In the American system of government, Congress is meant to serve as a check on presidential power — especially on matters of war, spending, and the structure of federal agencies. But in his second term, Donald Trump has repeatedly tested those limits, taking major actions without congressional approval and expanding the reach of executive authority.
Military action without authorization
Perhaps the most significant example came with Donald Trump’s military strikes on Iran. While the president serves as commander-in-chief, the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war — yet the strikes were launched without congressional authorization.
A similar pattern played out in Venezuela, where U.S. forces carried out operations targeting the regime of Nicolás Maduro without prior authorization from Congress. Efforts to challenge the move through legislative channels ultimately failed.
Going around Congress on economic policy
Trump has also sidestepped Congress on major economic decisions. Rather than seeking legislative approval, his administration imposed sweeping tariffs using emergency powers under existing law.
That approach drew legal challenges, and the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that many of the tariffs were illegally implemented. Even so, Trump signaled he would pursue alternative legal pathways — again avoiding direct congressional involvement.
Symbolic moves — without legal authority
In other cases, Trump has issued executive orders that carry political weight but lack full legal backing without Congress.
In one instance, he ordered the Department of Defense to be renamed the “Department of War,” a move that drew immediate attention but cannot take legal effect without congressional approval. Under federal law, only Congress has the power to formally rename executive departments.
A similar dynamic played out with cultural institutions. The board of the Kennedy Center voted to rename the venue the “Trump-Kennedy Center,” sparking backlash from lawmakers who argued that any official renaming tied to a federally supported institution would ultimately require congressional action.
Even geographic changes have followed this pattern. Trump issued an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” prompting the House to pass legislation to formalize the change — but the Senate has yet to act, leaving the order in legal limbo.
While these moves are largely symbolic, they underscore a broader approach: using the power of the presidency to drive changes that, in practice, still depend on Congress to be fully realized.
Gutting government agencies
Trump has also moved aggressively to restructure the federal government itself. Early in his second term, his administration initiated sweeping changes across multiple departments, including the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, USAID, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The moves triggered layoffs, internal disruption, and the departure of career staff, as agencies were reorganized or scaled back.
But Congress was largely sidelined in the process, despite its constitutional role in creating, funding, and overseeing federal agencies.
The actions quickly faced legal challenges, and in several cases, courts ruled that the administration had exceeded its authority. One federal judge ordered multiple agencies to reinstate probationary employees who had been dismissed during a broad restructuring effort tied to Trump’s push to remake the federal government.
Erosion of Checks and Balances
Taken together, these actions point to a broader pattern — one in which the presidency acts without waiting for Congress, especially in moments of urgency or political opportunity, gradually eroding the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.
Legal scholars warn that those guardrails are not just procedural — they are foundational to how American democracy functions. As constitutional law professor Kimberly Wehle explains, “What people don’t understand is, once the system no longer functions, it won’t function when you need it to function either. When the apparatus of democracy fails, then we just have to hope for a benevolent president.”
