With myriad lawsuits pending against him and several federal judges already imposing injunctions on many of his executive actions, allies of President Donald Trump are mulling whether he should simply ignore the judicial branch of the U.S. government altogether — a move that would spark an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
At least 10 federal judges have issued preliminary rulings blocking Trump’s executive orders or other executive branch actions, finding them in violation of statutory law, the U.S. Constitution or judicial precedent. These rulings include an order blocking Trump’s attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment by ending birthright citizenship; judicial orders relating to the activities of Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE); an order to restore critical health information removed from government websites; and more.
There will undoubtedly be additional actions by judges in the coming weeks. Dozens of religious organizations are suing the Trump administration over a change to immigration policy that allows federal officials to detain migrants in places of worship, for example, and more recently, a group of eight inspectors general sued Trump over his firing of them, arguing that the move violated established law requiring presidents to inform Congress of such changes 30 days ahead of time.
While Trump has forcefully complained about injunctions judges have placed on his administration, he has, for the time being, indicated that he will not try to usurp their authority by flatly ignoring them, recently claiming that he will “always abide by the courts.”
However, several Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators say that Trump should ignore the injunctions. During a Fox News interview on Tuesday, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said that Trump should “take a page out of Andrew Jackson’s playbook” — a reference to Jackson’s refusal to abide by a Supreme Court ruling in 1832, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Indigenous people from the the southeastern part of the U.S., which caused the deaths of thousands.
Members of the Trump White House are also insinuating that he should ignore the rule of law. Vice President J.D. Vance recently posted on X that it’s “illegal” for judges to issue a ruling stifling the work of Trump cabinet officials.
“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Vance wrote, flouting hundreds of years of case law.
If the Trump administration refuses to abide by these orders or future orders like them, it could result in a constitutional crisis, as Trump would essentially establish himself as a dictator whose actions could not be questioned by the judiciary. With authoritarian control of the Department of Justice, very few remedies, if any, could stop him from ignoring the courts or Congress, which are supposed to be two coequal branches of government.
A new Economist/YouGov poll shows that a majority of Americans disagree with the idea that a president, in general, should be able to make decisions without oversight from those entities. The poll asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement that “presidents should govern without too much interference from Congress and the courts.” Just 28 percent of Americans agreed, while 55 percent disagreed, the poll found.
Meanwhile, Trump’s executive actions so far have caused a notable dip in his popularity. Two weeks ago, the poll showed Trump was enjoying a “honeymoon” period after taking office again, with 49 percent of Americans approving of his job as president a few days into his second term and 43 percent disapproving, a +6-point net approval rating. In the more recent Economist/YouGov poll, however, 46 percent approve of Trump’s job while 48 percent disapprove — a -2-point rating, and an 8-point drop in his net approval in just two weeks.
Like Americans overall, William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association (ABA) has said that he and his organization want all presidents to obey the “rule of law” — but that the current administration is flouting the procedures typically required to change existing policies.
“Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity,” Bay wrote on the ABA website earlier this week.
Bay added:
We support our courts who are treating these cases with the urgency they require. Americans know there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed. What is being done is not the right way to pursue the change that is sought in our system of government.
“Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less,” Bay said.
In an updated statement issued on Tuesday, the ABA doubled down on its criticisms of the Trump administration, stating that the organization “condemns recent remarks of high-ranking officials of the administration that appear to question the legitimacy of judicial review.”
“These comments pose serious risks to our constitutional framework that separates power among three co-equal branches,” the organization said.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.