Almost 100 Days In: This is Not Normal

Since Trump’s inauguration in January, many attempts have been made to normalize his behavior. Little organized opposition has emerged from Congress. The Republican House plows ahead with plans to burn the safety net in hopes of funding tax breaks for millionaires. The Republican Senate easily confirms Trump appointees, whose singular qualifications appear to be loyalty to the President. The Supreme Court, whose decision on presidential immunity last year will haunt us for years, has so far punted on chances to rein in Trump’s unconstitutional excesses. Republican governors, even those in states like Virginia, where the impacts of mass firings of federal employees will be dramatic, continue to bow before the President. Meanwhile, much of the media covers the White House as if nothing has changed, making extreme actions seem routine.

Maybe Americans no longer expect normalcy from their leaders and instead want someone who will “shake things up.” That’s exactly what they’ve gotten since Trump began his second term on January 20, 2025. Nearly 100 days in, much of what we’ve seen is far from normal—and should be recognized as such.

Day One: Mass Pardons.

On his first day in office, Trump issued mass pardons to January 6th rioters—including those who injured others and damaged property. This was not normal. While presidents have the power to grant pardons, nothing on this scale has happened before, except after the Civil War. Back then, leaders like President Grant offered clemency to former Confederates to reunite the country—and on the condition that they pledged to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s pardons were different. They weren’t about healing or strengthening democracy. They were about rewarding people who attacked our institutions and broke the law—and who might do it again.

Executive Orders-A Continuing Saga

Executive orders are a normal part of any presidency. But under Trump, both the number and the nature of these orders have been unusual. He uses these to make major changes without following established legal procedures, often daring those affected to file suit to stop him. It is not normal for a president to fire federal employees through executive order without going through the proper process. It is also not normal to cut funding from organizations that were already approved by Congress and have met their obligations. Thankfully, many of Trump’s most controversial orders have been challenged in court by states attorneys general and private citizens—and in many cases, the courts have sided with them. Still, Trump’s appeals have delayed any real reversal of the damage. Even if he ultimately loses, fixing the system will take time.

Skirting Court Orders

Judicial review of executive and legislative action helps make our system of checks and balances work. But the system breaks down when court orders are either ignored or circumvented. As a private citizen, Trump has had a history of either being found in contempt for violating court orders or being admonished by courts for almost stepping over that line.

Trump constantly obfuscates by splitting legal or grammatical hairs, asserting that his appeals of the orders (even if they are not stayed) justifies noncompliance, and by attacking so-called activist judges simply because they ruled against him.

He is now probing courts to see how far he can go. Most recently, courts found that the Trump administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man, to El Salvador in violation of a 2019 immigration court order that prevented the U.S. from sending him to that country. The judge in the case labeled it “a clear constitutional violation.” Knowing that his argument against returning Abrego Garcia to the U.S. was weak, Trump’s attorneys delayed so long that the person is now in an El Salvador prison, and they will no argue that the U.S. lacks authority to force the man’s return.

That does not mean that the Supreme Court lacks power to find the administration in contempt. But don’t count on it. It now becomes easier for Trump to skirt the Supreme Court’s Order requiring the administration to “facilitate” his return. The administration then avoids contempt, and court’s holding has been rendered a nullity. The Supreme Court appears powerless in the face of executive manipulation. So much for how checks and balances are designed to counter executive overreach!

While this deportation and administration responses may seem politically popular, it is not the way the system is supposed to work. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently warned, if the administration can take people off our streets, send them to prison in another country, and then claim it is helpless to correct the error because the person is out of reach of U.S. jurisdiction, it could do the same thing to citizens.

In our system, court orders are to be granted respect and compliance.

Creating National Insecurity is Not Normal

Since taking office, many of Trump’s actions have raised serious concerns—even when they technically fall within his authority as commander-in-chief. For example, removing certain top military officers might seem justifiable on the surface. But what’s happening looks more like a purge of anyone who might disagree with him—an abnormal and alarming pattern.

