President Donald Trump continues to redefine the parameters of executive authority, attempting to establish new precedents in the conduct of presidential business. His actions, however, raise questions about potential repercussions for the Republican Party in the event they lose power. The precedent set by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2013, when he abolished the filibuster for most presidential appointments, serves as a significant example of how political strategies can have lasting impacts. Senator Mitch McConnell leveraged this precedent in 2017 to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, facilitating the appointment of three justices and solidifying a conservative majority.
Trump’s recent decisions, such as the removal of Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the director of the National Security Agency (NSA), have prompted discussions among Democratic lawmakers about the sustainability of these precedents. Historically, both parties have tested the boundaries of executive authority. For instance, President Barack Obama introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, while President Joe Biden faced legal challenges over his attempt to cancel student loan debt. Currently, Democrats in Congress are pledging to limit Trump’s expansions of executive power to prevent future presidents from further stretching these limits. They emphasize the importance of restoring constitutional order, with many court decisions favoring this stance.
There is concern among commentators that Trump’s extensive use of executive power could normalize such actions, enabling future Democratic presidents to justify similar maneuvers. However, with less than 100 days into Trump’s second term, Democrats focus on advocating for a return to adherence to laws rather than seeking retribution. Senator Chris Murphy contends that Trump’s consolidation of power offers Democrats a strategic advantage, arguing that the public yearns for a lawful governance approach.
Trump’s strategy to align the executive branch with his policy goals has led to the dismissal of various officials, including the removal of Democratic FTC commissioners, which prompted legal challenges based on the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This case established that heads of independent agencies cannot be discharged for political reasons, a precedent the Trump administration might contest in the Supreme Court.
While Trump’s authority to remove commissioners on boards with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions is limited, he possesses more power to dismiss agency heads under his direct control. This was evident with the firing of Air Force Gen. Timothy Haugh from his roles as NSA director and commander of the U.S. Cyber Command. Although legally permissible, such actions draw criticism from Democrats, who argue against replicating these practices due to potential national security implications.
Trump’s executive actions, such as impounding congressionally allocated funds and challenging birthright citizenship, explore the fringes of legal constraints. Although Democrats express hesitation to extend similar tests of executive power, they recognize the potential necessity of employing legislative tactics previously used by Republicans to achieve policy goals. The current political landscape suggests a strategic exploitation of precedents, underscoring the potential cyclical nature of political maneuvers in Washington.
The Bigger Picture
The ongoing expansion of executive authority under President Trump sparks a broader debate regarding the balance of power within the federal government. For the average citizen, these developments may influence their perception of governmental accountability and transparency. As executive actions increasingly shape policy, the implications for public trust and democratic engagement become significant. Citizens may find themselves navigating a political environment where rapid policy shifts are frequent, potentially affecting areas such as healthcare, immigration, and civil liberties.
For communities and industries, these changes could lead to uncertainty in regulatory environments and economic conditions. Businesses may need to adapt quickly to new policies, impacting long-term planning and stability. On a local level, municipalities might experience fluctuations in funding and support resulting from shifts in federal priorities. Overall, the continued evolution of executive authority poses critical questions about the future of governance and the enduring influence of precedents set during this period.