President Trump believes he can do anything. Who will stop him? | Opinion
The most important question for our democracy in 2026 is whether there will be meaningful checks on President Donald Trump.
In an interview in November with Vanity Fair, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles says that Trump believes “there’s nothing he can’t do, nothing, zero.” That is exactly how he has governed over the last year, paying little attention to the Constitution or federal laws.
The most recent example is the invasion of Venezuela to capture its president, Nicolás Maduro. This unquestionably violates international law: The United Nations Charter, which the U.S. signed in 1945, prohibits countries from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any nation. The Trump administration’s invasion also violates a federal statute, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which limits the ability of the president to use the military in foreign countries without congressional approval. And it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s design that Congress and the president both be involved in the decision to go to war.
It remains unclear why the United States initiated military actions against Venezuela and invaded to depose its president. Maduro is a brutal dictator, but sadly there are many of those in the world. Trump has said that this act was meant to combat “narco-terrorists,” but this is not a credible claim. Venezuela is a minor producer of fentanyl and other drugs that come into the United States.
No checks and balances
Will there be any accountability for Trump for illegally invading another country with so little apparent justification? Congress could assert its prerogatives and object to his usurping its constitutional role. It could insist on playing a major role in deciding what comes next for the United States’ involvement in Venezuela.
But there is little indication so far that the Republican-controlled Congress has any interest in checking Trump. Over the last year, the president has repeatedly cut off federal funding that had been appropriated by Congress, thus violating the federal Impoundment Control Act and the Constitution. In response, Congress has done nothing.
Nor has the Supreme Court been much of a check on Trump. Over the last year, hundreds of lawsuits — 358 to this point — have been brought challenging Trump’s actions in federal district courts. Twenty-five of these cases have led to a ruling by the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration has prevailed in 21 of the 25 cases since his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025.
The many rulings in favor of the Trump administration have included the Supreme Court staying lower court orders that stopped the firing of agency officials; ordered the reinstatement of terminated federal grants; kept the military from excluding transgender individuals; halted deportations to South Sudan of individuals with no contact with that country; prevented U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from stopping people without reasonable suspicion; and kept the State Department from requiring that passports list a person’s birth sex rather than gender identity.
Major ruling against Trump
But on Dec. 23, 2025, the court handed down one of its first major rulings against Trump, holding that he lacked the authority to federalize a state’s National Guard. In a 6-3 decision, the court said that a president can federalize a state’s National Guard only if the U.S. military would be inadequate and only if the military could lawfully be deployed in light of a federal statute, the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from being used for domestic law enforcement.
Under this ruling, it was clearly illegal for Trump to federalize the guard and deploy them in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland.
Although this is an enormously important decision, the question for 2026 is whether it is an aberration or whether it will be part of a Supreme Court enforcing the Constitution and federal laws against Trump. Already on the court’s docket for this term are cases involving challenges to Trump’s tariffs, his decision to fire top level government officials in violation of federal law and his limitations on birthright citizenship.
In every one of these cases, the lower courts found Trump’s actions illegal. Will the Supreme Court agree?
Who will check Trump?
And if Congress and the Supreme Court do not check Trump, who will? The Constitution certainly did not envision a president accountable to no one and constrained by no law. The drafters of the Constitution deeply distrusted executive power and believed in the importance of checks and balances.
As I reflect on all that Trump did in the first year of this term in office, I realize how fortunate this country has been to have made it this long without a demagogue with little regard for the law in the White House. We therefore do not have experience to tell us whether the checks and balances in the Constitution are sufficient to limit such a president.
The new year will provide us important answers as to whether the guardrails of our democracy will hold and provide accountability for a president who believes that he can do anything.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
This story was originally published January 6, 2026 at 5:00 AM with the headline "President Trump believes he can do anything. Who will stop him? | Opinion."