Politics

Abuse of Power

Watchdogs fired, a statistician fired after a bad jobs report, opponents indicted, law firms and universities punished. Sorted by what the courts actually said, including where the administration won.

The argument

A president has real power, and some of it is broad. The Supreme Court held this year that he can fire the heads of independent agencies like the FTC at will. The pardon power is also broad. This page starts there, because the point is not that every act below was illegal. Some of these fights went the administration’s way, and others are still undecided.

The pattern is the point. Again and again, the people and institutions in his way were removed or punished: the government’s internal watchdogs, the official who reported a weak jobs number, a Federal Reserve governor, his critics, the law firms that worked against him, a university that said no. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties ruled against many of these moves.

1. Where the administration won, or has not lost

This comes first, because it is true and it matters.

• Firing most agency heads. In Trump v. Slaughter (June 29, 2026), the Supreme Court held 6 to 3 that Congress cannot protect commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission from being fired at will (opinion). It also overruled Humphrey’s Executor (1935) to the extent anything was left of it. That is a major win for presidential power, and it reaches well beyond this president.
• The foreign aid “pocket rescission.” In September 2025 the Supreme Court let the administration hold back about $4.9 billion in foreign aid for now, on the ground that the groups suing likely could not bring the case. It did not rule that holding back the money was lawful.
• Some spending disputes. The Government Accountability Office, Congress’s auditor, found no violation in several cases it reviewed, including Agriculture and Interior programs (GAO decisions).
• Pardons. The pardon power is in the Constitution, and Congress cannot limit it. It reaches federal offenses only.

2. The watchdogs

On January 24, 2025, at least 17 inspectors general, the officials who investigate waste and fraud inside federal agencies, were fired by email. The law requires the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice and reasons first. In September 2025, in a suit brought by eight of them, a federal judge ruled the firings unlawful, but declined to put the inspectors general back, reasoning that the president could simply fire them again after giving notice.

3. The jobs report

On August 1, 2025, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a weak jobs report with large downward revisions to earlier months. Hours later the president fired the bureau’s commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, accusing her of manipulating the numbers. No evidence of manipulation was produced, and the revisions followed the bureau’s normal methods. The commissioner serves at the president’s pleasure, so the firing was within his power. The question is what it teaches the next person who has to report a bad number.

4. The Federal Reserve

In August 2025 the president tried to fire Lisa Cook, a governor of the Federal Reserve, over an allegation about her mortgage applications. By law, Fed governors can be removed only “for cause.” On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court refused, 5 to 4, to let him remove her while her case continues (opinion). The Court decided on a narrow ground, that she had not been given notice and a chance to respond, and it did not decide whether the allegation is true.

5. Critics, in court

In September 2025 the U.S. attorney in eastern Virginia, Erik Siebert, who had reportedly doubted the case against Comey, resigned under pressure. Lindsey Halligan, a lawyer who had worked on the president’s personal legal team and then in the White House, and who had never been a prosecutor, was installed in his place. Within days she indicted former FBI director James Comey, who had been a target of the president’s public anger for years. In October she indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had won a civil fraud ruling against the president’s company.

On November 24, 2025, a federal judge dismissed both cases, without prejudice, because Halligan’s appointment was unlawful, so prosecutors could try again. That ruling was about her appointment, not about whether Comey or James were guilty. Prosecutors then tried twice to re-indict James, and grand juries declined both times. The government has appealed the dismissals.

6. Law firms and universities

In the spring of 2025 the president signed executive orders against several major law firms that had represented his opponents or employed lawyers who investigated him. The orders cut off security clearances and access to federal buildings. Four firms sued, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, and all four won permanent injunctions from four different federal judges, two of them appointed by George W. Bush. Nine other firms made deals instead, pledging about $940 million in free legal work. The government’s appeals were pending at last check.

In April 2025 the administration froze more than $2 billion in research funding to Harvard after it refused demands about its hiring, admissions and teaching. In September 2025 a federal judge ruled the freeze violated the First Amendment. The government has appealed. Columbia chose to settle, agreeing to pay more than $200 million and accept an outside monitor.

7. Late-night television

In September 2025, after Jimmy Kimmel made on-air remarks about the killing of Charlie Kirk, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, said on a podcast that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Within hours, Nexstar, one of the largest station owners, said it would stop airing the show, and ABC suspended it the same day. It returned six days later. The FCC issued no order, and ABC made its own decision. But a regulator who licenses broadcasters publicly suggesting consequences over a comedian’s words drew criticism from several Republican senators, including Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

8. The money Congress approved

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. When a president refuses to spend money Congress has appropriated, the Impoundment Control Act requires him to ask Congress first. The GAO has found that the administration broke that law in withholding National Institutes of Health grants (August 2025), FEMA funds (September 2025), and Environmental Protection Agency and HHS grants (October 2026), and it found no violation in several other cases (GAO decisions).

9. Troops, and court orders

In December 2025 the Supreme Court refused to let the administration deploy the National Guard in Illinois over the governor’s objection, finding that, “at this preliminary stage,” the government had “failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois” (Trump v. Illinois). More on the deployments is on The Wars.

In April 2025 a federal judge found probable cause that the administration had committed criminal contempt by continuing deportation flights after he ordered them turned around. An appeals court panel set that aside in August 2025. A second panel halted the inquiry in April 2026, and in June 2026 the full court agreed to rehear the case. It is unresolved.

10. Pardons

On November 10, 2025, the president pardoned 77 people connected to the effort to overturn the 2020 election with alternate slates of electors, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and John Eastman, none of whom had been federally charged. The pardons cover federal offenses only, so state cases are not affected. The January 6 pardons are covered on January 6, by the Record.

What is true on the other side

• Presidents have always used their powers against opponents to some degree, and every administration fires officials it does not trust.
• Some of these fights were won by the administration, and some appeals may go its way.
• Campus antisemitism complaints were real, and the government has legal authority to enforce civil rights law at universities that take federal money.
• Grand juries and judges stopped some of the cases. The system pushed back, which is itself worth noticing.

The common rebuttals

“They did it to him first.”

He was investigated and prosecuted, and he believes it was political. Those cases went through grand juries, judges and juries, and one ended in a New York jury convicting him of 34 felony counts (he received no penalty and is appealing). The cases on this page were dismissed by judges, refused by grand juries, or blocked by courts of both parties’ appointees. Even if you think he was treated unfairly, the answer to that is not to do it on purpose.

“It is all legal.”

Some of it is, and section 1 says so. Much of it has lost in court so far: judges ruled against the law-firm orders, the Harvard freeze, the inspector general firings and the Illinois deployment (several are on appeal), and Congress’s auditor found the spending law was broken in several cases. Legal or not, the question for a voter is whether this is the kind of power you want the other party to have next.

What this means

The courts did not stop all of it. They stopped a lot of it.