Trump Subordination of Congress
The second Trump administration undertook an unprecedented campaign to subordinate Congressional authority and circumvent the constitutional separation of powers. This analysis examines the various mechanisms through which President Trump has sought to diminish Congress's role in federal policy, ranging from personal financial self-enrichment schemes to the wholesale dismantlement of oversight infrastructure, manipulation of the confirmation process, and expansion of presidential immunity. The pattern that emerges reveals a systematic effort to concentrate power in the executive branch while simultaneously weakening the legislative branch's ability to function as a constitutional check on presidential authority.
Executive Self-Enrichment Through Federal Mechanisms
Among the most brazen examples of the administration's disregard for congressional prerogatives involves President Trump's attempt to extract $230 million from the Department of Justice as compensation for criminal investigations conducted during his first term and afterward. Trump filed two separate administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking damages related to the Russia investigation and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. What makes this situation particularly troubling from a separation of powers perspective is that the officials who would approve such settlements—Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward—previously served as Trump's personal defense attorneys in the very matters for which he now seeks compensation.
This arrangement creates what Senator Adam Schiff described as the president "writing his own check," given that Trump's political appointees would be evaluating his claims while serving at his pleasure. The sum being sought far exceeds settlements made to victims of heinous government failures, including the $138.7 million settlement to Larry Nassar's victims and the $144.4 million settlement to families of the Sutherland Springs mass shooting victims. Senate Judiciary Democrats have characterized this as "yet another attempt by President Trump to weaponize his position of power for personal financial gain at the expense of American taxpayers."
Beyond the DOJ claims, Trump has extracted more than $1.2 billion in settlements from universities, law firms, and media companies through a combination of personal lawsuits and federal government pressure. Columbia University paid $221 million, while Harvard negotiated a potential $500 million settlement. ABC News paid $16 million, Paramount paid $16 million, and Meta paid $25 million—much of this money directed to Trump's future presidential library. Legal experts note that no previous president has sued media outlets while in office, making this a novel form of executive coercion. As Boston College Law School Professor Brian Quinn observed, previous presidents simply did not act as plaintiffs in personal lawsuits while holding office, but Trump "sees it as a valuable tool of coercion."
Congressional Self-Dealing: The Senator Payment Provision
Perhaps the most striking recent example of Congress being manipulated to serve Trump administration interests involves a provision quietly inserted into the November 2025 government funding bill. This provision would deliver at least $1 million each to eight Republican senators whose phone records were lawfully subpoenaed by the Department of Justice during its January 6 investigation. The payment structure provides $500,000 for each time the senators' records were inspected, meaning some could receive substantially more than the $1 million minimum.
The eight senators who stand to benefit from this provision—Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, and Marsha Blackburn—all voted to approve the funding bill containing their own payouts. Representative Rosa DeLauro denounced the provision, stating that "what makes this corruption so staggering is that the payout is specifically designed to go to eight Senators whose phone records were lawfully subpoenaed under due process by the Department of Justice." She noted the timing's particular cruelty, as the provision was being advanced while families received notices about rising healthcare premiums and the administration fought to block SNAP benefits.
This mechanism represents a direct use of the appropriations process to compensate political allies for their role in events surrounding January 6, effectively transforming Congress's power of the purse into a tool for rewarding loyalty to Trump's political agenda. The payments are structured as compensation for what the senators characterize as an improper investigation, though the subpoenas were issued through normal legal channels with proper judicial oversight.
Recess Appointments and Congressional Adjournment
Trump has repeatedly demanded that the Senate adjourn itself to enable him to make recess appointments, bypassing the chamber's constitutional advice and consent role entirely. This strategy would allow the president to install nominees who might otherwise fail confirmation hearings due to lack of qualifications, ethical concerns, or policy objections. The Constitution's Recess Appointments Clause permits presidents to fill vacancies temporarily when the Senate is not in session, but this power was designed for emergencies when Congress was genuinely unavailable, not as a tool to circumvent deliberate legislative oversight.
During meetings with Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson in January 2025, Trump raised the prospect of forcing congressional adjournment as a "significant possibility," according to officials familiar with the discussions. While Thune has expressed public skepticism, he also told Fox News that "all options are on the table," and Johnson stated that a president should be able to "choose his team," leaving the door open to facilitating Trump's scheme.
