{"id":333,"date":"2026-07-03T13:40:32","date_gmt":"2026-07-03T13:40:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333"},"modified":"2026-07-03T13:40:32","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T13:40:32","slug":"the-trump-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333","title":{"rendered":"The Trump term?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s 2025-26 term will likely be remembered as one of the most consequential in recent memory. This was certainly the case for President Donald Trump, who was the named party in four of the term\u2019s biggest cases and even became the first sitting president to attend an oral argument. The justices handed Trump high-profile losses on two of his signature priorities \u2013 tariffs and birthright citizenship \u2013 as well as in his effort to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve\u2019s Board of Governors, from her job while her challenge to that firing continues. But the term proved to be quite successful for the president in other areas, as the court issued rulings that significantly expanded his power over the executive branch and immigration and benefited the Republican Party politically.<\/p>\n

Read more 250 and the court<\/a><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s support for tariffs has long been a core part of his political beliefs. In 1988, he told journalist Diane Sawyer that \u201cAmerica is being ripped off. \u2026 We\u2019re a debtor nation,\u201d he said, \u201cand we have to tax, we have to tariff, we have to protect this country.\u201d<\/p>\n

So it came as no surprise when, not long after taking office in 2025, Trump issued a series of executive orders that imposed sweeping tariffs on virtually all goods imported into the United States.\u00a0He relied primarily on a 1977 law, the\u00a0International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That law, known as IEEPA, gives the president the power, when there is a national emergency, to \u201cregulate \u2026 importation or exportation\u201d of \u201cproperty in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of Trump\u2019s other major priorities when taking office was birthright citizenship. Trump\u2019s opposition to birthright citizenship \u2013 the principle that virtually everyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen \u2013 dates back at least a decade: in 2015, as part of his first presidential campaign, Trump released an immigration reform plan that included a call to end birthright citizenship, arguing that it \u201cremains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration.\u201d On the day that he took office for the second time, Trump issued an executive order attempting to do just that.<\/p>\n

When challenges to the tariffs and Trump\u2019s birthright citizenship order came to the Supreme Court during the 2025-26 term, they seemed like long shots. No president had ever relied on IEEPA to impose tariffs, and the federal courts that had considered Trump\u2019s tariffs had concluded that IEEPA did not give him that power. On birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment\u2019s citizenship clause \u2013 which provides that anyone who is \u201cborn \u2026 in the United States\u201d and \u201csubject to the jurisdiction thereof\u201d is a U.S. citizen \u2013 had for more than a century been understood to confer citizenship on everyone born here.<\/p>\n

Like the lower courts before it, the Supreme Court ultimately dealt the president defeats on both issues. But neither loss was the resounding one that many court watchers initially expected. On tariffs, five justices \u2013 Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson \u2013 joined the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts striking down the president\u2019s executive orders.<\/p>\n

But even those six justices did not agree entirely on the rationale: Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett believed that the tariffs violate the \u201cmajor questions doctrine\u201d \u2013 the principle that, if Congress intends to give the executive branch the power to make decisions of vast political or economic significance, it must say so explicitly (although even on the nature of that doctrine Gorsuch and Barrett somewhat disagreed). Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, on the other hand, would have struck down the orders based solely on the text of IEEPA \u2013 which, Roberts stressed, does not mention tariffs.<\/p>\n

