Recently, the headlines are clear: President Donald Trump will hold a showdown with the court. If he ignores their rulings, the court has few tools and limited powers to make him comply.

But the real competition is not legal. This is political.

As a political scientist who studies presidential behavior and the public’s response to unilateral actions, I spent my career studying the boundaries of executive power.

These restrictions aimed at limiting the president are legal.

The Constitution outlines Articles 1 and 2 of the powers of the Chinese Association and the President. It formally empowers Congress wallets and requires the president to “be careful to enforce the law faithfully.”

Regulations determine how an agent works, how appointments are made and how they have to be spent. The court interprets and enforces these rules.

These legal restrictions reflect the founders’ concerns about executive rights. This concern is embedded in the country's political roots - the Declaration of Independence is a direct condemnation of the royal excessiveness.

But the law alone is not enough to prevent the president from abusing his powers. The power of the law depends on political will. Presidents usually not only comply with the law, but also avoid opposition from Congress, the media or the public.

The United States witnessed in 2025 not only the president who tested the system. This is a transformation of the presidency as a complete political institution. The president takes action until the political resistance becomes strong enough to stop him.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz7nxur0llc[/embed]

Test limits

These political restrictions are informal and fluent.

They stem from public opinion, media censorship, pressure from party leaders and other elected officials, and threats to the consequences of the election. Although legal rules rely on institutions, political limitations depend on reputation, norms, and the willingness of others to resist.

Trump's presidency is within the second framework. Legal boundaries still exist, but their governments often see it as optional and without respect.

For example, Trump has excluded the Office of Legal Counsel, the source of legal guidance for the executive branch. His focus seems not on legitimacy, process or constraints, but on headlines, voting and control over narratives.

The court still issued a ruling, but its power depends on a broader culture of compliance, which is weakening.

Trump is not the first president to test authoritative restrictions. But there is no precedent for the pace and scale of his resistance. He seems to bet that pushing the boundaries will continue to pay off.

Lag between law and action

The legal challenges Trump faces are real.

During his first 100 days of his tenure, he took positive measures on federal spending, key executive positions, tariffs and deportations. Trump announced that he would not enforce legislation that the Supreme Court confirmed was constitutional. Many of these actions have already raised legal challenges.

These are not isolated incidents. To sum up, they reveal a wider model.

Trump seems to see legal rules as restrictions, but rather as obstacles to negotiation or neglect. A recent academic paper describes Trump’s approach as “legitimate violations”, with the administration using legal language to give compliance while violating the substance of a court order.

The administration can move quickly. The court cannot. This structural mismatch has given Trump a significant advantage. By the time the ruling is issued, the political context may have changed, otherwise the public attention may continue to evolve.

The judge has begun to notice. In recent weeks, the court not only marked legal violations, but also identified signs of intentional violations.

Despite this, law enforcement is slow and Trump continues to act as if the court's ruling is just the key points of political conversation.

The only real check for politics

Trump is not guided by precedent or legal tradition. If the president has restrictions on power, it is politics. Even the constraint is fragile.

In a national survey at the Weidenbaum Center in February 2025, I was at a Washington University in St. Louis, where only 21% of Americans said the president should be able to create major policies without Congress. The public does not support unchecked presidential powers: Another 25% of respondents, including more than one-third of Republicans, disagree neither or agree that the president should have such unrestricted powers. Of those with opinions, 72% of Americans opposed unilateral presidential action, including 90% of Democrats, 76% of independents and 42% of Republicans.

The findings are consistent with nine earlier national surveys conducted during the Obama and Trump administrations. Jon Rogowski and I reported these results in our book No Blank Checks.

However, in recent surveys, an important shift stands out. Among two-thirds of Republicans, support for unilateral executive action has reached an all-time high, with 58% of whom endorsed the presidential action without Congress. More than 16 points higher than any previous wave.

Despite increased partisan support, Trump's broader political status remains weak.

His approval rating is still underwater. His policies on tariffs and federal spending cuts are unpopular. Consumer confidence is declining.

Congressional Republicans continue to provide public support, but as the midterm approaches, many are watching their voting numbers closely.

Political resistance will grow if the economy staggers and public opposition to the president becomes more dramatic. I believe that is when legal rules may start to matter again - not because they have new powers, but because violating them will bring higher political costs.

The real test is still here

So far, no judge has defied the Trump administration. But the signs of erosion are clear. Trump recently accused the Supreme Court of "not allowing me to do what I was elected" after it temporarily blocked his administration's efforts to immigrants allegedly linked to Venezuelan gangs. The risk of seeing the judiciary as another political opponent and ignoring its rulings creates a deeper constitutional crisis.

The most meaningful examination of presidential power will be political.

Courts rely on a broader political system to enforce it. This support can take many forms: elected officials speak out in defending the rule of law; Congress uses its oversight and funding power to uphold court rulings; bureaucrats refuse to enforce illegal directives; and news and the public that demand compliance. Without these support, even the clearest legal decisions can be ignored.

The legal struggle today is serious and must be paid close attention. But Trump is not focused on the courts. He focused on politics - how far he could go and whether anyone would let him stop.