While there was general agreement that the number and nature of the executive orders is expanding the powers of the presidency, the experts did not agree on whether the U.S. is experiencing a constitutional crisis—at least not yet.

“Right now, because Republicans control all three branches (of government), there hasn’t been any conflict, so I don’t see how you can have a crisis without conflict,” Stohler said. “Republicans in Congress seem to be going along with this. And the courts haven’t issued any real substantive adverse decisions yet. Without those things I don’t know how you have a constitutional crisis.”

Stohler suggested Trump may be making a bid to be what political scientists and presidency scholars refer to as a “reconstructive president.” Past examples include Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR, he said, noting that all shared in their ability to exercise power more freely, and were successful in redefining their party’s coalitions to more easily carry out their agendas.

“So, what’s the new coalition that Trump has recentered the Republican party on? He remade the Republican party very exclusively during the 2016 election around the rhetoric of protection: white protectionism on civil rights policy and immigration, straight protectionism to oppose transgender rights, protection from China in our economic policy,” Stohler said, adding conservative speech protectionism against social media platforms and universities as well as Christian protectionism.”

Keck focused his initial comments on the role of litigation and the courts. A leading expert on free speech and the U.S. Supreme Court, he said, “if the president of the United States is determined to break the law, the courts, by themselves, cannot singlehandedly flip a switch and make it stop.”

Keck predicted litigation and mixed court rulings related to executive orders and other administrative actions in the months ahead. The administration will win and lose some cases, he said. He pointed out that litigation creates a public record, draws media attention and sometimes result in concessions, as was the case in Trump’s first term when his order banning people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. was revised following legal challenges.

“Even though the administration won the case, they did not get to enforce the policy as first proposed,” said Keck, later adding, “It’s slow, its cumbersome, its complicated, it’s not going to save the day, but it does play an important role among other tactics in resisting the effort to concentrate power by the Trump administration.”

Breen, meanwhile, focused on the administration’s moves to consolidate power and dismantle the federal bureaucracy, saying Trump’s efforts appear to consolidate his “personal power” as well as the power of the office of the presidency.

In addition to the formation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, Breen cited Trump’s revocation of security clearances for those who opposed him and his renaming the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent removal of the Associated Press from the presidential press pool after it refused to adopt the new name. She said the decisions “seem to be premised on personal preference or whim,” she said, later adding, “The point of these efforts is to try and turn our existing professional bureaucracy into a political tool of the president and to chill opposition.”

Faricy later asked the panel to share their views on another legal term, unitary executive theory, which suggests that the president of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch, as opposed to a more limited authority, with stronger checks and balances over executive action. Rooted in constitutional law, it’s often raised amid debates about the scope of presidential powers, including a president’s ability to remove employees in the executive branch, transparency and access to information, the implementation and enforcement of new laws, and the ability to influence agencies’ rulemaking.

Breen argued that unitary executive theory is overly formalist, which is a description of legal scholarship meaning it adheres too strictly to a formal interpretation of law or, in this case, constitutional text known as the “vesting clause” of presidential powers, ignoring established norms and practices. She added, “It really prioritizes the executive branch and the presidency at the direct expense of Congress and the legislative branch.”

Numerous students posed questions during the event’s second half. Many expressed worries about the executive orders, sweeping federal layoffs and other actions, and asked the panelists how to ensure their concerns are heard.

But not all seemed displeased. “So much of the DOGE initiative is government efficiency,” said one undergraduate, citing the portrayal of administration action as seeking to reign in or cut wasteful spending.

By Jessica Youngman

Shown above: Faculty panelists in a recent Campbell Public Affairs event include, from left to right, Jenny Breen, associate professor of law at the College of Law; Thomas Keck, professor of political science and the Michael O. Sawyer Chair of Constitutional Law and Politics, Stephan Stohler, associate professor of political science, and Chris Faricy, director of Campbell and the Hicker Family Professor of Renewing Democratic Community.