannot simply be ignored.
But Bombing Another Country Is Not a Minor Administrative Act
The opposing argument is equally serious.
American military forces attacked targets inside Iran.
Iran is a sovereign state.
Those targets were central to one of the most dangerous geopolitical disputes in the world.
A strike against Iranian nuclear facilities carried obvious risks of retaliation against American troops, American allies, shipping, energy infrastructure, and potentially the United States itself.
The operation therefore could have initiated a substantially larger war regardless of whether Trump intended one.
That is exactly why the Constitution placed war-making authority partly in Congress.
The Framers did not merely fear presidents deliberately launching enormous wars.
They feared executive decisions that could drag the country into war.
Once bombs fall, the other country gets a vote.
The president controls the American decision to strike.
He does not control Iran’s response.
Congress Had Not Authorized War With Iran
Congress had previously enacted Authorizations for Use of Military Force connected to the September 11 attacks and the Iraq War.
Neither constituted a general authorization to wage war against Iran.
The administration primarily defended the June 2025 strikes through Article II presidential authority rather than claiming Congress had already authorized an Iranian war (CRS, 2025a).
That fact makes the constitutional dispute unusually clean.
The question is not principally whether an old congressional authorization can be stretched to cover a new enemy.
The question is whether the president himself possessed sufficient constitutional authority to order the operation.
Trump said yes.
Some members of Congress said no.
Congress Responded With War Powers Measures
Members of Congress introduced measures intended to require congressional authorization for continued or additional hostilities involving Iran.
Senator Tim Kaine introduced S.J.Res. 59 directing the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress specifically authorized those hostilities (U.S. Senate, 2025).
In the House, Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican, joined Democratic Representative Ro Khanna in introducing a corresponding war-powers resolution asserting that Congress—not the president alone—possesses the constitutional authority to decide whether the United States enters war with Iran (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025b).
That bipartisan opposition is significant.
The dispute was not simply Democrats objecting because Trump is a Republican.
Some Republicans also argued that Congress had been bypassed.
Then Came an Article of Impeachment
Representative Al Green went further.
On June 24, 2025, Green introduced H.Res. 537, accusing Trump of committing a high crime and misdemeanor by abusing presidential power and usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war when he ordered military strikes against Iran without congressional authorization (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025a).
The House did not embrace Green’s argument.
On June 24, it voted 344–79 to table the impeachment resolution, with 128 Democrats joining Republicans in effectively stopping immediate consideration (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025c).
That vote matters.
Congress was plainly nowhere near a consensus that the Iran strikes justified impeachment.
Any honest account has to say so.
But tabling an impeachment resolution is a political judgment.
It is not a Supreme Court ruling establishing that the president possessed unlimited constitutional authority.
The underlying separation-of-powers question remains.
A Bad Policy Decision Is Not Necessarily Impeachable
This series has repeatedly returned to the same limitation because it matters.
Congress should not impeach presidents simply because legislators disagree with presidential policy.
A military operation can be foolish without being impeachable.
It can fail without being impeachable.
It can be strategically reckless without necessarily constituting a high crime or misdemeanor.
Presidents must possess operational flexibility.
If American forces are attacked, nobody seriously expects the president to wait for a week-long congressional debate before defending them.
If intelligence reveals an imminent attack, the commander in chief must possess some capacity to act.
The Constitution cannot require paralysis.
The difficult case is different.
It is a deliberate military operation against another sovereign country, undertaken without an immediate attack requiring instantaneous defense, where Congress has not authorized hostilities.
At that point, the constitutional allocation of war powers becomes unavoidable.
The Problem Is Larger Than Trump
Trump’s critics should recognize something uncomfortable.
Presidents did not acquire expansive unilateral war-making authority in January 2017 or January 2025.
Congress helped create this situation.
For decades, legislators from both parties have tolerated presidential military actions without declarations of war.
Sometimes Congress has provided broad authorizations and then allowed presidents to interpret them expansively.
Sometimes it has funded military operations after they began.
Sometimes it has complained without taking decisive legislative action.
Sometimes lawmakers have preferred letting presidents make dangerous decisions because doing so allows Congress to avoid political responsibility.
That history weakens any simplistic claim that Trump’s Iran strike suddenly invented an unconstitutional presidency.
