We live in a time of unprecedented abuses of presidential power. Since he took office in his second term, President Trump has waged a campaign of ignoring the Constitution and federal law in his efforts to bend the federal government to his will. Consider a few examples:

• He issued an order to revoke the right of birthright citizenship that is clearly established in the Constitution and that was upheld by a Supreme Court ruling 127 years ago. One federal judge, John Coughenour, has already called Trump’s effort “blatantly unconstitutional.”
• He has deported legal immigrants to foreign prisons without any of the due process required by the Constitution. His dubious justification for this was a 1798 law that allows the government to quickly deport citizens of countries that the U.S. is at war with. As one law professor, Kim Wehle, of the University Baltimore explained, “Due process dates back to the Magna Carta; it is the essence of liberty. Without it, America is not a democracy as freedom itself is at the arbitrary whims of a malevolent ruler.”
• Trump has abused his power to declare national emergencies and used this as a justification for bypassing Congress and imposing his own widespread and massive tariffs. As Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School, has pointed out: “The president has no inherent constitutional authority to tax imports.”
• He has forced law firms who have supported causes he has opposed to obey his demands or be banned from representing their clients in federal courts. Several conceded to his demands and agreed to spend millions representing causes favored by Trump. Many legal scholars firmly believe that this violates freedom of speech and is a form of illegal extortion. One federal judge has already called this effort “a shocking abuse of power.”
• Trump has also used extortion against universities who espouse ideas or programs with which he disagrees – threatening to deny them billions of dollars of federal funds. Many legal scholars see this as a clear violation of free speech rights. As Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina observed, “Are we free to hold and espouse ideas with which the administration disagrees? It would increasingly seem that the answer is no.”
• He has refused to spend billions of dollars allocated by Congress to programs and departments that he dislikes – despite a law passed in 1975 that severely limits the president’s right to do so and requires him to follow specific steps if he wants to not spend this money. As the Dean of the School of Law at Berkeley, Erwin Chemerinsky, has noted: “Refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress violates separations of powers in usurping Congress’s spending power and violates the Impoundment Control Act.”

The Larger Context

Trump’s attempt to establish the presidency as a virtual autocracy that rules outside of the Constitution and rule of law is one of the most disturbing attacks on democratic procedures and values in the history of the nation. But it is helpful to put this alarming development in a larger context.  First, as we will see, it is important to realize that the threat of excessive presidential power undermining our democracy is not something new with Trump. In fact, undemocratic tendencies are built into the nature of the presidency itself – and there is a history of previous presidents succumbing to the temptations of the loosely checked power of this institution. Trump is simply an extreme example.

Second, it is critical to understand that a chief executive with so much unbridled power is in fact peculiar to the American political system. Chief executives in other democracies typically have less individual power and there are more ways to rein in their actions. A chief executive going rogue like President Trump is highly unlikely in other advanced nations. Once again, we will see that American “exceptionalism” means that our head of state is much more likely to engage in undemocratic actions.

So, this essay will show (1) how the last 100 years has seen a tendency for presidents to increase their own power, (2) why most other democracies don’t have these sorts of problems with their chief executives, and (3) what we can do to to rein in this kind of unaccountable power.

Prime Minister: The Most Popular Choice for Chief Executive

Most other advanced Western democracies don’t have separately elected presidents.  They use parliamentary systems where the executive is the prime minister elected by the parliament.  The office of prime minister is very different from our chief executive. For one thing, parliamentary systems have no strict separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Instead, there is an overlap.  The prime minister is directly accountable to parliament and appoints his or her cabinet ministers from that body.  On the other hand, it is the prime minister who, in consultation with the party leaders, sets the legislative agenda.  The closeness of the parliament and prime minister is exemplified by the practice of “Question Time” in Great Britain. Every Wednesday at noon, the prime minister shows up to parliament to answer questions – a practice that is hard to imagine for American presidents. In general, the office of prime minister is a more collegial and cooperative institution than the presidency – and, as we will see, it is not prone to the same problems.