The constitutional mechanism Trump contemplates invoking has never been used in American history. Article II, Section 3 grants the president power to adjourn Congress in cases of "Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment." Trump's strategy would involve having the House pass an adjournment resolution while the Senate refuses, creating the "disagreement" that would theoretically authorize presidential intervention. Legal scholars warn that this would represent an unprecedented expansion of executive power, transforming what the Founders intended as an emergency provision into a routine tool for evading Senate oversight.
Following the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, which ruled that recesses must last at least ten days for recess appointments to be valid, the Senate has used pro forma sessions—brief gavel-in meetings every few days where no business is conducted—to prevent recess appointments. In August 2025, Thune scheduled exactly such pro forma sessions throughout the month, technically preventing Trump from making recess appointments even during the traditional summer recess. This led to fierce criticism from Trump supporters who accused Thune of blocking the president's nominees, though it represented a continuation of Senate practice designed to preserve the chamber's constitutional role.
The implications of Trump successfully forcing congressional adjournment would extend far beyond any individual confirmation. As conservative legal scholar Edward Whelan warned, such a move would "turn the Constitution's appointment process for Cabinet officers on its head," establishing a precedent that future presidents could exploit to staff entire administrations with individuals who never face Senate scrutiny. The appointments would be temporary—expiring at the end of the Senate's next session—but could still serve for up to two years, providing ample time to implement controversial policies or protect the president from oversight.
The Nuclear Option and Batch Confirmations
When recess appointments proved impractical, Senate Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" in September 2025 to fundamentally alter confirmation procedures. Through a parliamentary maneuver requiring only a simple majority, they changed Senate rules to allow batch confirmation of multiple nominees simultaneously, eliminating the traditional process of individual consideration, debate, and voting that has characterized the chamber's advice and consent function for over two centuries.
The rules change came after months of Republican complaints that Democrats were forcing time-consuming procedural votes on every Trump nominee rather than allowing quick voice votes or unanimous consent for lower-level positions. Senate Majority Leader Thune argued that Democrats had abandoned longstanding Senate precedent, noting that under previous presidents including Obama and George W. Bush, roughly 90 percent of civilian nominees were confirmed by voice vote, compared to zero percent under Trump's second term. The new rules allow up to 48 nominees to be considered and confirmed en bloc—all together in a single vote—drastically reducing the time available for senators to scrutinize individuals' qualifications, potential conflicts of interest, or policy views.
Democrats vigorously opposed the change, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warning Republicans that "if you go nuclear, it's going to be a decision you will come to regret." He argued that the move represented an abandonment of the Senate's traditional deliberative role and would enable Trump to install "historically bad nominees" without meaningful oversight. The rules change applies to sub-Cabinet level executive branch nominees and ambassadors, though not to judicial appointments, and requires only a simple majority vote to invoke rather than the sixty votes previously needed for most procedural motions.
The September vote to implement batch confirmations occurred along strict party lines, 53-45, after last-minute bipartisan negotiations collapsed. Those negotiations had centered around a compromise proposal originally introduced by Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar when Democrats held the majority, which would have allowed groups of ten nominees to be confirmed together. Republicans signaled willingness to accept a modified version allowing fifteen nominees per batch, but were ultimately unwilling to wait for Democratic consensus before forcing through their preferred rules over minority objections.
Thune's angry floor speech preceding the vote captured Republican frustration with the pace of confirmations. "How much time is enough?" he demanded of Democrats. "Time to quit stalling. Time to vote. Time to fix this place." He noted that the Senate would need to take more than 600 additional votes to clear the current backlog of nominees on the calendar and in committees—more votes than the chamber had taken in the entire year to that point. The rules change represented yet another erosion of Senate norms designed to ensure thorough vetting of individuals who would wield significant federal power, subordinating the chamber's constitutional oversight function to executive branch preferences for expedited personnel placement.
Executive Order Proliferation and Legislative Bypass
The Trump administration has employed executive orders at an unprecedented scale and scope to circumvent normal legislative processes. Through November 2025, Trump had signed 213 executive orders, 54 memoranda, and 107 proclamations. Most notably, he signed 26 executive orders on his inauguration day alone—a record that exceeded his previous first-day total of 14 orders and far surpassed Joe Biden's 17 first-day actions.
Many of these orders directly contradict or seek to override statutory requirements. The executive order withdrawing from the World Health Organization, for example, attempts to unilaterally reverse U.S. membership in an organization the nation joined through an Act of Congress in 1948. Georgetown University Professor Lawrence Gostin noted that Trump "needs Congress's approval to withdraw" and indicated he was considering legal action. Similarly, the order on birthright citizenship seeks to overturn a right explicitly enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, prompting immediate legal challenges.