But it strengthens another argument.
Eventually a constitutional boundary that is never enforced ceases to function as a meaningful boundary.
What Would Make This Impeachable?
The strongest impeachment argument would not be:
Donald Trump bombed Iran, and bombing Iran was bad.
The argument would instead be structural.
Trump knowingly exercised a power the Constitution assigns to Congress.
Congress had not authorized hostilities.
There was no immediate circumstance requiring instantaneous defensive action.
The operation carried a foreseeable risk of expanding into major warfare.
And the president nevertheless determined by himself that the United States would initiate military action against another sovereign state.
If Congress concludes that those facts constitute a deliberate usurpation of legislative authority, then the impeachment question becomes substantial.
The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly recognized that disputes over presidential initiation of hostilities remain among the most difficult unresolved questions in constitutional law (CRS, 2025a, 2025b).
Impeachment would therefore not be punishment for foreign policy.
It would be Congress defending its own constitutional authority.
The Cost of No Accountability
Imagine the precedent carried forward.
A future president decides China poses an intolerable threat.
American aircraft strike Chinese installations.
Congress was not consulted.
Another president decides North Korea’s nuclear program has become unacceptable.
Bombers attack North Korean facilities.
Congress was not consulted.
Another president decides Venezuela threatens American security.
Missiles strike Caracas.
Congress was not consulted.
Each president points backward.
Iran was bombed without prior congressional authorization.
Libya was attacked without a declaration of war.
Other presidents launched strikes.
Congress tolerated it.
Therefore the president possesses the authority.
That is how constitutional power migrates.
Not usually through a dramatic announcement that the Constitution has been abolished.
It migrates through precedent.
One president pushes the boundary.
Congress does nothing.
The next president starts from the new boundary and pushes again.
Eventually Article I may continue saying that Congress has the power to declare war while presidents possess the practical power to initiate virtually any war they choose.
At that point the constitutional language remains.
The constitutional restraint does not.
The danger is especially severe because warfare is unlike most presidential decisions.
A regulation can be repealed.
A budget can be amended.
An executive order can be rescinded.
A military strike cannot be unlaunched.
People die.
Other governments respond.
Alliances activate.
Markets react.
Armies mobilize.
Wars expand.
That is why the decision to begin hostilities was never supposed to belong casually to one person.
Trump’s Iran strikes therefore force Congress to confront a question it has avoided under presidents of both parties:
Does Congress actually possess the war power the Constitution gives it, or has decades of congressional surrender transferred that power to the presidency?
If the answer is the latter, then Donald Trump is not the endpoint of the problem.
He is another step in a constitutional transformation that has been occurring for generations.
And the president who eventually inherits the fully developed version of that power may be far more dangerous than Trump.
References
Congressional Research Service. (2025a). Presidential power to use military force: Selected legal issues. U.S. Congress.
Congressional Research Service. (2025b). The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and practice. U.S. Congress.
Hamilton, A. (1788/1961). Federalist No. 69. In C. Rossiter (Ed.), The Federalist Papers. New American Library.
Madison, J. (1793/1906). Helvidius No. 1. In G. Hunt (Ed.), The writings of James Madison (Vol. 6). G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
The White House. (2025a, June 21). President Trump announces successful strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Executive Office of the President.
The White House. (2025b). Report to Congress consistent with the War Powers Resolution concerning United States military operations against Iranian nuclear facilities. Executive Office of the President.
U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 8; art. II, § 2.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2025a). Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (H. Res. 537, 119th Cong.).
U.S. House of Representatives. (2025b). Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress (H. Con. Res. 38, 119th Cong.).
U.S. House of Representatives. (2025c, June 24). Roll call vote on motion to table H. Res. 537, 119th Congress.
U.S. Senate. (2025). A joint resolution directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress (S.J. Res. 59, 119th Cong.).
War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548 (1973).
