Is trump going to be made to answer for his bad deeds?

1. Courtroom tests of presidential power — the tariffs showdown

The clearest example of courts forcing account‑giving from the administration is the Supreme Court review of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, where justices expressed skepticism about the legal basis for using a 1977 emergency law to impose broad duties and three lower courts have ruled against the administration ^{[1] [3]}. Reporters and legal analysts say the case tests whether presidents can effectively levy what look like taxes without clear congressional authorization; the press and business groups frame the outcome as having major economic consequences ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Widespread litigation challenging executive policies

A range of organizations are tracking litigation against second‑term executive actions: Just Security and Brookings maintain trackers documenting suits over education, passports/sex‑designation policies, immigration restrictions, and other rulemakings ^{[4] [5]}. The New York City Bar Association and other legal groups are cataloging immigration policy changes and resultant challenges, indicating sustained legal pushback on agency actions ^[7]. These trackers show a pattern: when the administration issues sweeping rules, states, nonprofits, businesses and civil‑rights groups often file suits that can slow or block enforcement ^{[4] [5] [7]}.

3. Temporary wins, stays and the practical effect of litigation

Courts have sometimes offered interim relief that constrains administration actions while cases proceed: for example, the Supreme Court granted emergency stays in related administrative disputes like passport sex‑designation and other policies ^[4]. Likewise, lower courts have left certain tariff measures in place temporarily even when skeptical, leaving plaintiffs to wait for a final ruling ^[6]. Reporters note that litigation frequently produces partial, temporary restraints rather than immediate, definitive “answers,” and the administration in turn looks for alternative legal authorities to continue policies if a pathway is closed ^{[2] [8]}.

4. Political remedies and Congressional pushback are limited and mixed

Congressional responses have included symbolic resolutions and bipartisan rebukes — for example, the Senate moved to reject tariffs even as the House was unlikely to follow — but political checks are uneven and often fail to produce immediate policy reversals ^{[3] [8]}. The interplay between courts and Congress is central: courts weigh whether Congress clearly delegated authority; if not, judicial decisions can curb presidential initiatives, but Congress itself must move to change the underlying legal authority ^{[6] [8]}.

5. Criminal accountability: not documented in these sources

The provided material does not report ongoing criminal prosecutions or conviction‑level criminal accountability for Trump in this term; sources focus on civil, administrative and constitutional litigation over policy and executive authority (not found in current reporting). Where criminal matters exist, authoritative reporting would be required to assess their status; available sources here do not supply that information (not found in current reporting).

6. Wider accountability debate: policy harms, pardons and administrative shifts

Advocacy groups and watchdogs catalogue policy changes they argue worsen outcomes — for example, claims that homelessness policy changes could put hundreds of thousands at risk, or that pardons and prosecutorial guidance shift accountability norms ^[9]. Those groups aim to use litigation and public pressure to hold the administration to account; the administration counters with legal defenses, executive orders and, where necessary, alternative legal approaches to preserve actions ^{[9] [10]}.

7. Bottom line — “answering” comes in many forms

If “answering” means civil litigation, administrative injunctions and Supreme Court review, sources show that Trump’s policies are indeed being forced into courtrooms and sometimes curtailed ^{[4] [1] [3]}. If “answering” means criminal conviction or removal via Congress, the sources provided do not document such outcomes for 2025–2026 and instead emphasize constitutional and statutory challenges to the administration’s policy choices (not found in current reporting). The ultimate extent to which Trump is held to account will depend on pending court rulings, any future criminal developments not covered here, and whether Congress or voters change the underlying law or political calculus ^{[6] [8]}.

Limitations: This analysis relies solely on the supplied documents; other reporting may address criminal matters or additional cases not included among these sources (not found in current reporting).