Are Limits on the Growth of Executive Power?
In the initial phase of his return to the presidency, President Donald Trump has been actively signing executive orders, withholding funds from significant programs, and authorizing SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to dismiss numerous federal employees. Supporters of President Trump, including members of the Republican Party, are applauding these actions, viewing them as a fulfillment of his promise to eliminate corruption in Washington. On the other hand, Democrats, legal scholars, and various affected groups are expressing concern, citing these moves as an abuse of power and are exploring legal options to address these concerns.
Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, has emerged as a prominent figure criticizing President Trump’s decisions. During a discussion at the Hayward Room of the Hanover Inn, Katyal, who was in town for Board of Trustees meetings, engaged in a talk with U.S. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., on the legal implications and tangible consequences of Trump’s recent actions. The event was hosted by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and was moderated by Dafna Linzer of U.S. News & World Report.
Sen. Welch, sharing his opinion on the flurry of executive orders issued by President Trump, expressed concerns regarding the perceived disregard for Congressional oversight and an infringement on the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. He called out members of his own party for not doing enough to ensure checks and balances on the president’s actions.
Katyal echoed Welch’s sentiments by highlighting the constitutionality of executive orders. He emphasized that while the issuance of executive orders is a longstanding presidential practice, the content of such orders could potentially be unconstitutional, as seen in the mass firing of career civil servants. Katyal specifically mentioned the Merit Systems Protection Board, a mechanism created by Congress to oversee disputes involving federal employees, which is being sidestepped in these mass firings.
The conversation also touched upon the legal challenges mounted against Musk’s DOGE initiatives, aimed at making significant budget and workforce cuts. While the Trump administration and Musk have justified these actions as efforts to eliminate inefficiencies in the federal government, critics argue that the approach taken is counterproductive and arbitrary. Welch highlighted the abrupt termination of employees at agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as one of the missteps of this strategy. He lamented the lack of congressional intervention to prevent these actions from unfolding unchecked.
As discussions around the legality and consequences of these executive decisions intensify, Katyal foresees major cases addressing the separation of powers reaching the Supreme Court. The implications of these legal battles extend beyond the confines of constitutional interpretation, as they delve into the fundamental principles of governance and oversight in the United States. Through these dialogues, legal experts, politicians, and affected groups continue to navigate the complexities of executive power and its limits in the American political landscape.