#congressionalAuthority #DonaldTrump #Iran #presidentialPower #TrumpImpeachment #warPowers #WPSNews
Trump’s Taxpayer-Funded Political Ads: Unethical, Illegal, and Unacceptable
Unethical, Illegal, and Unacceptable Misuse of Public Funds by Winston Wendell The Trump administration has crossed another bridge on its way to complete disaster by publicly displaying a campaign ad that utilizes taxpayer funds. The video, taken from Trump’s 2024 campaign, includes his usual insults at “villains” and “institutions.” This is not only shameful but illegal and ethically wrong. According to the Hatch Act, federal employees cannot engage in any politics while on […]
https://www.europesays.com/people/241155/ The Unitary Executive Theory in All of Its Historical Perversity #Constitution #DonaldTrump #JohnRoberts #originalism #PresidentialPower #SupremeCourt #UnitaryExecutiveTheory
Constitutional Concerns Over Executive Overreach in Military Actions
📰 Original title: When War Comes Home: A Constitutional Warning
🤖 IA: It's not clickbait ✅
👥 Users: It's not clickbait ✅
Trump's Fishing Ban Joke Sparks Expert Concerns Over Presidential Power
📰 Original title: Experts Spot An Alarming Comment In This Otherwise Ridiculous Trump Statement: ‘He’s Not Joking’
🤖 IA: It's not clickbait ✅
👥 Users: It's not clickbait ✅
https://www.europesays.com/africa/420947/ Constitutional Reform in Ethiopia: Challenges, Options, and Pathways Forward #ConstitutionalChange #Ethiopia #EthiopianConstitution #PresidentialPower #secession
What if a president used AI to fabricate national triumphs? Sawdah Bhaimiya reports that President Trump spent hours on Truth Social sharing AI-generated images alongside unverified claims of generating hundreds of billions for the nation via stocks. These visuals, ranging from geopolitical victories to domestic rebranding, highlight how synthetic media is shaping modern political messaging and raising serious questions regarding securities law and accountability in a digital landscape. Read more about these developments at the link below. Sawdah Bhaimiya provides an excellent analysis of this complex intersection.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/07/trump-truth-social-ai-images-posting-spree.html #Trump #AISocialMedia #TruthSocial #PresidentialPower
Contributor: Trump is waging an illegal, costly war in Iran and no one is stopping him
By Erwin ChemerinskyContributing writer Sept. 7, 2026 3 AM PT The war in Iran continues, and very few…
#NewsBeep #News #BreakingNews #breakingnews #Congress #constitution #costlywar #day #Government #hostility #Iran #Law #militaryaction #money #president #presidentialpower #Trump #u.s.basis #WarPowersResolution
https://www.newsbeep.com/722062/
https://www.europesays.com/people/218376/ Contributor: Trump is waging an illegal, costly war in Iran and no one is stopping him #Congress #Constitution #CostlyWar #day #Government #hostility #Iran #law #MilitaryAction #money #POTUS #President #PresidentOfTheUnitedStates #PresidentialPower #Trump #USBasis #WarPowersResolution
https://www.europesays.com/iran/281728/ Contributor: Trump is waging an illegal, costly war in Iran and no one is stopping him #Congress #constitution #CostlyWar #day #government #hostility #Iran #law #MilitaryAction #Money #president #PresidentialPower #trump #USBasis #WarPowersResolution
https://www.europesays.com/people/198387/ US Supreme Court John Roberts lets Trump White House ballroom construction continue #CongressionalApproval #DonaldTrump #EmergencyAppeal #HistoricPreservation #JohnRoberts #NationalSecurity #PresidentialPower #USSupremeCourt #WhiteHouseBallroom #WhiteHouseRenovation
"The Trump administration continues to create new rules for federal grants and then deny funding based on them — only to be repeatedly shot down in court this summer. Lawmakers in both parties have also blasted White House budget director Russ Vought this year for delaying the release of cash for congressionally backed programs for #AntipovertyServices, #ForeignAssistance, #banking in underserved areas and more":
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/21/in-year-2-of-trumps-funding-grab-congress-fights-back-01045146
#PresidentialPower copy: @renewedresistance #politics
