Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump is dissolving Congress in plain sight, and immigration's a top example

Opinion

President Trump signs executive order

President Trump has been enabled by the Supreme Court, which has given the green light to his practice of governing through fiat, proclamations and executive orders, writes professor David Hernández.

Pool/Getty Images

Hernández is on leave this semester as an associate professor of Latina and Latino studies at Mount Holyoke College.

The Trump administration's power grab during the new coronavirus pandemic is well underway.

But even before the Covid-19 outbreak, President Trump was out-maneuvering the principal obligations of Congress — funding and providing oversight of the executive branch, and setting policy through legislation — by deploying executive orders, rule changes, fee schedules and international agreements to minimize the power of the legislative branch during his presidency.

The clearest and most calculated form of this congressional suspension can be found in immigration policy-making, seeking to change the flow of migration to this country while altering the democratic system of checks and balances.


Most dramatically, the administration has choked off the asylum process with both blunted tools, such as family separation, and refined instruments, such as the "remain in Mexico" Migrant Protection Protocols from the Department of Homeland Security and ludicrous safe third-country agreements.

On top of this has been a revolving door of "acting" directors for federal agencies, which is Trump's preference because those temporary appointments dodge the Senate confirmation process and evade existing laws for filling government vacancies. Trump buttresses his congressional end run with bombastic anti-immigrant rhetoric, inspiring violence against migrants, even telling non-white members of Congress to "go back" to where they came from.

Trump's authoritarianism, disdain for Congress and end runs around the legislative branch are on display daily, upending migration policies through both executive power and bureaucratic gamesmanship while the president avoids even proposing, much less signing, any legislation. Opening his presidency with two immigration enforcement executive orders and his versatile travel ban (targeting Muslims, then Africans and others, and now what he calls a "foreign virus"), Trump recently intensified his assault on lawful migration by instituting a "wealth test" on persons seeking entry and adjustment of status.

His pet project, the border wall, is being built with money taken from other congressional funding sources, and Trump has effectively rewritten the legislative appropriations process in order to punitively defund sanctuary cities.

The president has additional tools in the executive shed to keep Congress at bay. Besides name-calling and personal threats to adversaries, Trump has wielded pardons and even promises of pardons for supporters who commit crimes on his behalf. In addition, the running tally of false or misleading statements by the president, documented by The Washington Post , reached 16,241 (an average of 15 a day) only three years into his presidency. Such purported "alternative facts" challenge climate science, hurricane pathways and death tolls — and his own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the nation intensified its combat against the coronavirus.

The administration's patient and methodical diminishment of checks and balances has used existing administrative powers, and new ones invented as needed, to flout congressional authority. It is a sharp contrast to Trump's brazen policy decisions and reversals, and his plainly outrageous behavior. Who needs a Congress when you can openly defy it, even without the cover of a global pandemic, and take baby steps toward authoritarianism by legislating from the Oval Office?

Of course, Trump has had a partner in this effort. The Supreme Court is an active supporter of the president's agenda, rarely holding him in check and, more often, delivering special procedural favors and majority rulings to protect White House policies enacted through fiat, proclamations and executive orders.

In the immigration area alone, this has included permitting the administration to deny federal aid to sanctuary cities, pilfer funds from other programs for the border wall, maintain racially tinged travel bans and smother the asylum process.

Trump has meddled in the courts too, even recently demanding that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor "recuse themselves on all ... Trump related matters!" But the conservative majority has sided with the president on most everything, benefitting "one litigant over all others," wrote Sotomayor. Trump and the high court have turned Congress into a despised middle child, dashing any illusions of a balance of coequal government branches.

With the Supreme Court firewall at the ready, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals recently punted on a case that effectively nullified Congress' subpoena power, ruling that when he was White House counsel Don McGahn was free to defy a congressional subpoena upon Trump's orders, potentially stifling all future investigations into the White House. Trump's rogue defiance — in fact, during the impeachment trial, Senate Republicans argued that the lack of subpoenas was evidence of an absence of due diligence by Democrats — is no longer rogue, but simply lawful.

The president and his bureaucrats have been proceeding diligently, dissolving Congress in plain sight by administrative means. This is Trump's central method for doing dirt, the supreme manifestation of his long-signaled views about authoritarianism — whether stiffing workers and contractors as a private citizen, pinning medals on his favorite extremists, pardoning friends or circumventing congressional power at every turn.

How this has shaped immigration policy is extremely important, but it's only one of so many examples.

Voters will have a say in November, we hope. But their elected representatives must start insisting on having much more of a say, before it's too late.


Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less