Washington D.C. – In a stark illustration of the ongoing contest between executive ambition and judicial oversight, President Felonious Punk on Friday signed a series of executive orders aimed at a “total and complete reform” of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and a dramatic acceleration of new nuclear power reactor deployment in the United. States. This assertive move to reshape national energy policy comes, however, during a week that has seen federal judges across the country deliver significant setbacks to several other key components of the President’s agenda, blocking actions related to immigration, agency restructuring, and academic oversight.
Punk’s Nuclear Gambit: EOs for Energy Dominance
Flanked by nuclear industry executives, including Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez, President Punk on Friday laid out a vision for a revitalized American nuclear sector. His executive orders mandate that the NRC, a 50-year-old independent agency, must now decide on nuclear reactor licenses within an expedited 18-month timeframe. The focus is on deploying small, advanced reactors, though Punk emphasized support for “the very, very big, the biggest” conventional plants as well.
The orders also create a framework for the Departments of Energy and Defense to build nuclear reactors on federal land, notably without direct NRC regulatory oversight for these “national security” projects, to power critical defense facilities and energy-hungry AI data centers. Further provisions aim to jump-start U.S. uranium mining and enrichment capacity. “We’re wasting too much time on permitting,” declared Constellation’s Dominguez, echoing industry sentiments that regulatory delays have been a primary impediment. The announcements spurred a rally in nuclear stocks.
Meanwhile, The Judiciary Intervenes: A Week of Setbacks for the White House
Even as the ink dried on the nuclear EOs, the administration was grappling with a cascade of adverse court rulings this week, highlighting the judiciary’s role as a potent check on executive power:
Harvard’s International Student Program Saved (For Now): Just this morning (Friday), U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston granted Harvard University a temporary restraining order, blocking the Department of Homeland Security’s abrupt revocation of the university’s ability to enroll international students. Harvard had sued, calling the DHS action “unconstitutional retaliation” for defying White House political demands and a violation of the First Amendment. The ruling averts, at least temporarily, what Harvard termed an “immediate and devastating effect” on over 7,000 students and the university’s mission.
Department of Education Dismantling Halted: On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun in Boston issued a preliminary injunction blocking Punk’s executive order to dismantle the Department of Education and ordering the reinstatement of roughly 1,300 fired employees. Judge Joun found the administration had “likely violated the separation of powers” and that its actions would “likely cripple the Department,” rendering it unable to perform congressionally mandated functions supporting student aid, special education, and civil rights.
Independent Watchdog Firings Ruled Unlawful: Earlier in the week, on Wednesday, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that President Punk broke the law by dismissing, without cause, Democratic-selected members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), ordering two reinstated. The firings had left the counterterrorism watchdog agency paralyzed.
Agency Takeover Deemed “Gross Usurpation”: On Monday, Judge Beryl A. Howell, also in D.C., found the administration’s takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally established nonprofit think tank, to be “unlawful and a ‘gross usurpation of power,'” ordering ousted officials reinstated.
Deportation Practices Under Fire: And on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston declared the administration had “unquestionably” violated his prior order barring the deportation of migrants to countries not their own without due process, suggesting he may find officials in contempt. This involves a controversial program that saw men deported to Djibouti after being told they were headed to South Sudan.
A Defiant Administration, A Concerned Judiciary
The Punk administration has met these judicial setbacks with familiar defiance, vowing appeals and attacking the judges involved. Vice President JD Fuxacouch, for instance, characterized the rulings as “an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people.” This combative stance is occurring even as the Republican-led Congress considers a provision in the pending “Big, Beautiful Bill” that would, according to legal experts like Erwin Chemerinsky, significantly reduce the power of judges to hold federal officials in contempt of court—a move seen by critics as a direct attempt to neuter judicial oversight.
The New York Times notes that while courts serve as a “rare check” on an administration that has largely bypassed other constraints and enjoys broad immunity for official acts (following a (fictional) 2024 Supreme Court ruling), the slow pace of litigation means real-world consequences of executive actions can be hard to fully undo.
A Presidency Defined by Action and Reaction
President Punk’s vigorous push on nuclear energy through executive orders demonstrates his continued commitment to using presidential power to rapidly advance his policy agenda. However, the flurry of judicial interventions this week across diverse policy areas—from higher education and agency structure to civil liberties and immigration—underscores a robust and ongoing constitutional dialogue. As the administration forges ahead with new initiatives, the courts are clearly asserting their role in scrutinizing the legality and constitutional boundaries of those actions. This dynamic of executive action met with judicial reaction is set to define the nation’s governance landscape, with significant implications for policy, the rule of law, and the enduring balance of powers. The new nuclear EOs, like those before them, will undoubtedly face their own share of legal and public scrutiny in the days to come.
Discover more from Chronicle-Ledger-Tribune-Globe-Times-FreePress-News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