The Narrowed Office: How Kosovo’s Constitutional Court Has Diminished the Presidency and Made Dissolution a Political Tool https://www.byteseu.com/2264992/ #Kosovo #KosovoConstitution #ParliamentaryDissolution #PresidentialPower
The Narrowed Office: How Kosovo’s Constitutional Court Has Diminished the Presidency and Made Dissolution a Political Tool
–Gazmend Demolli, Independent researcher A republic that cannot elect a President has lost something more particular than a…
#Politics #Kosovoconstitution #parliamentarydissolution #presidentialpower
https://www.europesays.com/3187160/
https://www.europesays.com/3187160/ The Narrowed Office: How Kosovo’s Constitutional Court Has Diminished the Presidency and Made Dissolution a Political Tool #KosovoConstitution #ParliamentaryDissolution #Politics #PresidentialPower
https://www.europesays.com/3187160/ The Narrowed Office: How Kosovo’s Constitutional Court Has Diminished the Presidency and Made Dissolution a Political Tool #KosovoConstitution #ParliamentaryDissolution #Politics #PresidentialPower
https://www.europesays.com/people/163767/ Supreme Court Turbocharges Presidential Power #DecisionsAndVerdicts #DonaldJ #ElectionAssistanceCommission #FederalTradeCommission #JohnGJr #JohnRoberts #PresidentialPower(US) #Roberts #Sonia #Sotomayor #SuitsAndLitigation(Civil) #SupremeCourt(US) #Trump #UnitedStatesPoliticsAndGovernment
https://www.europesays.com/news/55233/ Roger Rogoff Files Suit Challenging Trump’s Power to Fire Him #AppointmentsAndExecutiveChanges #Blanche #DonaldJ #FederalCourts(US) #Headlines #JusticeDepartment #KingCounty(Wash) #News #PresidentialPower(US) #Roger #Rogoff #Seattle(Wash) #SuitsAndLitigation(Civil) #Todd(Attorney) #TopStories #trump #UnitedStatesAttorneys #UnitedStatesPoliticsAndGovernment #Washington(State)
Presidential Administration Through the French Case
The American concept of Presidential Administration holds analytical value for scholars of French politics. Although the United States…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #America #ExecutiveBranch #FRANCE #International #presidentialadministration #presidentialpower #UnitedStatesofAmerica
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/767653/
#Climate: An extraordinary #WhiteHouse meeting
A new #book “#RegimeChange,” provides an account of a March 2025 meeting that sheds additional light on Trump’s affinity for #fossilfuels and his willingness to exert #presidentialpower.
“They were almost in awe,” Swan said. “There was no semblance of a policy process, but rather the #CEO.s were raising their grievances, and Trump was essentially saying, ‘Make it so, it shall be done.’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/14/climate/climate-an-extraordinary-white-house-meeting.html
https://archive.ph/RQtxu
Supreme Court says Fed’s Cook can keep her job for now, but it upholds other Trump firings
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential power, upholding President Donald Trump’s firings of the heads…
#Economy #DonaldTrump #FedGovernor #federalgovernor #FederalReserveSystem #LisaCook #presidenttrump #presidentialpower #scotus #SupremeCourt #whitehouse
https://www.europesays.com/3110935/
https://www.europesays.com/3110935/ Supreme Court says Fed’s Cook can keep her job for now, but it upholds other Trump firings #DonaldTrump #Economy #FedGovernor #FederalGovernor #FederalReserveSystem #LisaCook #PresidentTrump #PresidentialPower #scotus #SupremeCourt #WhiteHouse
https://www.europesays.com/people/137427/ In Tumultuous Term, Chief Justice Roberts Took Charge of Unruly Supreme Court #AlanM #CitizenshipAndNaturalization #cnn #Conservatism(USPolitics) #CourtsAndTheJudiciary #DecisionsAndVerdicts #Dershowitz #DonaldJ #JohnGJr #JohnRoberts #LawAndLegislation #LibelAndSlander #NewYorkTimesVSullivan(SupremeCourtDecision) #PresidentialPower(US) #Roberts #SupremeCourt(US) #Trump #UnitedStatesPoliticsAndGovernment #VotingRightsAct(1965)
🚨‼️🚨‼️🚨
#SCOTUS upholds #BirthrightCitizenship, rejecting #Trump proposed limits
SCOTUS Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump’s EO declaring #children born to parents in the #US illegally or temporarily are not US #citizens. The decision, in line with the longstanding judicial interpretation of the #14thAmendment, comes on the final day of a SCOTUS term that has centered on Trump’s expansive claims of #PresidentialPower.
