随着法院阻止他的部分议程，唐纳德·特朗普总统和他的盟友正在加大对法官的批评，并继续质疑对行政部门的司法监督。
虽然他说他会遵守他们的裁决——但也会上诉——但他周三继续努力削弱法院的权威，在一篇社交媒体帖子中声称，一名“高度政治化、激进的法官”想要停止埃隆·马斯克政府效率部的工作。
马斯克积极而有争议的成本削减努力面临着几起诉讼，其中一起导致他的团队被暂时限制访问财政部庞大的联邦支付系统，该系统包含数百万美国人的敏感信息。
法庭行动迅速招致马斯克和特朗普团队的指责。副总统JD Vance甚至建议法官“不允许控制行政部门的合法权力。”
“也许我们必须看看法官，因为我认为这是一个非常严重的违规行为，”特朗普周二下午在椭圆形办公室说和麝香一起他为自己团队的工作辩护。
马斯克周三抨击了另一名阻止特朗普政府从多个政府网站上删除公共健康数据的法官。马斯克称该法官“邪恶”，并称他“必须被解雇”。
白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特在周三的新闻发布会上继续抨击法院，声称“每一项禁令都是对法治的滥用，是企图阻挠人民的意愿。”
“我们将在法庭上遵守法律，但我们也将继续寻求一切法律补救措施，以最终推翻这些激进的禁令，并确保特朗普总统的政策能够得到实施，”她说。
新政府和法院之间不断升级的冲突让一些法律专家敲响了警钟，并引发了对潜在宪法危机的担忧。
“我们的有限政府制衡和权力分立的宪法制度的整个前提是尊重和遵守法律规定的司法裁决。这可以追溯到共和国成立之初，”哈姆莱恩大学的宪法教授大卫·舒尔茨说。
奥尔巴尼法学院(Albany Law School)教授雷·布雷西亚(Ray Brescia)称特朗普盟友推动的行政部门应该不受司法检查的理论“荒谬至极”。
“它们是测试栅栏的迅猛龙。他们在找漏洞。他们在寻找弱点。他们正在检查他们可以在哪里突破极限，”布雷西亚谈到特朗普政府时说。“我认为就目前而言，该系统基本上保持不变，但随着这些案件进入上诉法院，我们会看到，最终，其中许多案件很可能会进入最高法院。”
莱维特猛烈抨击民主党人和其他批评人士，称这场对抗是一场酝酿中的宪法危机。
她说，“真正的宪法危机正在我们的司法部门发生，全国各地自由地区的地区法院法官正在滥用权力，单方面阻止特朗普总统的基本行政权力。”
特朗普和马斯克改革联邦政府的许多尝试都遭遇了诉讼，包括解散美国国际开发署和消费者金融保护局以及收购要约扩展到成千上万的联邦雇员。
关键问题是，随着法院挑战进展，特朗普和他的官员将如何应对。
在他的第一个任期内，特朗普修改了他的政策，以遵守司法裁决。一个例子是特朗普所谓的“穆斯林禁令”，限制来自几个穆斯林人口占多数的国家的旅行，该禁令在最高法院通过之前被改写了几次。
宾夕法尼亚大学凯里法学院(University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School)教授克莱尔·芬克尔斯坦(Claire Finkelstein)说:“我们认为行政部门如此令人震惊，并扭曲了行政权力等方面的规则，但事实证明，与这一次相比，这一次没有什么，行政部门正在认真讨论和考虑是否有义务遵循法院的规定。”。
美国广播公司新闻高级政治记者雷切尔·斯科特(Rachel Scott)周二直接问特朗普:“如果法官确实阻止了你的一项政策，你议程的一部分，你会遵守这项裁决吗?你会遵守吗?”
