The second administration of President Donald Trump has opened with a cyclone of directives that many political scientists view as a threat to American democracy. The shuttering of departments and entities created by Congress, the attempt to shift the Congressional “power of the purse” to the executive branch, and the firing of Inspectors General charged with oversight of the executive are examples among a dizzying set of actions that have raised alarms and, in many cases, been challenged in the courts. Most recently, Trump signed a sweeping executive order seeking to bring agencies such as the FTC and SEC, set up by Congress to act independently, under more direct control of the president.
Congress is designed, among other things, to write laws and oversee the actions of the federal bureaucracy to make sure that agencies execute the laws faithfully. Under the control of a GOP firmly in the grips of Donald Trump, Congress has been virtually silent as the president seeks to expand executive power at the expense of congressional authority.
Political scientists Charlotte Cavaillé and Robert Mickey, both affiliated with the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan, shared their insights on Congress’s “missing” push-back at last week’s “teach-in” panel organized by Josh Pasek and faculty to help students understand the democratic process.
Talks presented by Cavaillé and Mickey suggested three reasons why Republicans in Congress have declined to resist. First, they support the policy goals; second, they aren’t worried about popular backlash; and last, they fear for their electability (and possibly their well-being) if they defy Trump.
Cavaillé opened with the argument that Trump 2.0 is using very popular policy goals to clash with the courts.
“Trump is a very smart politician, so he’s focusing on extremely popular goals,” said Cavaillé. The downsizing of federal government and the slashing of foreign aid are such widely supported policy goals that legislators might view them as ends that justify the means.
Second, members of Congress worry about backlash when it comes to supporting policy. Republicans in Congress will worry about backlash only if the consequences affect their own voter base and are “large, certain, and traceable,” Cavaillé said. “…Right now it’s such a mess that it’s hard to understand even what’s going on.”
In a talk that described how political history since the Civil War brought us to this moment, Robert Mickey suggested a third explanation for Congressional abdication: Unprecedented fear of reprisal.
“Congressional Republicans [now] refuse to conduct oversight of the executive when their own party is present,” said Mickey. On one front, they are pressured by the power Trump and Elon Musk hold to back a primary challenger to defeat them. Worse, “as the ones who are about to retire keep telling us, they’re also fearful of the threats of violence that they and their families are receiving from the current of violence on the extreme right,” said Mickey. “So it kind of is understandable that they’re being quiet.”
An article this week by Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, made the same point: “The most underestimated element in the current crisis of our democracy is the degree to which many politicians fear for their lives if they do anything forthright to cross or defy President Trump.”
Charlotte Cavaillé is an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Robert Mickey is an associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan. They are both affiliated with the Center for Political Studies at the Institute for Social Research.
The teach-in held at Angell Hall was attended by an estimated 400-500 students seeking to learn about U.S. political institutions. The event also marked the 60th anniversary of the first teach-in convened in the United States, held at the University of Michigan during the Vietnam War protests of 1965, also at Angell Hall. Participating scholars included Kenneth Lowande, Vincent Hutchings, Josh Pasek, Richard Primus, Salomé Viljoen, Jenna Bednar, Julian Davis Mortenson, and Devin Judge-Lord. Most talks are now available to watch on YouTube.
This post was written by Tevah Platt of the Center for Political Studies, with contributions from Charlotte Cavaillé and Robert Mickey.
Over the past few weeks, President Donald Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders – more than 70 of them– that include controversial directives on immigration, the slashing of foreign aid, and the reshaping of the federal government. Organizations defending the rule of law have sounded the alarm that the orders breach constitutional separation of powers and violate due process, and many have already been challenged in court. Is this storm of executive orders unique? And in the end, will this strategy succeed? Kenneth Lowande, a political scientist affiliated with the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan, is an expert on executive power, and the author of the recently published book, ““False Front: The Failed Promise Of Presidential Power In A Polarized Age.”
As part of a “teach-in” panel organized by Josh Pasek and faculty to help students understand what’s happening, Lowande argued that the executive orders of the Trump administration are unprecedented because they are illegal power grabs by design, and that their success depends critically on compliance.
A bit of background: Executive orders are presidential instructions that direct executive branch agencies and staff to take specific actions. Presidents often use executive orders to kick off their first 100 days in office to revoke executive orders of previous administrations and to signal they’ll make good on the promises of their campaign.
Lowande has argued that it is normal for politicians to pursue executive actions, even when they know they will fail. Unilateral solutions are often inefficient, short-lived, or empty, but presidents issue the orders to put on a compelling show for key constituencies. It is also normal, says Lowande, for presidents– Republicans and Democrats– to use ambiguous laws to change policy.
What we are seeing in 2025 is different in two ways, Lowande says. The first difference, he argues, is that political wins for the Trump administration are the first and most important objective.
“Today, they’ve hastened the expansion of a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, which will cost orders of magnitude more to construct than normal. They released reservoir water in California for no conceivable purpose. They attempted to freeze all federal spending without a good warning of preparation. Any president could have done those things,” said Lowande. “But for the second Trump administration, making political wins seems to be the point. The volume and pace [of executive action] is designed to give you the impression that Trump can do anything.”
The second difference, says Lowande, is that the executive orders appear to be designed to be illegal. “President Trump today is not fundamentally different than he was eight years ago,” said Lowande. “He doesn’t have different ideas about policy. The main difference is that he’s surrounded by people who will sign off on actions even when they suspect that their actions might later be determined to be unlawful.”
In a statement issued last week, the nonpartisan American Bar Association cited attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship; the dismantling of USAID; attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity, and the summary dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress as examples of “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself.”
To take effect, an executive order must be “founded on the authority of the president derived from the Constitution or statute.” And to be exercised, an executive order must in the end be carried out by a bureaucrat. The Trump administration has opened the game with a strategy of moving first and furiously with orders that are legally risky. The enforcement of those orders may in turn be costly: Opening up dozens of different policy processes has the potential to tax the time and energy of staff. According to Lowande, we can assume that the administration hopes the federal workforce will follow those orders without being forced.
“The success of President Trump’s executive actions depends on people believing,” said Lowande. “It depends on courts, businesses, this university and other organizations acting as if the president actually has the power that he claims to.”
Media narratives that describe the president steamrolling Washington are effectively creating the narrative the President and his advisors need for their strategy to be successful, said Lowande.
An opposing strategy would depend on accurate knowledge about the limitations of executive power. The opposition would need to force the administration to use its energy to make people comply with their directives. And in the face of risk, the people asked to comply would need to draw on their courage.
Kenneth Lowande is an Associate Professor of Political Science, Associate Professor of Public Policy (by courtesy), and a Faculty Associate at the Center for Political Studies at the Institute for Social Research.
The teach-in held at Angell Hall during last week’s snowstorm was attended by an estimated 400-500 students seeking to learn about U.S. political institutions. The event also marked the 60th anniversary of the first teach-in convened in the United States, held at the University of Michigan during the Vietnam War protests of 1965, also at Angell Hall.
This post was written by Tevah Platt of the Center for Political Studies, with contributions from Kenneth Lowande.