https://www.europesays.com/people/134353/ Supreme Court Expands Trump’s Power, With One Big Exception #ChiefJusticeJohnRoberts #FedGovernor #FederalReserve #FederalTradeCommission #IndependentAgencies #JohnRoberts #JusticeSoniaSotomayor #LisaCook #PresidentTrump #PresidentialPower #RebeccaSlaughter #TheSupremeCourt
Supreme Court Reshapes Executive Power in Historic Term-Ending Rulings
Supreme Court reshapes executive power in landmark rulings overturning Humphrey's Executor, protecting the Federal Reserve, upholding mail ballot grace periods, and expanding digital privacy rights.https://thedemocracyadvocate.com/news-to-know/supreme-court/supreme-court-reshapes-executive-power/
The Supreme Court Blocked Trump on the Fed, Mail-In Ballots, and E. Jean Carroll in One Day #DonaldTrump #LisaCook #EJeanCarroll #JohnRoberts #ClarenceThomas #SamuelAlito #FederalReserve #MailInBallots #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #Watson #RNC #Election2026 #VotingRights #SexualAbuse #Defamation #FedIndependence #PresidentialPower #June29 #Hawk #YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8MAQ8mkJ_Q
Did the Supreme Court just reshape presidential power? Dan Mangan reports the 6-3 conservative ruling now allows a president to fire FTC commissioners at will, overturning a 90-year precedent. This dramatically expands executive authority over independent agencies. Learn more about this crucial decision. Thanks, Dan Mangan! https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/29/supreme-court-trump-slaughter-ftc.html #SupremeCourt #PresidentialPower #FTC #ChecksAndBalances
Scharf’s memo, in its unassuming way, was a blinking red warning light. The 2nd #Trump White House was deliberating an explosive new claim of #PresidentialPower: the suspension of habeas rights for unauthorized #immigrants.
The suspension of #HabeasCorpus has occurred just a handful of times in US history, & always under the most dire circumstances of #war or #invasion.
#law #judiciary #SeparationOfPowers #ChecksAndBalances #Constitution #democracy #StephenMiller #WhiteSupremacy #immigration
How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution
Measure passed with 215 “yes” votes to 208 “no” votes.VoteTotalDemocrats Dem.Republicans Rep.Bar chart of total votes 2152114 2080208…
#NewsBeep #News #BreakingNews #breakingnews #DonaldJ #HouseofRepresentatives #Iran #PresidentialPower(US) #Trump #UnitedStatesDefenseandMilitaryForces #UnitedStatesInternationalRelations #UnitedStatesPoliticsandGovernment #WarPowersAct(1973)
https://www.newsbeep.com/574178/
A quotation from Martha Gellhorn
The Founding Fathers cannot have intended a President and his small group of appointed advisors to perform like a monarch surrounded by his court. As if the people’s representatives and the people themselves were a general nuisance, and the job is to keep the whole tiresome bunch quiet: manipulate them.
Martha Gellhorn (1908–1998) American novelist, journalist war correspontent
Letter (1971) to Daniel Ellsberg
More about this quote: wist.info/gellhorn-martha/8394…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #marthagellhorn #America #autocracy #congress #founders #manipulation #monarchy #presidency #president #presidentialpower #representationalgovernment #secrecy #thepeople #wethepeople
The deal #Trump reached with his subordinates relies on a mechanism created by #Congress that legal experts warned was subject to manipulation.
…The whole enterprise is a jarring shock to conventional understanding of the #constitution, raising…profound questions of #PresidentialPower. If allowed to stand, Trump will have managed simultaneously to thwart Congress’s #PowerOfThePurse & the ability of the #courts to police the #SeparationOfPowers.
#law
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/us/politics/trump-fund-legal-questions.html?unlocked_article_code=1.j1A.oWr9.MEVPYndCxS2N&smid=nytcore-ios-share
Opinion | The Iran War Worsens America’s Democratic Erosion
By The Editorial Board The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by…
#NewsBeep #News #BreakingNews #Authoritarianism(TheoryandPhilosophy) #breakingnews #Democracy(TheoryandPhilosophy) #DonaldJ #HouseofRepresentatives #Iran #PresidentialPower(US) #Senate #Trump #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesPoliticsandGovernment #WarandEmergencyPowers(US)
https://www.newsbeep.com/536104/
Supreme Court Limits President Trump's Tariff Authority
Supreme Court ruled President Trump exceeded his power on tariffs from Mexico, Canada, China. Find out how this affects trade and presidential authority.
