Jeffrey Bernstein, political science professor at Eastern Michigan University, is set to co-teach a new course next semester titled "Politics in the Time of Trump" with fellow professor Joshua Koss. In an interview with The Eastern Echo, Bernstein explained the power and limitations of a United States president, the Supreme Court case that challenged the Trump administration’s power to issue tariffs and the local impact on the Ypsilanti community.
In early November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the Learning Resources Inc. vs Trump case, which challenges the Trump administration's authority to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on other countries.
Q: Can you explain the three branches of government and how they provide checks and balances on each other?
A: The Framers of the Constitution feared that if you let any one part of the government have too much power, then if that branch became dominated by what they called a "faction," or a group that was perhaps acting contrary to the public good, it would be dangerous to let one part of government take too much power. So, they set up a system where the different branches of government would each have separate responsibilities. In simple terms, the legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch enforces it, and the judicial branch interprets it. But then each part of the government would have the ability to check the others, to basically stop the others if they thought they were going off the rails and doing something wrong. For example, Congress can pass a law, but the president would have the power to veto that law.
Q: What are the constitutional limits of a president?
A: The Framers actually envisioned a much less powerful president than we have today. The Framers envisioned that more of the powers would go to the legislative branch, and that the president would have less power than he does now. Legislatively, the president is largely limited, at least in theory, to saying yes or no to the ideas that Congress has. Presidents are given more powers in foreign affairs. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military, but generally, presidential power is limited by what Congress would approve and what the court would deem constitutional.
Q: Are we currently witnessing a presidential overreach of power?
A: I believe we are. I believe that in various ways, this current administration is taking the power of the presidency and pushing it beyond where reasonable limits might go. For instance, when Congress is appropriating money for various functions, I think it's inappropriate for a president to say, "I’m gonna refuse to spend that money." I think it's problematic when presidents are governing heavily by executive order. And while all presidents have governed by executive order recently, I think we’re seeing it on a new scale with this president.
Q: What are some past examples of presidential overreach, and what did the response look like then?
A: A classic example of this is when the steel workers went on strike while [Harry] Truman was president. Truman got this idea that he would draft them into the military as punishment for striking. The courts, fairly quickly, ruled and said, "No, no, no, presidents can’t do that," then Truman stopped. Another historical example is when Franklin Roosevelt got angry with the Supreme Court that was blocking a lot of his economic initiatives and came up with the idea that he would pack the court. With every justice older than 80 years old, he would be able to put a new justice on the court. The old one would stay, but he would just add a new one to the court; he would basically pack the court to get him the votes he needed. Public opinion largely shut that one down. And these were examples where in one case institutionally, and in another case public opinion-wise, presidents were limited and restricted.
Q: Those were problems that ended fairly quickly?
A: Fairly quickly and fairly decisively. Truman did not continue doing what he was doing; Roosevelt did not continue what he was doing.
Q: Is that different from what we’re seeing right now?
A: I think it is a little bit different than right now. I think there are just so many issues that are out there. There are just so many cases where we’re seeing attempts to really stretch the office of the presidency. And it's hard to stop. It's hard to limit it; it's like fighting a fight with the opposition on multiple fronts. And one other challenge that is going on right now is you have a situation where the president's party controls both houses of the legislature. Republican majorities are in the House and the Senate. We’re not supposed to talk about the court as being partisan; justices don’t have party labels after their name. But you currently have six justices on the court who were appointed by Republican presidents and are generally sympathetic to the president’s agenda, and three justices on the court who were appointed by Democratic presidents that are not. I think this is testing the checks and balances idea because the same group, broadly speaking, is in charge across the board.
Q: Some people have described the Trump administration as a fascist takeover of government. Is that what we're witnessing?
A: I think the problem with the word fascism is that it becomes its own Rorschach test, and everybody has their own idea of what fascism means. I think it's an awfully tough concept to have a discussion about, because we are not all talking about the same basic word.
Q: Would you suggest a word or concept other than fascism?
A: It is a very unified control of government by a Republican party right now. I think one of the challenges you have is that there is a certain appeal to a team system of government. In so many governments around the world, one team gets into power, and they take all the power; they govern until the next team comes into power, and it kind of goes back and forth. What's interesting, and more than a little concerning, right now is, within the Republican team, I’m not sure there's a whole lot of questions or challenges to some of the things that are going on. By any reasonable standard of judgement, Robert Kennedy Jr. should not be secretary of Health and Human Services. By any reasonable standard, Pete Hegseth should not be defense secretary. In the case of Hegseth, I think there's just so little relevant experience there. We’ve never had a defense secretary that was so underqualified for the job. In the case of Kennedy, some of his views are just bizarre. I think that there might have been room at other times in American politics to challenge these nominations from within the party. Even in one recent case, Trump's appointment of Matt Gaetz to be attorney general, even some Republicans challenged that one and said, "This is not a wise move." But there's not a lot of challenge going on within the party right now, and I think that's an interesting moment to be in.
