Trump Is Testing Checks and Balances. When Is It a Constitutional Crisis?

In partnership with

Read The Daily Upside. Stay Ahead of the Markets. Invest Smarter.

Most financial news is full of noise. The Daily Upside delivers real insights—clear, concise, and free. No clickbait, no fear-mongering. Just expert analysis that helps you make smarter investing decisions.

Join 1M+ readers today.

In just three weeks in office, President Donald Trump has taken significant actions.

He has fired at least a dozen Inspector Generals, imposed a sweeping freeze on all federal grants, and criticized USAID, calling it "run by radical lunatics."

Trump is not just acting quickly on campaign promises but is also testing the traditional limits of presidential power. He is challenging the boundaries set by Congress and the courts. Some experts argue that he is disregarding laws and constitutional limits on his authority.

The System of Checks and Balances

The U.S. Constitution establishes checks on presidential power. To understand how these checks function, consider USAID as an example. The Trump administration is attempting to dismantle it, but the same system applies to all federal agencies, including the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Congress drafts legislation that defines what an agency should do and allocates funding for it. For example, a law introduced by then-Senator Marco Rubio directed USAID to provide education for displaced children in coordination with private and civil organizations. Agencies like USAID take these directives and budgets from Congress and implement them. However, all federal agencies operate under the executive branch, meaning the president oversees them and their spending through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury.

Trump's First Three Weeks

In his first three weeks, Trump attempted to take control of these systems from Congress. He ordered the freezing of federal program funds, allowed Elon Musk's Doge to access sensitive payment systems, and directed USAID to be moved under the State Department, now led by Secretary Marco Rubio. He also fired hundreds of USAID employees and placed all remaining staff on administrative leave.

Congress’ Response

Congress has the power to check the president by refusing to confirm nominees, passing laws that limit presidential authority, or even initiating impeachment proceedings. For example, after President Nixon tried to freeze federal funds in the 1970s, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to notify Congress before withholding funds. Congress then has 45 days to approve or reject the decision. The president cannot unilaterally refuse to spend allocated money.

Despite these mechanisms, the Republican-majority Congress appears uninterested in checking Trump's actions. Some lawmakers argue that his moves are aligned with their long-standing goals. They have even confirmed Trump’s key appointee, a Project 2025 architect, to lead OMB despite concerns about fund freezes.

Court Intervention

The courts play a critical role in reviewing the legality of presidential actions. Dozens of lawsuits have already been filed against Trump's orders, with courts issuing injunctions to block some of them. For instance, courts stopped his orders to freeze federal funds and prevent Doge’s access to payment systems. Trump's attempt to declare birthright citizenship unconstitutional was also immediately blocked.

Regarding USAID, Trump claims he has the right to fire any executive branch employee. However, the Supreme Court has previously ruled against such broad presidential authority. Many USAID employees have been fired in ways that violate federal law, and legal experts expect successful lawsuits challenging these actions.

A federal judge, appointed by Trump, has temporarily halted USAID employees from being placed on leave. Experts argue that issues within USAID should be addressed through proper channels, such as Inspector General investigations and congressional hearings, rather than unilateral executive action.

The Risk of a Constitutional Crisis

While Trump's actions have created uncertainty, legal experts believe the courts can stop or reverse many of them. However, legal battles take time, and it remains unclear how long it will take to undo the damage at USAID.

Some analysts believe Trump is deliberately testing the limits of executive power, particularly with the current Supreme Court, where three of his appointees sit. They suspect he aims to establish new precedents that expand presidential authority.

For example, Trump argues that his executive order abolishing birthright citizenship will succeed in the Supreme Court. Similarly, his administration claims the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, arguing that the president has broad discretion over federal spending.

Trump's approach raises concerns about whether he will comply with court rulings. Historically, presidents have followed judicial orders, even when they disagreed with them. During his first term, Trump obeyed court decisions despite his objections. However, in his second term, his administration has begun questioning judicial authority.

After a court ruling against his administration, Vice President J.D. Vance stated that "judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power." Trump himself has dismissed unfavorable rulings as "a disgrace."

If Trump were to ignore a direct court order, experts agree that it would lead to a constitutional crisis—an unprecedented situation where the president refuses to abide by the legal system.

If Trump successfully dismantles USAID without facing consequences, he could apply the same strategy to other agencies he has targeted. This could fundamentally alter the balance of power within the federal government.