The administration has also used executive orders to assert control over independent regulatory agencies that Congress created specifically to function free from presidential interference. Executive Order 14215, titled "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies," requires independent agencies including the Federal Election Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Trade Commission to submit major regulations to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. UC Law San Francisco constitutional law experts characterized the orders as "extraordinary, not just in their number, but in their breadth," with Professor Rory Little describing the situation as "a crisis, a challenge to the rule of law in the United States."
Impoundment: Withholding Congressionally Appropriated Funds
The Trump administration has revived the practice of impoundment—refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated—in direct violation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. This law was passed specifically in response to President Richard Nixon's attempts to withhold funding for programs he opposed, and the Supreme Court ruled in Train v. City of New York that Congress, not the president, has ultimate authority over federal spending. Despite this clear legal precedent, the administration has withheld an estimated $410 billion in congressionally approved funding as of early September 2025.
OMB Director Russell Vought, a key architect of Project 2025, has explicitly advocated for presidential impoundment power and dismisses the Impoundment Control Act as potentially unconstitutional. Newly released federal data show the administration was approximately $26 billion behind the expected pace of fiscal year 2025 spending commitments through July—ten months into the fiscal year. The delays have been particularly acute for 24 specific accounts with obligation rates at least 20 percentage points behind historical averages, many in programs the administration has proposed to eliminate or drastically cut.
The administration has employed a particularly cynical tactic known as "pocket rescission," whereby it submits rescission requests to Congress so late in the fiscal year that the 45-day review period extends past the September 30 deadline for spending the funds. In August 2025, Trump submitted a request to rescind $4.9 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development funding with this precise timing, ensuring that even if Congress rejected the rescission, the money would expire unused. Senator Susan Collins, Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, declared that "this type of rescission is unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act," while Senator Patty Murray characterized it as Vought's "end run around Congress."
The Supreme Court subsequently allowed Trump to withhold the $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress, marking a significant victory for the administration's impoundment strategy. Legal experts warn this decision further erodes separation of powers principles fundamental to constitutional order. The implications extend far beyond any single appropriation, as Public Citizen attorney Nicolas Sansome noted, warning of "grave humanitarian impact" and the precedent that a president can simply refuse to execute laws duly passed by Congress.
Dismantlement of Congressional Oversight Infrastructure
The Trump administration has systematically dismantled the infrastructure Congress created to oversee executive branch operations. On January 24, 2025—just four days into his second term—Trump fired at least 17 inspectors general in a late Friday night purge. These included watchdogs at the Departments of Defense, State, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Energy, and Transportation. The administration violated the Inspector General Act's requirement that Congress receive 30 days' notice before any removal, along with substantive explanation for the action.
Several of the fired inspectors general were investigating matters that could affect the business interests of billionaires in Trump's orbit, particularly Elon Musk. Defense Department Inspector General Robert Storch's office had opened a review of SpaceX's compliance with federal reporting protocols. Agriculture Department Inspector General Phyllis Fong was investigating Musk's Neuralink startup over allegations of animal mistreatment. Labor Department and Transportation Department inspectors general had previously investigated or fined Musk companies. When USAID Inspector General Paul Martin released a report detailing consequences of the administration's dismantling of his agency, he was fired within days.
The cumulative effect has been devastating to oversight capacity. Including the mass firings, additional resignations, and pre-existing vacancies, over 75 percent of presidentially appointed inspector general positions now sit vacant. A Senate Homeland Security Committee minority staff report found that the 19 independent inspectors general fired by Trump had previously uncovered billions in fraud, waste, and abuse. Representative Gerald Connolly characterized the firings as a "Friday night coup to overthrow legally protected independent inspectors general," representing "an attack on transparency and accountability, essential ingredients in our democratic form of government."
Beyond the inspectors general, Trump also fired the heads of the Office of Special Counsel—which protects whistleblowers—and the Office of Government Ethics. The administration terminated Joseph W. Tirrell, Director of DOJ's Departmental Ethics Office, and removed senior career DOJ ethics officials, replacing them with inexperienced political appointees. These actions have left the executive branch essentially self-policing, with minimal independent oversight of potential conflicts of interest, violations of ethics rules, or misuse of federal resources.
Presidential Immunity and the Transformation of Executive Power
The Supreme Court's July 1, 2024 decision in Trump v. United States fundamentally altered the constitutional balance of power between the president and Congress by granting presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. The 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers—including control of the Justice Department, command of the military, granting of pardons, and execution of laws. For other official acts, the Court established a presumption of immunity that prosecutors must overcome, creating a formidable barrier to holding presidents accountable for potential crimes committed while in office.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, argued that without such immunity, presidents would be "chilled from taking the 'bold and unhesitating action' required of an independent Executive." The decision went further than merely protecting presidents from prosecution, however. The Court ruled that prosecutors cannot even introduce evidence of immune conduct at trial when prosecuting a president for non-immune acts, creating what critics characterize as an evidentiary shield that makes proving criminal intent nearly impossible in cases involving mixed official and private conduct.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent captured the constitutional crisis the ruling creates for Congressional authority. "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," she wrote. "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." Jackson warned that the Court had transformed itself into the ultimate arbiter of presidential accountability, with justices picking and choosing which laws apply to which presidents by labeling acts as "core," "official," or beyond presidential authority.
The decision's practical implications for Congressional power are profound. Laws that Congress enacts to constrain presidential behavior—whether prohibiting bribery, obstruction of justice, or abuse of power—become effectively unenforceable when a president commits such acts through official channels. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent, the ruling creates a framework where "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."
During oral arguments, Trump's attorney John Sauer famously argued that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and face no criminal liability unless first impeached and convicted by Congress—a position the majority opinion implicitly endorsed through its framework of absolute immunity for core executive functions. This transforms impeachment from one potential check on presidential misconduct into a prerequisite for any criminal accountability, effectively requiring Congressional action before courts can even consider whether a president violated criminal law.
The Trump v. United States decision also impacts ongoing oversight efforts. Evidence of potentially criminal official conduct cannot be used in prosecutions, investigations face heightened barriers when examining presidential actions, and the specter of immunity claims delays and complicates efforts to hold presidents accountable. One year after the decision, legal experts note that it has "significantly weakened bulwarks within government that would traditionally investigate claims of public corruption, permitting the presidency more authority than America has seen in generations." Combined with Trump's dismantling of inspector general offices and independent oversight mechanisms, the immunity ruling helps create what Justice Kagan described in a related case as "the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever)."
Conclusion
The Trump administration's approach to Congressional authority represents a fundamental challenge to the constitutional architecture of American government. Through personal financial schemes leveraging DOJ settlements and corporate capitulation, arrangements to compensate political allies through appropriations riders, demands for recess appointments and forced congressional adjournment, elimination of individualized confirmation procedures through batch processing, an avalanche of executive orders overriding statutory requirements, systematic withholding of congressionally appropriated funds, wholesale dismantlement of oversight mechanisms, and Supreme Court decisions granting sweeping presidential immunity, the administration has sought to render Congress a subordinate branch of government rather than a co-equal check on executive power.
The pattern is consistent across these various mechanisms: the assertion that the president's policy preferences supersede congressional directives, that executive branch officials answer primarily to the president rather than to law, that Senate advice and consent can be circumvented through procedural manipulation, and that oversight and accountability represent obstacles to be eliminated rather than essential features of constitutional governance. The most recent example of senators voting to pay themselves compensation for investigations into their January 6 activities represents perhaps the starkest illustration of how thoroughly Congressional authority has been subordinated to Trump administration interests.
The expansion of presidential immunity through Trump v. United States compounds these challenges by removing one of the few remaining mechanisms for holding presidents accountable when they ignore or violate Congressional mandates. When Congress cannot effectively oversee through inspectors general and other watchdogs, cannot enforce its appropriations decisions, cannot thoroughly vet presidential appointees, and cannot rely on criminal law to deter presidential lawbreaking, it ceases to function as an independent branch of government capable of checking executive power. Instead, it becomes what the Founders most feared: a legislature existing at the sufferance of an executive who determines when its powers will be respected and when they will be overridden.
Whether through courts, through Congressional action, or through electoral accountability, these challenges to the separation of powers will require sustained attention and resistance. As multiple legal scholars have warned, if these precedents become normalized, they will fundamentally and perhaps permanently alter the balance of power within the federal government, creating an executive branch with dramatically expanded authority and a legislative branch unable to effectively exercise its constitutional functions. The coming months and years will determine whether Congress can reassert its constitutional prerogatives or whether this systematic subordination will define a new era of American governance where, as Justice Jackson warned, the president becomes "a law unto himself" while Congress must "stand idly by" as its enactments are disregarded at executive discretion.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
