Preguntas sobre la salud del presidente

Un visible moretón en la mano derecha de Donald Trump, en una imagen de agosto. Foto: REUTERS

President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second White House term signing a torrent of executive orders aimed at delivering on several major policy priorities, including slashing federal agency budgets and staffing, implementing a hard-line immigration crackdown and invoking emergency authority to impose steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

The pace of Trump’s executive actions has far outstripped that of his predecessors, allowing the administration to move quickly on campaign promises. But the blitz has also triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to block or pause many of the orders, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of presidential power under Article II and when courts can — or should — intervene.

Lawsuits have challenged Trump’s most sweeping and consequential executive orders, ranging from a ban on birthright citizenship and transgender service members in the military to the legality of sweeping, DOGE-led government cuts and the president’s ability to «federalize» and deploy thousands of National Guard troops.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

Many of those questions remain unresolved. Only a few legal fights tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a point legal experts say is critical as the administration presses forward with its broader agenda.

Trump allies have argued the president is merely exercising his powers as commander in chief. 

Critics counter that the flurry of early executive actions warrants an additional level of legal scrutiny, and judges have raced to review a crushing wave of cases and lawsuits filed in response.

WINS:

Limits on nationwide injunctions

In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case centered on the power of district courts to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions blocking a president’s executive orders. 

Though the case ostensibly focused on birthright citizenship, arguments narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and did not wade into the legality of Trump’s order, which served as the legal pretext for the case. The decision had sweeping national implications, ultimately affecting the more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s orders signed in his second presidential term.

Justices on the high court ultimately sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who had argued to the court that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, telling justices that the injunctions «transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,» and «create a host of practical problems.»

The Supreme Court largely agreed. Justices ruled that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must file their lawsuits as class action challenges. This prompted a flurry of action from plaintiffs in the weeks and months that followed as they raced to amend and refile relevant complaints to lower courts.

Firing independent agency heads 

The Supreme Court also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.

Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower-court orders reinstating two Democratic appointees — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. It also suggested the Supreme Court is poised to pare back a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause.

It is not the only issue in which the justices appeared inclined to side with Trump administration officials and either overturn or pare back Humphrey’s protections.

In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a similar case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. Justices seemed likely to allow the firing to proceed and to weaken Humphrey’s protections for similarly situated federal employees, though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains unclear.

The high court will also review another case centered on Trump’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook early in 2026.

SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS REINS IN SOTOMAYOR AFTER REPEATED INTERRUPTIONS

Supreme Court Justices attend the 60th inaugural ceremony Jan. 20, 2025, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

LOSSES:

Tariffs 

While it’s rarely helpful to speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule on a certain case, court watchers and legal experts overwhelmingly reached a similar consensus after listening to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, the case centered on Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to enact his sweeping tariff plan. 

At issue in the case is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. But it’s unclear if such conditions exist, as voiced by liberal and conservative justices in their review of the case earlier in 2025.

Several justices also noted that the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs or taxes, a point that loomed large during oral arguments.

A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy. 

Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments, a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices «were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.»

«However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,» Turley added.

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs.

«Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,» Skorup said.

‘LIFE OR DEATH’: SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRUMP TARIFF POWERS IN BLOCKBUSTER CASE

President Donald Trump signs an executive order at the White House Dec. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Trump has signed more executive orders in 2025 than he did in all four years of his first presidency combined. (Getty Images) (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.

At issue is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to illegal immigrant parents or parents with temporary legal status, a sweeping change critics say would upend roughly 150 years of constitutional precedent.

The order immediately sparked a flurry of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups. Opponents have also argued that the effort is an unconstitutional and «unprecedented» one that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center. 

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.

While it’s unclear how the high court might rule, the lower court rulings suggest the Trump administration might face a steep uphill battle in arguing the case before the Supreme Court in early 2026.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

The court said in early December it will hold oral arguments in the case in 2026, between February and April, with a ruling expected by the end of June. 

