
From Korea to Iran: A history of US conflicts — overt and covert — since World War II
The Second World War ended in 1945 after the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 2,00,000 people. The bombings led to Japan's unconditional surrender on August 14, marking the end of World War II. US soldiers finally returned home to cheers, parades, and promises of peace. Yet in the 80 years since, the United States has seldom been without a military footprint on foreign soil. While the US Congress has declared war only 11 times, American forces have continuously been engaged in conflicts around the globe.
After World War II, the United States set itself as a bulwark against the spread of communism and entered several conflicts to contain Soviet and Chinese influence.
By mid-1945, the Korean Peninsula had become a Cold War flashpoint. The Soviet Union supported the northern half, and the United States backed the southern half. On June 25, 1950, North Korean People's Army troops crossed the 38th parallel southward, intent on unifying the peninsula under communist rule. President Harry S Truman, wary of Soviet expansionism, invoked a United Nations Security Council mandate for what he termed a 'police action.' Over 15 nations joined the United States under the United Nations banner, leading to a three-year conflict known as the Korean War. By the time the fighting ceased with an armistice in July 1953, nearly 5 million people were killed, as per the American Legion, a US veterans organisation. 'More than half of the casualties were civilians, about 10 per cent of the population. This rate of casualties was higher than World War II and the Vietnam War.'
In 1951, Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalised the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The UK vehemently objected, and the US feared Soviet influence might fill the vacuum in Iran's oil-rich landscape. Under the presidency of Dwight D Eisenhower, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in collaboration with the United Kingdom's Secret Intelligence Service (commonly known as MI6), launched Operation Ajax, a covert operation aimed at deposing Prime Minister Mossadegh, installing a compliant monarch, and securing Western access to Iranian oil.
On August 19, 1953, after weeks of orchestrated propaganda, demonstrations, and clandestine bribery of clerics and officials, Prime Minister Mossadegh was forced from power and arrested. A declassified internal memo from the CIA stated: 'The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.' The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was reinstated, but the long-term costs proved high. The operation planted deep seeds of anti-Americanism, which ultimately found crescendo in the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Vietnam, emerging from French colonial rule, became a Cold War epicentre. In 1954, the Geneva Conference resulted in dividing Vietnam at the 17th parallel: Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north, and the Republic of Vietnam in the south, backed by Western nations. To contain communism, the United States began sending military advisers in the mid-1950s. However, following the Gulf of Tonkin naval incident in August 1964, when the destroyer USS Maddox reported being attacked by North Vietnamese boats, the United States Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This allowed for full-scale military escalation under President Lyndon B Johnson.
By 1969, half a million American servicemen and women were deployed (Scorched Atmospheres: The Violent Geographies of the Vietnam War and the Rise of Drone Warfare, Ian G R Shaw, 2016) amid intense jungle warfare, strategic bombing campaigns, and the deployment of chemical defoliants such as Agent Orange. The war began to unravel on the home front, as public protests surged and American casualties escalated. President Richard Milhous Nixon initiated 'Vietnamisation,' withdrawing combat troops while increasing support for South Vietnamese forces. Ultimately, Saigon fell to communist forces in April 1975. The war ended with reunification under the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and cast long shadows over US foreign policy and public trust.
After it intervened in Iran, the US continued to use intelligence agencies to reshape governments in Chile, Laos, Cambodia, and Africa.
Between 1964 and 1973, American B-52 bombers dropped over two million tonnes of ordnance on the Kingdom of Laos, making it 'per person, the most heavily bombed country in history.' (Remarks of President Obama to the People of Laos, 2016). The bombing campaign was conducted under the codename Operation Barrel Roll (later supplemented by Operation Steel Tiger).
In the Kingdom of Cambodia, Operation Menu involved covert airstrikes aimed at destabilising communist supply routes in violation of Cambodian neutrality. The chaos these bombings engendered helped pave the way for the rise of the Khmer Rouge regime, which directly led to the Cambodian Genocide that claimed the lives of around 1.5-3 million people over four years, as per the University of Minnesota, Holocaust and Genocide Studies records.
In South America, the Cold War paranoia extended to elected socialist democracies. Chile's democratically elected President, Salvador Allende, who took office in November 1970, alarmed United States officials. Henry Alfred Kissinger, then National Security Advisor, regarded Allende as a threat, and President Richard Nixon feared a repeat of Cuba. Declassified CIA documents revealed secret funding of opposition media, support for labour strikes, and covert efforts to destabilise the Allende government. On September 11, 1973, General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet's military junta bombed La Moneda Palace, resulting in President Allende's death. A brutal dictatorship ensued, with thousands tortured and disappeared over the next 17 years.
In Central America, after the Sandinista National Liberation Front successfully overthrew the Somoza (a political family that ruled Nicaragua for 43 years) dictatorship in 1979, the United States responded by backing the Contrarrevolucionarios, commonly known as the Contras. President Ronald Wilson Reagan's administration directed covert assistance to the Contras, despite the passage of the Boland Amendment by the United States Congress, which banned such funding. When the operation was exposed in November 1986, it became known as the Iran–Contra scandal, which involved American covert dealings involving the sale of weapons to Iran, in exchange for funds funneled to the Contras.
In Southern Africa, Angola descended into civil war upon Portuguese decolonisation in 1975. Competing factions — the Soviet- and Cuban-backed Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, and the American- and South African–supported National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) and the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) — clashed in a conflict lasting until 2002. While the United States did not deploy combat forces, the CIA provided millions of dollars worth of arms and logistical support, as per a 1975 New York Times report. Jonas Savimbi's UNITA became the primary beneficiary of US covert involvement. The war resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, widespread displacement, and disruption of regional stability.
The United States maintained an official stance of neutrality during the Iran-Iraq War but in practice pursued a contradictory policy pursuant of its strategic interests in the Middle East. Initially, US policymakers saw Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, as a potential counterbalance to revolutionary Iran, especially after the 1979 US Embassy hostage crisis and the fall of the pro-American Shah.
While the US did not directly initiate the war, reports and declassified records suggest it tacitly approved Iraq's invasion of Iran, believing it might weaken Iran's Islamic regime. Throughout the war, the US provided intelligence, satellite imagery, and material support to Iraq. At the same time, the US covertly sold arms to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. This dual-track 'tilt' policy aimed to prevent either side from winning, thereby preserving regional balance and securing American strategic interests, particularly oil access and Israel's security. Ultimately, US involvement prolonged the conflict and intensified regional instability.
With the Cold War over, the United States turned to precision warfare to assert its global dominance.
In August 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, reeling from the financial wreckage of the Iran-Iraq War and $37 billion in Gulf debts, ordered an invasion of Kuwait. Initially, sanctions were imposed after an international backlash. Under the leadership of President George HW Bush, the United States assembled a coalition of 34 nations under the United Nations Security Council resolutions to liberate Kuwait.
Operation Desert Shield transitioned to Operation Desert Storm on January 17, 1991. A six-week air campaign devastated Iraqi military infrastructure, followed by a 100-hour ground offensive in February 1991 that liberated Kuwait. However, Saddam remained in power, internal rebellions were suppressed, and economic sanctions remained in place.
After September 11, 2001, the US launched an open-ended war on terror, stretching from Afghanistan and Iraq to Yemen and Somalia. In a strong statement after the attack, President George W Bush said, 'We're going to meet and deliberate and discuss – but there's no question about it, this act will not stand; we will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running and we'll bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them.'
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda triggered an immediate American response. President Bush authorised Operation Enduring Freedom in October, targeting al-Qaeda training camps and Taliban regime infrastructure in Afghanistan. With rapid initial success, the Taliban were deposed. Over time, however, the mission shifted toward counterinsurgency, governance challenges, and infrastructure development, as directed by NATO and United States Central Command. After nearly two decades and a cost of close to two trillion dollars, the United States formally withdrew military forces in August 2021, marking the return of the Taliban.
In March 2003, the United States, under President George W Bush, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, asserting that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and harboured ties to terrorist networks. Baghdad fell swiftly, but the resulting power vacuum spawned an extended insurgency. Sectarian violence escalated, large-scale reconstruction efforts faltered, and humanitarian crises mounted amid allegations of torture and human rights abuses. No weapons of mass destruction were ever recovered, prompting global scrutiny and American skepticism. The Chilcot Report confirmed that the UK went to war in Iraq based on flawed intelligence that claimed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In response, former Prime Minister Tony Blair offered a limited apology but defended the decision to remove Saddam Hussein. In a 2015 CNN interview ahead of the report's release, Blair admitted: 'I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong. I also apologise for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.' The United States completed its military withdrawal in December 2011, but instability persisted. Despite its support for the withdrawal from Iraq, the Obama administration in 2014 returned American military forces to Iraq to wage war on ISIS and then extended the war into Syria.
In February 2011, the State of Libya saw widespread unrest as part of the Arab Spring, a series of pro-democracy protests, uprisings, and armed rebellions. Libyan leader Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi responded with brutal force, prompting the United Nations Security Council to pass Resolution 1973, authorising 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with limited direct American involvement, enforced a no-fly zone and launched air strikes. Gaddafi was killed in October, but the leadership vacuum spawned competing militias and rival governments.
The Syrian Arab Republic descended into civil war in March 2011, when the Bashar Hafez al-Assad regime violently suppressed civilian protests. Over time, multiple groups entered the conflict, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Kurdish-led Kurdish forces, the Syrian Arab Army, and intervening foreign powers, including Russia, Iran, and the United States. American involvement remained deliberately limited: both covert and overt support for moderate rebel groups, NATO-led airstrikes targeting ISIS, and paramilitary assistance to Kurdish allies via the United States Special Operations Command. As of 2025, Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led a campaign that toppled Bashar al-Assad, is President.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the United States started using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to neutralise threats. President Bush authorised covert strikes against terrorist leaders in 'ungoverned spaces.' Under President Barack Obama, drone use intensified, both for 'targeted strikes,' aimed at identified terrorist members, and more controversial 'signature strikes,' which were finally based on behavioral patterns rather than confirmed identity. Operating largely out of air bases in Pakistan and Yemen, and coordinated via the United States Africa Command in East Africa, these drone programmes allegedly killed hundreds of al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Islamic State fighters. Osama bin Laden was killed during a US military raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 2, 2011.
During the 2010s, the United States pivoted to Africa's Sahel region, deploying 1,100 troops to the Republic of Niger (The Guardian, March 2024), equipping and training local militaries, operating drone surveillance and strike platforms from a newly constructed airfield near Agadez, and supporting both anti-terror operations and humanitarian missions. In July 2023, a military coup ousted democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum and suspended existing security agreements with the United States. However, the relations between Niger and the US deteriorated after the military junta claimed power in July 2023, in what the US called a coup (CNN, March 16, 2024). Since then, the US has withdrawn many of its 1,100 troops who were stationed in Niger.
Since the Iran-Iraq war, US presidents have avoided hitting Iran directly. The risks of regional war, soaring oil prices, and global instability were too high. It changed this year in June after President Donald Trump ordered direct military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Trump called the strikes 'a spectacular military success.' In a televised adress he said Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated.'
'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,' he said.
Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics.
She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks.
She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year.
She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home.
Write to her at aishwaryakhosla.ak@gmail.com or aishwarya.khosla@indianexpress.com. You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? After Pakistan, now Congo joins the push
Donald Trump Brokers Congo-Rwanda Peace Deal Congo's President Said to Be Considering Trump for Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Live Events A Turning Point After 30 Years of War FAQs (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel As the US president Donald Trump, once again positioned himself as a global peacemaker, this time by brokering a peace deal signed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, he may even have gotten Congo's support in nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize after Pakistan, as per a pointed out that he was able to broker a deal for "one of the worst wars anyone's ever seen," adding, "I was able to get them together and sell it," Mr Trump said. "And not only that, we're getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from Congo," as quoted by Sky the signing ceremony started, the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt invited an African reporter and 'friend' Hariana Veras to address the press and attendees in the Oval Office, which included US vice president JD Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers from the two African countries, according to a Daily Beast READ: Who is Hariana Veras, the woman Trump flirted with? President says she is beautiful and wishes more were like her Veras, who is a White House correspondent based in Cong, told Trump that the president of Congo wants to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize, as she said, "President Félix Tshisekedi is thinking of nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize. You deserve it," as quoted by Sky pointed out that "You have been working to bring peace in the world, not only in the Congo, and he's very hopeful to meet you in the future," adding, "Tshisekedi told me that for many years, American presidents have overlooked this conflict. They didn't do anything," as quoted by Sky READ: Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill sparks panic among MAGA voters: 'We'd lose everything' Her remarks came as both the African nations signed the peace deal, which Rubio called it "an important moment after 30 years of war," according to the foreign minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner also pointed out about the millions of victims of the conflict, while signing the agreement with Rwandan foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, as per the Sky News per a copy seen by Reuters, the peace agreement, which was signed by the foreign ministers, pledges to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days, as reported by Sky said that, "Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear," adding, "Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them," as quoted in the Nduhungirehe pointed out the "great deal of uncertainty" as earlier agreements were not put in place, according to Sky News. He said, "There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy," and added, "But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached," as quoted by Sky READ: California's AB5 Law under fire, nail techs sue state over worker classification – what the law states? A Congolese reporter said President Tshisekedi wants to nominate Trump for the Nobel, but it hasn't been made official yet, as per Sky News helped bring leaders from DRC and Rwanda together to sign a peace agreement, with the aim to end a decades-long war, as per the report.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? After Pakistan, now Congo joins the push
Donald Trump facilitated a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. The deal aims to end a thirty-year conflict. As part of the agreement, Rwandan troops will withdraw from eastern Congo. The President of Congo is reportedly considering nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The foreign ministers of both nations signed the agreement. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Donald Trump Brokers Congo-Rwanda Peace Deal Congo's President Said to Be Considering Trump for Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A Turning Point After 30 Years of War Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs As the US president Donald Trump, once again positioned himself as a global peacemaker, this time by brokering a peace deal signed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, he may even have gotten Congo's support in nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize after Pakistan, as per a pointed out that he was able to broker a deal for "one of the worst wars anyone's ever seen," adding, "I was able to get them together and sell it," Mr Trump said. "And not only that, we're getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from Congo," as quoted by Sky the signing ceremony started, the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt invited an African reporter and 'friend' Hariana Veras to address the press and attendees in the Oval Office, which included US vice president JD Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers from the two African countries, according to a Daily Beast READ: Who is Hariana Veras, the woman Trump flirted with? President says she is beautiful and wishes more were like her Veras, who is a White House correspondent based in Cong, told Trump that the president of Congo wants to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize, as she said, "President Félix Tshisekedi is thinking of nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize. You deserve it," as quoted by Sky pointed out that "You have been working to bring peace in the world, not only in the Congo, and he's very hopeful to meet you in the future," adding, "Tshisekedi told me that for many years, American presidents have overlooked this conflict. They didn't do anything," as quoted by Sky READ: Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill sparks panic among MAGA voters: 'We'd lose everything' Her remarks came as both the African nations signed the peace deal, which Rubio called it "an important moment after 30 years of war," according to the foreign minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner also pointed out about the millions of victims of the conflict, while signing the agreement with Rwandan foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, as per the Sky News per a copy seen by Reuters, the peace agreement, which was signed by the foreign ministers, pledges to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days, as reported by Sky READ: US unleashes 30,000-pound bunker-busters on Iran — but scientists say Tehran's concrete may have won the day Wagner said that, "Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear," adding, "Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them," as quoted in the Nduhungirehe pointed out the "great deal of uncertainty" as earlier agreements were not put in place, according to Sky News. He said, "There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy," and added, "But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached," as quoted by Sky READ: California's AB5 Law under fire, nail techs sue state over worker classification – what the law states? A Congolese reporter said President Tshisekedi wants to nominate Trump for the Nobel, but it hasn't been made official yet, as per Sky News helped bring leaders from DRC and Rwanda together to sign a peace agreement, with the aim to end a decades-long war, as per the report.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.