In the Beginning . . . a Weak Presidency

Quick – name five presidents from the 19^th century. If you are like most Americans, you would probably struggle to name more than Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.  That is because this was the century of weak presidents – with few of them being “great” or “memorable.”  But this was in fact what the founding fathers intended.  They saw Congress, not the presidency, as the most powerful branch – and gave to it almost all the important powers: to pass laws, levy taxes, and declare war. The role of the president was primarily administrative: to implement the laws. In Madison’s words, “in republican government, the legislative authority necessarily dominates.”  And for over a century, it did.

So how did we get to the point where the president is the most powerful person in America – where we are now concerned about an “imperial presidency” whose power is enormous and ripe for potential abuse?  The answer lies in two developments in the 20^th century. First was the rise of the U.S. as a leading global economic and military power after World War II.  Particularly concerning to many has been the growth of the president’s unchecked authority to use the military and the intelligence services. For example, there is a long history of secret CIA interventions in the politics of other countries, particularly in Central and South America. More recently, the CIA was involved in the abuses of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison, and the National Security Agency was caught spying on the personal communications of millions of Americans. By their very nature, the covert activities authorized by presidents are difficult to control by Congress or the public.

Many presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have also been unable to resist the military power at their disposal. They have pursued numerous overt military interventions in other countries – all without any formal declaration of war by Congress. In the past, these have included Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Bosnia.  President George W. Bush acted unilaterally to commit troops to long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  President Obama came under criticism for endorsing the controversial use of drones in Afghanistan and other countries, and for his authorization of airstrikes in Syria. More recently, President Trump unilaterally authorized the military assassination of one of the highest officials in Iran – bringing the U.S. to the very brink of war with that country. The power to use military force – the de facto power to declare war – has now migrated from Congress to the presidency.

The Growth of Presidential Powers: The Rise of the Administrative State

The second development that dramatically increased presidential powers was the emergence and growth of the administrative state. The size and scope of the administrative branch grew throughout the 20^th century, with the creation of numerous regulatory agencies and the increasing number of social welfare programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Importantly, the administrative branch grew because the public demanded it and Congress passed regulatory and social welfare programs in response to this – it was not because presidents were trying to increase their own power.  But it had this effect – as the administrative state grew, so too did the domestic political powers of the presidency.

One obvious example of this is the use of executive orders, which grew tremendously starting in the early 20^th century. These are directives to the federal bureaucracy that have the binding force of law – and often are attempts to impose policies that are not supported by Congress.  Frustrated by a Republican Congress, President Obama relied heavily on executive orders to implement his liberal policy visions in areas like immigration, climate change, minimum wage, and gun control.

Not surprisingly, President Trump has used executive orders to an unprecedented degree. He signed more executive orders in his first 10 days of his second term – 60 – than any recent president has in their first 100 days.  And none has issued such radical decrees: orders that attack fundamental government programs, dramatically reshape our role in the world, and strongly affect the day-to-day lives of many Americans.

Among his orders were these:

• Revoked the right to birthright citizenship guaranteed in the Constitution.
• Withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change that mandates reductions in greenhouse gases.
• Suspended all U.S. foreign aid spending and put 2,200 employees of USAID on paid leave.
• Sanctioned mass deportation of unlawful immigrants.
• Ordered the consumer protection agency to cease all activity.
• Suspended refugee settlement in the United States.
• Granted clemency to 1,200 people convicted of crimes associated with the storming of the Capitol Building on January 6^th, including those who committed violent crimes.
• Paused hiring all new federal civilian employees
• Mandated steep cuts in federal grants for medical research.
• Stripped many government administrators of civil service protections.
• Imposed trade tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, and the rest of the world.
• Withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization.
• Declared a national emergency that will expedite the development of fossil fuels
• Declared that the U.S. government will not use the word “gender” and will recognize only two sexes, male and female.
• Created the Department of Government Efficiency and empowered Elon Musk to fire federal employees and cut budgets.
• Revoked Biden orders that sought to protect the right to abortion.
• Ended all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs in the federal government.
• Encouraged “military excellence” by banning transgendered people from serving in the military.
• Eliminated emissions standards that benefit electric vehicles.
• Sped up the production of gas and oil in Alaska.
• Asked the attorney general to apply the death penalty to all capital crimes committed by illegal aliens.
• Called for the elimination of 10 federal regulations for each new regulation that is proposed or issues.
• Imposed sanctions of the International Criminal Court
• Ended all aid to South Africa for discriminating against white Afrikaners.
• Paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars American individuals and companies from bribing foreign governments to obtain or retain business.
• Ended the procurement and “forced use” of paper straws in federal buildings.
• Renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

Executive orders, with their public signing ceremonies, often get a lot of attention. However, there is another, more mundane, form of administrative power that probably has a much larger overall impact on public policy and the American public: the rule-making power of administrators in federal bureaucracies. In many cases, after bills pass Congress, they are then passed on to the appropriate federal bureaucracy tasked with developing the specific rules about how to implement and enforce that law.  The rules can have a large impact on how effective the law turns out to be. And these decisions are made largely out of the public eye by bureaucrats under orders from presidential appointees.

To see how powerful this rule-making ability is in affecting public policy, we need only look at how the first Trump administration worked to rewrite and weaken environmental rules or to even repeal them outright.  His administration unilaterally weakened or repealed:

• 27 rules reducing air pollution.
• 19 rules limiting oil drilling and coal mining and reducing their polluting effects and dangers posed to fish and wildlife.
• 12 rules stipulating environmental requirements for federal projects.
• 12 rules protecting endangered animals and wildlife.
• 8 rules regulating pesticides and toxic substances.
• 11 rules reducing water pollution.

All of this was done without the explicit approval of Congress and against the wishes of most Americans, who would like to see more environmental protection, not less, from the federal government.  Most Americans also want to see more money spent on education, consumer protection, and medical research — but that has not stopped Trump from using his executive powers to cut back those programs.

The Abuse of the Veto

The veto is another presidential power that is being abused. Trump has little use for the veto at present because Republicans control both houses of Congress. But more often there is a split between the party in control of the House or Senate and the president’s party.  As a result, the frequent threat and use of the veto has become business as usual in Washington politics.  But again, the framers of the Constitution had a very different view. They assumed that the veto would be an extraordinary act.  It was seen as a very serious thing to overturn legislation passed by a Congress, a body that represented the will of the people.  They thought it would be used rarely, and primarily to block Congressional bills that were considered to be unconstitutional – such as a bill that interfered with free speech.  In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, presidential vetoes were not that common and mostly invoked on constitutional grounds.  The first fifteen presidents, from President Washington through President Lincoln, issued 59 vetoes. More recently, ten presidents, from Nixon through Biden, issued 345.

Beyond this huge increase, what is worrisome is that it is now common to use the veto simply on policy grounds – because the president disagrees with Congress over a particular policy – and not on more fundamental constitutional grounds.  Many see this as anti-democratic because it is a form of minority rule where one person is able to frustrate the will of the majority as expressed through Congress. Some defend the veto as being an important part of the checks and balance system.  But as we’ve seen elsewhere, checks and balances are responsible for creating the persistent gridlock that afflicts our federal government and prevents us from addressing many serious social, economic and environmental problems. Vetoes often contribute to making the political system less responsive to the desires of its citizens – and thus less democratic.