Three of the court\u2019s Republican appointees \u2013 Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh \u2013 would have upheld Trump\u2019s authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs. In a dissent that Alito and Thomas joined, Kavanaugh argued that \u201ctariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The vote in the court\u2019s June 30 decision in Trump v. Barbara<\/em>, the birthright citizenship case, was even closer. Just five justices \u2013 Roberts and Barrett, once again joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson \u2013 agreed that Trump\u2019s executive order violated the 14th Amendment\u2019s citizenship clause. \u201cCitizenship,\u201d Roberts concluded in his opinion for the majority, \u201cthen and now, was the right to have rights\u2014to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to \u2018every free-born person in this land.\u2019 We keep that promise today.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kavanaugh agreed with the result that the majority reached, but not its reasoning. He would have held that Trump\u2019s order does not violate the Constitution, but does conflict with a federal law whose language mirrors that of the citizenship clause, because, according to Kavanaugh, when Congress enacted that law in the 20th century it would have intended to incorporate the then-current understanding of the clause as guaranteeing birthright citizenship. But, Kavanaugh suggested, Congress could adopt new legislation that could carve out additional exceptions to the general rule of birthright citizenship \u201cfor children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a dissenting opinion, Alito called the ruling both \u201cone of the most important decisions in the history of the Court\u201d and \u201ca serious mistake.\u201d There is now in the United States, he wrote, \u201ca huge contingent of people who entered or remained in this country illegally, as well as a large group of people who were born here to such parents. The Court\u2019s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment,\u201d he argued, \u201cmakes all the members of this latter group citizens. Many of those who have grown up here now have a strong moral claim to be allowed to remain, but that is a matter that the Fourteenth Amendment, when properly interpreted, leaves to Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s June 29 decision barring Trump \u2013 at least for now \u2013 from firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook was also a close loss for Trump, with four of the court\u2019s Republican appointees \u2013 Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett \u2013 all dissenting. Roberts\u2019 opinion for the majority rejected any suggestion that the laws governing the Fed \u2013 which only allow the president to remove a governor \u201cfor cause\u201d \u2013 violate the Constitution\u2019s allocation of powers between the three branches of government. Roberts emphasized that the Founding Fathers \u201cknew from experience \u2026 of the calamities that could arise from even the \u2018suspicion\u2019 of political manipulation of monetary policy.\u201d The \u201cfor cause\u201d protections, he wrote, maintain the principle \u201cthat monetary policy should not be subject to political interference.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority\u2019s decision also set a \u201csubstantial threshold” for what would constitute the kind of \u201ccause\u201d that would allow Trump to fire Cook or other governors. \u201cThe key issue,\u201d Roberts said, \u201cis whether \u2018[t]he cause assigned\u2019 truly \u2018impl[ies] an unfitness for the place\u2019\u2014or whether it simply represents an effort to secure a \u2018more congenial\u2019 replacement.\u201d<\/p>\n

But although the majority concluded that Cook could remain in office while her challenge continues because the federal government was not likely to prevail on its argument that she was not entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her before Trump attempted to fire her, it indicated that Cook and others like her are entitled to only \u201cminimal\u201d process \u2013 for example, the right to submit written materials, but not necessarily to make an oral presentation or have a hearing.<\/p>\n

Read more An immigration law error in the court\u2019s asylum decision threatens immigration courts<\/a><\/p>\n

If the majority\u2019s decision in Cook\u2019s case was at best a loss with a silver lining for Trump, its ruling in Trump v. Slaughter<\/em> was a major win for him. By a vote of 6-3, the court struck down a federal law that barred the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of \u201cinefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.\u201d Unlike the similar law governing the Fed, the court said, the FTC law (and others like it) violate the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers.<\/p>\n

More generally, the Roberts opinion, which the other five Republican appointees joined, was an endorsement of the \u201cunitary executive\u201d theory \u2013 the idea that the president should have greater control over the executive branch. The president \u201calone is vested with \u2018[t]he executive Power\u2019 of the United States,\u201d Roberts explained. \u201cTo \u2018discharg[e] the duties of his trust,\u2019\u201d Roberts continued, \u201cthe President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer<\/em> to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot<\/em> work.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court also gave the president and executive branch officials substantial new power over immigration \u2013 a key part of the president\u2019s agenda. In Mullin v. Doe<\/em>, the court ruled in the Trump administration\u2019s favor in a pair of challenges to the decision by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to end the designations of Haiti and Syria under the Temporary Protected Status program \u2013 a program that allows the citizens of designated countries to remain in the United States indefinitely and work legally because it is not safe for them to return home.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s ruling will directly affect roughly 356,000 Haitians and Syrians currently living in the United States, but it could also affect hundreds of thousands more from other countries.<\/p>\n

By a vote of 6-3, with Alito writing for the majority, the court determined that decisions to designate or terminate a country under the TPS program are generally not subject to judicial review. This is true, Alito said, even when the plaintiffs seek to challenge the DHS secretary\u2019s compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in the laws governing the TPS program, rather than the designation or termination itself. The majority also rejected the plaintiffs\u2019 claim that Noem ended TPS status for Haiti because the country\u2019s citizens are overwhelmingly Black and thus violated the Constitution\u2019s guarantee of equal treatment.<\/p>\n

