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Trump signed 143 executive orders—more than any president since at least 1950 over a comparable period—and revoked or rescinded hundreds of regulations issued by his predecessors, from Joe Biden’s COVID-era mandates to Lyndon B. Johnson’s landmark anti-discrimination rules for federal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?