Washington —
President Donald Trump has long exercised near-total control over the Republican Party, enforcing discipline through political pressure and a zero-tolerance approach to dissent. But this week, that grip appeared to loosen — not in the halls of Congress alone, but in federal courtrooms across the country.

In a series of rulings issued over just 48 hours, multiple federal judges sharply rebuked the Trump administration, accusing it of abusing executive power, engaging in political retaliation, and violating constitutional protections. The decisions collectively represent some of the most direct judicial criticism Trump has faced during his second term.

Clean Energy Funding Ruling Sparks Alarm

The most consequential ruling came from U.S. District Judge Ahmed Mehta in Washington, D.C., who found that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it canceled $7.6 billion in federally approved clean energy grants.

According to the court’s opinion, the administration terminated the grants largely — and possibly exclusively — based on whether the recipient states voted Democratic in the 2024 election. The funding had been awarded through competitive federal programs and approved prior to Trump’s return to office.

Judge Mehta wrote that the government failed to provide any rational policy justification for the cancellations and concluded that the decision appeared to be political retaliation, rather than a legitimate exercise of executive discretion.

“Targeting states for adverse treatment based on how their citizens voted,” the judge wrote, “does not advance any legitimate governmental interest.”

The ruling ordered the administration to restore the funding while litigation continues, allowing projects related to battery manufacturing, hydrogen development, grid modernization, and carbon capture to proceed in 16 affected states.

Legal scholars described the decision as unusually blunt.

“This is not a technical disagreement,” said one constitutional law professor. “The court is saying, plainly, that federal power cannot be used as a political weapon.”

Judges Push Back on Immigration and Academic Speech

The clean energy case was not an isolated rebuke.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge William Young issued a ruling protecting pro-Palestinian academics from immigration enforcement actions that he said appeared retaliatory. The judge characterized the administration’s approach as authoritarian and ruled that any attempt to alter immigration status based on political expression would presumptively violate the First Amendment.

Under the order, the government must now prove that any enforcement action against the affected academics is unrelated to their speech — a significant procedural burden.

Meanwhile, in another late-night decision, Judge Beryl Howell ordered the administration to restore nearly $12 million in federal grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics after the funds were abruptly cut. The court found insufficient justification for the termination and required immediate reinstatement.

A Pattern, Not Isolated Losses

Together, the rulings paint a picture of growing judicial concern over how the Trump administration is wielding federal authority.

Judges across jurisdictions used unusually direct language, invoking terms such as retaliation, unconstitutional, and authoritarian — phrasing more often seen in dissents or academic critiques than in trial court orders.

The timing is also notable. The rulings come as Trump faces internal Republican tensions, declining approval numbers, and public disputes with both Democrats and members of his own party. Recent GOP infighting over the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files and the resignation of longtime Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene have added to the sense of instability.

The Courts as the Final Check?

The Trump administration has not yet issued detailed responses to the rulings, though appeals are widely expected. Historically, Trump has attacked judges who rule against him, casting them as partisan or illegitimate — a pattern legal analysts expect to continue.

What makes this moment different, experts say, is the clarity and consistency of the judicial pushback.

“These judges aren’t hedging,” said a former federal prosecutor. “They’re saying, in writing, that the administration crossed constitutional lines.”

As Trump continues to test the boundaries of executive power — through funding decisions, immigration enforcement, and political targeting — the federal judiciary may be emerging as the most effective institutional counterweight.

Whether that offers reassurance or raises deeper concerns about democratic stability depends, analysts note, on how often courts are forced to intervene — and whether their rulings are ultimately respected.