The question of presidential immunity — whether a sitting or former president is immune from legal actions — was addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in several key rulings. In Trunp v. United States, decided 01 July 2024, "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying" ... it should go without saying that the Office of the Presidency, the apex of the Executive Branch, is made significantly more powerful when the constraints of the criminal law are lifted with respect to the exercise of a President’s official duties. ... the Court today transfers from the political branches to itself the power to decide when the President can be held accountable. What is left in its wake is a greatly weakened Congress, which must stand idly by as the President disregards its criminal prohibitions and uses the powers of his office to push the envelope, while choosing to follow (or not) existing laws, as he sees fit. We also now have a greatly empowered Court, which can opt to allow Congress’s policy judgments criminalizing conduct to stand (or not) with respect to a former President, as a matter of its own prerogative.... A majority of this Court, applying an indeterminate test, will pick and choose which laws apply to which Presidents, by labeling his various allegedly criminal acts as “core,” “official,” or “manifestly or palpably” beyond the President’s authority....

"As far as I can tell, the majority is mostly concerned that, without immunity, Presidents might “be chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent Executive.” ... Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the Commander-in-Chief powers, the foreign-affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in Article II however they please—including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal and that have potentially grave consequences for the rights and liberties of Americans. ... The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself. ... America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction. Once selfregulating, the Rule of Law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a President have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible."

Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech entrepreneur, was more specific about his goals. During his campaign, he said he believed 75 percent of federal employees should be laid off. About 2.3 million civilians work for the federal government, nearly 60 percent of whom serve in the departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. His plan called for closing the Department of Education, shutting down the FBI and transferring 15,000 special agents to other agencies, and eliminating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and transferring its functions to other departments.

Steve Bannon, a prominent political strategist and former chief strategist for President Donald Trump, has been a vocal advocate for the "deconstruction of the administrative state." This concept involves reducing the size and influence of federal agencies and bureaucracies, aiming to shift power back to elected officials and the private sector. Bannon's approach is influenced by his belief that the administrative state has accumulated excessive power, operating beyond the control of elected representatives and the public. He argues that this concentration of authority undermines democratic principles and individual freedoms.

Donald Trump and his allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system. They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, health care, and federal law enforcement—all without Congressional approval.

“The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous,” said Ranking Member Boyle. “Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people’s elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk. House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet.”

Ahead of the Nov. 5 election Trump proposed a 10% tariff on all U.S. imports, as well as a 60% tariff on products from China. Manufacturers and retailers typically pass those costs to customers. Tariffs are considered a regressive form of taxation, meaning they hit the lowest-income consumers the hardest. That's because low-income families spend a larger share of their budgets on essentials like groceries, versus higher-income earners.

President-elect Donald Trump announced plans to implement significant tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China upon taking office. Specifically, he intends to impose a 25% tariff on all products from Mexico and Canada, and an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods. These measures aim to address issues such as illegal immigration and drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl, into the United States.

Trump's proposed tariffs raised concerns among economists and trade partners. Experts warn that such tariffs could lead to increased consumer prices, higher inflation, and potential job losses in both the U.S. and affected countries. Additionally, there is apprehension about the possibility of retaliatory tariffs from trade partners, which could further disrupt global trade relations.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority over the implementation of tariffs, but over generations, Congress has delegated that authority to the President. The President of the United States has the authority to impose tariffs without explicit approval from Congress under certain conditions. This power is derived from several federal laws that delegate specific trade-related powers to the executive branch. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) allows the President to impose tariffs if an investigation by the Department of Commerce determines that imports threaten national security. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) enables the President to regulate commerce during a declared national emergency related to an extraordinary foreign threat. The Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301) granted the President authority to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions if foreign countries engage in unfair trade practices that burden U.S. commerce. The Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 337) authorizes the President to take action against unfair methods of competition or practices in import trade. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act provides authority for the President to negotiate and implement trade agreements, which can include adjustments to tariff rates. These powers are not unlimited and may be subject to judicial review or congressional pushback. Congress retains the constitutional authority to regulate trade and could pass legislation to override executive actions, though such efforts may require overcoming a presidential veto.

“First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. “Any general, any admiral, whatever,” who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or “woke s---” has “got to go,” Fox News host Pete Hegseth, Trump’s selection for defense secretary Hegseth, said.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) explicitly allows for retired officers to be recalled to active duty to face court-martial. A retired general can be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in certain circumstances. The key factor is whether they are still receiving military benefits or are considered to have a connection to active military service. Service members are still considered part of the Armed Forces when they retire from the military - those entitled to military retirement pay are still subject to the UCMJ. "§802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter ... (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay. " This ensures that those who wore the uniform and made critical decisions impacting service members’ lives can still be held accountable. One broad category is conduct unbecoming an officer. This catch-all offense covers any behavior that disgraces the officer corps or compromises an officer’s ability to lead. Retired officers are also still subject to the military’s restrictions on political activities. While they are free to vote and privately express political views, they may not make public statements that might represent the military, such as by wearing a uniform to a protest or using their rank title in a political endorsement. The application of UCMJ jurisdiction to retirees is significant because courts-martial are not Article III courts and are therefore not subject to some of the basic protections contained within the Bill of Rights.