The Abuse of Signing Statements

A more recent problem with presidential power is the misuse of “signing statements.” Originally, these statements were relatively innocuous documents issued by presidents when signing a bill into law.  They commented on the purpose of the law, how it would be applied, what the president liked or disliked about the law, and so on. These statements did not become controversial until the administration of George W. Bush, who began to frequently use these statements to avoid implementing parts of laws that he disagreed with. He declared over 1,000 provisions of 160 laws to be unconstitutional and refused to obey or enforce them. For example, he refused to implement part of a statute that would have required military prison guards to obey the Geneva Convention.  In essence, Bush turned signing statements into line-item vetoes that Congress could not override.  A report by the American Bar Association condemned this use of signing statements as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional systems of separation of powers.”

Prime Ministers Don’t Need Vetoes or Signing Statements

The undemocratic nature of the increasing use of vetoes and signing statements is avoided in countries with prime ministers.  For one thing, PMs are elected by parliament, so it is impossible for them to come from a different party than the one that controls the legislature – a built-in conflict so common in American politics.  In addition, prime ministers develop legislation in consultation with their ministers and other party leaders from parliament.  They then introduce the legislation and the bills are ultimately approved by the party or coalition of parties that elected the PM.  Thus prime ministers really have no reason to veto a bill or issue a signing statement about which parts of the bill they are going to ignore.  So the whole issue of a lone executive frustrating the policies wishes of a legislative majority elected by the voters does not even exist.

Lone Wolves vs Collegial Chief Executives

Presidential systems tend to encourage lone-wolf style chief executives — presidents like Nixon, Carter, and Trump.  They see themselves as outsiders, unaccountable to other federal political institutions. They tend to be isolated and see little incentive to cooperate with other governing bodies, often feuding with Congress and even their own parties.  They like to go their own way and emphasize their individual powers.  Soon after taking office the first time, President Trump declared that he didn’t have to listen to Congress: “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” And when Congress refused to fund his wall on the southern border, he simply declared a national emergency and  appropriated the money himself.

In contrast, parliamentary prime ministers (PMs) exist in a web of strong political relationships. They come from and are directly accountable to parliament – which can remove them if they drift too far away from party policy. So prime ministers must always be keeping in mind what the party leaders in parliament are thinking, and the objections of potentially rebellious “back benchers” among the party’s rank and file.  PMs are also more intertwined with their cabinets, which have a central role in advising and sometimes reining in the chief executive. The phrase “first among equals” is often used to describe the relationship between the PM and his cabinet members. Like the PM, the cabinet ministers are also sitting members of parliament, which means that they can give crucial advice about the thinking of the various party factions in the legislature.  Exemplifying its importance, the PM meets with the cabinet every week to discuss policies and strategies.

In presidential systems, cabinet heads are not sitting members of Congress– and cannot provide the same kind of inside information about how Congress is feeling about particular issues. Cabinet heads have few opportunities to collectively affect the thinking of the president on crucial issues because they meet only once every two months – compared to weekly in parliamentary systems.  And the meetings themselves often function more as information sessions than policy debates.  As one presidential scholar,  Richard J. Ellis, explained: “The Cabinet as a collective advisory body is a non-factor in the modern presidency. Cabinet meetings are infrequent, perfunctory and essentially meaningless.”

The powerlessness of American cabinets to rein in the president has become particularly problematic in the second Trump administration. His cabinet appointees were not chosen for their knowledge or expertise, but for their personal loyalty to him. Recent reports of his cabinet meetings describe them as flattery sessions in which people take turns telling the president how wonderful he is. As Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, has observed, “Having surrounded himself with sycophants, Trump feels unconstrained by the Constitution or federal statutes.”

All in all, a chief executive who is more collegial with his cabinet and cooperative with the legislature would seem to be an asset in a healthy democracy – and much more desirable that an isolated president who feels accountable to no one.

