One of these agencies is not going to comply. And then what? Trump is already pushing the legal “theory” that the judiciary cannot check the executive. This is bound to end up in front of the Supreme Court, and who knows what those guys will do?
We already have a few cases like that where judges are ruling that the executive is not complying with court orders. So good question, what enforcement mechanism does the judicial have if the executive simply does not comply?
In theory, Congress should impeach. And if congress failed, the final option would be "We the People" with the second amendment.
That said, in reality, I don't expect there will be any real pushback. It'll be people attempting to work in the constrains of a new system and life will largely still be mostly normal for folks.
It’s one of the latest examples. In this case it’s amplified by Vance, but he’s been saying that for quite a while now, with his ideas of presidential immunity. And it’s all there in Project 2025.
> Vance said that if Trump became president again, "I think what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'"[14][49]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
And he didn't quite say that the judiciary can't check the executive. He said that the judiciary can't check the "legitimate power" of the executive. (Of course, that completely misses that the judiciary checks the executive precisely by ruling that something is outside the legitimate power of the executive...)
That's where the battle line is currently drawn. Does the president get to decide that, or does the judge? Is it a fig leaf, or is it a real constraint?
There fundamentally is going to be conflict in any system of checks and balances. Neither the SCOTUS nor POTUS get to unilaterally decide the limits.
Trump hasn't been following convention, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. We also can't just assume he's right. Having the 3 branches hash out a balance is perfectly reasonable and confirms the system is working as intended.
In 2021, Vance said Trump in his second term should fire “every civil servant in the administrative state” and, “when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’” (This refers to an apparently apocryphal quote from the country’s seventh president, who declined to enforce a Supreme Court ruling.)
In 2022, Vance suggested a president could disregard an “illegitimate ruling” in which the Supreme Court would say a president can’t fire a military general.
JD Vance is also on TV all the time basically ignoring the most basic constitutional provisions, and Trump's pimp-daddy Musk is also ignoring the courts. This is a trend.
