How Trump’s Federal-Aid Fiasco Is Testing the Separation of Power
Jan 30, 2025
auto_awesome
Join Harvard Law professor and New Yorker contributor Jeannie Suk Gersen as she dissects the recent turmoil surrounding Trump's federal funding memo. Gersen reveals how this directive has exposed tensions between the President and Congress, sparking a potential power struggle. She delves into the constitutional boundaries of executive authority, the significance of the 14th Amendment in Trump's policies, and the effects on budgetary control. The conversation offers a gripping look at the battle for power in Washington.
Trump's memo to halt federal funding revealed a significant expansion of executive power, prompting chaos and raising constitutional challenges.
The discussion around Trump's executive orders highlights the complex relationship between the President's authority and Congressional power, further complicating governance.
Deep dives
Trump's Direct Intervention in Federal Funding
Donald Trump's recent memo aimed to halt the distribution of federal grants, which sparked immediate controversy and chaos within the government. By attempting to seize control over federal appropriations, Trump signaled a significant expansion of executive power, raising concerns about the legitimacy of his actions. Legal experts, including Harvard Law professor Jeanne Suit-Gerson, pointed out that while the president has discretion in interpreting laws, outright refusal to execute Congress's directives could lead to unprecedented constitutional challenges. The implications of this move suggest a dangerous precedent whereby the executive branch could unilaterally dictate the flow of federal funds, particularly by favoring entities that align with the president's political beliefs.
The Legal Landscape of Birthright Citizenship
The discussion around Trump's executive order targeting birthright citizenship reveals a complex legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The Amendment states that individuals born in the U.S. are citizens, but the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' introduces ambiguity. Legal experts point to historical cases, such as Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, challenging the president's stance. Ultimately, the Supreme Court must navigate these interpretations while considering the implications of redefining established precedents in citizenship law.
Trump's Position Against Congressional Authority
Trump's strategy of pausing laws like the TikTok ban illustrates a broader conflict with Congressional authority that raises serious constitutional questions. By asserting that his ability to govern is hindered by existing laws, Trump positions himself as having the unilateral authority to rewrite legislative mandates. This move not only challenges the established power balance but also highlights a concerning trend where the president could circumvent Congressional decisions under the guise of national security. The implications of such actions could allow the president to delay or negate various laws, fundamentally altering the legislative process.
The Future of Executive versus Congress Power Dynamics
The potential overruling of the Chevron decision complicates the scope of executive power, especially concerning Trump's numerous executive orders. Chevron, established in 1984, permitted executive branch discretion in interpreting ambiguous federal statutes, a privilege that may no longer protect Trump's actions from judicial scrutiny. As the dynamic between the branches of government shifts, the legal landscape will likely straddle a fine line between enforcing legislation and executive interpretation. This tension could prompt ongoing disputes as the president attempts to consolidate power while Congress asserts its legislative prerogative.
On Tuesday, the Trump Administration sent out a memo attempting to put a blanket pause on most federal funding, sowing confusion about financing for student loans, SNAP benefits, nonprofits, and more. The next day, after a backlash, the Administration rescinded the memo, while maintaining that a freeze remains in “full force and effect.” The order created chaos across the federal government, threatening a power struggle between the President, Congress, and the courts. The New Yorker contributor and Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how Trump’s directives are testing how far a President can go.