White House's Bold Move: Are You Prepared for the Shocking Consequences?

As the current US administration approaches its one-year anniversary, concerns are mounting regarding the significant expansion of executive power and its implications for the nation's system of checks and balances. Experts warn that this trend poses long-term risks to both institutional integrity and social stability in the United States.

Since taking office on January 20, 2025, the administration has issued an astonishing 228 executive orders, a number that far exceeds the output of its recent predecessors, according to the American Presidency Project, which tracks presidential documents. These executive actions range from immigration policy to international trade, often justified by claims of national emergencies.

On the very first day in office, the administration declared a national emergency at the southern border to enhance immigration controls. Later, on April 2, it invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose extensive "reciprocal tariffs" on all US trading partners. This aggressive use of executive orders has been interpreted by some scholars, such as Zhang Guoqing, an associate researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute of American Studies, as a significant shift towards autocratic governance. "The US administration has governed in large part by executive actions," he stated, noting that such measures have dramatically increased executive authority.

Diao Daming, a professor of US studies at Renmin University of China, argues that this reliance on executive orders reflects dysfunction within Congress, which has been paralyzed by partisan gridlock. "Executive orders also allow the administration to bypass legislative constraints on controversial policies," he explained, emphasizing that this approach enables faster implementation of its agenda.

According to Zhang Tengjun, deputy director of the China Institute of International Studies' Department for American Studies, the current administration's ambitious agenda creates a sense of urgency, making executive orders a "convenient, low-cost tool" for rapid action. Yet, experts caution that the content of these orders is often fraught with legal ambiguities. “While the use of executive orders has been on the rise in the 21st century, the current US administration's orders frequently operate in legal gray areas,” Zhang Tengjun observed.

One prominent example is the imposition of tariffs, which the Constitution grants solely to Congress. By citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the administration has enacted significant tariffs without congressional consent. Similarly, the restructuring of federal agencies, which usually requires legislative approval, was executed through the Department of Government Efficiency, further exploiting constitutional gray zones.

As the administration appears undeterred by potential legal challenges—often confident in a Supreme Court that leans conservative—experts highlight a troubling trend. Diao noted that the judiciary, traditionally viewed as an independent check on executive power, is increasingly politicized, further complicating the landscape. A New York Times analysis of 2025 federal appellate court rulings revealed a stark ideological divide: appellate judges appointed by Democratic presidents opposed the administration's agenda 73 percent of the time, while those appointed by Republicans did so only 32 percent of the time. This disparity raises concerns about the erosion of judicial independence.

The Congress, which is constitutionally empowered to oversee the executive branch, has been largely ineffective in counteracting this surge in executive authority. For instance, an executive order in February 2025 placed independent federal agencies under White House supervision without substantial oversight from Congress. Zhang Tengjun attributes this lack of resistance to a combination of limited Congressional influence and deep partisan divides. "Most lawmakers won't challenge a president from their own party, rendering Congress comparatively weak," he said.

Experts warn that while the expansion of executive power may offer immediate benefits in policy implementation, its long-term implications could undermine the separation of powers and the rule of law. “The precedent set by this administration could be followed by future presidents, Republican or Democrat, placing the separation of powers under sustained strain,” Diao cautioned. An overpowerful executive risks creating a judiciary that serves its interests while relegating Congress to a subordinate role, ultimately diminishing avenues for public expression and exacerbating societal divisions.

Zhang Guoqing echoed this sentiment, asserting, “In the short term, forcibly expanding executive power might allow for efficient policy implementation. However, in the long run, this inflicts great damage on the separation of powers and the rule of law.” The ramifications of this crisis in governance could be profound, suggesting a need for a reevaluation of the balance between branches of government to safeguard democratic principles.