How Trump tries to "break" the US judicial system and expand his power
James Boasberg, perhaps no other judge in the US has gained as much attention in recent months as he has.
A federal judge in the District of Columbia, Boasberg challenged Donald Trump's executive order to deport dozens of undocumented migrants to El Salvador. His ruling sparked a wave of criticism from the Trump administration and its supporters.
The controversy surrounding this deportation order points to a broader and potentially more dangerous trend: the executive branch is coming dangerously close to ignoring the judiciary.
In doing so, it threatens the entire system of checks and balances enshrined in the US Constitution.
Read more about the latest clash between Trump and the courts and its potential consequences in the article by Oleh Pavliuk, a European Pravda journalist – Trump the omnipotent: how the US president is overcoming judicial resistance.
Last week, Trump’s administration deported hundreds of migrants to El Salvador via an executive order, labeling them criminals. Among them, according to US officials, were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which is suspected of murdering two police officers in Florida. Trump has designated the gang as a foreign terrorist organisation.
However, earlier that same day, 15 March, two pro-democracy nonprofit organisations filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, alleging that at least five Venezuelans facing deportation may have been wrongly identified as gang members.
Despite Judge Boasberg issuing an immediate temporary injunction to halt their deportation and scheduling a hearing for later that day, the deportation proceeded.
Notably, the next day, El Salvador’s president (and Trump ally) Nayib Bukele reacted to the court's decision on social media, posting on X: "Oopsie… too late," followed by a laughing emoji. Even more strikingly, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reshared the post.
What followed was an open confrontation between the judge and the Trump administration.
Trump publicly called for Boasberg’s impeachment (which, like his own impeachment attempts, would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate) and labeled him a "radical leftist judge."
Trump justified the deportations by citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the detention and removal of noncitizens during wartime or an "invasion" of US territory, without requiring a court ruling.
Clearly, Trump considers illegal immigration an "invasion," a term he has used repeatedly.
While the legal debate is complex, the Trump administration’s stance is based on the unitary executive theory, which asserts that the president has exclusive control over executive functions.
Put simply, Trump and his allies believe that the courts should not have the authority to restrict his executive powers.
They argue that judicial interference contradicts the will of the American people, who elected Trump with a "clear mandate."
While this is not the first clash between Trump and the judiciary, it risks escalating into a full-blown constitutional crisis.
Members of the Trump administration are now openly suggesting that court rulings do not need to be followed if they conflict with Trump's policies.
It seems that "restoring common sense" and fighting "leftism" have become a pretext for expanding executive power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches.