FLASH
Shkruar nga Luca Pirola
Trump's aggressive, unilateral decisions are widespread across the board. But now judges are trying to rein him in. Is this a balance of power or a political clash?
In the film “The Apprentice,” which tells the story of the rise of young entrepreneur Donald Trump in 1970s New York, lawyer Roy Cohen, considered one of the tycoon’s mentors, offers him his three unscrupulous rules that he uses to win in court and protect the interests of his clients. The first is attack, attack, attack.
And it seems that in the first months of his presidency, Donald Trump has not deviated from this old rule: from tariffs to foreign policy, from immigration to government appointments, from relations with the world of culture to tax reform, it cannot be said that Trump is acting defensively.
He threatens (and implements) funding cuts to progressive universities, threatens (and implements) duties and tariffs on products imported into the US, proposes (and imposes?) fragile ceasefires in Gaza, deports (forcing them to leave the country before judges can block the measures) illegal immigrants who are members of violent South American gangs, imposes strict controls on the border with Mexico, leading to a drastic drop in illegal entries into the US.
The strategy of an all-out attack is keeping the opponent isolated. After being badly defeated in the November 2024 elections, the Democratic Party is currently in the midst of an identity crisis. It has lost support among workers, especially among men and young people.
Also, there is no longer a majority of support among minorities, while some large Democratic stronghold states (like California) are losing population in favor of Republican-majority states (Texas), which are currently more attractive due to their greater safety and lower taxes.
Above all, the Democratic Party is unable to find a leader who can unite moderates, who would like more attention to transgender rights and immigration, with the more progressive wing, linked to LGBTQ+ activism and the pro-Palestinian and Black Lives Matter movements of African Americans.
Perhaps a more effective opposition is being made by Harvard University to the demands of the conservative government. Led by the new chancellor Alan Garber (the previous chancellor, the progressive Claudine Gay, was forced to resign due to anti-Semitic attacks that were not properly addressed, but also because of accusations of plagiarism in her works), a moderate figure who has admitted some mistakes made by the university administration in failing to combat anti-Semitism and in supporting some theories of the radical “Wake Up” movement.
Meanwhile, he is also a staunch defender of the autonomy of the famous university. Having appointed an extremely aggressive legal team (made up of conservative lawyers), he is challenging various acts of the Trump administration in the courts and has launched an open challenge to Trump, the outcome of which cannot be predicted.
However, currently the most significant obstacles to President Trump's strategies are coming through the courts: a 3-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade has declared many of the tariffs imposed by the president illegal.
The court emphasized in its decision that imposing these tariffs exceeds the government's powers, as the rule on which Trump relied allows the president to impose embargoes and tariffs only in exceptional situations and not generalized tariff measures.
The government has already announced it will appeal the decision, and the battle could soon reach the Supreme Court. But the tariffs aren't the only Trump measure that has been blocked by judges.
Several deportation orders for illegal immigrants (often accused of crimes or being part of violent gangs) have also been ruled illegal, raising questions about the protection of deported immigrants. A short time later, another judge suspended an order that stripped Harvard University of its ability to sponsor visas for international students, limiting one of the government's actions against the university.
It is clear that opposition to the government occurs primarily through the judiciary. Therefore, a question arises: are we seeing an attempt at a legitimate balance of powers, of exercising those checks and balances that allow democracy to truly function and not become a “dictatorship of the majority.”
Or are we in a case where a legitimately elected government, and with a clear popular mandate, is being blocked by a small minority of people in key positions in the administration and judiciary? The answer is probably not that simple, and it is certainly not possible to give it in a single article./ Adapted from "Pamphlet" by "Il Sussidiario"
Lini një Përgjigje