Wielding influence and fear, Trump is most powerful president in decades
Six months into his second term, Trump has shown a unique ability to instill fear among fellow Republicans by brandishing the threat of calling for primary challenges on Truth Social.
Trump has passed much of his domestic legislative agenda, crammed into his 'big, beautiful bill,' faster than most lawmakers on Capitol Hill thought possible.
The Senate has confirmed 96 of Trump's civilian nominees in short time, filling the Cabinet at the fastest pace in 20 years. The pace of confirmations during Trump's first 100 days exceeded that set by three of the past four administration, including his first term, according to the Brookings Institution.
He pushed embattled Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) over the top in the January leadership election, pressuring Reps. Keith Self (R-Texas) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.).
And Trump managed to muscle through the first rescissions package Congress has passed since 1992 — something he tried and failed to do during his first term in 2018.
Trump's most controversial actions, such as his global trade war against longtime allies in Europe and East Asia, as well as Mexico and Canada, and his alliance with Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to slash, shutter and reorganize federal agencies without congressional input, received little pushback from Republican lawmakers.
One Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment on the culture of fear and obedience on Capitol Hill said the president's priorities are viewed as sacrosanct, even though some Republican senators privately view a few of them, such as $40 million for the 'Garden of Heroes,' as ridiculous.
'It's sickening how we did not challenge,' grumbled the lawmaker. 'Garden of Heroes? We can't touch that. It's a priority. We're letting them call everything.'
The lawmaker added that the White House budget office is dictating spending decisions to Congress and expecting veteran lawmakers to hop to the task like errand boys.
'We're not getting basic information. We're being told, 'This is what we want to do and here's how much we want for it,'' the source said.
While Trump's approval rating has slipped in recent public polls, and he's hearing loud grumbling from the MAGA base over his administration's handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related files, the president faces no real opposition on Capitol Hill.
'He does want to appear to be dictating,' said Stephen S. Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis, who argued that Trump is also willing to offer concessions when necessary to accomplish his goals.
Trump has a knack for wielding threats unlike any of his recent predecessors, Smith observed.
'Members of Congress are leery about opposing him because he's promising retribution and very seldom do we have a president who promises retribution,' he said.
'Is he the most powerful of the last generation within his party? It's probably fair to say yes. And with his party [having] a slim majority, that means a lot,' Smith said.
Republican lawmakers who pop off occasionally to oppose the president find themselves immediately isolated.
'There's no doubt, ever since I've been voting, I've never seen anybody have this kind of influence, which is good,' Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) told The Hill, arguing that Trump has more influence now than any president he could remember.
Tuberville delivered a blunt warning to Trump skeptics within the Senate Republican conference after last year's election: Get in line or be prepared to face a primary challenge come 2026.
'Republicans: If you're not on the team, get out of the way,' Tuberville told Fox Business in November.
'President Trump and JD Vance are going to be running the Senate,' he warned. If you want to get in the way, fine. But we're going to try to get you out of the Senate too if you try to do that.'
Eight months later, Tuberville says almost all of his colleagues heard that message loud and clear and have toed the line.
'Most, not 100 percent,' he said, pointing to the speedy passage of Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act before the July 4 deadline Trump set for Congress — a deadline that even Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) didn't initially think was possible, according to GOP senators.
'I never thought it would get done until the fall, to be honest with you,' Tuberville said of Trump's signature legislative achievement, which Republicans senators celebrated at a dinner with Trump at the White House on Friday.
One Republican who dared to clash with Trump over the bill, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) paid the political price when Trump savaged him in a post on Truth Social, accusing the two-term senator of wanting to hike taxes and wanting to throw North Carolina's tobacco industry 'out the window.'
Tillis, who supported the tax provisions in the legislation but had serious concerns about deep cuts to Medicaid, announced the next day he would not seek reelection.
'Shows you how powerful the president is,' Tuberville said, who said Tillis 'knew' that if he was going to go against Trump, he 'might as well exit, stage right, because it's going to be hard for him to win.'
