> Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.
He's immune from prosecution. He can still lose court cases that say that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do X, though, for many values of X.
At that point he can order his subordinates to ignore the ruling. If his subordinates claim that the court ruling overrides his orders then he can fire them. Court orders are purely advisory after the Trump v. United States decision.
Well, if he goes that route, there are still three things that could stop him:
1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all.
2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states.
(Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.)
But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
> in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all.
Sounds like it would be small enough to drown in the bathtub at that point. Mission accomplished.
> Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
Only if Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Not happening. In the last impeachment, Trump argued he was allowed to extort a bribe from a foreign ally by holding up congressionally appropriated funds to benefit his reelection campaign, and as long as he did so with the benefit of the USA in mind, it cannot be grounds for removal via impeachment. The Senate agreed with him and acquitted him of all charges. Why in the world do you think that would go any differently a second time? And who is going to bring those articles? Republicans?
> The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war
And herein lies the problem. This appears to be the only path forward if Trump keeps going in this direction and Republicans don't relent. Note he has already argued he has the right to use the military against US citizens.
I do think that congress would impeach if he said "I declare martial law and cancel elections". He'll have to get there piecemeal without creating a single moment for opposition to coalesce.
Why though? Why wouldn't the Republicans just go along with the new dictatorial regime, as they have been every step of the way? If they really had the character you imagine, they would have held the line at the insurrection. Instead they whitewashed it and put him back in power. I am in no way confident that group of people would check his power again.
It'll be much more subtle than that: simply deploy ICE personnel at polling stations who will arrest any non-white person who cannot prove their lawful residence on the spot. They'll be let out, but only after the election is passed.
He's not immune from prosecution, but prosecution requires evidence. But he controls the evidecne and witnesses, and there's no way to compel him to produce evidence, witnesses to testify, or really conduct any substantive investigation. So, how does one prosecute that case? And who prosecutes it? The DOJ he controls? Or the Congress who are in his cult? And who rules against him, the SCOTUS and judges he appointed? Who would enforce the decision, himself?
"immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate"
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
That's argument is easily contradicted by plenty of worldwide examples of opposition trying to use the courts to combat dictators. Dictators often ignore court decision they dislike because they have the ultimate power of enforcement.
> Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.