#SupremeCourt, #TrumpTariffs, #TradePolicy, #PresidentialPower, #IEEPA
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-limits-trump-tariff-power/
The Supreme Court said President Trump used too much power for tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China. This ruling changes how the president can set trade rules.
#SupremeCourt, #TrumpTariffs, #TradePolicy, #PresidentialPower, #IEEPA
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-limits-trump-tariff-power/
Supreme Court Limits Presidential Power to Impose Tariffs
The US Supreme Court ruled that only Congress can add tariffs, limiting the President's power. This affects trade and presidential emergency powers. Refunds are pending.
#SupremeCourt, #Tariffs, #Congress, #PresidentialPower, #TradeLaw
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-limits-presidential-tariff-power/
The Supreme Court ruled that only Congress can impose tariffs, a major change from President Trump's emergency powers. This decision means future tariffs need Congress's approval.
#SupremeCourt, #Tariffs, #Congress, #PresidentialPower, #TradeLaw
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-limits-presidential-tariff-power/
US Supreme Court Limits President’s Use of Emergency Law for Global Tariffs
The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that the president cannot use emergency law for global tariffs. This stops about half of taxes on foreign goods, affecting consumers and government income.
#SupremeCourt, #Tariffs, #TradeLaw, #PresidentialPower, #USeconomy
https://newsletter.tf/us-supreme-court-stops-presidents-global-tariffs-on-goods/
The US Supreme Court stopped most global tariffs on Friday, which had collected billions for the government. This is a big change for how the president can make trade rules.
#SupremeCourt, #Tariffs, #TradeLaw, #PresidentialPower, #USeconomy
https://newsletter.tf/us-supreme-court-stops-presidents-global-tariffs-on-goods/
Supreme Court Overturns President Trump's Broad Tariffs
Supreme Court ruled President Trump exceeded authority on tariffs. This affects global trade, businesses, and consumers. Find out what happens next.
#SupremeCourt, #TrumpTariffs, #TradeLaw, #PresidentialPower, #EconomicPolicy
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-rules-against-president-trumps-tariffs/
The Supreme Court stopped President Trump's wide tariffs with a 6-3 vote. This is a big change for trade rules.
#SupremeCourt, #TrumpTariffs, #TradeLaw, #PresidentialPower, #EconomicPolicy
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-rules-against-president-trumps-tariffs/
Donald Trump’s Early Executive Actions and the Republican Push for Policy Focus
Donald Trump's early executive actions are fast. Some Republicans worry he is not focusing enough on the economy and border. What happens next?
#TrumpActions, #RepublicanParty, #EconomyFocus, #BorderSecurity, #PresidentialPower
https://newsletter.tf/donald-trump-early-executive-actions-republican-focus-economy-border/
President Trump's administration has made many quick changes. Some Republicans want him to focus more on the economy and border, not personal fights.
#TrumpActions, #RepublicanParty, #EconomyFocus, #BorderSecurity, #PresidentialPower
https://newsletter.tf/donald-trump-early-executive-actions-republican-focus-economy-border/
Supreme Court Reviews President Trump's Emergency Tariff Powers
Supreme Court reviews President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. Who is affected? Businesses and Congress. What changes? Limits on presidential power.
#SupremeCourt, #TrumpTariffs, #TradePolicy, #PresidentialPower, #IEEPA
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-reviews-president-trumps-emergency-tariff-powers/
The Supreme Court is looking at President Trump's use of emergency powers for tariffs. This is a big test for how much power the President has compared to Congress.
#SupremeCourt, #TrumpTariffs, #TradePolicy, #PresidentialPower, #IEEPA
https://newsletter.tf/supreme-court-reviews-president-trumps-emergency-tariff-powers/
Trump deleting records exposes a dangerous attempt to rewrite history
Trump deleting records is part of a broader pattern: erase what contradicts him, attack the archives, and reshape history to suit his ego.https://thedemocracyadvocate.com/2026/02/trump-deleting-records/
We are so hosed. Unless there's a coup. 🤞
"Trump Lays Out a Vision of Power Restrained Only by ‘My Own Morality’"
#NyTimes #GiftedArticle #MAGA #Fascism #WhiteHouse #Dictator
#Bully #UnitedStates #AmoralAssHat #Trump #PresidentialPower #InternationalLaw
Gifted Article:
The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, foreground, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett attend President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in March. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)The Supreme Court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with key exceptions
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, foreground, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett attend President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in March.By David G. Savage, Staff Writer Follow. Jan. 1, 2026 3 AM PT
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.
