logo
Analysis-Trump uses power against foes unlike any other modern US president

Analysis-Trump uses power against foes unlike any other modern US president

Yahoo02-04-2025

By James Oliphant and Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -In just 10 weeks in office, Donald Trump has imposed his will on perceived adversaries in business, politics, the media and allied nations by leveraging power in ways no other modern U.S. president has tried.
His administration has sought the arrest and deportation of student protesters, withheld federal funds from colleges, ostracized law firms tied to his political opponents, threatened judges and tried to pressure journalists. At the same time Trump has downsized the federal government dramatically and purged it of workers who could stand in his way.
Central to this effort has been Trump's use of policy-making executive orders to target opponents as never before. He has been unafraid to employ lawsuits, public threats and the power of the federal purse to bring institutions to heel.
'What unites all these efforts is Trump's desire to shut down every potential source of resistance to the MAGA agenda and to his personal power,' said Peter Shane, a law professor at New York University.
Some targets have rushed to placate the president, a few have fought back and many are still trying to figure out how to respond. Many of Trump's actions are being challenged in courts, where some judges have tried to slow him down.
The stunning speed and breadth of the Republican president's actions have caught Democrats, public-service unions, CEOs and the legal profession off guard.
Trump's supporters say he is simply using the full reach of his presidency to achieve the goals he set as a candidate.
"He's laid out these broad battle lines, whether it's with people that he thinks have tried to ruin him personally, whether it's with people he thinks have tried to ruin Western civilization," said Republican strategist Scott Jennings, a longtime adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell. "Everything he said he was going to do on the campaign, he's doing."
Trump's aims are not just political. His actions show he wants to reorder American society with an all-powerful executive at the top, where financial, political and cultural institutions carry his stamp and where opposition is either co-opted or curtailed. With a compliant Congress controlled by his party and a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by conservatives, Trump is operating with fewer checks on his power than any of his modern-day predecessors.
Trump has attempted to subdue and cajole his adversaries on an almost-daily basis, backed by the fearsome might of the law enforcement and regulatory agencies at his command. He has often succeeded.
He managed to wring concessions out of several of his targets, including storied Columbia University, powerful law firms and corporate titans such as Meta and Disney. All of them settled with the White House rather than endure the pressure, surrendering some independence and setting what some view as damaging precedents.
Others are taking preemptive measures to avoid Trump's wrath.
More than 20 of America's largest companies and financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, Google and PepsiCo, have rolled back diversity programs that had drawn Trump's ire.
Three law firms cut deals with the administration rather than risk losing their lawyers' security clearances, access to government buildings and perhaps, as a result, clients, while three others targeted by Trump's executive orders sued in response.
Trump's orders have also been his vehicle to remake the government, deport alleged Venezuelan gang members with little due process and levy tariffs against U.S. trading partners.
He has sued U.S. media corporations and silenced the Voice of America, taken control of the Kennedy Center, a leading arts facility, and sought to put curbs on the Smithsonian Institution, whose mission is to chronicle history.
His administration has detained student protesters whose political views it says are a threat to the country.
Trump has pushed a mineral-rights deal on Ukraine's leadership with the veiled threat of ending U.S. support for Kyiv in the Russian war in Ukraine. He has threatened NATO ally Denmark to try to wrest control of Greenland, spoken of annexing Canada and threatened to take the Panama Canal back from its home country.
TAILORED STRIKES
Mark Zaid, a Washington lawyer who represents whistleblowers against the federal government and who himself had his security clearance stripped away by Trump, said the president's conduct is like nothing he has seen in his 30-year career.
'Executive orders have never been designed to specifically target individuals nor non-government actors for purposes of retaliation or retribution,' Zaid said.
The White House and Trump's allies deny the president is acting out of revenge.
A White House spokesman said more traditional approaches have failed to bring meaningful change.
'Unconventional is precisely what the American people voted for when they elected President Trump," White House spokesman Harrison Fields said. "The president is committed to upending the entrenched bureaucracy."
In his first term from 2017-2021, Trump was hamstrung by a variety of factors: a federal probe into Russian interference, his aides' lack of experience and greater Democratic opposition in Congress.
With those roadblocks gone, an emboldened Trump has demonstrated at the start of his second term that he has learned how to use the resources available to him more fully to get what he wants.
"He really does know how to pull the levers of power this time, more so than last time," said Rina Shah, a Republican strategist.
Claire Wofford, a political science professor at the College of Charleston, said Trump has used executive orders not only to push forward a policy agenda, but also to send messages to his political base, as in his attempt to scale back birthright citizenship, and to test the limits of his power, as with his invocation of an 18th-century law to designate some migrants as "alien enemies."
'What strikes me most at this point is how strategic Trump is - but in new ways,' Wofford said.
FUNDING AND LITIGATION
In cases such as with Columbia University, Trump has used the federal purse as a cudgel, concluding his targets have financial interests that make them vulnerable to coercion.
In other cases, he has used the courts, forcing companies such as Disney and Meta into favorable settlements after Trump filed lawsuits against them.
CBS News, another Trump lawsuit target, is under pressure to settle its suit because its parent, Paramount, is eager to have its proposed merger with Skydance Media approved by Trump administration regulators.
But not every institution has bent the knee.
Many of Trump's actions, particularly those regarding his cuts in government, remain tied up in federal court. In the last two weeks alone, judges have ruled against Trump in matters challenging his deportation policies, attacks against law firms and plans to eliminate government agencies.
In response, Trump and his allies have called for judges who rule against the administration to be impeached and drawn a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian CATO Institute, said Trump's attacks on law firms and judges are without precedent and are reminiscent of other nations with authoritarian regimes.
"Clipping the wings of law firms and the courts," Olson said, "is the behavior of an autocrat."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

New York Post

time15 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.

Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes
Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes

Newsweek

time31 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Satellite Images Show Damage to Iranian Nuclear Site After Israeli Strikes

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Israeli jets have bombed a nuclear reactor under construction in central Iran during a wave of air strikes on the seventh day of the conflict between the two countries. Satellite images show a hole in the domed roof of the facility caused by a blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the damage and said no nuclear material was present during the strike. Why It Matters The airstrike targeted the Arak heavy water reactor, known officially as the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, located about 240 kilometers southwest of Tehran. The Israeli military said the attack was designed to disable the core seal of the unfinished reactor and prevent it from being used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. What To Know The Arak facility, though still under construction, has long been viewed by Western powers as a potential component of a nuclear weapons program. Heavy water reactors like Arak produce plutonium as a byproduct, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Under the 2015 nuclear agreement, Iran was required to disable the Arak reactor by removing its core and filling it with concrete. However, in 2019, Ali Akbar Salehi, then head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, revealed in a televised interview that Iran had secretly obtained duplicate piping to rebuild the core. Israel released black-and-white footage of the strike, showing a bomb hitting the reactor's domed roof, followed by a large explosion. Iranian state TV aired daytime footage of smoke rising from the site and reported the area had been secured and evacuated prior to the attack. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which last inspected the site in May, confirmed there was no radioactive material at the facility and noted that key structures, including the distillation units of the adjacent heavy water plant, were damaged. The agency also acknowledged it had lost "continuity of knowledge" regarding Iran's heavy water production due to restricted access. Israel has previously struck other nuclear sites, including Natanz and Isfahan, in what it describes as a campaign to neutralize Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the attack, saying Israel had "crossed a new red line in international law." Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. What People Are Saying IDF spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin said: "We continue to dismantle Iran's strategic capabilities—each strike reinforces our air superiority." President Donald Trump, during a bilateral meeting with the Canadian prime minister at the G7 summit, said: "They should talk, and they should talk immediately. I'd say Iran is not winning this war." Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, wrote in a post on X: "If Trump is genuine about diplomacy and interested in stopping this war, next steps are consequential. It takes one phone call from Washington to muzzle someone like Netanyahu," Iran's top diplomat continued. "That may pave the way for a return to diplomacy." What Happens Next White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump will make a decision on whether or not to have the United States join Israel's war with Iran "within the next two weeks."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store