Republicans in both chambers swiftly fell into line and approved Trump's rescissions package last week after the president threatened to withhold his endorsement from GOP lawmakers who defied him.
Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University who served several stints as a Senate fellow, said historians may have to go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt to find a president who so overtly targeted members of his party who defied him.
'Fear is a powerful motivation,' he said, explaining Trump's power. 'He's cut out the intermediaries, the members of Congress, and he exercises his powers through his control of sections of electorate and has made members of Congress fearful of their constituents, in particularly fearful of constituents who are aroused when they feel Trump is being defied or his objectives are being obstructed.
'That enables Trump to use the weapon of a primary challenge with great power,' Baker said.
Except for former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who pulled his name from consideration to be Trump's attorney general, the Senate quickly confirmed Trump's most controversial Cabinet nominees.
Senate Republicans moved swiftly to approve Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the president's picks to head the Pentagon, national intelligence community and Department of Health and Human Services, respectively, despite strong private reservations of several GOP senators.
Two key senators, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), faced an immediate backlash from Trump's MAGA allies after they initially raised questions about Hegseth's confirmation.
Ernst declined to commit to supporting Hegseth in early December, and Graham described allegations of misconduct against the nominee 'very disturbing.'
But both lawmakers came around to backing Hegseth enthusiastically after Trump stuck with his embattled nominee, hailing him a 'WINNER' and dispatching Vance to shore up support within the GOP conference.
Tillis was one Republican senator who wavered about voting for Hegseth and ultimately supported him under immense pressure from MAGA activists and allies.
The North Carolina senator suggested earlier this month that he probably wouldn't vote for Hegseth now.
'Today, I am beginning to wonder if maybe [the] Armed Services [Committee] was a little bit generous with respect to their assessment of his capabilities as a manager of the world's largest, most complex and, arguably, consequential organization,' he admitted in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Taiwan says trade delegation in Washington for talks on potential tariff and trade deal
TAIPEI (Reuters) -Taiwan's government said on Wednesday that a trade delegation led by the vice premier was in Washington, D.C., for a new round of in-person negotiations with U.S. officials this week. U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed imposing tariffs of as much as 32% on Taiwan. No new tariffs have yet been announced for the democratically-governed island, although the 90-day pause on worldwide tariffs Trump proposed in April has already expired. The delegation, led by Vice Premier Cheng Li-chun, seeks to safeguard Taiwan's industrial interests, public health, and food security, according to a cabinet statement. The talks aim to promote balanced trade, and improve the overall economic and trade framework between the two sides, it added. "The team will continue working under the principles of protecting Taiwan's industries and public welfare,' the statement said. 'We hope to optimise the trade system and lay the groundwork for a stronger partnership in the future.' The Taiwan talks come as trade negotiations in the region accelerate. On Wednesday, the United States and Japan announced a trade agreement that includes a 15% U.S. import tariff on all Japanese goods, lower than the 25% Washington had proposed previously. The Japan deal is seen as one of the most significant among several agreements reached ahead of the August 1 tariff deadline the White House set after the original 90-day deadline expired with only a few successfully negotiated agreements. Taiwan has been seeking to strengthen its trade ties with major partners, particularly the U.S., Taiwan's second-largest trading partner after China, amid growing geopolitical and economic challenges. The outcome of the negotiations could play a key role in shaping the island's future trade strategy and its position in the global supply chain, and is crucial to Taiwan's export-driven economy.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russian delegation heads to Turkey for talks with Ukraine, news agencies say
MOSCOW (Reuters) -Russian negotiators are flying to Turkey for the first peace talks with Ukraine in more than seven weeks, Russian news agencies reported on Wednesday. State agency TASS said talks would take place later on Wednesday in Istanbul. Data from tracking site Flightradar24 showed the plane used by Russian delegation chief Vladimir Medinsky to fly to previous talks in Istanbul had taken off from Moscow. The warring sides held two previous rounds of talks in Istanbul, on May 16 and June 2, that led to the exchange of thousands of prisoners of war and the remains of dead soldiers. But they have made no breakthrough towards a ceasefire or a settlement to end almost three and a half years of war. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened heavy new sanctions on Russia and countries that buy its exports unless a peace deal was reached within 50 days. But three sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin, unfazed by Trump's ultimatum, would keep on fighting in Ukraine until the West engaged on his terms for peace, and that his territorial demands may widen as Russian forces advance.
Vox
18 minutes ago
- Vox
The lawsuit seeking to kill Trump's tariffs is back
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Three very important tariff-related stories loom over the US economy this month. The first is that, after a few weeks of relative quiet, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to raise tariffs on a whole raft of other nations. According to the New York Times, 'Trump has threatened 25 trading partners with punishing levies on Aug. 1,' including major importers to the United States such as Mexico, Japan, and the European Union. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. During Trump's brief time back in office, he raised the average effective tariff rate — the average of what all countries must pay to import goods into the US — from 2.5 percent to 16.6 percent, increasing US tariffs nearly sevenfold. If Trump's new tariffs take effect — an uncertain proposition, because Trump's trade policy has been so erratic — the average tariff rate will rise to 20.6 percent. That's the highest rate since 1910. The second story is that, after a brief period when the stock market and the broader US economy seemed to stabilize, inflation rose in June from 2.4 percent to 2.7 percent. Beforehand, US inflation had declined fairly steadily since 2022, when it spiked due to the aftereffects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Products that are particularly exposed to the tariffs, such as furniture and appliances, saw the highest price hikes in June. The delay between Trump's decision to impose high import taxes in the spring, and the onset of induced inflation in June, was widely predicted. After Trump's election, many US companies went on a buying spree, overstocking their inventories with foreign goods in anticipation of Trump's trade war. But those expanded inventories are now starting to run out, and inflation is expected to keep rising. Both of these stories, moreover, are hitting at a terrible time for Trump — at least if he wants his trade war to continue. On July 31, one day before the new round of tariffs are supposed to take effect, a federal appeals court will hear oral arguments on whether Trump's tariffs are illegal and should be struck down. The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in other words, will hear these arguments while they are surrounded with headlines about an escalating trade war and the harm it is imposing on the US economy. The plaintiffs' legal arguments in this case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, are quite strong. So strong, in fact, that a bipartisan panel of three judges struck down the tariffs in May — that decision is currently on hold while the Federal Circuit considers the case. The Federal Circuit's hearing is largely an exhibition game before this case reaches the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the fate of the tariffs will almost certainly be decided by the justices, with their Republican supermajority that has thus far shown extraordinary loyalty to Trump. But that doesn't mean that the Federal Circuit's decision is irrelevant. At the very least, the Federal Circuit is likely to determine just how fast the justices will need to weigh in on V.O.S. Selections, and whether the Supreme Court can make this case disappear without having to produce an opinion explaining why. If the Federal Circuit upholds the tariffs, the Supreme Court could potentially end any legal threats to Trump's trade war by simply refusing to hear V.O.S. Selections. Conversely, if the Federal Circuit issues a broad injunction blocking the tariffs, the justices will need to decide very quickly whether to halt that injunction or the tariffs will go away, at least temporarily. The legal arguments against Trump's tariffs, explained Trump relied on a federal law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he imposed the tariffs that are now before the Federal Circuit. These tariffs include a broad range of import taxes that Trump claims are necessary to combat trade deficits — meaning that Americans buy more goods from many countries than they sell. They also include additional tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico, and China, which Trump claims will somehow help prevent illegal activity such as fentanyl trafficking. The IEEPA permits the president to 'regulate…transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,' but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' The plaintiffs challenging these tariffs raise several statutory arguments. Among other things, they argue that a statute giving Trump the power to 'regulate' trade does not permit him to impose import taxes. They claim that the Canada, Mexico, and China tariffs don't actually do anything to 'deal with' fentanyl. And they argue that trade deficits, which have 'been a consistent feature of the U.S. economy since the mid-1970s' are common