News

Trump Asserts a Muscular Vision of Presidential Power on First Day Back

Published

1 year ago

January 22, 2025

Trump Asserts a Muscular Vision of Presidential Power on First Day Back

After President Trump left the White House in 2021, critics of his norm-breaking use of executive power implored Congress to tighten legal limits on when presidents can unilaterally reshape American government with the stroke of a pen. But lawmakers largely did not act.

On Monday, as Mr. Trump took the oath of office to begin his second term, he asserted a muscular vision of presidential power. He not only revived some of the same expansive understandings of executive authority that were left unaddressed, but went even further with new claims of sweeping and inherent constitutional clout.

Among a blizzard of executive orders, Mr. Trump instructed prosecutors not to enforce a law that bans the popular social media app TikTok until its Chinese owner sells it. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had signed the measure into law after it passed with broad bipartisan support, and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it.

Whatever the law’s merits, the Constitution says presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Trump offered no clear explanation for how he has any legitimate power to instead suspend the law, making only a vague gesture toward his “constitutional responsibility” for national security, foreign policy “and other vital executive functions.”

Unilateral actions like emergency declarations and executive orders cannot create new legal powers for a president. Instead, they are a vehicle by which presidents exercise legal authority they already have, either because the Constitution has bestowed it upon their office or because Congress passed a law creating it.

That said, there are often disputes about the proper interpretation of the scope and limits of executive power. It is not uncommon for a president to use an executive order to take some action whose legal legitimacy is contested, leading to court fights that ultimately come before the Supreme Court.

It is not clear that anyone opposed to suspending the TikTok law would have standing to sue. But many of Mr. Trump’s moves concerned immigration law, making it very likely that legal challenges will follow and the legitimacy of his executive power claims will land before judges.

In several orders, Mr. Trump invoked his constitutional role as the military’s commander in chief, portraying migrants as invaders while blurring the line between immigration law enforcement and war powers.

“As commander in chief, I have no higher responsibility than to defend our country from threats and invasions, and that is exactly what I am going to do,” he said in his inaugural speech.

Among those orders, Mr. Trump declared that newly arriving migrants may not invoke a law allowing them to request asylum. As a basis, he said the Constitution gave him “inherent powers” to “prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States,” in addition to citing a few vague provisions of immigration laws.

Another such order directed the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees military operations in continental North America, to swiftly draw up a plan for a “campaign” to seal the border “by repelling forms of invasion including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities.”

Mr. Trump and his advisers have talked about invoking the Insurrection Act to use troops as additional immigration agents at the border. But the order referred only to his constitutional power as commander in chief, raising the possibility that he is envisioning using troops for a military operation rather than to act as law enforcement.

Some of the orders were a return to fights over executive power that surfaced during Mr. Trump’s first term.

On Monday, Mr. Trump reprised a move from 2019 by declaring a national emergency at the border. He also invoked a statute that allows presidents, during an emergency, to redirect military funds for construction projects related to the exigency. His purpose, in 2019 and again now, was to spend more taxpayer money on a border wall project than lawmakers authorized.

Is there really an emergency that an extended border wall would address, and that would justify circumventing Congress’s role in deciding where to direct taxpayer money?

A wall does not address the main border problem in recent years: the overwhelming number of migrants requesting asylum, flooding the system and leading to lengthy backlogs for hearings. And over the past seven months, illegal crossings have plunged to the lowest levels since the summer of 2020, during the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic.

But facts matter little to whether or when it is legal for presidents to invoke emergency power, declarations that are governed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

That law does not tightly define the circumstances under which presidents may determine that an emergency exists, leaving them with essentially unfettered discretion to unlock exigent powers for themselves. But previous presidents adhered to norms of self-restraint.

In his first term, critics challenged the legal legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s border wall spending, but the Supreme Court never resolved the dispute before Mr. Biden took office and canceled the projects. So any new legal challenge would have to start from scratch.

In the wake of Mr. Trump’s first term, House Democrats in 2021 passed a bill that would have tightened limits on presidential use of emergency powers, part of a package of reforms they called the “Protecting Our Democracy Act.” But Republicans opposed the measure as a partisan attack on a president who was no longer in office anyway, rendering it dead on arrival in the Senate.

Mr. Trump’s absence from the presidency, however, turned out to be temporary.

In the show of force upon his return to office, he also declared a national energy emergency so that, as he said in his inaugural speech, “we will drill, baby, drill.” No president has declared that type of emergency before, and it empowers him to suspend legal protections for the environment and to speed up permits for new oil and gas projects.

The nation’s energy situation hardly seems like an emergency: The United States is producing more oil than any country ever has, in no small part because of the fracking boom and because of thousands of new permits to drill on federal lands issued by the Biden administration — outpacing Mr. Trump’s first-term record. Prices for gasoline, natural gas and electricity are relatively low compared with their historical levels.

But the order said Mr. Trump had determined that Biden administration policies had “driven our nation into a national emergency, where a precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply, and an increasingly unreliable grid, require swift and decisive action.” He also cited a growing need for electricity to run computer servers for artificial intelligence projects.

Elizabeth Goitein, a director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program who has written extensively on presidential emergency power, predicted that many of Mr. Trump’s planned actions would be challenged in court.

“Emergency powers should never be used to address longstanding problems like unlawful migration that can and should be addressed through legislation,” said Ms. Goitein, who was among those calling on Congress to curb presidential power. “The bad news is that Congress failed to enact reforms to the National Emergencies Act that would have helped prevent such abuses.”

There is no dispute that Mr. Trump had legitimate authority to take other unilateral actions. The Constitution clearly gives presidents unfettered authority to grant pardons to people for federal criminal offenses or to commute their sentences, for example, so there is little doubt Mr. Trump had the power to grant clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged or convicted of crimes in connection with the Capitol riot.

But Mr. Trump appeared to put forward novel or expansive interpretations of legal authorities in other ways.

He ordered his administration to make recommendations about whether to designate certain transnational gangs and drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations,” stretching a law that is intended for groups that use violence for geopolitical and ideological purposes to criminal groups that, while also violent, are motivated by profit.

He also set in motion the possibility of invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to summarily expel immigrants suspected of being members of drug cartels and transnational criminal gangs without full due process hearings. That law’s text seems to require a link to the actions of a foreign government, so it is not clear whether the courts will allow Mr. Trump to invoke it to deny deportation hearings to people.

Mr. Trump is also seeking to change the basic understanding of a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to most babies born on American soil and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government. That provision has long been understood to include infants born to undocumented parents.

In an order, Mr. Trump invoked a theory developed by conservatives who want to curtail so-called birthright citizenship because they see it as a magnet for illegal immigration. By that rationale, the provision could be interpreted to not apply to babies whose parents are not American citizens or lawful permanent residents, even though visitors or undocumented people are subject to the jurisdiction of government prosecutors if they break the law.

Mr. Trump instructed agencies to refrain from issuing citizenship-affirming documents — like passports and Social Security cards — to infants born to undocumented immigrants or to parents lawfully but temporarily visiting the United States, starting with births 30 days from now.

Hours later, critics, including a coalition of Democratic-controlled states, brought multiple court challenges against it. Mr. Trump, the coalition asserted, sought to breach “this well-established and longstanding constitutional principle by executive fiat.”

It was yet another legal claim that seemed destined to come before the Supreme Court.

Click to comment

News

How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media

Published

8 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media

Getty Images, Dept. of Homeland Security and The White House via X/Collage by Emily Bogle/NPR

Two days after At Chandee, who goes by Ricky, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the White House’s X account posted about him, calling the 52-year-old the “WORST OF WORST” and a “CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.”

Except that the photo the White House posted was of a different person. The post also incorrectly claimed Chandee had multiple felony convictions — he has one, for second-degree assault in 1993 when he was 18 years old. He shot two people in the legs and served three years in prison.

At “Ricky” Chandee with his wife, Tina Huynh-Chandee.

Via the Chandee family

hide caption

toggle caption

Via the Chandee family

Chandee, who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was ordered to be deported back to his home country, Laos. But Laos had not been accepting all of the people the U.S. wanted it to, so the federal government determined that it was likely infeasible to deport him, his lawyer Linus Chan told NPR. Chandee therefore was granted permission to stay in the U.S. and work so long as he checked in with immigration authorities periodically. He has not missed a check-in in over 30 years and has not had another criminal incident.

People who know Chandee do not see him as “worst of the worst.”

After Chandee completed his prison sentence, he finished school and became an engineering technician. He worked for the City of Minneapolis for 26 years, became a father, and his son grew up to join the military.

In his free time, Chandee enjoys hiking and foraging for mushrooms, Minnesota Public Radio reported.

“We are proud to work alongside At ‘Ricky’ Chandee,” said Tim Sexton, Director of Public Works for the City of Minneapolis in a statement. “I don’t understand why he would be a target for removal now, why he was brutally detained and swiftly flown to Texas, or how his removal benefits our city or country.” Chandee is petitioning for his release in federal court.

Chandee’s case is not unique

Social media accounts from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and other immigration agencies have spent much of the past year posting about people detained in the administration’s immigration crackdown, typically portraying them as hardened, violent criminals. That’s even as over 70% of the people detained don’t have criminal records according to ICE data.

NPR’s research of cases in Minnesota shows that while many of the people who have been highlighted on social media do have recent, serious criminal records, about a quarter are like Chandee, with decades-old convictions, minor offenses or only pending criminal proceedings. Scholars of immigration, media and criminal law say such a media campaign is unprecedented and paints a distorted picture of immigrants and crime.

A year into President Trump’s second term, the X accounts of DHS and ICE have posted about more than 2,000 people who were targets of mass deportation efforts. Starting late last March, DHS and ICE began posting on X on a near daily basis, often highlighting apprehensions of multiple people a day, an NPR review of government social media posts show.

Among the 2,000 people highlighted by the agencies, NPR identified 130 who were arrested by federal agents in Minnesota and tried to verify the government’s statements about their criminal histories.

In most of the social media posts, the government did not provide the state where the conviction occurred or the person’s age. Public court records do not tend to include photos so definitive identification can be a challenge.

NPR derived its findings from cases where it was able to locate a name and matching criminal history in the Minnesota court and detention system, in nationwide criminal history databases, sex offender databases, and in some cases, federal courts and other state courts.

In 19 of the 130 cases, roughly 1-in-7, public records show the most recent convictions were at least 20 years ago.

Seventeen of the 19 cases with old convictions did include violent crimes like homicide and first-degree sexual assault. ICE provided some of those names to Fox News as key examples of the agency’s accomplishments. “It’s the most disturbing list I’ve ever seen,” said Fox News reporter Bill Melugin on X, highlighting the criminal convictions of each person on the list.

For seven people, their only criminal history involved driving under the influence or disorderly conduct.

ICE agents approach a house before detaining two people in Minneapolis on Jan. 13.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Six of the 130 Minnesota cases highlighted by the administration involved people with no criminal convictions. The government’s social media posts for those six instead rely upon the charges and arrests as evidence of their criminality, even though arrests don’t always lead to charges and charges can be dismissed.

In yet another case, the government highlighted a criminal charge even while noting it had been dismissed. (The person did have other existing convictions.)

For 37 of the 130 people, NPR was unable to confirm matching criminal history after consulting the databases and news coverage. Some of the names turned up no criminal history at all. The government said these people committed crimes ranging from homicide and assault to drug trafficking, and cited one by name to Fox News. NPR tried to reach out to all 37 people and their families for comment but did not receive a response from any.

In a statement to NPR, DHS’s chief spokesperson Lauren Bis did not dispute NPR’s findings or provide documentation where NPR wasn’t able to confirm matching criminal history.

“The fact that NPR is defending murderers and pedophiles is gross,” Bis wrote. “We hear far too much about criminals and not enough about their victims.” before listing four of the people with old convictions of homicide and sexual assault, underlining the date of deportation order for three of them.

Images designed to trigger emotion

The stream of social media posts with photos of mostly nonwhite people are meant to draw an emotional response, says Leo Chavez, an emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine. They “have been used repeatedly over and over to get people to buy into, really drastic, drastic and draconian actions and policies,” he said.

Chavez, whose most recent book is The Latino Threat: How Alarmist Rhetoric Misrepresents Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, recalls how political campaigns in past decades presented images of Latinos — often men — without context. “Just by showing their image, showing brown people, particularly brown men, it’s supposed to be scary.”

The fact that the government’s social media posts come with statements about criminal history as well as photos reinforces that emotional response, Chavez said. DHS has previously acknowledged inaccuracies on their website. But even if the department issues corrections, Chavez said, “the goal was actually achieved, which was to reinforce the criminality and the visualization.”

CNN’s analysis of DHS’s “Arrested: Worst of the Worst” website showed that for hundreds out of about 25,000 people posted on the website, the crimes listed were not violent felonies. Instead, DHS listed people with records that included traffic offenses, marijuana possession or illegal reentry. DHS said the website had a “glitch” that it will fix but also that the people in question “have [committed] additional crimes.”

“I’ve never seen anything like this when it comes to immigration enforcement in the modern era,” said Juliet Stumpf, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School who studies the intersection of immigration and criminal law. She said the drumbeat of social media posts focused on specific individuals was like “FBI’s most wanted posters” or “like reality TV shows.”

Then-DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Madison Sheahan (left), and Acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE Headquarters, in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 2025.

Jose Luis Magana/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Jose Luis Magana/AP

Stumpf drew a parallel with an incident from the 1950s when the U.S. government deported two permanent residents suspected of being communists. “The government was kind of proclaiming and celebrating their deportation because getting rid of these communists was making the country safer,” said Stumpf, “Maybe that’s comparable to something like [this].”

An analysis by the Deportation Data Project shows a dramatic increase in arrests of noncitizens without criminal records during President Trump’s current term compared to President Biden’s term.

“If you look at research, immigrants actually tend to commit fewer crimes than even U.S. citizens do. And that’s true of immigrants who have lawful status here and immigrants who don’t,” said Stumpf. “If we have a number of social media posts that are painting immigrants as the worst of the worst…it’s actually really putting out a distorted version of reality about who immigrants actually are.”

Some claims are disputed by other authorities

In some posts, DHS and ICE have also used photos of people and statements about their criminal histories to burnish the federal government’s accomplishments, defend their agents and criticize states like Minnesota. State and local authorities have in turn pushed back, and some of the federal government’s claims about the people it has detained have been met with setbacks in the courts.

DHS accused Minnesota’s Cottonwood County of not honoring detainers, written requests by ICE to hold prisoners in custody for a period of time so ICE can pick them up. In one post, the agency identified a person who was charged with child sexual abuse, writing “This is who sanctuary city politicians and anti-ICE agitators are defending.”

The Cottonwood County sheriff’s office said DHS’s post “misrepresented the truth” in their own post on Facebook. According to their account, the county did honor the detainer but ICE said it was unable to pick up the person before the order expired and the county had to release the suspect.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections wrote in a blog post that dozens of people DHS listed on its “Worst of the Worst” website were not arrested as DHS described, but were transferred to ICE by the state because they were already in state custody. The Corrections Department has since launched a page dedicated to “correct the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) repeated false claims.”

The “Worst of the Worst” website has some overlap with the department’s social media posts, but it contains a much larger number of people — over 30,000 nationally. It included a Colombian soccer star who was extradited to the U.S., tried in Texas, convicted of drug trafficking and served time in federal prison. The website incorrectly describes him as being arrested in Wisconsin. The soccer player, Jhon Viáfara Mina, recently finished his sentence early and returned to Colombia, according to Spanish newspaper El Diario Vasco.

In some instances, DHS and ICE wrote about incidents where they ran into conflict when carrying out arrests. In those posts, they named the arrestees and posted their photos. But in one case where the incident went to court, the government’s account of the events shifted. After a federal agent shot Julio C. Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis in January, DHS claimed he was lodging a “violent attack on law enforcement.” Assault charges against Sosa-Celis fell apart in court as new evidence surfaced, and the officers involved were put on leave.

Despite the fact that the charges were dropped, DHS’s post profiling Sosa-Celis remains online.

News

Bill Clinton to testify before House committee investigating Epstein links

Published

20 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Bill Clinton to testify before House committee investigating Epstein links

Former president Bill Clinton is scheduled to give deposition Friday to a congressional committee investigating his links to Jeffrey Epstein, one day after Hillary Clinton testified before the committee and called the proceedings “partisan political theatre” and “an insult to the American people”.

During remarks before the House oversight committee, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, insisted on Thursday that she had never met Epstein.

The former Democratic president, however, flew on Epstein’s private jet several times in the early 2000s but said he never visited his island.

Clinton, who engaged in an extramarital affair while president and has been accused of sexual misconduct by three women, also appears in a photo from the recently released files, in a hot tub with Epstein and a woman whose identity is redacted.

Clinton has denied the sexual misconduct claims and was not charged with any crimes. He also has not been accused of any wrongdoing connected to Epstein.

Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times during the early years of Clinton’s presidency, according to White House visitor records cited in news reports. Clinton said he cut ties with him around 2005, before the disgraced financier, who died from suicide in 2019, pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in Florida.

The House committee subpoenaed the Clintons in August. They initially refused to testify but agreed after Republicans threatened to hold them in contempt.

The Clintons asked for their depositions to be held publicly, with the former president stating that to do so behind closed doors would amount to a “kangaroo court”.

“Let’s stop the games + do this the right way: in a public hearing,” Clinton said on X earlier this month.

The committee’s chair, James Comer, did not grant their request, and the proceedings will be conducted behind closed doors with video to be released later.

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s proceedings were briefly halted after representative Lauren Boebert leaked an image of Clinton testifying.

During the full day deposition, Clinton said she had no information about Epstein and did not recall ever meeting him.

Before the deposition, Comer said it would be a long interview and that one with Bill Clinton would be “even longer”.

News

Read Judge Schiltz’s Order

Published

1 day ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM

Doc. 12-1 Filed 02/26/26

Page 5 of 17

and to file a status update by 11:00 am on January 20. ECF No. 5. Respondents never provided a bond hearing and did not release Petitioner until January 21, ECF Nos. 10, 12, after failing to file an update, ECF No. 9. Further, Respondents released Petitioner subject to conditions despite the Court’s release order not providing for conditions. ECF Nos. 5, 12–13.

Abdi W. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 26-CV-00208 (KMM/SGE)

On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents, within 3 days, to either (a) complete Petitioner’s inspection and examination and file a notice confirming completion, or (b) release Petitioner immediately in Minnesota and confirm the date, time, and location of release. ECF No. 7. No notice was ever filed. The Court emailed counsel on January 27, 2026, at 10:39 am. No response was provided.

Adriana M.Y.M. v. David Easterwood, et al., Case No. 26-CV-213 (JWB/JFD)

On January 24, 2026, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and ordered Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release, or anticipated release, within 48 hours. ECF No. 12. Respondent was not released until January 30, and Respondents never disclosed the time of release, instead describing it as “early this morning.” ECF No. 16.

Estefany J.S. v. Bondi, Case No. 26-CV-216 (JWB/SGE)

On January 13, 2026, at 10:59 am, the Court ordered Respondents to file a letter by 4:00 pm confirming Petitioner’s current location. ECF No. 8. After receiving no response, the Court ordered Respondents, at 5:11 pm, to immediately confirm Petitioner’s location and, by noon on January 14, file a memorandum explaining their failure to comply with the initial order. ECF No. 9. Respondents did not file the memorandum, requiring the Court to issue another order. ECF No. 12. On January 15, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and required Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release within 48 hours. ECF No. 18. On January 20, having received no confirmation, the Court ordered Respondents to comply immediately. ECF No. 21. Respondents informed the Court that Petitioner was released in Minnesota on January 17, but did not specify the time. ECF No. 22.

5