World
‘This Is Worse’: Trump’s Judicial Defiance Veers Beyond the Autocrat Playbook
President Trump’s intensifying conflict with the federal courts is unusually aggressive compared with similar disputes in other countries, according to scholars. Unlike leaders who subverted or restructured the courts, Mr. Trump is acting as if judges were already too weak to constrain his power.
“Honest to god, I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and coauthor of “How Democracies Die” and “Competitive Authoritarianism.”
“We look at these comparative cases in the 21st century, like Hungary and Poland and Turkey. And in a lot of respects, this is worse,” he said. “These first two months have been much more aggressively authoritarian than almost any other comparable case I know of democratic backsliding.”
There are many examples of autocratic leaders constraining the power of the judiciary by packing courts with compliant judges, or by changing the laws that give them authority, he said. But it is extremely rare for leaders to simply claim the power to disregard or override court orders directly, especially so immediately after taking office.
In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has purged thousands of judges from the judiciary as part of a broader effort to consolidate power in his own hands. But that required decades of effort and multiple constitutional changes, Mr. Levitsky said. It only became fully successful after a failed 2016 coup provided a political justification for the purge.
In Hungary, Prime Minister Victor Orban packed the constitutional courts with friendly judges and forced hundreds of others into retirement, but did so over a period of years, using constitutional amendments and administrative changes.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration ignored a federal judge’s order not to deport a group of Venezuelan men, then later tried to retroactively justify its actions with arguments so distant from settled law and ordinary practice that legal experts have said they border on frivolous.
Defenders of the Trump administration’s policies have claimed that judges have too much power over the executive branch.
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump further raised the stakes by publicly calling for the impeachment of the judge who had issued the order, prompting a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
“For more than two centuries,” the chief justice said, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Mr. Levitsky said he was struggling to find a precedent for what the Trump administration is doing.
“The zeal with which these guys are engaging in increasingly open, authoritarian behavior is unlike almost anything I’ve seen. Erdogan, Chavez, Orban — they hid it,” Mr. Levitsky said.
Questioning authority
The conflict between the Trump administration and Judge James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington is nominally about deportation. But legal experts say it has become a showdown over whether judges should be able to constrain the executive branch at all.
“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Vice President JD Vance declared last month. “I don’t care what the judges think — I don’t care what the left thinks,” Mr. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said this week during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump wrote on social media that Judge Boasberg was a “Radical Lunatic” and should be “IMPEACHED,” because the judge “was not elected President — He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!”
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on social media that “A single judge” cannot mandate the movements of a planeload of people “who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.”
(In fact, U.S. courts can and do order the return of aliens who have been wrongfully deported.)
The Trump administration’s tactics are highly unusual, said Andrew O’Donohue, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who studies clashes between courts and elected leaders around the world. Typically, battles over court power have tended to be extensions of political divisions.
In Israel, for example, the right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to curb the power of the courts, which were historically associated with the country’s left wing. In Turkey, the courts were associated with the secular state, and clashed with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s religious, populist agenda.
But Mr. Trump and the federal courts are not ideological foes in the same way. Federal judges hold a range of views, but the judiciary has grown more conservative in recent decades. And the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has delivered the political right a number of significant legal victories in recent years, including granting presidents sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution.
Norms of restraint, flipped on their head
Courts do not have their own armies or significant police forces. Yet leaders typically obey judges’ orders, because of the political costs of flouting them.
Usually, voters won’t reward their elected leaders for violating norms, disrupting a stable constitutional order, or taking actions that are intrinsically unlawful, said Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of the book “How to Save a Constitutional Democracy.”
But that calculus may not apply to Mr. Trump, who has based his political appeal on gleefully flouting sacrosanct norms. Refusing to accept courts’ authority may actually appeal to the president’s base, Huq said, if they take it as evidence of strength rather than lawlessness.
Past presidents have also been more constrained by elites within the political establishment.
“Richard Nixon had to care not just about public opinion, but Walter Cronkite, and Republican and Democratic Party leaders,” Mr. Levitsky said. “That constraint, which was difficult to measure, but I think very real in the 20th century, has lifted.”
Today, traditional gatekeepers are much weaker — particularly when leaders like Mr. Trump profit politically by picking fights with the establishment.
Protecting courts against hostile leaders
There are proven ways that courts can successfully defend their authority against leaders’ noncompliance or attacks. The most effective source of protection is when the courts can draw on support from other government officials outside the judiciary, “who can put muscle behind a court decision,” said Mr. O’Donohue.
When President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil tried to defy court decisions over lockdowns and public health measures during the pandemic, local mayors and governors followed the court rulings anyway.
But that tactic may be more difficult to use when the order concerns a federal agency directly. Local leaders cannot force the Department of Homeland Security to comply with a court order to halt a deportation flight, or restore USAID’s funding.
Political pressure to protect courts’ power can also be effective, even in cases where a leader’s own constituents are pushing in the opposite direction.
In Israel, for example, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own supporters were strongly in favor of proposed laws that would have sharply limited the courts’ power to constrain political leaders. But the broader public mobilized fierce opposition to the reforms.
In 2023, thousands of Israelis took to the streets almost every Saturday in mass protests against the judicial overhaul. Influential sectors of society, including military reservists, business leaders, trade unionists and senior politicians also publicly opposed the law. Their actions shut down businesses, traffic and even Ben-Gurion International Airport. Eventually, Netanyahu was forced to suspend most of the planned changes.
Mass protest movements are difficult to form and sustain, however. Thus far there is little sign that a similar movement is forming in the United States.
Political pressure could also come from within Trump’s political coalition.
“If even a dozen Republicans in Congress had the capacity to stand up to Trump, this would be a very different ballgame,” Mr. Levitsky said. “Trump and Musk and Stephen Miller could not do this alone. They’re doing it with the full cooperation of the majority party in Congress.”
“We’re in a bad place,” he said.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Iran’s hardline parliament speaker and key negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that Tehran would not honor its commitments under a newly signed memorandum with the U.S. if Washington fails to uphold its side of the deal, according to the media arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“If the United States does not honor its commitments, there is no way Iran will honor its own commitments,” Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf’s warning was echoed Thursday by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani, who threatened the U.S. in remarks translated by MEMRI TV, saying, “Americans should know their place and avoid confronting the Muslims.”
Qaani added that “Trump is trembling” and warned that the U.S. “should fear not only Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb, but many other locations as well.”
MEET IRAN’S HARDLINE SPEAKER WHO THREATENED TO BURN US FORCES — REPORTEDLY TEHRAN’S POINT MAN FOR TALKS
The warnings came after President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian Wednesday digitally signed a copy of the memorandum aimed at ending the war and resuming the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran’s hardline parliament speaker and key negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that Tehran would not honor its commitments under a newly signed memorandum with the U.S. if Washington fails to uphold its side of the deal. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA)
The memorandum gives Iran major economic relief while leaving some of the most difficult nuclear questions for a final agreement to be negotiated throughout the next 60 days. Under the 14-point plan read by a senior U.S. official, Washington agreed to begin lifting its naval blockade, work with regional partners on a $300 billion reconstruction and development plan for Iran and terminate U.S., U.N. and other sanctions on an agreed schedule as part of a final deal.
The memorandum also says all licenses, waivers and permissions needed for related financial transactions would be granted by the United States.
In return, Iran reaffirmed that it “shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons,” and the sides agreed to resolve the fate of Iran’s stockpiled enriched material under a future mechanism, with the minimum method being on-site down-blending under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision.
The agreement defers many of the hardest questions — including how to wind down Iran’s nuclear program — until the 60-day negotiation period for a final deal.
But the Iranian figure at the center of the deal is not a diplomat known for moderation.
Ghalibaf, a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander and longtime regime insider, has threatened American forces, vowed Trump would “pay the price” and built his career through loyalty to Iran’s security establishment.
The new warning underscored what experts say is the central risk of the agreement. Washington may be entering a deal with officials who can enforce Iran’s commitments but who have shown little sign of changing the regime’s long-term posture toward the U.S., Israel or the region.
Ghalibaf, 64, is a product of Iran’s security establishment. He rose through the ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Iran-Iraq War, eventually becoming commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps air force.
He later served as Iran’s national police chief, overseeing internal security forces responsible for suppressing protests, including the 1999 student uprising, alongside Qassem Soleimani.
After transitioning into politics, Ghalibaf attempted to run for president multiple times but failed. He instead built his career through loyalty to the system, serving as Tehran’s mayor for more than a decade before becoming speaker of parliament in 2020.
FAMILIES OF IRAN’S ELITE LIVE LAVISHLY ABROAD WHILE ORDINARY CITIZENS SUFFER AT HOME
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf looks on as parliament members wearing military uniforms chant in support of the IRGC in Tehran, Iran, on Feb. 1, 2026. (Hamed Malekpour/Islamic consultative assembly news agency/WANA/Handout via Reuters)
“Ghalibaf doesn’t have an independent line. His strength is that he is a ‘yes man,’” Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at the Institute for National Security Studies, previously told Fox News Digital. “If he is told to shake hands with special envoy Steve Witkoff, he will do it. If he is told to escalate, he will. It is not about moderation, it is about who gives the orders.”
“His name has also been linked to multiple corruption allegations, including misuse of oil revenues and sanctions evasion networks involving his family. His sons have reportedly been involved and are under sanctions,” Sabti said.
“There have also been public scandals involving family members traveling abroad and making luxury purchases, including widely circulated images of them arriving with numerous high-end Gucci suitcases.”
Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the image of Ghalibaf at a signing ceremony with a senior U.S. official would be a propaganda victory for the regime.
“There was a time when the Islamic Republic would have been terrified to be seen signing such a thing,” Ben Taleblu told Fox News Digital. “Postwar, this is a sign of the regime’s opportunism, and no one identifies that opportunism better than someone like Ghalibaf, who comes from the IRGC, who is a corrupt politician and is a wheeler and dealer.”
But Taleblu warned that Washington should not confuse Ghalibaf’s opportunism with moderation.
“The mirage is the myth of Iranian military moderation and the myth that, with time, this regime will integrate and put aside all the things that have kept it on the sidelines for so long,” he said. “Transforming Iran via a deal — that is a huge lift.”
Ghalibaf’s wartime statements reflect the hardline posture inside Iran’s leadership. In remarks aired on Iranian television Jan. 12 and translated by MEMRI, he warned that U.S. forces would face catastrophic consequences if they confronted Iran.
“Come, so you can see what catastrophe befalls American bases, ships and forces,” he said, adding that American troops would be “burned by the fire of Iran’s defenders.”
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION UNVEILS SWEEPING TERMS OF PROPOSED IRAN AGREEMENT
A man lights a cigarette with fire from a burning picture of Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf as Israelis rally in support of nationwide protests in Iran in Holon, Israel, on Jan. 14, 2026. (Ammar Awad/Reuters)
More recently, he warned that “the blood of American soldiers is the personal responsibility of Trump” and vowed Iran would “settle accounts with the Americans and Israelis,” adding that “Trump and Netanyahu crossed our red lines and will pay the price.”
John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and a former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, said Ghalibaf’s expected role reflects the reality of who holds power inside Iran.
“If you’re going to sign an agreement with Iran, those are the forces in charge and calling the shots, presumably with the approval of the new supreme leader,” Hannah told Fox News Digital. “If the U.S. harbors hope that Iran will ever implement any of their obligations under the MOU, these are the people — odious as they are — capable of making it happen.”
But Hannah said the central question is whether Iran’s leadership sees compliance as useful or whether the agreement is simply a tactical pause.
“The big question is whether they see it in their interest to do so, or are they only buying time, rebuilding their power and preparing for the next round of conflict,” he said.
Ben Taleblu was even more blunt, warning that even a seemingly favorable agreement would not change the nature of the regime.
“Even if you’ve got the perfect deal, with this kind of regime, with this kind of mentality, they will escalate,” he said. “I thought we would have learned by now what the regime did after the JCPOA. It built a vast missile arsenal. It literally built an empire of terror proxies that took Israel years of blood, effort and money to dismantle, backed by American support.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf speaks during a press conference in Tehran, Iran, Nov. 27, 2024. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA via Reuters)
“If we engage in pay-to-play with these guys,” he added, “I’m sorry to sound the alarm bell like this — but something tells me this is bad either way.”
Responding to questions about the threats from Ghalibaf and IRGC Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani, the White House defended Trump’s approach and warned Iran would face consequences if it failed to reach a final deal.
“President Trump has a great track record of good deals for the American people, and the President has been clear about the consequences if Iran fails to make a good, final deal,” White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital.
“What the president has achieved on the battlefield and at the negotiating table is nothing short of remarkable and will strengthen American security for many years to come.”
Tehran holds back from talks to cement ceasefire due to ongoing Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon.
Published On 19 Jun 2026
Planned talks in Switzerland between the United States and Iran to discuss the technical terms of their ceasefire deal have been postponed.
The Swiss Foreign Ministry confirmed early on Friday that the talks, which were scheduled to take place in Burgenstock, would now not go ahead.
list of 4 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
Reports suggest that Iran has delayed sending its delegation to discuss the technical issues linked to the ceasefire deal – digitally signed by the two countries on Wednesday – due to Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Lebanon.
Israeli strikes overnight and into Friday have reportedly killed at least 16 people in southern Lebanon, with Iran-linked Hezbollah reporting intense fighting.
Talks postponed
A ceremony followed by talks was expected to be held at the Burgenstock Resort in Stansstad, near Lucerne in central Switzerland.
It is owned by Katara Hospitality, part of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, which helped mediate peace in the conflict.
On Friday, in a message to media outlet AFP, the Swiss foreign ministry said: “The planned talks between the US, Iran, Qatar and Pakistan have been postponed”.
“Switzerland remains ready to facilitate these talks. The relevant preparatory work at Burgenstock is continuing,” it added, without providing a new date for the talks.
The announcement followed a report from media outlet Al-Mayadeen that Iran was delaying sending its delegation to Switzerland over Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Lebanon.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Israel’s military will stay in a “security zone” of southern Lebanon as long as “Israel’s security needs require it.”
Israel and Hezbollah are not parties to the agreement, but Iran has insisted Israel must withdraw from the large swath of southern Lebanon it is occupying.
Logistics have never been ‘simple or predictable’
The US push to quickly begin high-stakes talks with Iran hit a snag just two days after the signing of a 14-point memorandum of understanding with the US that sets out a framework for talks during a 60-day negotiation period.
Vice President JD Vance had been prepared to make an overnight flight to meet with his Iranian counterparts at the mountainside resort in the tiny Swiss village of Obburgen.
His staff and a small pack of journalists had even gathered at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington in anticipation of the trip.
Meanwhile, dozens of White House officials, advance staffers and more media gathered in Switzerland to prepare for Vance’s anticipated arrival.
But then, abruptly on Thursday evening, the trip was called off.
The White House issued a statement explaining Vance – who has been tapped by President Donald Trump to lead the negotiations – and his delegation were prepared for talks, but they were unable to finalise plans and the vice president would remain in Washington.
“The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable,” the statement noted.
Also on Thursday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif cancelled his trip to Switzerland, his spokesperson told AFP.
-
Austin, TX6 minutes agoJuneteenth celebrations in Austin include parade and fun run
-
Alabama9 minutes agoGov. Kay Ivey sets execution date for Jeremy Williams
-
Alaska14 minutes ago8 Prettiest Downtown Strips In Alaska
-
Arizona21 minutes agoFounding Fathers-themed ice cream parlor makes Arizona debut
-
Arkansas23 minutes agoOne dead in Lepanto drowning incident
-
California28 minutes agoIs California’s ‘Big One’ coming soon? Maps show growing danger.
-
Colorado36 minutes agoColorado summer travel ideas, from glamping and hot air balloons to swimming and fishing
-
Connecticut39 minutes agoJoe Deko Appointed to State Legislature’s Group Studying Prepaid Funeral Contracts to Protect Consumers
