By Kenneth Tiven
Federal court trial and appellate judges in the United States are appointed for life, making them immune to intimidation by any president—including one who ignores the democratic principles that set the US apart from monarchies and dictatorships.
Now, as Donald Trump begins his re-elected term, his near-30-day effort to use executive orders—akin to royal decrees—to dominate federal governance faces serious legal challenges. Federal judges who refuse to bend to his will are proving a formidable obstacle.
An Imperial Presidency In The Making?
Trump’s instinct for unchecked power stems from his 50 years as the absolute boss of a family-run real estate empire. His legal experience is rooted in fighting off thousands of lawsuits and navigating multiple bankruptcies. Having lost the 2020 election, he now faces massive civil and criminal judgments. Throughout his campaign, he promised retribution against those who wronged him. Now, he is making good on that promise, embracing an imperial-style presidency.
The US Constitution was designed to prevent such domination. It established three co-equal branches of government:
- The legislative branch makes laws.
- The executive branch enforces them.
- The judiciary ensures constitutional compliance.
Trump, however, sees Congress as a roadblock to his relentless urge for absolute control. For him, the presidential oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is little more than words on old parchment.
Many Americans and watchdog organizations see his use of Elon Musk’s so-called “efficiency reforms” as a Trojan Tesla—a fake issue designed to seize powers that rightfully belong to Congress. Nationwide lawsuits have resulted in federal judges issuing Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) to prevent unconstitutional overreach.
Musk’s Role In Trump’s Power Grab
Vice President JD Vance, himself a Yale Law graduate, tweeted: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” Yet, when the Supreme Court blocked President Biden from cancelling student loans last year, the same Trump-aligned figures celebrated the ruling. Now, when courts stand in Trump’s way, they cry foul.
A coalition of unions, attorneys general, and federal employees secured a TRO against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a Musk-led initiative that illegally accessed federal employees’ personal data.
More than 50 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s executive orders and the DOGE programme, which unions argue is a blatant coup against federal governance. However, the Trump administration did succeed in lifting a TRO that had blocked an eight-month buyout scheme for 65,000 federal workers willing to resign.
Judges Push Back Against Executive Outreach
Federal District Judge George O’Toole Jr. in Boston initially halted DOGE’s controversial “Fork in the Road” programme, which aimed to pressure federal workers into resigning. However, he later ruled that the unions lacked standing to challenge the programme, as it did not directly impact them—leaving the legality of the programme itself unresolved.
Meanwhile, another federal judge temporarily blocked DOGE from further accessing a Treasury Department payment system. However, Musk’s tech operatives had already breached the system, copied sensitive data, and potentially caused irreversible damage. Federal employees who could assess the breach were barred from working.
Trump’s Power Play Resembles A Political Soap Opera
The Trump-Musk alliance is outmanoeuvring Congress—particularly Democrats, who still operate under a 20th-century political mindset. Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters see his moves as a righteous battle, likening his attacks on federal employees to storming Nazi fortifications on Normandy Beach.
The New York Times columnist Tressie McMillan Cottom observed: “In Musk, Trump has found something important for his authoritarian ambitions. He needs a muckraker who can create content for our media environment.”
Musk As Trump’s De Factor Co-President
Trump has signed a new executive order officially placing Musk’s consulting team—DOGE—at the helm of federal workforce decisions. Under this order:
- A DOGE operative will be assigned to every federal agency, overseeing hiring and firing.
- Downsizing is in DOGE’s hands, with only one new hire replacing four departures.
This resembles legislation passed by Congress, not an executive order. Critics liken Trump’s executive decrees to ghost guns—untraceable, self-made firearms designed to circumvent legal oversight.
The Judiciary Remains The Last Line of Defense
The battle for presidential power now hinges on how courts interpret the core constitutional principle:
- The legislative branch legislates.
- The executive branch executes laws.
- The judiciary adjudicates overreach.
A Republican-controlled Congress, fearful of Trump’s voter base, offers no resistance. Instead, they rubber-stamp his nominees. The Senate has already confirmed Tulsi Gabbard to oversee intelligence operations, while Kash Patel (for FBI) and Robert F Kennedy Jr. (for Health and Human Services) await approval—marking one of the least experienced yet most loyal cabinets in history.
Who Enforces Judicial Orders?
The US Marshals Service, the oldest federal law enforcement agency, is responsible for enforcing judicial orders. However, it operates under the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi, a staunch Trump loyalist—raising concerns over whether judicial rulings will be enforced.
Judicial Review and Compliance
The Supreme Court established judicial review in 1803 with Marbury vs Madison, affirming that courts can:
1. Invalidate unconstitutional laws.
2. Overturn unlawful executive actions.
Judge John McConnell, Chief Judge of Rhode Island, recently reminded the Trump administration of this in a follow-up order after officials ignored his directive to unfreeze federal funds. He warned: “All court orders must be complied with promptly. Refusing to obey generally risks criminal contempt—even if the order is later ruled incorrect.”
Trump’s Endgame: A Constitutional Crisis?
Under last year’s Supreme Court ruling, the president himself cannot be prosecuted for official acts—but cabinet officials and subordinates are not immune.
As legal challenges mount, Trump’s standard response has been to blame “rogue judges”. However, his Justice Department appears to be pursuing appeals rather than outright defiance. When it sought to challenge Judge McConnell’s emergency ruling in the First Appellate Circuit, the Court denied the request.
For decades, Americans believed the Constitution’s system of checks and balances would protect their democracy. But Trump is now demonstrating how to dismantle the US government—having already failed with an insurrection in 2021.
His followers believe he survived an assassination attempt for this very purpose. At stake is the heart and soul of American democracy—nurtured across generations.
Trump in Law’s Crosshairs
1. The Role Of US Marshals In Judicial Enforcement
The US Marshals Service, established in 1789, is tasked with enforcing federal judicial orders. However, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, a staunch Trump loyalist, their independence is in question.
2. The Historic Precedent: Marbury vs Madison
In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Marbury vs Madison that courts have the power to invalidate unconstitutional laws and executive actions—a principle that now stands as a bulwark against Trump’s power grab.
—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels