One hundred days into his second term, President Donald Trump has unleashed a whirlwind of executive actions, reshaping America’s trade, immigration, and environmental policies with unprecedented speed.
From imposing sweeping tariffs to empowering the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and clashing with Democrats like Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump’s agenda has sparked economic turmoil and legal challenges. As federal courts push back and public approval wanes, what do these moves reveal about the limits of executive power?
The constitutional stakes—balancing authority, checks, and individual rights—demand a deep dive into this transformative period.
A Frenzied Start: Executive Orders Set the Tone
Trump’s first 100 days, ending April 29, 2025, saw him sign over 140 executive orders, surpassing any modern president’s opening sprint. These orders target immigration, tariffs, energy, and federal workforce cuts, reflecting a campaign promise to act decisively. The sheer volume has overwhelmed critics, with Democrats struggling to mount cohesive opposition.
The administration claims these actions fulfill voter mandates, but polls show mixed results. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll pegs Trump’s approval at 39%, with 55% disapproving, a historic low for a president at this stage.
Economic Chaos Looms
Economic policy dominates headlines, driven by Trump’s tariffs. On April 2, he announced a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, with 25% on steel, aluminum, and autos, and up to 145% on Chinese goods. These moves, dubbed “Liberation Day,” aim to revive manufacturing but have triggered market volatility and fears of a 2025 recession.
Consumers face a 28% effective tariff rate, the highest since 1901, raising household costs by an estimated $1,200 annually. A Fox News poll shows 58% disapprove of Trump’s tariff handling, with 72% believing prices will rise.
Tariffs: A Constitutional Power Play
Trump’s tariffs test the boundaries of executive authority under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), which delegates trade regulation to Congress but allows presidential discretion via laws like the Trade Act of 1974. His closure of the de minimis loophole, effective May 2, 2025, ended duty-free shipments under $800, hitting retailers like Temu hard. Michigan’s auto industry, reliant on Canadian parts, faces severe strain, prompting Governor Whitmer to seek exemptions.
Legal scholars question the tariffs’ scope. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants tariff authority, but Georgetown’s Steve Vladeck argues it may not support such broad, discretionary levies, potentially violating the non-delegation doctrine.
Whitmer’s Balancing Act
Whitmer, a potential 2028 Democratic contender, has navigated tariffs delicately, criticizing their “hammer-like” approach while praising their intent to boost manufacturing. Her April 9, 2025, White House visit, where Trump lauded her as a “very good person,” drew ire from Democrats who saw it as a political misstep. Whitmer’s push for auto tariff relief partly succeeded, with Trump granting a 30-day exemption for North American vehicles on April 9.
Her nuanced stance reflects Michigan’s complex politics, where the United Auto Workers support tariffs, but automakers fear job losses. The Tenth Amendment underscores her state’s right to advocate, yet federal trade power prevails.
DOGE: Efficiency or Overreach?
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, embodies Trump’s pledge to shrink government. Tasked with cutting federal spending, DOGE has overseen mass layoffs, targeting 30% of the federal workforce, including IRS and AmeriCorps staff. These cuts, often chaotic, have led to reinstatements after legal challenges, with courts citing violations of congressional funding mandates.
DOGE’s actions raise Article I concerns, as Congress controls appropriations. A coalition of 24 states sued on April 29, 2025, alleging DOGE’s dismantling of AmeriCorps lacks legislative approval. Critics argue Musk’s access to sensitive data creates conflicts, potentially breaching due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Public Skepticism Grows
Despite DOGE’s promise of savings, evidence is thin. A Senate memo estimates Musk’s cuts could cost billions by weakening tax collection. Public approval for DOGE stands at 39%, with 56% disapproving, per a Fox News poll. Posts on X reflect frustration, with users calling DOGE a “flop” for failing to deliver promised tax cuts.
Immigration: A Hardline Pivot
Immigration remains Trump’s strongest issue, with 55% approving his border security measures, per Fox News. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported just 7,180 southwest border crossings in March 2025, a historic low. Executive orders have ramped up deportations, targeting both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, including students.
These policies face legal pushback. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in May 2025 on Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, a move challenging the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal judges have blocked orders firing executive branch workers and deporting immigrants, with 58% of voters supporting judicial checks, per Fox News.
FBI Arrests Escalate Tensions
The administration’s use of law enforcement has sparked alarm. On April 25, 2025, FBI agents arrested Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan for obstructing a federal immigration operation in her courtroom. Attorney General Pam Bondi warned of further arrests, raising Article III concerns about judicial independence. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable seizures may also be at play if arrests lack clear legal basis.
Anti-Environment Policies: A Regulatory Rollback
Trump’s environmental policies have dismantled decades of protections. Executive orders have rescinded Biden-era climate initiatives, halted the $5 billion Empire Wind project, and opened federal lands to drilling. The Interior Department’s April 16, 2025, pause on Empire Wind, citing flawed permits, threatens New York’s 2030 renewable energy goals.
These actions leverage Article II’s executive authority but face Article I challenges, as Congress sets environmental policy through laws like the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA (2022) limits agency overreach, suggesting courts may scrutinize Trump’s rollbacks if they exceed statutory bounds.
Economic and Social Costs
The environmental rollback risks long-term economic damage. Offshore wind could meet 25% of U.S. energy needs by 2050, but delays increase reliance on fossil fuels, raising costs. Public health faces threats from reduced research funding, compounded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s controversial role at HHS, which critics argue undermines the general welfare clause (Article I, Section 8).
Democrats’ Struggle: Resistance or Cooperation?
Democrats face a strategic dilemma. Many, like Colorado’s Jared Polis, fiercely oppose Trump’s tariffs, calling them “bad outright.” Whitmer’s bipartisan approach, including her April 9 Oval Office appearance, has drawn criticism as capitulation, with X users mocking her for shielding her face from cameras. Her letter to Trump post-inauguration, offering cooperation, highlights the risks of engaging a polarizing president.
The First Amendment protects Democratic dissent, but political silence risks alienating voters. University of Michigan’s Jonathan Hanson notes Democrats’ lack of coordinated opposition, warning that inaction could cede ground to Trump’s agenda.
A Republic Tested
Trump’s first 100 days have pushed executive power to its limits, challenging constitutional checks through tariffs, DOGE, immigration, and environmental rollbacks. Article I’s congressional authority, Article III’s judicial oversight, and the Bill of Rights’ protections are under strain as courts and states respond. Whitmer’s Michigan microcosm reflects the broader tension: cooperate or resist? As legal battles and economic fallout unfold, the republic’s resilience hinges on balanced powers and an informed public.