A new analysis by legal expert Jeffrey Toobin reveals that Congress may face significant challenges in curbing President Donald Trump’s power during his current term. With the Republican-controlled Supreme Court supporting Trump’s authority, the hope among many Democrats that they could regain control and rein in the president might be overly optimistic.

Toobin points out that during Trump’s first term, when Democrats had control of the House, attempts to oversee his administration were largely thwarted. He recalled how Trump stonewalled countless oversight attempts, leveraging legal delays and defiant noncompliance with subpoenas.

“In the last two years of Mr. Trump’s first term, he was able to stonewall most attempts at meaningful oversight,” Toobin noted in a recent article for The New York Times. “He refused to comply with subpoenas and fought enforcement in the courts.”

To back his claims, Toobin referenced specific examples, such as the House Oversight Committee’s protracted legal battle over access to census information, which took over two years to resolve, ending only with President Joe Biden providing the data.

Similarly, a lawsuit concerning Trump’s tax returns dragged on for years before it was settled by the Biden administration. The high-profile cases highlight the difficulties Democrats face in holding Trump accountable.

Building on this theme, Toobin emphasized that the Supreme Court has fundamentally reshaped the legal landscape to favor presidential power, most notably in its 2024 ruling in the case of Trump v. United States. That decision granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

“The law is now more skewed toward the executive branch,” said Toobin. “Former presidents enjoy absolute criminal immunity for actions connected to their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts.”

The implications of this ruling are profound. It effectively shields Trump and potentially future presidents from investigation or prosecution for their official conduct in office, severely limiting Congress’s ability to enforce its oversight responsibilities.

Furthermore, Toobin noted that even though Congress has the constitutional authority to defund military actions, they face significant limitations. Restrictions they attempt to impose could easily be overridden by presidential veto.

“Given the vast size of the Pentagon budget, the administration can likely use existing funds to continue military operations, even with new congressional restrictions attached,” he explained.

As the political landscape evolves, Toobin argued that the most effective strategy for Democrats might be to focus on maintaining control of the Supreme Court. He advised that they should resist any efforts by Trump to appoint additional justices during the remainder of his presidency.

Recalling political maneuvers from the past, Toobin referred to the 2016 appointment of Merrick Garland, which was blocked by Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. “Democrats can—and must—return the favor,” he asserted.

This strategic counsel comes as the Supreme Court seems set to entrench further political power within the presidency. Toobin expressed alarm over recent developments, including the Court’s tentative approval of Trump’s plan to investigate voter eligibility using expanded databases.

The initiative targets voter registries and could result in stricter controls over who is permitted to vote in future elections, further centralizing power within Trump’s administration.

As these legal battles and developments unfold, the implications for the upcoming elections and the balance of power in Washington remain unclear.

Democrats, facing what Toobin describes as an uphill battle, might need to rethink their strategy as they navigate the complex intersection of legal and political realms.

With Trump’s continued grip on power and the backing of a favorable Supreme Court, the ability of Congress to enact meaningful oversight appears increasingly diminished.

The ultimate question remains: how can a divided Congress effectively check a president with such unassailable legal protections, particularly one as emboldened as Trump?

As the landscape shifts in Washington, observers will be watching closely to see how Democrats adapt to these challenges and what implications this will have for the future of American democracy.