Behind the Curtain: Trump claims the power to do almost anything

• This dynamic frees Trump to use federal troops in U.S. cities over the objection of a state's governor, or kill people overseas without war authorization or scrutiny, or prosecute his critics in U.S. courts, or seize congressional powers over tariffs and spending.

It's important to reckon with the logic behind this, which will ultimately be validated or invalidated by the Supreme Court. Future presidents will be able to claim the same power Trump does.

• Eye on what matters most: Under this theory, there's little to stop or slow ever-expanding presidential power. This pushes power away from ordinary voters, through their congressional representatives, and into the hands of one person. This theory of virtually unlimited presidential power isn't new. But it's never been stretched this far, this fast.

Behind the scenes: Some Trump appointees want more federal control of locally administered elections. Axios' Marc Caputo recently asked a senior administration official if there'd been any discussion in the White House about seizing voting machines, sending troops to polling stations, or trying to take over state election systems.

• "Absolutely not," the official replied. "But there are people around here who would probably like that."

There's basically a three-step process now established for presidents to do as they please:

1. Unilaterally declare an emergency. Trump does this a lot, most notably by arguing that fentanyl trafficking is a clear and present national emergency worthy of using the military to kill people without war authorization in the Caribbean. The power to kill, without meaningful oversight or explanation, is about as absolute as you can get. He has also usurped congressional power to levy tariffs. Trump is hardly the first president to stretch the bounds of emergency authority: President George W. Bush's administration relied on post-9/11 powers to wiretap Americans without a warrant. President Obama invoked 9/11-era powers to set new precedents for drone strikes. President Biden tried to rely on emergency powers to forgive student debt, but the Supreme Court stopped him.
2. Claim full power to determine the legality of their own actions. This is a new and dramatic twist. Trump says this often, though he insists he would comply with any court rulings challenging his power. So far, he has. But Trump doesn't hide his belief in limitless power. He has "told executive branch lawyers that they may not question any legal judgment that he — or Attorney General Pam Bondi, subject to his 'supervision and control' — already decided," the N.Y. Times' Charlie Savage reports. Trump declared in an executive order in February: "The President and the Attorney General's opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties." Simply put, he alone judges legality.
3. Assert full, unilateral power to unleash the military, overseas and domestically, to enforce his will. Trump is pushing this piece by piece at home, in cities he deems overrun by crime, and abroad in the Caribbean, where the U.S. military has killed dozens of alleged drug smugglers without any proof of imminent threat. Domestically, Trump hasn't taken the step of using troops for law enforcement or direct crowd control. But taken in total, the precedent is clear: The commander-in-chief has sole discretion on what constitutes threats and appropriate military responses, at home and abroad.

There are only two big possible brakes:

• The only way for Congress to truly intervene would be to impeach and remove the president. But the latter requires a supermajority vote — nearly impossible in a 50-50 country. It's a long process and only practical when the opposing party holds large majorities, especially in the Senate, where it takes two-thirds to convict.

• The Supreme Court, in theory, holds more immediate power: It can rule presidential actions illegal and hope the president abides by the ruling. But the court really has no way to actually force the president to comply because the president alone controls the military — an uncomfortable, if never wholly tested, design quirk of our Constitution. The 6-3 court has signed off on almost all of Trump's most sweeping claims of executive power: The justices have allowed him to fire just about every government worker he has tried to fire, deport people to countries they've never set foot in, and unilaterally slash billions in federal spending. They even ruled that presidents can commit certain crimes without fear of prosecution.

Reality check: Rick Hasen — a UCLA law professor who's an authority on election law, and is writing a book on the arc of American democracy, out ahead of the 2028 election — has warned Trump "has been sending clear signals of his intent to interfere with the fairness and integrity" of next year's midterms. But Hasen told us courts could limit Trump's meddling, as could state and county control of election machinery.

• "I am worried about troops in American cities during the time of the election," Hasen told us. "But I think that would cause a great amount of pushback. The American people would be a check (and the National Guard troops themselves) if he tried to keep people from voting or tried to seize voting machines or tried to declare some emergency to stop voting."

The bottom line: Trump, building on 25+ years of ever-expanding presidential power, has set the precedent for once-unthinkable scenarios.

• This applies not just to him but to all presidents going forward. That's why precedents matter.

Axios' Marc Caputo and Sam Baker contributed reporting.

• Go deeper ... Behind the Curtain: It won't stop with Trump.