The extent of the power that President-elect Donald Trump could wield — enabling him to commit criminal acts with presidential immunity — is considerable, especially when combined with the sweeping reforms proposed in the 900-page Project 2025 plan aimed at restructuring the federal government.
For many Americans, this prospect understandably raises serious concern, as Trump’s influence could have unprecedented reach. However, turning the country into an autocracy isn’t something Trump can achieve unilaterally.
The judicial system in the United States remains active, and the federal bureaucracy itself is a powerful force. Additionally, individual states operate independently and are not directly controlled by the president.
President-elect Trump’s proposed reforms and presidential immunity raise concerns over the potential reach of his power
The Supreme Court, in Trump v. U.S., has indeed provided a degree of criminal immunity for presidents under Article II of the Constitution, but this protection is limited to certain explicit presidential powers.
The president has authority over the military, can appoint federal officers and ambassadors, grant pardons for federal offenses, make treaties (with Senate consent), and ensure laws are executed — but, controversially, is now immune from prosecution for criminal acts tied to these duties, according to Chief Justice John Roberts’ interpretation.
While the president’s constitutional powers are broad, they are limited when compared to those held by Congress. Some presidential powers, particularly regarding foreign affairs and immigration, are derived from judicial precedent rather than from direct constitutional language.
These implied powers further complicate but do not grant unbounded presidential authority. Despite this, Trump’s influence over military and law enforcement agencies presents risks to democracy and the rule of law.
He has issued numerous public threats to prosecute political adversaries, including President Biden, claiming he would initiate investigations and appoint a special prosecutor to target Biden and his associates. Although Biden might be shielded by the Supreme Court’s presumption of presidential immunity, Trump’s rhetoric remains a concerning threat to political neutrality.
Trump’s previous advisors have shared how they restrained his more extreme tendencies during his first term. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, has remarked on how officials focused on preventing some of Trump’s more destabilizing impulses. This time around, however, those who tempered his actions in the past are unlikely to return to similar roles.
Legal proceedings against anyone require a well-founded basis, including specific laws, evidence, and approval from a grand jury or judicial officer, and currently, federal courts largely uphold these checks. Although exceptions exist, such as the Supreme Court majority’s recent rulings, the judicial branch largely adheres to the Constitution and rule of law.
A Justice Department influenced by Trump could create hardships for individuals during investigations, even in the absence of probable cause. Although the Supreme Court has insulated directives from the president to the attorney general from oversight, rogue actions by Trump’s appointees would likely be curtailed by federal judges.
Still, if Trump is assigned a favorable judge — for instance, Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida, who previously dismissed charges related to his classified documents case — such rulings could be overturned upon appeal, barring interference from the Supreme Court.
In terms of military compliance, only enlisted officers swear an oath to obey the president directly; higher-ranking officers pledge loyalty solely to the Constitution. This distinction obligates senior military leaders to reject illegal orders, further safeguarding constitutional principles.
Despite presidential immunity, Trump’s rhetoric and proposed reforms create an uncertain political future
As of 2022, the military comprised over 372,000 officers, making it improbable that Trump could rally enough of them to break their constitutional oaths. Although he could theoretically offer pardons as an incentive, it’s unlikely that many would betray their commitment to lawful service.
Trump’s plan to bring back “Schedule F,” which would strip protections from career federal employees, allowing for their replacement with loyalists, presents another avenue for expanding executive power. As part of Project 2025, his team has vowed to reintroduce this measure, potentially impacting over 50,000 federal employees and possibly curtailing collective bargaining rights.
Legal challenges would almost certainly arise, and the logistical problems of replacing such a vast number of workers make this overhaul improbable in the near term. Until then, the nearly 3 million federal employees across various agencies are expected to continue serving the public, adhering to established laws.
However, the autonomy of individual states acts as an additional check on presidential authority. In 2020, Trump mistakenly claimed that governors required presidential approval for state decisions, a misconception at odds with the 10th Amendment, which limits federal power over state functions.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has already proposed legislation to counter potential national policies under Trump, such as abortion bans and selective disaster response. The potential risks posed by Trump’s return to the White House are important and immediate. But when he assumes office on January 20, 2025, his powers will be checked; he will not rule as an unchecked monarch.
