Top News Stories

Presidential job-approval polling has become an integral barometer of executive performance, shaping political narratives and influencing policymaking in the United States. The Reuters “Tracking Presidential Job Approval” graphic documents fluctuations in presidential approval over time, providing real-time insight into public sentiment (Reuters, 2025). At its core, polling reflects constitutional and democratic mechanisms: surveys measure popular will under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression and the Election Clauses establishing representative government. Yet, the proliferation of instant polling also raises legal and societal tensions—does the constant churn of approval ratings bolster accountability or distort policymaking? This article argues that while job-approval polls serve democratic transparency, they simultaneously introduce constitutional questions about governmental legitimacy, separation of powers, and the permissible scope of public opinion in steering executive action.

Presidential Power: In the first hundred days of Donald J. Trump’s second term, the White House unleashed a torrent of presidential directives that reshaped the federal bureaucracy and challenged long-standing legal constraints on executive action. Between January 20 and April 30, 2025, President Trump signed 143 executive orders—more than any president since at least 1950 over a comparable period—and revoked or rescinded hundreds of regulations issued by his predecessors, from Joe Biden’s COVID-era mandates to Lyndon B. Johnson’s landmark anti-discrimination rules for federal contractors. These sweeping directives not only reversed policies across immigration, environmental regulation, and civil-rights enforcement but also tested the constitutional boundaries of unilateral executive power.

The May 2020 motion by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss all charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn marked a watershed moment in the ongoing debate over executive authority, separation of powers, and the proper role of the Department of Justice in politically charged prosecutions. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in January 2017, saw his case abruptly upended when Attorney General William Barr, acting on a recommendation from U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, filed a motion to dismiss “with prejudice” the criminal information against Flynn.

Globalizing the Intifada: On May 22, 2025, the unthinkable occurred on the streets of Washington, D.C.: a pro-Palestinian activist opened fire outside the Capital Jewish Museum, murdering two Israeli-American embassy staffers—Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim—while chanting “Free, free Palestine.” This act of political violence, framed by some as part of a global Intifada, immediately raised urgent questions about the intersection of free-speech protections, domestic counter-terrorism, and constitutional order. What does it mean, under U.S. law, when private citizens invoke international political slogans that have historically called for armed uprising? Which doctrines govern the limits of protest and when do such protests become criminal conspiracy or terrorism?

The May 27, 2025 announcement by former four-term Las Cruces mayor Ken Miyagishima that he will run for the Democratic nomination for governor of New Mexico underscores mounting public frustration over crime, homelessness, and educational shortfalls while raising profound legal and constitutional questions about state authority, border enforcement, and executive power. Miyagishima, known colloquially as “Mayor Ken,” has built his résumé on pragmatic governance—expanding vocational training for nonviolent offenders, backing state-supported housing loans, and advocating “orderly border enforcement” alongside economic collaboration with Mexico. Yet his flirtation with invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a statute dormant for two centuries—illuminates deeper tensions between state-level crime-fighting prerogatives and the federal government’s exclusive control over immigration and national security.

The Limits of Executive Power: On 28 May 2025, Elon Musk announced his departure as a special advisor on government efficiency from the Trump White House, a role colloquially dubbed “Doge,” after publicly criticizing the administration’s flagship tax-and-spending legislation, officially known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” This U-turn—following a year in which Musk invested over $200 million in Trump’s 2024 campaign and wielded influence across social media—raises profound questions about the boundaries of advisory roles within the executive branch, the interplay between private sector loyalties and public service, and the robustness of legal checks on emergency executive authority.