Will Trump Ignore The Federal Courts?

The frightening answer is, we don't know.

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.

If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin who lives in Philadelphia. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated.

Will He Or Won’t He?

Shutterstock

Regular readers of Truth & Consequences will note that I have been a bit sanguine about the potential damage the Trump Administration can do to American democracy. Don’t get me wrong — they can cause real and enduring injury — but there are limits.

But what if Trump and his minions are no longer willing to abide by any limits? We may soon have to answer that question.

Over the weekend, a federal judge prohibited Trump appointees and officials at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing the Treasury Department’s payments system. This ruling came 24 hours after another federal judge blocked USAID’s effort to place virtually its entire workforce on administrative leave. These moves followed other rulings that halted an OMB effort to pause all federal funding, stopped a Trump Executive Order intended to end birthright citizenship, and blocked an order transferring transgender female inmates to male prisons.

On Saturday, Vice President JD Vance took to Twitter and made an ominous statement.

While it’s true that judges can’t tell a general how to conduct a military operation or command the attorney general to use their discretion as a prosecutor, judges ARE allowed to control the executive’s “legitimate” power. The issue, of course, is how one defines the executive’s “legitimate” power — and here, Vance has a point. There are centuries of American legal jurisprudence debating precisely this question. He clearly believes that the federal courts are infringing on Trump’s executive power — and I don’t have much of an issue with him expressing that view. The problem is that, as the New York Times points out, the vice president “has repeatedly argued in recent years that presidents like Mr. Trump can and should ignore court orders that they say infringe on their rightful executive powers.”

That raises a real fear that Trump will ignore court rulings that he dislikes or believes limit his ability to carry out his responsibilities as president.

Would Trump do it? Would he flout judicial rulings? In one current case, it seems to be happening. Earlier today, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration is failing to abide by an earlier ruling requiring them to fully unfreeze federal spending and spend money appropriated by Congress. According to ProPublica, some federal spending remains frozen. Moreover, Trump is seemingly not abiding by the Supreme Court’s upholding of a ban on the social media app TikTok. But these appear to be the only examples … so far.

While perhaps this is a Panglossian view, I didn’t read Vance’s tweet as indicating that the White House intends to thumb its nose at the judiciary branch — but rather that it could if judges keep blocking Trump’s initiatives. So, to read between the lines, I think Vance is sending a message to the courts (and in particular the Supreme Court), “Throw us a bone on something, or things could get ugly.”

That could lead to a situation in which federal judges rule in Trump’s favor on an issue of executive power to prevent the far more damaging outcome of the president ignoring judicial fiats. After all, the judiciary branch has no enforcement mechanism. The only possible recourse for a president who breaks the law and refuses to abide by the decisions of the judicial branch is impeachment — and all we know that won’t happen.

But what if judges continue to rule against Trump or the president decides I don't care what the courts say? The fact is, none of us know what he will do. Why would he abide by long-standing democratic norms regarding judicial review? The entire notion of judicial review, as enshrined in the seminal Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, is upheld by precedent and norm. No one can make Trump continue to abide by it, and one can’t expect congressional Republicans to stand up to him.

The uncertainty of what Trump might do makes this moment incredibly frightening. We could be on the cusp of not just a constitutional crisis but a slippery slope toward dictatorship (what other word can be used to describe a president with no institutional checks on their power?) We don’t know, and even if we are, very little will be done to stop it.

One More Thing

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a Dear Colleague to Senate Democrats that contained this noteworthy paragraph:

Democrats stand ready to support legislation that will prevent a government shutdown. Congressional Republicans, despite their bluster, know full well that governing requires bipartisan negotiation and cooperation. Of course, legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes and Senate Democrats will use our votes to help steady the ship for the American people in these turbulent times. It is incumbent on responsible Republicans to get serious and work in a bipartisan fashion to avoid a Trump Shutdown.

This graf is what we in the business call “bullshit.” Schumer is playing an old political game here of trying to pin the blame for a potential government shutdown on Republicans.

The continuing resolution under which the government operates will expire on March 14. Unless Republicans can craft legislation that passes both houses of Congress, we’ll be looking at a shutdown on that date. I rate the chances of that happening as “high.”

First, it’s hard to imagine House Democrats lending their votes to a funding bill, and it’s doubtful that Speaker Mike Johnson can get every Republican on board with a measure to keep the government open (there are always a few Freedom House looney tunes in the House caucus who will oppose every spending bill). Second, even if Johnson gets something through the House, Senate Democrats can filibuster it (FWIW, I doubt Johnson succeeds).

Democrats have little reason to vote for any government funding bill because what evidence do they have that Trump will spend the money they appropriate? He’s already frozen funding on legislation passed by Congress in December that kept the government open! Indeed, the March 14 deadline and the debt limit, which will likely expire in the middle of the year, are the two biggest pieces of leverage for Democrats. Republicans can’t pass a budget or extend the debt limit without Democratic votes. No matter what Schumer might say to his colleagues, a shutdown is likely coming — and the smart play for Democrats is to welcome it (just not publicly).

What’s Going On

• Constitutional scholars say Trump has already created a constitutional crisis.

• We’re starting to get a glimpse of what happened to Israeli hostages held in Gaza … and it’s ugly.

• Americans are getting increasingly pessimistic about the economy.

• EJ Dionne has a few thoughts on what Democrats should do about Trump’s power grab.

• Arab-American Trump supporters are having second thoughts about their presidential votes. If only they had some warning that Trump couldn’t be trusted.

• There is bravery, and then there’s what the Manhattan Institute’s Jessica Riedl did last week.

• Your daily reminder that the president of the United States is an idiot.

  

• And also a sociopath …

  

Musical Interlude