(Washington) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s influence over the American judiciary and his ongoing confrontational approach to international trade are once again in focus.
According to Professor Peter Ling of the University of Nottingham, Trump’s unusually high number of judicial appointments during his time in office is a key reason behind his recent legal successes in U.S. courts. These appointments have led to more majority rulings in his favour, even if they are not always unanimous.
A recent example involved an executive order signed by Trump on 20 January aimed at stripping birthright citizenship from children of undocumented immigrants.
Although a federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked the order, the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that lower courts could not impose nationwide bans on presidential executive actions. This ruling was widely viewed as a significant legal victory for Trump.
However, experts caution that the Supreme Court’s decision does not give Trump or any president a blank cheque. Instead, the court appears to be limiting the geographic scope of legal challenges, suggesting that any block on executive power should apply only within the judge’s jurisdiction. Still, Trump interpreted the decision as a win against what he terms “rogue judges” opposing his agenda.
Professor Ling pointed out that Trump’s legal advantage is partly due to the large number of judges he appointed. “That’s why he’s getting majority verdicts, not unanimous verdicts,” he said, adding that some court decisions have paved the way for further litigation, including challenges related to birthright citizenship under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. While this was originally aimed at ensuring the rights of freed slaves, current debates are attempting to narrow its interpretation. Supporters of Trump claim that birthright citizenship is being misused to secure residency rights for undocumented parents. However, legal experts note that children cannot petition for their parents to stay in the U.S. until they are 21, making this claim more political than practical.
On the trade front, Trump has once again taken a combative stance—this time with Canada. Citing a new 4% digital services tax imposed by Canada on large tech firms such as Google and Amazon, Trump announced he is halting all trade negotiations with the country. He accused Canada of trying to copy European policy and warned that it would backfire economically.
Trump argued that the U.S. holds the upper hand in trade, stating, “We have all the cards,” and criticised what he described as unfair tariffs, particularly on American agricultural products, some of which he claimed face import duties of up to 400%.
While trade disputes between wealthy nations may appear distant, their consequences can ripple globally. For countries like South Sudan, which depend on international cooperation, development aid, and fair market access, these disruptions threaten to widen inequalities and reduce the predictability of global trade governance.
Moreover, Trump’s position on digital taxes may affect wider global tech regulation efforts, which could eventually impact how digital services are taxed or managed in emerging markets. Any shifts in major powers’ trade policies often shape the financial and development aid environment that countries like South Sudan operate within.
Professor Ling also noted that many of the companies being defended by Trump’s administration, especially in the tech sector, had provided significant support to his political campaigns.
