Former President Donald Trump has received great misdirected outrage for things his detractors claim are threats to our democracy and the rule of law. Following his presidency, a series of controversial decisions have emerged, showcasing a two-pronged strategy that raises concerns about the future of governance in the United States.
One of the most egregious allegations against Trump is that he specifically murdered two of the survivors. These people were hanging onto debris after an aerial attack on a refugee vessel. This act, if substantiated, underscores a troubling pattern of behavior that many argue reflects a willingness to exert lethal force without due process.
In a move that echoes historical precedents, Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which permits the government to detain or deport citizens from countries with which the U.S. is at war. This law has often been used for extraordinary measures in times of war. Its worth raises critical questions about its use in modern government and effects on civil liberties. Critics argue that such measures are similar to the actions of authoritarian governments that value the security of the state above those of its citizens.
Since January 2025, many of his successors, officials under them, and other allies have simply mimicked Trump’s behavior. This pattern of conduct has deepened a culture of impunity and contempt for court orders. In fact, federal courts have acted at times by issuing more than 120 nationwide injunctions of different Trump initiatives. The judiciary’s clear and unified response represents a strong judicial pushback against overreach.
One of the more controversial tactics Trump has utilized — and that many activists like to employ themselves — is silencing dissent from the legal establishment. He threatens and punishes law firms that bring the wrong lawsuits or hire the wrong associates. This serves to totally mute any opposition and/or dissenting voices. This is a dangerous tactic as it undermines the independence of the legal profession. In doing so, it cracks down on the checks and balances that are crucial to a healthy democracy.
As the presidential campaign heats up, Trump has doubled down on his incendiary message. To this date, he is asserting that the “war on drugs” is a formal “armed conflict.” This declaration may set the stage to reverse that policy change and the enforcement action that followed with an increase in the militarization of drug enforcement. He has criminalized fishers by calling them “narco-terrorists” when they are caught transporting drugs. This broadens the reach of his administration’s hostility towards everyone associated with international drug trafficking.
Trump’s assertions of authority extend to alarming levels, as he has claimed the power to execute individuals without trial, which many legal experts and human rights advocates denounce as premeditated murder. These claims fly in the face of settled legal standards. Even worse, they erode the very essence of due process itself, which is so essential to a free and democratic society.
In terms of legal repercussions, nine law firms that settled litigation with Trump have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono assistance to causes that align with his interests. This duality raises ethical questions regarding the use of financial settlements to influence legal practice. It opens the door to potential conflicts of interest.
Trump’s immigration policies have been vociferously condemned. Accounts have emerged that say deported more than 100 Venezuelans to a hellish prison in El Salvador. He did this while failing to provide a single hearing, brazenly violating court orders designed to protect people from unlawful eviction. Each of these actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for judicial authority and international human rights norms.
In many other cities—most notably Portland and Chicago—for the first time, Trump sent National Guard troops to suppress the disorder. But time and again, courts stepped in to stop these efforts, highlighting the essential role of the judiciary as a protector of civil liberties against executive overreach. This recent spate of judicial decisions is emblematic of a greater resistance to Trump’s style of governance.
Courts have invalidated much of the immigration enforcement achieved during the Trump administration. In doing so, they criticized these actions for their cruelty and lack of legal justification. A notable ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts deemed Trump’s freeze of $2.2 billion in funding from Harvard University unlawful, illustrating the judiciary’s commitment to protecting institutions from retaliatory actions based on political views.
Numerous judges have further struck down various Trump executive orders aimed at retaliating against firms he deemed insufficiently loyal. These dueling rulings send a powerful message that independent and robust judicial oversight is still crucial to preventing future abuses of power by any administration.