Can Congress and Courts Check Trump’s Executive Powers? An Expert Q&A (Part Two)
Experts analyze Trump's aggressive executive order strategy and its potential implications in a new CGTN interview.
From tariffs to trade, and from birthright citizenship to immigration and border security issues, U.S. President Donald Trump signed over 150 executive orders in just over four months since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, according to the Federal Register, the official journal of the U.S. government. By comparison, his predecessor, Joe Biden, signed 162 executive orders during his entire four-year presidency.
To make sense of Trump's aggressive use of executive orders and its possible impact, interviews were conducted with Mitchel Sollenberger, a political science professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, and David Super, a law and economics professor at Georgetown University Law Center. The following is a summary of their insights.
Asked why the U.S. system of checks and balances appears unable to restrain the Trump administration, Sollenberger pointed to an era of intense partisanship. "Both political parties are not as ideologically diverse as they were 30 or 40 years ago," he explained. This polarization, he argued, hampers Congress from coming together to check the president or place limits on the executive branch. "Partisanship has resulted in members of Congress rallying around their president and not taking seriously their institutional responsibilities to the legislative branch or the Constitution," he said. The impeachment process itself, he noted, has been rendered nearly ineffective as a mechanism for accountability.
Sollenberger also highlighted the impact of the conservative legal movement on the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. With a majority of justices affiliated with the Federalist Society, he observed that judicial rulings in recent years have consistently expanded presidential powers. Decisions such as Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and Seila Law v. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau have strengthened the president's appointment and removal authorities, while others like Zivotofsky v. Kerry have reinforced presidential recognition powers. He characterized these developments as part of a broader trend benefitting the presidency at the expense of congressional and judicial oversight.
David Super offered a perspective on the courts' reluctance to challenge executive overreach. He noted a longstanding tradition in American jurisprudence: courts typically assume the administration is acting lawfully and that its lawyers are truthful. "That clearly has not been true under this administration," said Super, adding that lower courts and even the Supreme Court have shown signs of decreasing deference in response. However, some judges reportedly worry about their credibility if their decisions are ignored by the executive branch, potentially undermining the authority of the judiciary itself.
Super further argued that Congressional avenues for restraint are limited. "The U.S. already has laws on the books prohibiting much of what President Trump is doing. It would accomplish little to pass a second law prohibiting actions that are already unlawful," he explained. Trump's thin majority in both chambers, combined with his strong influence over Republican lawmakers, has made criticism from within his own party rare. Economic missteps or a potential recession, Super speculated, could weaken this party loyalty in the future, but for now, the gridlock persists.
On the question of lasting impact, both scholars agreed that Trump's governance model may reshape America's constitutional traditions. Sollenberger emphasized that presidential power has generally been on the rise for over a century. "At any point in time from Teddy Roosevelt to Donald Trump, one would be right in saying that the current president was the most powerful president ever," he observed, describing the gradual erosion of Congressional authority and the judiciary's frequent deference to presidential action.
"As far as Trump's lasting impact," Sollenberger said, "I think it all depends on the results of these lawsuits and other actions occurring from his administration's actions." He suggested that a true constitutional crisis could emerge only if the president directly defies an unequivocal Supreme Court ruling. Such an event "would be a clear breakdown of the fundamental governing compact that the framers created." Sollenberger expressed skepticism that the presidency could be easily reined in after Trump, raising the possibility of constitutional reform to address the imbalance.
Super echoed the concern about the fragility of informal norms and traditions. "President Trump has demonstrated that he does not feel bound by those norms and is even willing to defy clear commands of the constitutional text," he stated. This disregard for precedent and tradition, he warned, "likely will prevent any reconstruction of any norms-based system even after he leaves office." The future, he concluded, hinges on whether conservative business leaders and progressives can find common ground to restore stability—otherwise, further political divisiveness and instability may follow.
Read more:
Q&A: Can Congress and courts still check Trump's executive overreach? (Part One)
