President Donald Trump has spent the first 100 days of his second White House term signing a flurry of executive orders aimed at delivering on his policy priorities: slashing government spending, cracking down on illegal immigration and eliminating many diversity and equity initiatives enacted under the Biden administration.

The more than 150 executive orders Trump has signed far outpace those of his predecessors. But they have also triggered a torrent of lawsuits seeking to block or pause his actions, teeing up a high-stakes showdown over how far Trump can push his Article II powers before the courts can or should intervene. 

It’s a looming constitutional clash spinning like a top through the federal courts; a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it set of hearings and appeals and emergency orders that deal with weighty issues of due process and First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Trump’s critics argue the fast-paced strategy is meant to confuse and overwhelm his opponents. His supporters counter that it allows him to strike with maximum precision and sidestep a clunky, slow-moving Congress as the president pursues his top priorities.

In his first 100 days, administration lawyers have gone to bat in courtrooms across the country to defend Trump’s early executive orders and halt a wave of lawsuits and emergency restraining orders aimed at blocking them. 

Trump, meanwhile, has steadfastly maintained that he would ‘never defy’ the Supreme Court as recently as in an interview last week. 

‘I’m a big believer in the Supreme Court and have a lot of respect for the justices,’ Trump told Time Magazine.  

Critics say he already has.

‘The second Trump administration has taken the guardrails off of the norms that historically governed the rule of law and is undertaking steps to enhance the perceived power of the executive branch to the detriment of the two other co-equal branches,’ Mark Zaid, an attorney who has gone toe-to-toe with the Trump administration in several court cases this year, told Fox News Digitial.

‘These actions threaten the fundamental notion of our democracy, particularly as the Administration seeks to eliminate due process protections in a quest for power.’

The biggest fights so far have centered around the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to deport certain migrants to El Salvador. Another major case to watch will be challenges to Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. 

Two separate federal judges, in D.C. and Maryland, have suggested they could move to begin possible contempt proceedings against some Trump officials for refusing to comply with their orders.

In one case, a judge issued a scathing rebuke against Trump officials for failing to return a Maryland resident and alleged gang member who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador this year. Separately, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said there was probable cause to find Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for defying his order to return deportation flights to El Salvador on March 15.

The Trump administration has fought back, questioning the authority of lower courts to stop his agenda. The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on a challenge to some of the nationwide injunctions, beginning with a birthright citizenship case in early May.

Meanwhile, White House officials have railed against the ‘activist’ judges who they say have overstepped and are acting with a political agenda to block Trump’s policies. They’ve blasted judges for pausing Trump’s transgender military ban, reinstating USAID programs and blocking Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing federal offices.

Some congressional allies have threatened impeachment against judges who defy Trump, but so far Congress has not advanced any impeachment articles.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined this week to rule out the arrest of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.

Asked at a press briefing about the hypothetical on Monday, Leavitt referred the matter to the Justice Department but said a judge in New Mexico was arrested in ‘a clear-cut case of obstruction.’

‘And so anyone who is breaking the law or obstructing federal law enforcement officials from doing their jobs is putting themselves at risk of being prosecuted, absolutely,’ she said.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, told Fox News Digital that he sees Trump’s early actions as getting ahead of the 2026 primaries and moving with maximum force to implement his agenda.

Trump ‘knows that he has no alternative but to push ahead on all fronts if he is going to make meaningful progress on his promised reforms,’ Turley told Fox News. 

‘The midterm elections are looming in 2026. If the Democrats retake the House, he knows that he can expect investigations, impeachments and obstruction. That means that he has to expedite these cases and establish his lines of authority in areas ranging from migration to the markets.’

The House on Monday overwhelmingly passed a bill backed by first lady Melania Trump that cracks down on the posting of explicit images, including ‘deep fake’ nudes generated of people by artificial intelligence, without consent. 

The Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks – known as the TAKE IT DOWN Act – was approved by a 409-2 vote and now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

The measure ‘generally prohibits the nonconsensual online publication of intimate visual depictions of individuals, both authentic and computer-generated, and requires certain online platforms to promptly remove such depictions upon receiving notice of their existence,’ according to the bill summary. 

It specifically prohibits online publication of ‘intimate visual depictions’ of an adult subject ‘where publication is intended to cause or does cause harm to the subject, and where the depiction was published without the subject’s consent or, in the case of an authentic depiction, was created or obtained under circumstances where the adult had a reasonable expectation of privacy,’ as well as ‘a minor subject where publication is intended to abuse or harass the minor or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.’ 

‘Violators are subject to mandatory restitution and criminal penalties, including prison, a fine, or both,’ according to the bill summary. ‘Threats to publish intimate visual depictions of a subject are similarly prohibited under the bill and subject to criminal penalties.’ 

The legislation also requires platforms to establish a process where victims of revenge porn can notify them of the existence of images and request removal. The bill says platforms then have 48 hours to remove those images.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced the TAKE IT DOWN Act in January, and it was approved by the upper chamber in February. It was brought to the House by Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla.

Two Republicans – Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Eric Burlison of Missouri – were the only House members to vote against the legislation on Monday.  

Massie acknowledged that the TAKE IT DOWN Act ‘would impose federal criminal and civil penalties for publishing unauthorized intimate pictures generated with AI.’

‘I’m voting NO because I feel this is a slippery slope, ripe for abuse, with unintended consequences,’ Massie wrote on X. 

House Republicans on Monday praised the first lady, Cruz and Salazar for leading the ‘crucial legislation’ to ‘create a safer digital future and protect our kids from deepfake exploitation.’ 

‘The passage of the TAKE IT DOWN Act is a historic win in the fight to protect victims of revenge porn and deepfake abuse,’ Cruz wrote on X. ‘This victory belongs first and foremost to the heroic survivors who shared their stories and the advocates who never gave up. By requiring social media companies to take down this abusive content quickly, we are sparing victims from repeated trauma and holding predators accountable.’

‘This day would not have been possible without the courage and perseverance of Elliston Berry, Francesca Mani, Breeze Liu, and Brandon Guffey, whose powerful voices drove this legislation forward,’ the senator wrote, adding that he was especially grateful to colleagues, including Melania Trump and Salazar, as well as Democrats Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, ‘for locking arms in this critical mission to protect Americans from online exploitation.’

‘Advancing this legislation has been a key focus since I returned to my role as First Lady this past January,’ Melania Trump wrote on X. ‘I am honored to have contributed to guiding it through Congress. By safeguarding children from hurtful online behavior today, we take a vital step in nurturing our leaders of tomorrow. #BeBest’ 

During President Trump’s first term, the first lady established the BE BEST awareness campaign, which ‘focused on the well-being of children and highlighted the people and programs dedicated to ensuring a better future for the next generation,’ according to the White House. Melania Trump also established Fostering the Future, a BE BEST initiative, ‘which provides college-level scholarships to those aging out of the foster care system.’