ÿ�մ���

Media contact: Kristin Palm | [email protected] | 313-593-5542

President Donald Trump used executive power expansively during his first 100 days in office, but there is little he has done that wasn’t foreshadowed during his first term, observed UM-Dearborn Professor of Political Science Mitchel Sollenberger. In the below Q&A, conducted on April 30, 2025, Sollenberger discusses what has been predictable — and what has actually defied expectation — in the president’s nascent second term.

Sollenberger is the author of four books examining the reach and limits of executive powers:  (with Jeffrey Crouch and Mark J. Rozell),  (with Mark J. Rozell),  and.

Because you have studied the expansion of executive powers so extensively, you are probably less surprised than many at some of President Trump’s actions in his first 100 days in office. So let’s start with what hasn’t surprised you.

What has not surprised me is the use of unilateral executive action. I think Trump's experience during his first term has pushed him even more in this direction. His instincts, I think, have always leaned toward acting alone, and he did that with the travel ban early in his first term. That move drew significant pushback from the federal courts, which helps shed some light on the Trump administration’s hostility to the courts currently.

I think, especially during the last two years of his first term — when he faced a Democratic Congress — Trump saw enemies in all corners of government. That perception helped drive his doubling down on unilateral action, particularly in his efforts to root out what his administration calls the “deep state.” Whether it’s acting through the Department of Government Efficiency, or the removal and firing of officials, these moves seem designed to clear obstacles and smooth the way for implementing the policies he believes that he was elected to achieve. 

Whether you like it or not, there's truth to “small d” democracy when it comes to “elections have consequences” and what Trump is currently doing are the consequences. I can't think of anything that he's done that wasn't necessarily hinted at or explicitly stated during his campaign. For example, he was clear where he was going to go with immigration, and while he took aggressive action on it during his first term, it was understood that he would double down, if given the chance.

So, has there been anything that has surprised you?

If there’s one surprise, it's how much more strategic and deliberate the Trump administration has been to achieving policy aims. I assign an article in my presidency class titled “,” which characterizes Trump’s first term as chaotic and incoherent — a shoot from the hip administration with no plan. That description nicely captures Trump 1.0.  

This time, though, there seems to be a more structured approach. You might not like it, but certainly putting forward a border czar, the executive orders framing immigration as an “invasion,” and invoking the Alien Enemies Act — all point to a coordinated effort. Notably, this is the first time a president has used that law in a non-war setting. These moves appear calculated to lay the legal and rhetorical groundwork for the use of more aggressive and controversial forms of executive actions with the full anticipation of challenges in federal courts. And I think that's to me a level of sophistication that you didn't quite see with Trump 1.0.”

Is there anything else that surprised you?

What surprises me is the sheer scale of Trump’s actions, particularly his use of tariffs. While he deployed tariffs during his first term, what we are seeing now is more like “shock and awe,” to borrow a phrase from the Bush era. Previously, tariffs were aimed primarily at our economic rivals like China. Now, Trump is imposing them unilaterally and broadly against our allies. That’s nearly unprecedented in modern U.S. history. You have to go back to Richard Nixon for a president to blanket unilaterally impose a tariff, and Nixon did it for about a year, and then he rescinded it because, as a policy measure, it was ineffective and ultimately harmed the U.S. economy. 

I have always understood Trump to be a protectionist president, but I'm surprised by just how far he's taken it. This area of policy, more than any other, could have far-reaching consequences. Since World War II, the United States has led the global economic order on trade. And now we are experiencing this dramatic shift — a U.S. president imposing tariffs on virtually everyone which is forcing allies to rethink their economic strategies. If our allies readjust to a world without the U.S. leading and they decide to come together themselves in different ways, it could have profound implications for not only the U.S. when it comes to trade policy, economic policy, but in international affairs more broadly.

To be fair, there is a valid policy debate about whether our allies have become too reliant on the United States. But Trump’s approach — using confrontation and unilateralism — marks a sharp departure from the post-WWII consensus of diplomacy and engagement. It’s more a “shoot first and ask questions later” approach and seems to signal a fundamental shift in how America engages with the rest of the world.

Many observers have been talking about the risk of a constitutional crisis. Are we on the verge of tipping that far?

Republicans seemed to have largely closed ranks around Trump, effectively shielding his left flank from any sort of legislative-type challenge. So what about his right flank? I think there you have the judiciary as the key point of resistance and a possible place where a constitutional crisis occurs. In Trump’s first term, the legal flashpoint was the travel ban order – this time it’s shaping up to be the deportation cases. We have already seen several rulings and remands from the Supreme Court to the district courts which have pushed back against some of the Trump administration’s actions. This has given the lower courts additional support to not only question the Trump administration’s actions but stop deportations from proceeding. The real crisis would come if the Supreme Court issues a definitive ruling and the president defies it. We are not there yet but we are edging closer to that moment. 

Interestingly, the federal courts — including the Supreme Court — have been more willing to push back against presidential power than I expected. One major development has been that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an emergency appeal on the legality of nationwide injunctions. At least three justices appear skeptical of nationwide injunctions.

This is not some esoteric matter. If the Supreme Court rules that federal judges can only issue injunctions within their own jurisdictions, it could severely limit the ability of the courts to halt executive actions nationwide. That would have major implications, even if Trump’s actions are later found to have been unlawful, because the administration will be able to continue implementing them for weeks or months before a final ruling takes effect. Such a decision would significantly tip the balance of power toward the executive branch by greatly limiting what has become an effective tool of the judiciary to challenge presidential power assertions. 

###