In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.
With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.
But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.
In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.
Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.
See caption and more at below link.https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-12-23/supreme-court-trump-national-guard-chicago – See more at the above link.
Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago, Dec. 23, 2025
Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.
They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.
And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.
Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.
The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.
Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times
Tags: 2025, America, Chief Justice Roberts, Donald Trump, Health, History, Libraries, Library, Library of Congress, Los Angeles Times, National Guard, Only Two Checks, Opinion, Politics, Presidential Power, Republicans, Resistance, Right-Wing Votes, Roberts Court, Science, SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, The Los Angeles Times, Trump, Trump Administration, Trump's Power, United States
A Name Too Many: When Ego Tries to Rebrand History
When a sitting president flirts with renaming the Kennedy Center, the issue is not branding or humor. It is a revealing glimpse into ego, insecurity, and a dangerous urge to overwrite history itself.https://jtwb7689.wordpress.com/2025/12/26/kennedy-cntr-renaming/
US Supreme Court 2025-2026 term addresses presidential powers, transgender rights, tariffs, and voting discrimination. The Court's recent decisions including restrictions on nationwide injunctions significantly expand executive authority and reshape federal judicial oversight of administration policies.
#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtDecisions #PresidentialPower #CourtRulings
#SCOTUS’ 6 conservative justices have so far been receptive to Trump’s claims of #PresidentialPower. Among other things, they have allowed the admin to withhold funds appropriated by #Congress, kick #transgender troops out of the #military & pursue aggressive #immigration-related policies—but all on a “temporary”, “emergency” basis.
The #tariffs case is the first time the justices have weighed the underlying legal merits of a key admin priority in Trump’s 2nd term.
#PresidentialPower & #SCOTUS’ own stature ride on this case
Decorum might dissolve during oral arguments on Wednesday in the Supreme Court. The justices might guffaw when #Trump admin lawyers say: The president’s #tariffs should be exempt from judicial review because they respond to an “emergency,” emergencies, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder, & presidents alone are our designated beholders.
#law #Constitution #SeparationOfPowers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/31/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-congress-constitution/
Letters from an American – July 15, 2025 – by Heather Cox Richardson
By Heather Cox Richardson, July 15, 2025
Heather Cox RichardsonWithout any explanation, the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court yesterday granted a stay on a lower court’s order that the Trump administration could not gut the Department of Education while the issue is in the courts. The majority thus throws the weight of the Supreme Court behind the ability of the Trump administration to get rid of departments established by Congress—a power the Supreme Court denied when President Richard M. Nixon tried it in 1973.
This is a major expansion of presidential power, permitting the president to disregard laws Congress has passed, despite the Constitution’s clear assignment of lawmaking power to Congress alone.
President Donald J. Trump has vowed to eliminate the Department of Education because he claims it pushes “woke” ideology on America’s schoolchildren and that its employees “hate our children.” Running for office, he promised to “return” education to the states. In fact, the Education Department has never set curriculum; it disburses funds for high-poverty schools and educating students with disabilities. It’s also in charge of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and sex in schools that get federal funding.
Trump’s secretary of education, professional wrestling promoter Linda McMahon, supports Trump’s plan to dismantle the department. In March the department announced it would lay off 1,378 employees—about half the department. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia sued to stop the layoffs, and Massachusetts federal judge Myong Joun ordered the department to reinstate the fired workers. The Supreme Court has now put that order on hold, permitting the layoffs to go forward.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan concurred in a dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, noting that Trump has claimed power to destroy the congressionally established department “by executive fiat” and chastising the right-wing majority for enabling him. “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” they say.
“The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them. That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers. Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief.”
Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.
Continue/Read Original Article Here: July 15, 2025 – by Heather Cox Richardson
#1973 #2025 #America #Children #DepartmentOfEducation #DonaldTrump #Education #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Nixon #Politics #PresidentialPower #PublicSchools #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates
