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

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less