President Trump campaigned on a platform of hiring Elon Musk, establishing DOGE, and shrinking the federal government by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. The American people liked what they heard, and they gave Trump a broad electoral mandate.
Trump is now doing the unthinkable in Washington: He’s doing exactly what he promised voters he’d do. And the DC uniparty, fat and happy for too long while real Americans in real America have suffered, is stunned and angry.
The executive power, according to Article II of the Constitution, is vested in the president, who is also commanded to ‘take care’ that laws are faithfully executed. Trump has already begun his work at agencies like USAID and the Treasury Department, uncovering appalling levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. Activist federal judges, however, have halted these efforts, basing their decisions on politics and policy disagreements rather than law.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio placed nearly 3,000 USAID employees on paid administrative leave and recalled many from foreign assignments. Judge Carl Nichols of the District of Columbia imposed a temporary-restraining order, claiming that employees in foreign locations could be endangered by not being able to access their USAID email accounts for security warnings. This justification is absurd, as these employees could still receive evacuation instructions from the State Department, just like any non-government American. Moreover, the judge’s ruling extended to employees in the U.S., not just those abroad.
Nichols further asserted that employees recalled on 30 days’ notice would face irreparable harm from relocating children enrolled in foreign schools. This argument is equally unfounded, considering that military personnel are often reassigned abroad on short notice. If this precedent stands, it could lead to lawsuits every time a foreign-service officer is reassigned back to the U.S. Recalling officials is at the discretion of Secretary Rubio and President Trump, not Judge Nichols.
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of New York imposed an even more significant intrusion on executive authority, forbidding political appointees, including Senate-confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, from accessing records within the Treasury Department. This unprecedented ruling restricted DOGE from accessing Treasury records, stating that a department head could not access materials while unelected bureaucrats could. Under this reasoning, President Trump himself would be unable to access vital department information. The ruling was issued ex parte, meaning the government was not even allowed to present its argument in the hearing.
Employees and contractors have recourse if they believe they’ve been wrongfully terminated. Contractors can pursue legal action in the Court of Federal Claims if they’re not paid for services or if their contracts are improperly terminated. Federal employees who believe they were fired for retaliatory reasons can appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Labor Relations Authority handles disputes between the government and federal employee unions. Activist judges issuing temporary restraining orders or injunctions is not the proper way to resolve such disputes.
If appellate courts do not intervene, the Supreme Court must address these activist judges through its emergency docket. When activist judges issue baseless rulings like preventing the Secretary of the Treasury from accessing departmental records, it erodes the legitimacy of the courts. Such rulings would be as absurd as preventing senators or representatives from reviewing records within their respective chambers—or the Supreme Court reviewing lower courts.
During President Biden’s term, leftists attempted to smear Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito with frivolous ethics complaints. Some even pushed to withhold funding from the court unless it adopted an unconstitutional binding ethics code and ceased funding for the justices’ security, despite the assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022.
President Trump is exercising core Article II executive power. He’s not stealing Article I legislative power from Congress nor Article III judicial power from the Supreme Court. These activist judges are stealing and sabotaging Article II executive power from the president.
The crisis created by today’s activist judges’ overreaching rulings justifies Congress using its power of the purse to limit the reach of these courts. The Supreme Court must act swiftly to restore the rule of law and prevent further escalation of this crisis caused by activist judges’ policy disagreements with President Trump. The justices should, in the process, reconsider and overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which restricted presidential authority to fire Executive Branch employees. Judges have an essential role in the Republic, but their interference with the president’s lawful executive actions undermines that limited role. The Supreme Court must act decisively to restore the judicial system before it derails entirely, as such a breakdown would be catastrophic for the country.