In the first weeks of his second term, President Donald Trump did not waste any time to bend his political muscles. This is clear.

Since he took office in January, he ordered the suspension of all new asylum claims, the resettlement of refugees, the frozen governmental employment and spending, the destruction of agencies established by Congress, prohibited the gender transition to adolescents and offered a purchase of hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

It pushed a single workplace regarding the promises of his campaign to the borders of the presidential authority – and prompted legal challenges from Democrats, unions and legal groups. So far, federal courts have been the only objective road barriers for the Trump business schedule, as the judges temporarily suspended some of the most controversial proposals, including ending the automatic citizenship of anyone born on the American soil.

But Trump is pressing – and it seems that he is heading towards a confrontation with the judiciary, which can eventually end in the highest court on the ground. This week, Judge Rod Island said that the Trump administration was It clearly challenges and frankly the court order to cancel the freezing of billions in federal funds. The White House responded by saying that “every action” was taken by the president “completely legal.”

If Trump’s orders arrive at the United States Supreme Court, six of the nine judges there – including three appointed by Trump during his first term – conservative. In the last period only, the court issued a decision to carry Trump and all the presidents coming, to a large extent to prosecute the official procedures while taking office.

At that time, it was a prominent expansion of the presidential authority. But some observers suggested that Trump’s recent movements could be part of a strategy to expand its powers further. If the Supreme Courts agree to support some of its executive orders, it may enhance its ability to enact policy changes without the help of Congress.

Elia Shapiro, a constitutional expert at the Manhattan Institute, says these legal defeats may be political useful, and even if the courts are controlling the president against the president, these legal defeats may be politically beneficial.

“There can be political benefits for challenge in court, then you can lose it in court because after that you can run for judges and make the political straw from it.”

There is another scenario. Trump can simply refuse to comply with any court trying to stop his practice of unrestricted presidential authority.

In the comments of the Oval Office on Tuesday, the president hinted that this might be an option, in his inclined way.

“We want to get out of corruption,” Trump said. “It seems that it is difficult to believe that the judge can say that we do not want you to do so.”

“Maybe we have to look at the judges,” he said. “I think it’s a very dangerous violation.”

On Sunday, Trump’s Vice President, JD Vance, was honest.

“Judges are not allowed to control the legitimate force of the CEO,” published on the social networking site X. This opinion was similar to what one of the podcasts said in 2021, when he said that if Trump returns to power, he must refuse to abide by compliance with any matter of The court prevented him from launching federal workers.

However, the challenge that it spends on the court’s ruling directly would reduce centuries of the history of the United States and link the opening skirmishes in a constitutional crisis that motivates the president against the government branch designed to establish and interpret the land law.

“My reading is that President Trump is testing the external limits of what he might be able to stay away from him, and do a lot of things that are blatantly incompatible, and perhaps some things that are closer to the line,” said Farid Smith. Professor at the Faculty of Law.

“They break a lot of criteria,” added Smith from the Emerging Trump administration. “Why does he do it, he knows just just. But he does it.”

So far, Trump and his allies made aggressive comments about the decisions of the unfavorable court in the public and in legal deposits, but they have not yet been punished for the court’s disobedience. When Trump has been a target of multiple trials over the past four years, he was repeatedly wondering about the legitimacy of visual judges, but the lawyer for the court hall committed to law and legal procedures.

The federal judge in Rod Island, who had been temporarily exposed to Trump’s order to freeze some federal spending, warned in the court files on Monday that the administration violates his temporary restriction order but did not stop finding it in contempt.

Conservative legal researcher Ed Willian wrote that X would be “very dangerous” for the Trump administration to challenge the Federal Court.

“I am open to the argument that really exceptional circumstances (wild virtual manufacture) may justify the challenge,” said Mr. Willian. “But in our constitutional system there must be a tremendous assumption in favor of the executive compliance with the orders of the Federal Court.”

Some legal experts say that Trump disobeys him, and thus he is terrified, the courts, the decision can return to bite him when the president comes to see his legal agenda that is being implemented. Democratic states like California, for example, may tend to ignore the directives of the White House and federal laws that they do not like – and Trump will be severely pressured to use the courts to bring them to the heels.

“If the CEO decides that she obeys some court orders, but not others, you will find that he will not receive any orders from the court who wants to obey,” said Philippe Boubet, a constitutional researcher at the University of Colombia’s Law Faculty. “I don’t think they think this through.”

When Donald Trump reborn the Oval Office according to his desire in January, he re -installed a picture of President Andrew Jackson, who commented on the wall on the other side of the iron office in his first term.

The seventh US President is remembered for a critical moment of the challenge against the United States Supreme Court. When the judges decided a dispute between Georgia and Indian governments Cherokee in 1832, Jackson was not interested in following its direction.

He claims that Jackson said about the rule of the chief of judges, “John Marshall has made his decision; let him apply it!”

Nearly 200 years, Trump found himself in his collision with the American judiciary.