“嗯，我总是遵守法庭，然后我不得不上诉。但他所做的是减缓了这一势头，”总统回应道。
然而，如果这种情况要改变的话，那将是现代政治时代的未知领域，没有明显的求助手段。
专家说，如果政府拒绝服从，法官可以反击，但他们的权力有限。他们可以藐视政府，或者处以罚款，或者在极端情况下，指示美国法警服务将个人拘留。
不过，也有一些复杂的情况。美国法警服务属于司法部，司法部不太可能追查特朗普官员。
舒尔茨说:“总统拒绝遵守法院命令破坏了我们国家应该尊重的宪法秩序和有限政府的概念，如果特朗普拒绝遵守，那么我们就有一个宪法问题。”
Trump and allies ramp up attacks on judges, courts as agenda hits legal roadblocks
As courts block parts of his agenda, President Donald Trump and his allies are ramping up criticism of judges and continuing to question judicial oversight of the executive branch.
While he's said he would abide by their rulings -- but also appeal them -- he kept up the effort to undermine the authority of the courts on Wednesday, alleging in a social media post that a "highly political, activist judge" wanted to stop the work of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.
Musk's aggressive and controversial cost-cutting effort has faced several lawsuits, one resulting in his team being temporarily restricted from accessing the Treasury Department's vast federal payment system containing sensitive information of millions of Americans.
The court action prompted swift rebuke from Musk and Trump's team. Vice President JD Vance went so far as to suggest judges "aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
"Maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that's a very serious violation," Trump said in the Oval Office on Tuesday afternoonalongside Musk, who defended his team's work.
Musk on Wednesday lashed out at another judge who blocked the Trump administration from removing public health data from multiple government websites. Musk called the judge "evil" and said he "must be fired."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt continued to blast the courts at Wednesday's press briefing, claiming "each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people."
"We will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump's policies can be enacted," she said.
The escalating clash between the new administration and the courts has some legal experts sounding the alarm, and is prompting fears of a potential constitutional crisis.
"The entire premise of our constitutional system of limited government of checks and balances and separation of powers involves deference to judicial determinations of what the law says and complying with it. This goes back to the beginning of the republic," said David Schultz, a constitutional law professor at Hamline University.
Ray Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School, called the theory being pushed by Trump allies that the executive branch should operate free of judicial checks "preposterous."
"They are velociraptors testing the fence. They're looking for holes. They're looking for weaknesses. They're checking to see where they can push the envelope," Brescia said of the Trump administration. "I think for now, the system has largely held but we'll see as these cases get to the appellate courts, and ultimately, many of them are likely to go to the Supreme Court."
Leavitt lashed out at Democrats and other critics calling the confrontation a brewing constitutional crisis.
She said "the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority."
Much of Trump and Musk's attempt to overhaul the federal government is being met with lawsuits, including the dismantling of USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as thebuyout offerextended to tens of thousands of federal employees.
The key question is how Trump and his officials will respond as the court challenges progress.
In his first term, Trump amended his policies to comply with judicial rulings. One example was what Trump referred to as his "Muslim ban" restricting travel from several countries that have a majority Muslim population, which was rewritten several times before it passed muster with the Supreme Court.
"We thought that administration was so shocking and bending the rules on executive authority and so on, but it turns out to have been nothing compared to this one where it is seriously being discussed and contemplated whether or not the executive branch has a duty to follow the courts," said Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.
ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump directly on Tuesday: "If a judge does block one of your policies, part of your agenda, will you abide by that ruling? Will you comply?"
"Well, I always abide by the courts and then I'll have to appeal it. But then what he's done is he slowed down the momentum," the president responded.
If that were to ever change, however, it would be uncharted territory in the modern political era with no obvious recourse.
Judges can push back if the administration refuses to comply but their power is limited, experts said. They could hold the administration in contempt, and either impose fines or in extreme cases direct the U.S. Marshals Service to take individuals into custody.
There are complications, though. The U.S. Marshals Service falls under the Justice Department, which is unlikely to go after Trump officials.
"Presidential refusal to comply with court orders undermines the very concept of constitutional order and limited government our country is supposed to respect and if Trump were to refuse to comply, then we have a constitutional problem," said Schultz.