Q: Do you think there’s significance to Trump’s own party recently challenging some of the things that he’s doing?
A: I think there’s always significance when it happens. But I think when you look at Barack Obama or Joe Biden, who experienced so much challenge within their party, I think they would look now at headlines that say "Republicans are challenging Trump," and say, "Wait a minute, this is not anything compared to what the Democrats did to me in challenging me." [The Nov. 4, 2025, election] results suggest that public opinion may be shifting a little bit; polling aggregation sites are suggesting that Trump's approval ratings are at a low point right now. Does that lead to more Republicans challenging Trump or breaking with Trump? It certainly could, but Trump maintains a great deal of power and a great deal of control within the party, and anyone challenging Trump puts themself at a certain amount of risk politically. We’re not at the point where breaking from Trump is the politically wise move for most Republicans. We’re just not there right now.
Q: How do executive decisions happening in Washington impact members of the local community, specifically Ypsilanti?
A: In the government shutdown, SNAP benefits were very much on the table and remain very much on the table. Payments were in the process of not being made, so people were losing their benefits. It seems right now, based on all evidence, that the shutdown will end fairly soon and things will revert to where they were, but in the short term, there’s certainly some pain. Air travel has been affected recently, which obviously only affects a portion of the population but does significantly affect that part of the population. Also, things like access to vaccines — what comes out of policy in Washington filters down to the state level. Even the One Big Beautiful Bill, which is reducing healthcare payments to the states — states have to figure out a way to make up that money. States can't run budget deficits like the federal government does. So when the state says, "We either have to let people lose their health coverage and lose health benefits or make that up in other ways," then that's where it can have a local effect.
Q: How can the community respond to decisions happening on the executive level?
A: I think that folks on all sides of issues can respond. Elected officials need to know from all political participants that if they act in a certain way, constituencies may be more or less happy with that. I do think that when people take to the streets to make political protests, it gets seen, and elected officials react to that. There are ways and room for folks to express their views. One of the challenges you have nowadays is that as gerrymandering has gotten as out of control as it has recently, the number of representatives who need the votes of people who disagree with them is going down. When you are seeing now more Democrats holding safe Democratic seats, more Republicans holding more safe Republican seats, I think that's going to be a challenge because elected officials can depend nowadays on smaller segments of the electorate to get elected.
Q: Can you explain in simple terms what happened during the Supreme Court’s hearing on Nov. 5, 2025?
A: This is another example of an attempt to expand political power. It is a question of how much unilateral power a president has to say, "Okay, I’m declaring a tariff on this country," or "I’m declaring a tariff on that country." There is an argument that the president has to be able to make those decisions; there is also an argument that we have a congress for a reason, and presidents cannot just declare tariffs at their whim. The courts have generally been more deferential to President Trump around expanding executive power. Based on the oral arguments in this case — and note that this is an imperfect judge of where the court will rule — there did seem to be some sense that maybe the court will be saying, "OK, maybe presidents don't have unilateral power around tariffs," and that would be a bit of a departure from where we’ve been recently.
Q: What are some potential outcomes of the case?
A: If the court basically says the president can put in whatever tariffs he wants, I imagine this president will. This president has tended to use tariffs, as many presidents do, in a negotiation standpoint with other countries. Threatening with higher tariffs, rewarding with lower tariffs; that's not uncommon. I think it's been done to a larger extent with this administration, and that would continue. I am concerned about what the economic effects of tariffs could be if the court rules in President Trump’s favor. We would move in that direction, and I guess you and I would both watch and see what the economic impacts would be. If the court restricts it, then it moves the tariffs into the legislative realm. And I just do not believe there is majority support in Congress for at least some of the tariff policies the president is pursuing.
Q: How might the possible outcomes impact people in Ypsilanti?
A: I think it will have an impact on what goods are available; if certain goods are taxed at a higher level, we may see less availability of goods. I think that could have an impact on prices. President Trump ran very much in opposition to the inflation that took place in the Biden administration. And prices have not come down and the inflation remains higher than many of us would like it to be and it’s very possible that could continue if the tariffs continue.
Editor's note: This Q&A was conducted on Nov. 10, 2025. Since then, the federal government has reopened.
