As the current US administration nears the one-year mark, experts are voicing concern over the effects that an increased use of executive actions is having on the country's system of checks and balances.

The expansion of executive power, in addition to a weakened Congress and a more politicized judiciary, poses long-term challenges to US institutional and social stability, they warned.

Since taking office on Jan 20, 2025, the current US administration has issued 228 executive orders within one year, fast surpassing that of the previous administrations, according to the American Presidency Project, an online database of presidential documents.

Many of these orders declare national emergencies or use national security threats to justify sweeping measures on everything from immigration to foreign policy and trade.

On the first day of the current administration, the White House signed an executive order to declare a national emergency at the southern border to tighten immigration controls. On April 2, the White House invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and impose sweeping "reciprocal tariffs" on all US trading partners.

Zhang Guoqing, an associate researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute of American Studies, said, "The US administration has governed in large part by executive actions. This explosion of orders and the routine use of national emergency declarations have significantly expanded executive power."

Diao Daming, a professor of US studies at Renmin University of China, said that the current US administration prioritizes executive orders over Congressional legislation because partisan gridlock in Congress prevents the president from achieving his goals quickly.

"Executive orders also allow the administration to bypass legislative constraints on controversial policies," he added.

'Low-cost tool'

Zhang Tengjun, deputy director of the China Institute of International Studies' Department for American Studies, said the current administration has an ambitious agenda.

"There's a sense of urgency. Executive orders are a convenient, low-cost tool to act quickly, as they can be issued in volume and circumvent legislative hurdles, offering more room to maneuver," Zhang said.

Beyond the sheer volume, experts noted that the content and scope of the executive orders are also more contentious than those of previous administrations.

"While the use of executive orders has been on the rise in the 21st century, the current US administration's orders frequently operate in legal gray areas between legislation and the judiciary,"Zhang Tengjun observed.

"For example, the power to levy taxes is constitutionally granted to Congress, not the president. Yet by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the administration imposed massive tariffs without congressional consultation," he said.

"Another contentious issue is the restructuring of federal agencies, which requires congressional approval, but the administration cut agencies through the Department of Government Efficiency. These actions exploit gray zones where the Constitution isn't explicitly prohibitive, leading to numerous legal challenges."

Diao noted, "The current administration appears undeterred by legal challenges, partly due to confidence in a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. Even when sued, they believe the courts will often rule in their favor."

Deep partisan divide

The US Congress, designed to oversee the executive branch, has done little to check this expansion of power.

For instance, a February 2025 executive order placed designated independent federal agencies under White House oversight. Congress, which created these agencies to be shielded from White House control, held no substantial oversight hearings or votes to push back.

Zhang Tengjun attributed the weakened role of Congress to both its limited influence and deep partisan divide. "The most direct reason is Republican control of both the House and Senate. Rising partisanship means most lawmakers won't challenge a president from their own party, rendering Congress comparatively weak."

"Furthermore, the presidency's power has been growing since the 21st century, as the complexity of domestic and foreign affairs grants the president more discretionary space to expand executive authority. Congress itself, especially amid recent polarization, is extremely inefficient at legislating and can hardly act as a coherent body to check the executive," he added.

The legal system, traditionally seen as a crucial independent pillar of checks and balances in the US, is also showing signs of politicization, experts argued.

A New York Times analysis of 2025 federal appellate court rulings suggests there is a correlation between ideology and voting among judges in the US courts.

Appellate judges appointed by Democratic presidents voted against the current US administration's agenda 73 percent of the time, compared to 32 percent of the time by appellate judges appointed by Republicans.

The analysis found that appellate judges appointed by the current US president during his first term allowed his policies to take effect 133 times and against them only 12 times, a 92 percent support rate.

Judicial system 'eroded'

"The independence of the US judicial system has clearly been significantly eroded," said Diao, pointing to different rulings on lawsuits over the deployment of National Guard troops in multiple states.

"Judges with Democratic leanings are more likely to rule against the administration's policies, while judges with Republican or conservative leanings are more likely to support them. As different judges are ruling on the same Constitution and laws, the differing outcomes clearly indicate the judicial system is being eroded by partisan strife," said Diao.

Experts warn that while the executive branch has been expanding its power for decades, the current administration's aggressive expansion could damage the long-term stability of US society and exacerbate social divisions.

"The precedent set by this administration could be followed by future presidents, Republican or Democrat, placing the separation of powers under sustained strain," Diao said. "An overpowerful executive leads to an instrumentalized judiciary and a legislature reduced to a subsidiary role. This results in a lack of effective oversight, limiting avenues for public expression and exacerbating social divisions."

Zhang Guoqing said, "In the short term, forcibly expanding executive power might allow for efficient policy implementation. However, in the long run, this inflicts great damage on the separation of powers and the rule of law. The harm could be profound, potentially triggering a systemic crisis in the US constitutional order."

yangran1@chinadaily.com.cn