Trump's Expanding Power Play: Courts, Law, Media, And The Constitution In The Crosshairs

 

Barely three months into his second term, President Donald Trump is rapidly escalating a confrontation with the institutions that challenge his authority — the judiciary, the legal profession, higher education, and the press.

This White House is projecting executive power more aggressively and overtly than any in modern American history. With sweeping interpretations of federal statutes and dismissive treatment of judicial rulings, the administration is raising profound concerns about the rule of law, constitutional governance, and freedom of expression.

“There’s something broken,” Trump declared from the Oval Office this week. “The liberal establishment – but they’re not running things anymore in this country.”

He made the remark seated beside Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, a populist leader with a self-appointed title of the “world’s coolest dictator.” Bukele has curtailed parts of his nation’s constitution and ordered mass imprisonments without due process — a model of authoritarianism that Trump appears to openly admire.

Bukele even joked that Trump might need to “imprison some” of America’s 350 million citizens to “liberate” the country, a darkly candid remark that hinted at the road Trump may be traveling.

A Constitutional Crisis Brewing

That authoritarian streak became tangible during a discussion about the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant deported without a court hearing despite a judge’s ruling to halt the removal. Abrego Garcia was sent back to El Salvador and placed in a notorious mega-prison. A unanimous Supreme Court ruling recently stated the administration must “facilitate” his return. But instead of complying, the White House is interpreting the court’s wording as a vindication of its position.

“This is defiance,” said retired judge Shira Scheindlin. “The Supreme Court said facilitate his return and expedite it.” Legal scholars warn this puts the U.S. on the brink of a constitutional showdown between the executive and judicial branches.

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe echoed that alarm: “It’s a deadly game that could be played with any citizen.” The concern is that the administration’s willingness to sidestep legal protections isn’t limited to immigrants — but could be applied to anyone.

Trump even floated the idea of deporting “home-grown criminals” to foreign prison camps, invoking stories of subway attacks and elderly victims as justification. The suggestion drew a chilling picture of potential constitutional overreach.

Suppressing Dissent: Legal, Academic, and Media Targets

Trump’s vision extends far beyond immigration. His administration is now openly pressuring elite law firms, universities, and media outlets to align with its ideological agenda.

Several top law firms have come under pressure to drop cases or lawyers tied to opposition causes, with the administration securing hundreds of millions in “pro bono” concessions for unspecified future litigation.

Universities have faced threats of funding cuts unless they reform diversity programs, restrict student protests, and overhaul hiring and admissions policies. Harvard University rejected these demands outright, declaring it would not “surrender its independence or its constitutional rights.” In response, the administration froze billions in federal funding.

Meanwhile, Columbia University appears to have yielded, agreeing to impose limits on demonstrations and review its Middle East studies curriculum.

The media hasn’t been spared. Trump has called for federal penalties against networks like CBS and taken steps to block access to Air Force One and the Oval Office for press outlets that refuse to follow White House editorial preferences. The Associated Press took its case to court and won, with a judge ruling the administration’s retaliation unconstitutional.

Immigration Enforcement and International Defiance

The administration’s strategy also includes using allies like Bukele to bypass domestic legal obligations. In the Abrego Garcia case, the Salvadoran president claimed he couldn’t return the deported migrant — framing himself as a bystander, despite remarks that suggested collusion.

The U.S. government, meanwhile, insists it lacks authority to retrieve someone from “the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.” Critics say this amounts to strategic inaction — a deliberate refusal to comply with court orders.

Institutional Resistance and Authoritarian Drift

Despite mounting pressure, some institutions are pushing back. Harvard’s bold stand could set a precedent for other schools. Major law firms are filing lawsuits against what they call unconstitutional executive overreach. Even the judiciary, often the last defense against executive power, is beginning to draw clear boundaries — though the administration is testing those lines aggressively.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has wielded sweeping powers to cancel visas for foreign students linked to protests, arguing their presence threatens U.S. foreign policy — a broad claim with alarming implications for free speech.

Palestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a longtime U.S. resident and Columbia University student, was recently arrested at an immigration office while pursuing citizenship. His case symbolizes a broader crackdown on dissent and protest.

The Road Ahead

Trump’s base remains energized by his campaign to dismantle what he calls the “elite liberal establishment.” His supporters applaud his defiance of what they see as out-of-touch institutions and values. But critics warn that this populist insurgency may come at the cost of democratic norms and legal safeguards.

With a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity emboldening the White House and numerous legal battles on the horizon, the country may soon face its greatest constitutional test in decades.

The coming months will reveal whether America’s institutions are strong enough to withstand the most direct challenge yet to their independence — or whether a new era of unchecked executive authority has already begun.