and ordinary – not 'unusual and extraordinary' as the IEEPA requires. All of these are plausible statutory arguments — the last argument is particularly strong — and the plaintiffs' case against these tariffs should be a slam dunk under something known as the 'major questions doctrine.' This doctrine, which was recently invented by the Supreme Court's Republican majority, requires Congress to 'speak clearly' before it can give the executive branch the power to make decisions of 'vast 'economic and political significance.'' Related How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch According to the Budget Lab at Yale, Trump's tariffs will cost Americans 'the equivalent of an average per household income loss of $2,800 in 2025,' and they will reduce employment by 641,000 jobs. So they are clearly a matter of great economic and political significance. Under the major questions doctrine, that means that any uncertainty about how to read the IEEPA must be resolved against Trump. The strongest argument for the tariffs, meanwhile, is not legal but political. Republicans control six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court, and the major questions doctrine is brand new — it has never been used against any president who isn't named 'Joe Biden.' So it is far from clear whether the Republican justices, who held last year that Trump is allowed to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes, will actually apply this new constraint on executive power to a president of their party. (Trump's lawyers, for what it is worth, do make legal arguments against applying the major questions doctrine in V.O.S. Selections. Their primary argument is that the doctrine doesn't apply to policy decisions made directly by the president himself, an argument that at least three federal appeals courts have previously rejected.) The Federal Circuit, however, is a highly specialized court that primarily deals with patent law. Patents aren't a particularly polarizing topic — or, at least, they aren't a topic that tends to divide Democrats from Republicans — so Federal Circuit judges tend to be more technocratic than the highly vetted political operatives who are typically appointed to the Supreme Court. For this reason, partisan politics are likely to play less of a role in the Federal Circuit's deliberations over V.O.S. Selections than they will when this case reaches the justices. There are also many prominent voices within the Republican Party that oppose the tariffs. The lead attorney representing many of the plaintiffs is Michael McConnell, a prominent conservative legal scholar who spent seven years as a federal appellate judge after he was appointed by President George W. Bush. At a recent conference hosted by the Federalist Society, a highly influential bar association for right-wing lawyers, several speakers criticized the tariffs. So, even in a Supreme Court that is typically in the tank for Donald Trump, there is a very real chance that these tariffs could fall. The Federal Circuit is likely to determine when the justices have to decide this case Realistically, the Federal Circuit is unlikely to have the final word on the tariffs. If the appeals court blocks the tariffs, Trump's lawyers will race to the Supreme Court seeking a stay of that decision. That said, the Federal Circuit's decision is likely to decide how quickly the justices must take up this case, and whether they need to explain their ultimate decision to support or oppose the tariffs. Broadly speaking, the Federal Circuit could decide this case in one of three ways: First, the appeals court could strike down the tariffs and issue an injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from enforcing them. If that happens, Trump will ask the Supreme Court to block that injunction on its 'shadow docket,' a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the justices decide on an expedited basis. In this scenario, we are likely to know whether the justices support the tariffs or not within a few weeks of the Federal Circuit's decision. At the other end of the spectrum, the Federal Circuit might uphold the tariffs. If that happens, the plaintiffs will ask the Supreme Court to review the case on its merits docket, but that process can take more than a year to resolve. And the Court may refuse to hear the case, which would mean that the tariffs will remain in effect and the justices will likely never have to explain why they sided with Trump. A third option is that the Federal Circuit could rule against the tariffs, but not issue an immediate injunction blocking them. If that happens, the Supreme Court is still likely to take up the case, but it will do so on its merits docket rather than on the fast-moving shadow docket. We will likely have to wait months or longer before the justices show their cards — and the tariffs will likely remain in place during that entire wait.
