LOS ANGELES, California, September 18, 2026 — This year, President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal agencies have slammed into a wall of litigation. A legal tracker gives count of over 200 lawsuits opposing his executive actions since the start of the term. The battles extend deep into institutions that previously appeared relatively immune from direct presidential control.
Fight Over the Fed
The biggest attention-seeker is the struggle over Trump’s effort to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington issued a preliminary injunction to stop the move. The administration’s emergency request to lift that ruling was then rejected by an appeals court, which meant Cook’s seat was preserved through the most recent policy meeting of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
The case is a test of the amount of power a president has over those who run government agencies set up to be independent. Cook has denied any wrongdoing related to the mortgage fraud allegations mentioned in her attempted ouster. Her lawyers contend that the firing violated statutory protections so as to protect the Fed from political pressure in fact written into law.
States and Cities Rebel Against Funding Restrictions
In separate lawsuits, the cities and counties have sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over what they claim are new, illegal conditions for letting jurisdictions apply for those grants. Those requirements are linking federal aid to local cooperation with immigration enforcement and restrictions on diversity programs. The terms allegedly violate the Spending Clause of the Constitution by coercing local governments, according to plaintiffs.
Another group of states sued the U.S. Department of Justice over grants for services for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. At issue in both cases is the degree of latitude federal agencies have in imposing political conditions on funding. On similar grounds, courts have already struck down FEMA and DHS conditions on state emergency-preparedness grants.
An Increasing Number of Legal Disputes
They include researchers who maintain a catalog of all constitutional litigation across the country, and they say they count challenges rising past 230 since January. These disputes include immigration enforcement, cuts to the federal workforce and attempts to shape election administration. Very few actions in Trump’s first term stimulated this level of rapid, organized legal opposition.
Administration officials say that courts are overstepping by questioning decisions that fall under the constitutional purview of the president. But critics retort that the pattern is indicative of a push to ensconce executive power at multiple institutions at once. Both sides are now awaiting rulings that could alter the balance of power between the White House and independent agencies, monitored closely by federal judicial oversight at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Coming Up Next in These Cases
Cook, meanwhile, is likely to edge toward a fuller merits hearing in the next few months. The final ruling could establish a permanent precedent for how much insulation government officials have from removal by the president. The result could affect similar fights at other independent agencies, legal experts say.
In the meantime, grant-funding lawsuits are wending their way through federal courts across multiple jurisdictions. Some rulings have already been decided in favour of plaintiffs and others are still being reviewed by district and appellate judges. Even with litigation numbers still rising, legal watchers say these clashes between institutions will be a major theme of Trump’s second presidency.
According to law professors who study executive power, the unprecedented scope of these challenges makes this moment very different for Biden than previous presidencies. Even if many disputes now converge at the same time, touching on immigration, election oversight, federal employment and public monetary policy all at once. And so that range makes it much difficult for an individual court ruling to resolve the larger issue of presidential power.
Intermittent, muted concern from Republicans about a range of executive actions becomes more serious when they think that courts are going to strike down the administration over and again. Some contend that the backlash is simply a reflection of a judiciary responding negatively to any exercise of aggressive presidential power. That split in the party has occasionally broken out at closed-door policy discussions on Capitol Hill.
As a practical matter, its effect right now is one of a federal government running through an array of injunctions, appeals and incomplete decisions. Court decisions in the litigation have forced agencies to change policies mid-stream. That uncertainty is likely to remain until higher courts get involved and address the fundamental constitutional issues at stake — perhaps even the Supreme Court itself.