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado<\/em>, the court \u2013 again by a vote of 6-3, with the court\u2019s three Democratic appointees once more dissenting \u2013 upheld a policy, dating back to 2016, of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Alito\u2019s opinion for the majority rejected the challengers\u2019 contention that the policy, which was adopted in response to a surge in the number of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum outside San Diego, violates a federal law that permits noncitizens to apply for asylum when they \u201carrive[] in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s conclusion that asylum seekers do not \u201carrive in\u201d the United States, and therefore are not entitled to seek asylum, until they actually cross the border, Alito argued, was consistent with the \u201cordinary meaning\u201d of the law. \u201cA running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line,\u201d Alito countered, nor does a letter \u201carrive in the mailbox when a dog assaults the carrier a step away from the mailbox. A person arrives in a destination only when he enters it, and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks entry.\u201d<\/p>\n

And in Blanche v. Lau<\/em>, the same six-justice majority made it easier for immigration officers to keep green card holders from entering the United States for an indefinite stay. By a vote of 6-3, with Thomas writing for the majority, the court ruled that immigration officers are not required to have \u201cclear and convincing\u201d evidence that green card holders have committed a crime in order to bar them from staying in the United States.<\/p>\n

Trump and his party may benefit from at least two more of the court\u2019s rulings during the 2025-26 term. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission<\/em>, the court struck down a federal law that limited coordinated-party expenditures \u2013 the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate. Experts say that the court\u2019s ruling is likely to advantage political parties and, in particular, the Republican Party, which currently enjoys a fundraising advantage over the Democrats.<\/p>\n

And although Trump was not directly involved in Louisiana v. Callais<\/em>, in which the court struck down a congressional map that created a second majority-Black district in that state and, more broadly, made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail on claims that a new map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting, that decision too will likely aid Trump and the Republican Party in the November 2026 elections. Since issuing its decision in Callais<\/em> in late April, the court has given Louisiana and Alabama the green light to use maps with additional Republican-leaning districts. Earlier in the term, it allowed Texas to use a new map that may lead to as many as five new Republican seats \u2013 a map created after Trump called on Texas to redraw its map. Two months later, however, the court allowed California to use a new congressional map that was intended to give Democrats five additional seats in the House. And in March, the court cleared the way for New York to conduct its 2026 elections using its existing congressional map, pausing an order by a state trial court that would have required the state to redraw the map to add Black and Latino voters.<\/p>\n

Trump also enjoyed substantial, if not complete, success on the court\u2019s interim docket, racking up wins on issues ranging from immigration stops to ending funding for public health grants linked to DEI initiatives. Trump\u2019s losses on the interim docket, however, included at least one major one in December, when the justices left in place \u2013 over his administration\u2019s objections \u2013 an order by a federal judge that barred the government from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois to enforce immigration laws.<\/p>\n

All in all, the overall portrait of the Supreme Court in its 2025-26 terms appears to have been one that was willing to give Trump substantial power. That said, when he sought to test the outer limits of that already substantial power, in cases like the tariffs case and birthright citizenship, it was too much for two (and sometimes three) of the court\u2019s Republican appointees to allow.<\/p>\n

Read more After Slaughter and Cook: future Fed fights, and maybe some midnight firings<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court\u2019s 2025-26 term will likely be remembered as one of the most consequential in recent memory. This was certainly the case for President Donald Trump, who was the named party in four of the term\u2019s biggest cases and even became the first sitting president to attend an oral argument. The justices handed Trump […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":22,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-scotus-focus"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Trump term? - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Trump term? - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court\u2019s 2025-26 term will likely be remembered as one of the most consequential in recent memory. This was certainly the case for President Donald Trump, who was the named party in four of the term\u2019s biggest cases and even became the first sitting president to attend an oral argument. The justices handed Trump […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-03T13:40:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"The Trump term?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-03T13:40:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333\"},\"wordCount\":2401,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"SCOTUS FOCUS\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333\",\"name\":\"The Trump term? - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-03T13:40:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=333#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Trump term?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Trump term? - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Trump term? - American Service Review","og_description":"The Supreme Court\u2019s 2025-26 term will likely be remembered as one of the most consequential in recent memory. This was certainly the case for President Donald Trump, who was the named party in four of the term\u2019s biggest cases and even became the first sitting president to attend an oral argument. The justices handed Trump […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-07-03T13:40:32+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"The Trump term?","datePublished":"2026-07-03T13:40:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333"},"wordCount":2401,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg","articleSection":["SCOTUS FOCUS"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333","name":"The Trump term? - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-03T13:40:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/665476e248785f278afaf32cb1574478.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=333#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Trump term?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/22"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}