President Donald Trump has spent the bulk of his second White House term testing the limits of his Article II authorities, both at home and abroad – a defining constitutional fight that legal experts expect to continue to play out in the federal courts for the foreseeable future.

These actions have included the U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, who was deposed during a U.S. military raid in Caracas earlier this month, and Trump’s continued fight to deploy National Guard troops in Democrat-led localities, despite the stated objections of state and local leaders.

The moves have drawn reactions ranging from praise to sharp criticism, while raising fresh legal questions about how far a sitting president can go in wielding power at home and abroad.

Legal experts told Fox News Digital in a series of interviews that they do not expect Trump’s executive powers to be curtailed, at least not significantly or immediately, by the federal courts in the near-term.

Despite near-certain challenges from Maduro – who would likely argue any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago – experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little trouble citing court precedent and prior Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.

U.S. presidents have long enjoyed a wider degree of authority on foreign affairs issues – including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue Maduro’s arrest was made within the ‘national interest’ or to protect U.S. persons and property.

Even if an arrest were viewed as infringing on another country’s sovereignty, experts say Trump could cite ample court precedent and longstanding Office of Legal Counsel and Justice Department guidance to argue the action was legally sound.

A 1989 memo authored by then-U.S. Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr has surfaced repeatedly as one of the strongest arguments Trump could cite to justify Maduro’s capture. That OLC memo states that ‘the president, pursuant to his inherent constitutional authority, can authorize enforcement actions independent of any statutory grant of power.’ It also authorizes FBI agents to effectuate arrests ordered by the president under the ‘Take Care’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, and says the authority to order extraterritorial arrests applies even if it impinges ‘on the sovereignty of other countries.’

Importantly, federal courts have read these powers to apply even in instances where Congress has not expressly granted statutory authorization to intervene.

‘When federal interests are at stake, the president, under Article II, has the power to protect them,’ Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

That’s because Article II, at its core, is ‘the power for a U.S. president to protect [its] people,’ Blackman said. 

‘The reason why we detained Maduro was to effectuate an arrest. DOJ personnel and FBI agents were there to arrest him and read him his rights. And the reason why we used 150 aircraft, and all the other military equipment, was to protect the people who were going to arrest Maduro,’ he added. ‘It was a law enforcement operation, but [with] military backing to protect them – so Article II does factor in here, indirectly.’ 

Though Trump himself has not cited a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who described Maduro’s arrest respectively, as a mission to indict two ‘fugitives of justice,’ and as a ‘joint military and law enforcement raid.’

In Minnesota, next steps for Trump are a bit more fraught. 

Trump’s National Guard deployment efforts were stymied by the Supreme Court in December, after the high court halted Trump’s National Guard deployments under Title 10. 

Trump had deployed the federalized troops to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect ICE personnel. But the high court issued an interim order rejecting Trump’s bid, noting that under Title 10, the administration could not federalize the National Guard until it first showed they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but could not do so. 

Some court watchers have noted that the ruling essentially closes off alternatives for Trump to act.

Instead, Trump could opt to enact his Article II ‘protective powers’ domestically via a more sweeping and extreme alternative.

This includes the use of the Insurrection Act to call up active-duty U.S. troops and order them deployed to Minnesota and elsewhere. 

The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the U.S. when ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion’ make it ‘impracticable to enforce the laws.’ 

Critics note it is a powerful, far-reaching statute that could grant Trump an expansive set of powers to act domestically in ways that are not reviewable by Congress or by the courts.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, noted this possibility in a recent chat with former White House counsel Robert Bauer. By ‘closing off this other statute,’ he said, the Supreme Court ‘may have, some argue, driven the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because this other source of authority was not available.’

Trump allies, for their part, have argued that the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s interim ruling.

Chad Wolf, the America First Policy Institute’s chair of homeland security and immigration, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump could have ‘little choice’ but to invoke the Insurrection Act.  

‘If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to grow violent, with ICE officers being targeted and injured as well as other violent acts … Trump will have little choice,’ he said. 

Experts are split on to what degree there is a through-line between the two issues.

Blackman, the South Texas College of Law professor, said the ‘point of connection’ in Trump’s actions is the presidential ‘power of protection’ under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. ‘The president can protect his law enforcement domestically, and he can protect his law enforcement abroad, both under Article II.’

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed Britain’s Parliament on Tuesday, telling them that he had come to ‘calm the waters,’ as tensions between Washington and its European allies have intensified in recent weeks over President Donald Trump’s push to acquire Greenland.

Johnson’s address — the first ever delivered by a sitting U.S. House speaker to the British Parliament — came on the eve of the United States’ 250th anniversary and against a backdrop of strain in transatlantic relations, including Trump’s sharp criticism of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer hours earlier over a deal involving the Chagos Islands.

‘I spoke to President Trump at length yesterday, and I told him that I really felt that my mission here today was to encourage our friends and help to calm the waters, so to speak,’ Johnson said. 

Johnson emphasized that despite current disagreements, the U.S. and UK remain bound by a durable alliance built on shared history, values and security interests.

‘We’ve always been able to work through our differences calmly as friends. We will continue to do that,’ he said. ‘I want to assure you this morning that that is still the case.’

The speaker said his visit had taken on new urgency as geopolitical tensions escalated in recent days. He described his role as reinforcing stability among allies while signaling resolve to adversaries.

Johnson tied his remarks to the approaching 250th anniversary of American independence, framing the milestone not simply as a celebration, but as a moment of reflection and recommitment — particularly as Western nations confront external threats and internal divisions.

He warned that U.S. adversaries are increasingly challenging Western democracies through ‘increasingly sophisticated forms of subversion.’ 

‘We see China, Russia and Iran grow more aggressive and emboldened as they intensify their efforts to exert economic, political, and military influence around the world,’ Johnson said. ‘We see a callous disregard for basic human rights, new provocations, and even the theft of intellectual property on a scale like we have never seen before.’

Johnson said Trump is focused on those threats, particularly in strategically sensitive regions such as the Arctic.

‘Clearly, President Trump is taking seriously the modern and dynamic threats that China and Russia pose to our global security, and especially and in focus the last few days as it relates to the Arctic,’ he said.

While acknowledging room for debate among allies, Johnson stressed that the dangers posed by rival powers must be confronted collectively.

‘While we can have thoughtful debate among our friends about how best to counter these threats, we all certainly agree they must be countered,’ he said.

Speaker Johnson praised Britain and other allies for recent cooperation, including enforcement of sanctions. He clarified that Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda does not mean ‘America alone.’ 

He praised NATO members for increasing defense spending and highlighted cooperation through alliances such as AUKUS, calling them evidence that national interests and collective security can coexist.

‘Whether it’s NATO’s nations historic commitment to raise their investment in defense… or the AUKUS alliance deepening its cooperation in submarines and undersea defense, our partnership is proving that nations can prioritize their individual interests responsibly,’ he said.

Johnson invoked the shared heritage of the U.S. and UK, warning that military strength and economic power are meaningless without confidence in a shared set of values.

‘Strong and lethal militaries matter,’ he said. ‘Robust and thriving economies matter, but they mean little if we forget what we’re fighting for.’ 

Donald J. Trump was inaugurated for a second term as president exactly one year ago. It is safe to say the country, and the world, will never be the same. 

President Trump has engaged in energetic and bold governing and diplomacy, fulfilling campaign promises like boosting domestic energy production, while also seeking peace in turbulent parts of the world and attempting to follow through on long-term ambitions, like acquiring Greenland.

He has engaged with the press on a near-daily basis, boosted recruitment for our military, dismantled harmful left-wing shibboleths like DEI, convinced our NATO allies to spend more on their own defense, junked burdensome regulations that interfered with our country’s progress, challenged our woke universities, extracted and jailed alleged drug kingpin Nicolás Maduro, defended women’s sports, significantly derailed Iran’s nuclear program, overseen new health initiatives like ridding our food of artificial dyes, shrunk the ever-expanding federal bureaucracy, and pushed through a reconciliation bill that lowered taxes for middle-class Americans. It is an incredible boatload of accomplishments.

But Trump’s first year is most notable for closing the southern border that predecessor Joe Biden opened to millions of unvetted illegal immigrants, and for resetting U.S. trade relations through the introduction of tariffs. As he might boast, few imagined that these efforts would succeed; however, neither has been without controversy.

Today, President Trump is at a crossroads. He begins midterm campaigning with approval ratings that are underwater, according to polling aggregated by RealClearPolitics, even on his signature issues of immigration and the economy. He has, in particular, lost favor with independents and with some of the groups that helped him win in 2024, like young voters and Hispanics. 

Surveys suggest voters think the president is spending too much time on foreign affairs instead of working to reduce the cost of living. While he pursues peace between Ukraine and Russia, Americans want lower cereal prices and cheaper housing. 

President Trump is trying to do too many things at once. On the one hand, we applaud the energy and pace of this president, a welcome change from the inert Joe Biden. On the other hand, Americans want stability, not chaos.

President Trump is aggrieved that the country is not giving him high marks for booming economic growth, a declining fiscal deficit, new investments flowing into the U.S., a declining trade gap, rising middle-class wages, all-time high oil production and record stock prices. And, inflation is substantially lower than the decades-high 9.1% recorded during the Biden presidency.

Public perceptions about the economy will play a decisive role in the midterm elections. Given today’s subdued consumer sentiment, President Trump faces the very real prospect that Republicans will lose their slim control of the House and maybe even their advantage in the Senate. He has warned more than once that should Democrats take over, they will almost certainly move to impeach him; he may well be right. 

Faced with that threat, and seemingly rattled by Democrats’ new ‘affordability’ pitch, Trump has unleashed a barrage of new policies meant to address the cost of living, some of which appear half-baked. He has proposed capping interest rates on credit cards at 10% and has strategized about that controversial notion with progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a development giving most Republicans hives. In addition, he has launched an attack on corporate-owned housing, which he claims has driven up rents. The number of homes bought up by businesses in recent years is small, and not likely to be a major source of rent inflation.

The frustrated president is also lashing out at adversaries, threatening to sue JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon for ‘debanking’ him in 2021 and waging war against Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell, for instance. 

Trump blames the Fed chair for keeping interest rates too high, which in turn drives up the cost of living. The Justice Department’s investigation into whether the Fed Chair lied to Congress about the costly renovation of the Fed’s headquarters was a foolish miscalculation; it has backfired as Powell has dug in and caused the Senate to balk at confirming his successor.

Trump has also recently rolled out ‘The Great Healthcare Plan,’ which would make payments directly to households to cover health expenses rather than send federal subsidies to insurers on consumers’ behalf. This proposal comes as Congress continues to debate extending enhanced premium subsidies on Obamacare; the lapsing of payments augmented during COVID-19 will raise some peoples’ insurance costs significantly. For not being ready with a solution to this dilemma, which was anticipated for more than a year, voters should blame Republicans in Congress, not President Trump. Nonetheless, attempting to reconfigure our dysfunctional healthcare system, nearly one fifth of our economy, should not be done on the fly.

Most recently, Trump has again threatened to slap onerous tariffs on European Union countries unless Denmark agrees to sell Greenland. This is a mistake, as it undermines the president’s constructive use of tariffs, indicates our partners cannot trust hard-fought trade agreements, and again plunges America’s commitment to NATO into uncertainty.

President Trump is trying to do too many things at once. On the one hand, we applaud the energy and pace of this president, a welcome change from the inert Joe Biden. On the other hand, Americans want stability, not chaos.

They especially don’t want chaos on the streets of Minneapolis, with ICE agents under attack. They also don’t want chaos in our dealings with foreign nations. And, they don’t want chaos in our economy, with tariffs being raised and lowered according to the latest push from the Oval Office and with major proposals being spun out almost daily.

The president has accomplished a great deal in his first year in office. He needs to build on the wins, and remind voters why they elected him. That begins with deescalating some of his confrontations and restoring confidence through steady leadership. It continues with hitting the campaign trail, talking to the American people, and bringing them back on board.

President Trump’s agenda is not complete; let us hope he reboots and wins for three more years to continue making America great again.   

President Donald Trump, who has been pressing for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, continued to beat the drum on the issue early on Tuesday.

‘I had a very good telephone call with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, concerning Greenland. I agreed to a meeting of the various parties in Davos, Switzerland. As I expressed to everyone, very plainly, Greenland is imperative for National and World Security. There can be no going back — On that, everyone agrees!’ the president declared in part of a Truth Social post.

Trump is slated to speak at the World Economic Forum annual meeting on Wednesday.

In another post on Tuesday, Trump shared a graphic that appeared to depict Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance standing behind Trump as he held a flagpole flying an American flag near a sign that described Greenland as a ‘US TERRITORY EST. 2026.’

‘Shockingly, our ‘brilliant’ NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER,’ the president asserted in part of a separate post.

‘The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired. Denmark and its European Allies have to DO THE RIGHT THING. Thank you for your attention to this matter,’ he asserted.

Last week, Trump warned of tariffs as he continued to press the matter of Greenland.

‘Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland,’ Trump declared in a January 17 Truth Social post.

Tuesday, January 20, marks the one-year anniversary since Trump’s January 20, 2025 inauguration.

Denmark on Monday ramped up its military presence in Greenland, deploying extra troops to the strategic Arctic territory amid escalating tensions with President Donald Trump.

Local Danish broadcaster TV 2 said the Danish Armed Forces confirmed a new contingent of troops, described as ‘a substantial contribution,’ were arriving at Greenland’s main international airport Monday night.

Maj. Gen. Søren Andersen, head of Denmark’s Arctic Command, said about 100 Danish soldiers have already arrived in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, with others later deployed to Kangerlussuaq in western Greenland.

The new military move comes in the wake of comments made by Trump over the region’s strategic and military importance. 

In a Truth Social post Jan. 18, Trump warned that Denmark had failed to secure Greenland against foreign threats.

‘NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland,’’ Trump wrote. 

‘Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!’ he said.

On Monday, a text message exchange between Trump and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre over Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize was released in a statement.

‘Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?’ Trump said before adding that there were ‘no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,’ he said in part of the exchange.

‘I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT,’ he added.

Before now, according to Reuters, Andersen had said that Danish troop deployment was driven by broader security concerns, not by Trump’s statements.

Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen also said that Denmark has begun increasing its military footprint in and around Greenland in cooperation with its NATO allies and as part of efforts to strengthen Arctic defense, Reuters reported.

Danish forces already stationed in Greenland could remain for a year or more, with additional rotations planned in the coming years.

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Jan. 15 the presence of European troops would not affect Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland.

‘I don’t think troops from Europe impact the president’s decision-making process, nor does it impact his goal of the acquisition of Greenland at all,’ she told reporters.

The additional Danish troop deployment also came following Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would impose a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from countries that have supported Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.