The Fragility of Checks and Balances in Contemporary U.S. Politics
On January 21, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump exercised his constitutional authority to issue blanket pardons for individuals convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, including those who assaulted law enforcement. While legally permissible, this decision—alongside sweeping firings of federal employees, freezing of federal aid, and attempts to revoke birthright citizenship—illustrates the potential dangers of unchecked executive authority. The effectiveness of the U.S. system of checks and balances depends not just on its formal structure but on whether officials honor the rule of law and democratic principles. Leaders should prioritize the public good over partisan interests.
The purpose of checks and balances is to preserve democracy and maintain political stability. When those entrusted with protecting democratic processes fail to act in good faith, the separation of powers becomes less effective. Despite numerous federal lawsuits, President Trump has largely evaded institutional constraints, using executive authority to enact sweeping policy changes with limited opposition from Congress. While Congress has the constitutional power to provide a check, the current partisan dynamics have often resulted in limited action.
Historical patterns demonstrate similar dynamics. In 2016, Senate Republicans delayed confirmation hearings for Democratic Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, leaving the seat vacant for a year, yet swiftly confirmed President Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, in 2017. Over decades, efforts to fill federal courts with ideologically aligned judges—often supported by networks such as the Federalist Society—have influenced judicial outcomes and the balance of power (Hubert, 33). As Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart notes, “It used to be that Congress would be the backstop. But instead, the MAGA Republicans in Congress… are happy to go along with what the President wants” (Bennett & Couzens, 2025). This demonstrates how political and pluralist influences can undermine constitutional ideals and democratic norms.
The judiciary, designed to act as an impartial check on executive and legislative overreach, has shown mixed effectiveness. Lower courts have sometimes ruled against executive actions, but the Supreme Court increasingly reflects partisan influences, particularly following the appointment of three Trump-backed justices. In Trump v. United States(July 1, 2024), the Court upheld presidential immunity, protecting official actions of presidents. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor commented that “the decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle… that no man is above the law” (Hendry & Barajas, 2024).
When executive power expands unchecked, and other branches fail to act as meaningful restraints, democratic norms can erode. This fosters polarization, public distrust in institutions, and sets a precedent for future administrations. The January 6, 2021, Capitol attack exemplifies the consequences of weakened institutional checks. Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to overturn the election results prompted public attacks from the President while a mob, incited by election misinformation, stormed Congress. This episode underscores how the breakdown of institutional checks can escalate political instability.
Ultimately, the U.S. system of checks and balances is only as strong as the officials who uphold it. When personal or partisan interests take precedence, the system weakens, and democracy becomes more vulnerable. Strengthening accountability, respecting democratic norms, and fostering bipartisan commitment to governance are essential to preserving political stability and public trust.
References
Hendry, E., & Barajas, J. (2024). What does the Supreme Court immunity ruling mean for Trump? PBS News.
Hubert, D. (2020). Attenuating Democracy: A Critical Introduction to U.S. Government and Politics. Salt Lake Community College.
Bennett, G., & Couzens, I. (2025). Capehart and Continetti on Trump pushing the limits of executive power. PBS News.