Invitation to Authoritarianism

There is another reason for concern about presidential systems, which we can see if we look to Latin America.  This is the only part of the world that has followed the U.S. example and widely adopted the practice of separately elected presidents.  Every one of these countries has fallen into authoritarianism at least once – with democracy being abandoned in favor of a strong-man president or a military junta.  A major contributing factor is that these separation of powers systems are prone to gridlock and inaction when the separately elected president and legislature cannot come to an agreement. Faced with an ineffective government and rising social and/or economic problems, dictators become seen as the only way to get things done in these countries.

Undoubtedly, some of the support for President Trump, with his strongman image and contempt for the niceties of democracy, comes from citizens frustrated with the inability of our separation of powers government to solve the pressing problems they see threatening our nation.  Disturbingly, a 2019 Pew poll found that 43% of Republicans agreed that “many of the country’s problems could be dealt with more effectively if U.S. presidents didn’t have to worry so much about Congress or the Courts.” As the Washington Post reported at the time, the GOP seems to have “caught autocratic fever.”

Particularly troubling in this context is the president’s ability to declare national emergencies – an entirely unilateral power.  These can be used to avoid many of the legal limits to their authority. President Roosevelt used this power to send citizens of Japanese descent to internment camps during World War II. Recently, Trump declared an emergency to enable him to impose tariffs on much of the world — a power usually wielded by Congress. As the Brennan Center for Justice has documented, invoking a “national emergency” automatically gives the president 123 new statutory powers. These powers range from the ability to shut down the internet and other electronic communication systems, to freezing Americans’ bank accounts and deploying federal troops to deal with “domestic unrest.”

Lack of Accountability

It is highly unlikely that any president will ever be thrown out of power, no matter what he or she does.

What makes these abuses of presidential power even more troubling is the fact that the American political system makes it difficult for the public to hold the president accountable for his or her actions. Being able to hold public officials accountable for their actions is an essential part of any democracy.  But in the U.S., there are few avenues available to get rid of presidents who flagrantly abuse their powers and pursue policies that the public opposes.  It is virtually impossible to impeach a president unless he or she is guilty of criminal behavior – “high crimes and misdemeanors” as the Constitution stipulates.  We can’t impeach a president for policy reasons, because he or she is unilaterally pursuing policies opposed by Congress or the American people. And even when there is substantial evidence of a crime – as in both of the Trump impeachment cases – there is no guarantee that the Senate will vote to actually remove the president from office. A successful impeachment requires a ridiculously high two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict — which means that it is highly unlikely that any president will ever be thrown out of power, no matter what he or she does. So impeachment is an extremely poor way to hold accountable presidents who abuse their powers in office.

In contrast, many of the 50 states do it better – allowing for recall elections of their chief executives. Some states require an accusation of corruption or misconduct.  But in eleven states, no specific grounds are required at all and recall petitions may simply seek to replace governors who have gone “rogue” and are pursuing policies at odds with the legislature, the public, or even their own party. The key point, of course, is that the recall puts the power of accountability directly in the hands of the voters, not politicians.

Some have argued that citizens do have a method of holding presidents accountable:  they can vote against them when they come up for re-election.  But four years is a long time to wait to get rid of a president who is violating the law, flaunting the public will and doing an enormous amount of policy damage. And in any case, that only works for a first-term president.  Once elected for a second term, a lame-duck president, like Trump, has nothing to fear from a public who will no longer be able to vote on him or her again.

Prime Ministers are More Accountable

It is much easier to hold a prime minister accountable.  You don’t need to impeach them; they can be removed in two simpler ways.  First, a majority party could become disenchanted with the current prime minister and simply choose a new leader of the party, who then becomes the prime minister. Second, there can be a “vote of no confidence” by parliament.  This is what typically takes place where there is a ruling coalition of several parties, not a single-party majority.  A party may drop out of the coalition and form part of a parliamentary majority voting no confidence in the prime minister. In this case, the prime minister and his or her cabinet are removed, and a new national election is held. So in parliamentary systems, prime ministers can be removed at any time if they abuse their power or pursue policies that are dramatically out of touch with the public. This is a much more effective form of accountability than an election every four years.

The short-lived administration of British Prime Minister Liz Truss illustrates how much easier it is to get rid of a head of state who pursues disastrous policies. In 2024, after three weeks in office, Truss revealed an ill-considered budget proposal that called for tax cuts of 45 billion pounds, many of which would go to the rich, and that would have to be paid for by massive government borrowing. Economists, including many in her own party, roundly condemned this plan as irresponsible and foolhardy. Public reaction was scornful. The pound quickly collapsed and the stock market plummeted. Truss was forced to leave office after only 45 days in power.

More accountability means that prime ministers are likely to do a better job of representing the public – an essential part of democracy.  For example, they are more apt to stick with their campaign promises and not pursue policies contrary to those for which they were elected.  Presidents, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in “policy switching” – promising the voters one thing in their campaign, but then pursuing the opposite once in office.  Political scientists David Samuels and Matthew Shugart conducted a study in which they looked at this problem and concluded that “policy switching is about four times as likely in presidential systems as in parliamentary systems.”

Solutions I: Who Can Rein in Trump?

Right now, there are really two forms of excessive presidential power that need to be addressed. One is the abuses of power that have been going on for some time now, such as the overuse of signing statements and the veto, misuse of the military and intelligence agencies, etc.  But more pressing are the more egregious abuses of power being pursued by the Trump administration. These include executive orders that most legal experts consider illegal or unconstitutional, such as the ignoring of due process and the blocking of funds allocated by Congress. Let’s talk first about how this kind of power can be reined in.

There are some of Trump’s actions that could be blocked by Congress. For example, a joint resolution from Congress could end the declaration of a national emergency that Trump used to enable him to impose tariffs. But of course a Republican dominated Congress is unlikely to exert any kind of control over President Trump, and indeed such a resolution was voted down by them in May of 2025.

Some political commentators believe that several of the illegal and/or unconstitutional acts of Trump are already grounds for impeachment.  But as seen earlier, impeachment is an extraordinarily weak political tool that has little chance of holding a president accountable.

So this leaves the federal courts as the only realistic solution to the abuses of power being pursued by Trump. The courts have the ability to declare his actions either illegal or unconstitutional and to require him to cancel those actions.

And in fact, as of the time of this writing, the federal courts have temporarily paused the implementation of 123 of Trump’s executive orders. These include some mass firings of civil servants, the freezing of department and agency budgets, the revoking of birthright citizenship, the revoking of climate policies, etc. These court actions are a result of suits brought against the Trump administration. At this time, however, none of these suits have reached the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Solutions II:  Dealing with the Routine Abuses of Power

Even if we block Trump’s radical abuses of presidential power, we are still left with the more routine practices of excessive power and the lack of accountability that have become routine. What can be done about these? One obvious solution is structural: switch to a parliamentary form of government which does not have a separately elected president. A chief executive who is more collegial, less likely to abuse power, and more easily gotten rid of would be an enormous improvement.  Undoubtedly, some Americans would argue that if we abandon a separately elected president, this would undermine our checks and balances system.  But as seen in another article on this site, the separation of powers system creates a lot of problems for a democracy – like gridlock – and many healthy Western democracies do just fine without it.  In the end, of course, the main problem with the PM solution is that it would require a huge change in the Constitution – which is extremely unlikely.

A less radical approach would be to pass various kinds of amendments to rein in presidential powers – for example, one that made it easier for Congress to override vetoes. Instead of the current two-thirds of each house, we could require only a majority to override – thus limiting the impact of the president’s veto power. Undoubtedly many members of Congress would welcome and support such a change.  Another option: we could pass an amendment that eliminated signing statements.

But given the great difficulty of amending the Constitution, those concerned about excessive presidential power have come up with some other reforms that would not require amendments.  Many of these rely on the checks and balances built into our presidential system.

• We could increase Congressional oversight of presidential activities. Congress could certainly do a better job in ferreting out questionable activities by the CIA and NSA, both at home and abroad.
• Congress could intervene more actively to limit the president’s ability to use military force in other countries. In fact, it has already done so with the War Powers Act of 1973 that tried to limit presidential use of troops to 90 days without the explicit approval of Congress.
• Some have called for the presidents themselves to exercise more restraint in using their powers. For example, presidents could refrain from using signing statements to avoid enforcing parts of laws they object to.  And they could limit their use of the veto.

We should of course encourage these kinds of non-constitutional reforms, but unfortunately, there is reason to doubt their efficacy. For one thing, all of these suggestions have been around for decades and have not had a large effect on presidential behavior. It seems that the temptation to over-use presidential power is almost overwhelming and so it is probably naïve to rely on the president’s self-control to avoid abusing these powers.  And Congress has little time for active oversight of the executive branch. It only seems to step in once a scandal has been uncovered – such as the torture and abuse at the Abu Ghraib military prison camp in Iraq, or the self-serving crimes and abuses of power of President Trump. In addition, Congress tends to pull back and give free rein to the executive branch during times of national crises or alleged threats to national security – which is practically an invitation to abuse presidential powers.

Chances for Reform: Mixed

What are the chances that the Supreme Court will block many of Trump’s executive orders on legal or constitutional grounds?  I believe the odds are good. Despite being dominated by conservative justices, many do have a strong commitment to the Constitution, and the radical actions of Trump appear to often go beyond the boundary of what the Courts are willing to put up with.

But even if the Court should rule against him, there is a question of whether Trump would obey the dictates of this body. Vice President Vance has stated that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” And the administration has already been trying to evade complying with court orders. If the Trump administration does defy Supreme Court rulings, this will create probably the most serious constitutional crisis in our history. The federal courts have limited power to enforce their rulings. They usually rely on the executive branch, and specifically the Department of Justice, to enforce their orders. But of course those bodies are under the direct control of President Trump, so they may refuse to do their duty to enforce Supreme Court decisions.

However, the chances of the Court’s ruling against Trump and the chances of him obeying their decision do go up if large numbers of citizens express vehement outrage over his illegal and unconstitutional acts. There is already evidence that majorities of Americans oppose many of his actions. A recent New York Times poll found that a 54 percent majority said that Trump was “exceeding the powers available to him,” including 16 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of independent voters. The poll also found that

• 61 percent of voters, including 33 percent of Republicans, said a president should not be able to impose tariffs without authorization from Congress.
• 54 percent, including 26 percent of Republicans, said a president should not be able to eliminate programs enacted by Congress.
• 63 percent, including 40 percent of Republicans, said a president should not be able to deport legal immigrants who have protested Israel.
• 73 percent of voters, including 56 percent of Republicans, said a president should not be able to send American citizens to prison in El Salvador, as Mr. Trump has threatened to do.
• And as Mr. Trump’s administration has veered toward open defiance of court orders, a sky-high 76 percent of voters, and 61 percent of Republicans, said a president should not be able to ignore the Supreme Court.

All of this is a good sign that Americans will not put up with the kind of abuses of power that Trump and his administration are indulging in and are perhaps prepared to vote against the Republicans in the next election.

However, there is little evidence that Americans are aware of, let alone concerned about, the more routine abuses of presidential power discussed earlier. These abuses may seem to pale in comparison to Trump’s outrageous actions. But make no mistake, situations like the overuse of the veto and signing statements, the misuse of the military and intelligence agencies, the abuse of executive orders, and the general lack of accountability of the president in our political system can contribute to the undermining of democracy in this country. And for decades now, many political and legal scholars have pushed for greater limits on the “imperial presidency.” Unfortunately, however, neither the public nor our politicians seem to take these problems seriously. So reform in this area seems pretty unlikely.

read the next issue: 14. The Constitution: Its Undemocratic Origins