What’s especially troubling is the firing of military lawyers from the JAG corps and the removal of seven senior officials from the National Security Agency, including its director and the head of U.S. Cyber Command, Gen. Timothy Haugh. These moves signal a dangerous shift that could have serious consequences for the future.

And when Trump doesn’t fire, he threatens, ordering an investigation of his former top cybersecurity official, Christopher Krebs, simply because he contradicted Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security official during Trump’s first term, for his whistleblowing activity. We have not seen this type of enemies list since Nixon was in the white house. It was not normal then and is not normal now.

Then there’s Signalgate—an abnormal, if not outright illegal, incident where DOD Secretary Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio, and the Vice President discussed, on an unsecured communications channel, war plans and targeting decisions just prior to a military strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen. While past administrations have had their own security lapses, this kind of exchange—even if we accept their assertion that it did not involve classified information—could still put U.S. service members at risk.

What’s just as troubling is that no one has been held accountable. That, too, is not normal.

The dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine and NATO—while it departs from recent historical precedent and creates major long-term problems—at least falls within the President’s authority to set foreign policy.

The Shakedowns

It is not normal for administrations to extract concessions from universities or private law firms simply because it does not like their policies or who they represent. But here is Trump, compelling private universities to change key policies or face the loss of research funds already approved by Congress. And threatening to pull government contracts or access from major law firms unless they provide free assistance to groups that support administration positions. We have already seen attacks on our judiciary, including Musk’s call for the impeachment of judges. And now we see efforts to silence the legal profession, the group that helps Americans gain access to the courts. Undermine that profession, and you don’t need to dismantle the courts directly. You simply make them inaccessible.

Fortunately, some law firms are fighting back. And Harvard University resisted Trump’s demands, calling them illegal. Within hours, retribution came; the administration announced the freeze of $2.2 billion in multiyear grants. This is not normal.

The Abnormality of Trump Tariffs

Trump ran on tariffs, publicly proclaimed them “the greatest thing ever invented”, and used import duties during his first administration. Moreover, in 2023, he proposed across-the-board 10 percent tariffs— a plan the Economist called “disastrous” for the nation and the world. The adoption of tariffs is not unusual. George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon applied tariffs to protect the U.S. steel industry, and Joe Biden placed mild tariffs on targeted products. Trump’s tariffs are unusual because of their economic impact and the process by which they have been imposed.

Few expected the chaotic way they were unveiled, the unexplained reasons why some were “paused,” the rationale for why others remain, or the process for what comes next. This has worried not only farmers dependent on exports, including those in Virginia, whose chief product is soybeans and who counts China as a major trading partner. Consumers agonized about how this they would affect major purchases. Businesspersons, even those who supported Trump, are uncertain about what investments to make and when. But most importantly, the Trump-initiated trade war spooked the bond markets, where a potential collapse could kick off another financial crisis like 2007. The market volatility index reached a new high and the stock market lost over 10% following Trump’s April 2, 2025 “Liberation Day” announcement of the highest tariffs since Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, the law best remembered for triggering a global trade war and deepening the Great Depression. As Ajay Rajadhyaksha, global chairman of research at Barclays Capital, exclaimed, “This is not normal.”

A Hair-on-Fire Moment?

This administration’s actions are so abnormal that they generate numerous worst-case scenarios for our future. What does it mean, for example, when the President issues an executive order to take away the power of the states to administer elections by imposing restrictions that will seriously suppress the vote? If a state abides by its own laws, would the administration somehow attempt to undue the results? Given that the administration has cut funding to combat cyber attacks on our election process at the state level, what happens if a real or manufactured hack of numerous voting systems occurs just before or during the 2026 midterms? And how does this fit with Trump’s executive order of January 20 directing federal officials to report back about the propriety of using the Insurrection Act of 1807 at the southern border—or anywhere else? Respected legal minds suggest that such actions are highly unlikely if not illegal. But we live in strange times, and much of what is happening is simply not normal.