Protests in Iran entered a fifth consecutive day on Thursday, with demonstrations and clashes reported across Tehran and multiple provincial cities as authorities, state-linked media and rights groups cited additional deaths overnight.

According to Reuters, several people have been killed since the unrest escalated, based on reports from Iranian media and human rights groups. Iranian authorities have confirmed at least one death, while other fatalities have been reported in different provinces.

Opposition group National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) told Fox News Digital in a statement that protests and street clashes continued Thursday morning in Tehran and in cities including Marvdasht, Kermanshah, Delfan and Arak, and claimed that two protesters were killed by direct fire in Lordegan. Fox News Digital could not independently verify the deaths.

ANTI-IRAN REGIME PROTESTS GROW ACROSS COUNTRY AS TRUMP ADMIN BOOSTS DEMONSTRATORS OFFERING SUPPORT

The protests began on Sunday after shopkeepers and merchants demonstrated against soaring inflation, unemployment and the sharp depreciation of Iran’s currency. The unrest quickly spread beyond bazaars to include students and wider public demonstrations in cities across the country.

In Lordegan, in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province, clashes intensified overnight. Fars News Agency, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, reported that crowds threw stones at government buildings, including the governor’s office, the judiciary, the Martyrs Foundation, the Friday prayer complex and several banks. Police used tear gas to disperse protesters, and multiple buildings were heavily damaged. Fars said two people were killed during the clashes, without specifying whether they were protesters or security personnel.

The Kurdish rights group Hengaw reported that protesters in Lordegan were killed by security forces. In Kuhdasht, authorities said a member of the Basij volunteer paramilitary force was killed, and 13 others wounded during clashes, blaming demonstrators. Hengaw disputed that account, telling Reuters that the individual was a protester killed by security forces. Reuters said it could not confirm either version.

Iran protests force nationwide shutdown as President Masoud Pezeshkian closes businesses and offices across 21 provinces amid mounting public anger. (MEK/ People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran)

Separately, Iran International reported that a 37-year-old man was shot dead in Fooladshahr, in Isfahan province, during overnight protests. Iran International said it verified the man’s identity and reviewed video footage, while provincial police confirmed the death of a 37-year-old citizen without providing further details.

IRANIAN PRESIDENT SAYS HIS COUNTRY IS AT ‘TOTAL WAR’ WITH THE US, ISRAEL AND EUROPE: REPORTS

Six women who were detained during protests in Tehran have been transferred to the women’s ward of Evin prison, U.S.-based rights group Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said.

President Donald Trump and other administration officials voiced support for the demonstrators this week. Speaking Monday, Trump pointed to Iran’s economic collapse and long-standing public discontent, while stopping short of explicitly calling for regime change.

Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, issued a statement on the continuing protests, noting: «The four-day uprising by merchants, students, and other sectors of society signals the Iranian people’s determination to be free from religious tyranny. This wretched regime is doomed to be overthrown by the risen populace and rebellious youth. The final word is spoken in the streets by the people and the rebellious youth, those with nothing left to lose. This regime must go.»

The last major protests seen in Iran followed the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini after she was detained by the morality police, in Tehran, Oct. 1, 2022.  (AP Photo/Middle East Images, File)

The unrest comes as Iran’s economy remains under severe strain from years of international sanctions, high inflation and currency depreciation. Authorities declared a nationwide shutdown on Wednesday, officially citing extreme cold weather, and said the government offered to hold talks with representatives of merchants and trade unions over what it described as «legitimate demands.»

Another influential dissident leader, the exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the late Shah of Iran, took to X and appealed to the international community «to stand with the people of Iran.» He continued in part, «The current regime has reached the end of the road. It stands at its most fragile: weak, deeply divided, and unable to suppress the courage of a rising nation. The growing protests show this year will be the definitive moment for change.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Iran has faced repeated waves of unrest over the past decade. While nationwide protests in 2022 following the death of Mahsa Amini centered on women’s rights and state repression, the current demonstrations are rooted primarily in economic grievances, with protesters in several cities now openly directing their anger at Iran’s political leadership.

Reuters contributed to this report.