The impact of Trump on broad areas of domestic and international policies have been chaotic. But is the worse yet to happen? Most likely ………..

     Trump’s impact on international areas such as trade, tariffs, migration, alliances (NATO), regional conflicts (Ukraine, Middle East), bilateral trade conflicts (Canada, China, India, Vietnam, EU) and use of force (Iran) is broadly known.  As is his impact on domestic areas such as federal workers, foreign student visas, threats to universities, lawyers, law firms, federal judges, domestic use of the military and generally the rule of law (both domestic and international).

     Trump’s overly broad reliance on national security and declaration of national emergencies (which continues) has been attacked in numerous lawsuits with some success. Trump’s back to the future in rejecting international law, interactional organizations, alliances and institutions and obvious attempt to reestablish sphere of influence in international relations and protectionism mirror the disastrous 1930’s. 

      The fear is that the worse has not yet happened.

     It’s clear that lawyers and federal courts are in the forefront of reacting to executive overreach, even though the recent Supreme Court case limits nationwide injunctions by district courts and continues to utilize its emergency docket to review power court’s preliminary determinations and provisional orders.  But the fight continues in light of an uncertain fate before a conservative Supreme Court. Congress is still far behind in formulating an effective opposition. No Congressional resolutions have been passed opposing military use of force (Iran) or extensive use of tariffs as part of Trump’s unilateral economic warfare against adversaries and allies.

    Trump’s constant backtracking, deadline extensions, flight from one issue to another only increases policy chaos.

     Will the chaos get worse — We’ll see.

…………………………………..

“India, Vietnam, Japan, the European Union, Malaysia and other governments have been working toward deals that could smooth relations with the United States and avoid double-digit tariffs. But the Trump administration has been moving forward with plans to impose another set of tariffs on certain industries that it views as essential to national security, a threat that has foreign leaders worried that there could be more pain ahead …. Those tariffs on certain critical sectors, which would be issued under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, aim to build up domestic capacity for important products and ensure that the country isn’t reliant on foreign factories in times of war or shortages. But these sectors — along with automobiles and steel, on which the Trump administration has already applied national security tariffs …. Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia could be hit by tariffs on semiconductors and other electronics, including phones and computers. Vietnam and Malaysia could also be hurt by tariffs on lumber and timber, which could cover products like kitchen cabinets.” “More Tariff Threats and National Security.” New York Times (July 1, 2025).

“Donald Trump’s return to power has generated chaos for much of the legal sector …. “I’ve challenged federal and agency over-reach under every administration since President Reagan, but this administration’s intrusion is unmatched in scale and scope” ….  It is clear that there is not as robust a response to this Trump administration as there was last time.” “Trump’s Chaos and Lawyers.” Financial Times (June 25, 2025).

“The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded …. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies …. And Congress, under the control of Trump’s fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments.” “Supreme Court Slows Trump Litigation.”  New York Times (July 29, 2025).

“The Supreme Court’s ruling against nationwide injunctions means that approach is largely out the window, leaving litigants to ponder uncertain strategies that could be slower and less potent … The ruling could mean fewer significant wins for Trump opponents but also prompt a jump in lawsuits against the administration because more individuals, businesses and organizations might have to bring their own cases if they believe their rights have been violated …. Lawyers and public-interest groups immediately began looking to style more lawsuits as class actions, with a lead plaintiff suing on behalf of a broader group of people facing similar circumstances …. Class actions must satisfy several procedural requirements, including that all members of a proposed class have similar characteristics and legal interests. The suits also must be certified by a judge. The …. State attorneys general, who already play a significant role in cases challenging White House policies, could see their influence grow …. Local governments also are thinking about playing larger roles as litigants.” “New Litigation Strategy.” Wall Street Journal (June 30, 2025).

In his first months back in office, Trump has threatened to use military force to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal, suggested that the United States could take ownership of Gaza after the expulsion of two million Palestinians, and demanded that Ukraine give up territory to Russia in exchange for a cease-fire (and bombed Iran!). These acts and statements might appear to be just a handful of examples of Trump’s typical wide-ranging and hyperbolic bluster. But in fact, they all form part of a cohesive assault on a long-standing principle of international law: that states are prohibited from threatening or using military force against other states to resolve disputes. Now, that expectation is gone. Trump is not merely abandoning the United States’ traditional role in defending the prohibition on war and, with it, conquest. He seems to want something more: to restore war or the threat of it as the main way that states resolve their disagreements and seek economic gain …. Prior U.S. administrations can be condemned for their hypocrisy. But the Trump administration’s willingness to give up altogether on the prohibition on war is far more dangerous ….  Trump’s various rhetorical salvos and policy shifts may seem chaotic. But they all form part of a wider attempt to dismantle the postwar legal order.”   “Trump, Use of Force and International Law.” Foreign Affairs (July / August 2025).