President Donald Trump’s escalating expansion of executive power is provoking a mounting constitutional dispute. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is among those voicing apprehensions about potential dangers to the American system of checks and balances.
In a talk at Miami Dade College, Florida, on February 11, 2025, Justice Sotomayor highlighted the founders’ intent to prevent a monarchy by vesting the power of the purse with Congress as alarm grows over perceived executive overreach.
The actions of the current administration bring to life the “deconstruction of the administrative state” – a concept coined by ex-Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Central to this shift is an extraordinary alliance between Trump and tech magnate Elon Musk. Musk’s nomination to head the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has led to serious queries about administrative supervision.
Constitutional scholar Corey Brettschneider raises concerns about Musk’s approach, stating, “The danger in what Musk is doing is that he is openly defying the United States Constitution.” He further explained that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to control the purse and that it’s the executive’s responsibility to spend funds allocated by Congress.
Legal experts express alarm over the administration’s usage of emergency powers, such as Trump’s application of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs on significant trading partners. This move marks a previously unseen broadening of the act’s application. Even though new duties on Canada and Mexico have been put on hold for 30 days, Trump’s order would have enforced 25 percent tariffs on imports from these nations, and a 10 percent tax on energy, along with additional duties on Chinese goods, which have already been implemented.
Federal agencies have seen quick and extensive transformations. Musk has publicly spoken about and is dismantling USAID, operations at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have been suspended, and the Department of Education could face reorganization or abolition under incoming Secretary Linda McMahon. Federal employees are facing a choice between buyouts and potential layoffs.
The Justice Department has experienced significant changes. The FBI has shared information on 5,000 employees involved in January 6, 2021 cases with Trump administration officials. Trump expressed his desire for “impartiality” to new Attorney General Pamela Bondi in an Oval Office meeting, which left little ambiguity about his interpretation of the term.
These changes are in line with the recommendations of Project 2025, a blueprint for Republican governance that Trump previously claimed ignorance of. The plan advocates for shifting “enormous power” from career civil servants and administrative bodies to the presidency.
Legal battles are on the rise. A Rhode Island judge recently ruled that the administration breached a court order regarding federal funding freezes. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance publicly questioned judicial oversight, asserting that judges cannot dictate the executive’s legitimate power.
Judge Sotomayor responded in her speech, “Court decisions stand, whether one particular person chooses to abide by them or not. It doesn’t change the foundation that it’s still a court order that someone will respect at some point.”
House GOP Speaker Mike Johnson supported the administration’s actions, stating, “We see this as an active, engaged, committed executive branch authority doing what the executive branch should do. This is not a usurpation of authority in any way.”
Legal experts caution about rising tensions between government branches. “(Saying it’s a) Constitutional crisis may be a little bit over the top, but I think what we’re seeing is we’re on the verge of getting there,” attorney Mark Zaid warned on MSNBC. “I’ve been telling so many people that we’re not even close to how bad it will be. It is going to get far, far worse.”
Sotomayor underscored the judiciary’s critical role in upholding constitutional boundaries, stating that the court has to “make it clear to the society, the presidents, the Congress, the people that we are doing things based on law and the Constitution as we are interpreting it fairly.”
While warning about history lessons, the justice concluded, “We’ve had moments where it’s been tested, but by and large, we have been a country that has understood that the rule of law has helped us maintain our democracy.”
