The Controversial Use of the Alien Enemies Act
In a particularly controversial move, the Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a law from 1798 typically applicable only during declared wars. This unprecedented application allows the administration to “disappear migrants without due process.” According to analysis from Democratic Erosion, Trump’s invocation of this act without a congressional declaration of war represents an abandonment of the democratic norm of “forbearance”—the restraint of exercising power to its fullest extent despite legal authority to do so.
The Supreme Court reportedly issued an unsigned decision allowing Trump to continue these deportations with minimal due process protections. However, when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a directive to pause specific deportations, the administration refused to comply and continued its operations.
Institutional Responses and Resistance
Judicial Pushback
Despite facing unprecedented attacks, the judiciary has attempted to assert its constitutional role. On January 25, 2025, Trump issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to repeal regulations that conflict with ten recent Supreme Court decisions. While some view this as a positive step toward “restoring lawful government,” others see it as a selective application of judicial authority that ignores other court rulings against the administration’s actions.
On April 9, 2025, Trump issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to comply with recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overruled the longstanding principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. This selective embrace of judicial authority highlights the administration’s inconsistent approach to the separation of powers.
State and Congressional Responses
Some state executives have organized to resist federal overreach. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu have vowed to fight deportations, while Democratic state executives announced a new group, “Governors Safeguarding Democracy,” to take legal actions against “threats to our democracy that come from any president or from foreign powers.”
Congress’s role as a check on executive power has been significantly diminished. According to political scientist Timothy Longman, “With Republicans controlling both houses, Congress is unlikely to provide a check on Trump’s power.” This partisan alignment has neutralized one of the three branches of government as an effective counterbalance.
Broader Threats to Democratic Institutions
Pressure on Universities, Media, and Law Firms
The administration has extended its influence beyond government institutions to pressure universities, media organizations, and law firms. Reports indicate that Trump has “exerted pressure on prominent law firms that have taken on cases or hired attorneys perceived as antagonistic to his political agenda, negotiating deals worth hundreds of millions for future cases.” The administration has “also threatened universities with funding cuts unless they alter their policies and curricula.”
Media organizations have also faced pressure. Trump recently “demanded accountability from CBS’s ‘60 Minutes’ and urged the Federal Communications Commission to revoke the network’s license.” These actions mirror strategies employed by other authoritarian leaders who have consolidated power by curtailing the independence of judiciary, media, and academia.
Investigations of Political Opponents
Despite campaigning on a promise to end the politicization of the Justice Department, Trump has reportedly launched investigations into former officials Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor. This appears to confirm fears that law enforcement powers would be turned against perceived political opponents.
Expert Assessment: Are We in a Constitutional Crisis?