President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders seems destined for a showdown at the Supreme Court. Members of Trump’s administration — including Vice President JD Vance and tech billionaire Elon Musk — are already raising the possibility of defying the court should it rule against the administration. This raises the stakes for the court: a ruling against Trump risks the executive branch’s defiance, which could damage the court’s legitimacy.

Will Trump comply with its rulings? What will be the consequences of defiance? These are questions not only of law, but also of politics.

There are many historical examples that shed light on what the political fallout might look like, but perhaps the best comes from the final months of Richard Nixon’s presidency, in 1974.

Forced into a corner, Nixon complied with the court’s ruling.

Nixon had secretly taped conversations in the Oval Office, with some of the recordings containing evidence about the Watergate cover-up. In April 1974, special prosecutor Leon Jaworski subpoenaed the recordings as part of his investigation. In U.S. v. Nixonthe Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes.

The court’s opinion, written by Nixon-appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger, left the president with two options. He could comply with the court and deal with the fallout. Or he could defy it and send the country into a constitutional crisis — something he apparently did privately consider.

The political context is important. By the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Nixon’s political capital had collapsed. His approval rating hovered around 24%and his fellow Republicans in Congress had abandoned him. Everyone — including the justices — knew that ignoring the court would probably result in Nixon’s impeachment and removal.

This put the court in a strong position politically, and Nixon in a weak one. Forced into a corner, Nixon complied with the court’s ruling. He reluctantly handed over the tapes and resigned two weeks later.

Nixon’s story makes clear that, in a possible confrontation between a president and the Supreme Court, public approval and congressional support are enormously important. Nixon had neither: everyone knew that defying the court would likely have led to impeachment and removal. Trump, on the other hand, retains strong support from Republican voters, even as his overall favorability has declined since assuming office. While Nixon’s co-partisans on Capitol Hill hung him out to dry, Trump’s are standing behind him. Congressional Republicans have bent the knee time and time again, seemingly allowing his administration to exercise even those powers, such as the power to appropriate funds, that the Constitution grants to the legislature.

Unlike Nixon, Trump will not face the threat of congressional impeachment and removal if he defies the court. Barring an extraordinary political event — such as an unprecedented rout in the 2026 midterms — that will remain the case for the rest of his term. That reality could embolden him.

If public consensus remains firm, a blatant defiance of the Supreme Court could be politically perilous for Trump.

But there is a second important issue: people’s expectations. Not only did Nixon have abysmal public support, but roughly half of Americans wanted him to leave office entirely. Fast-forward to today, Trump himself is not unpopular, but many of his policies are not particularly well liked. Ending birthright citizenship, abolishing executive agencies and expansions of presidential power have proved unpopular. And large shares believe that Trump is overstepping his presidential authority. Would enough of the Supreme Court’s swing votes, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, stick their necks out to save policies that Americans dislike?

Most important is the fact that Americans firmly believe that presidents must obey Supreme Court rulings — for example, a recent poll showed that 83% of Americans(including 77% of Republicans) believe this. That is a striking level of bipartisan public consensus in a deeply polarized era. People want the president to comply with rulings, and they fully expect him to do so.

If public consensus remains firm, a blatant defiance of the Supreme Court could be politically perilous for Trump. This expectation may also influence the court itself, making it feel more emboldened to rule without fear of being ignored.

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does offer guidance. Nixon was a politically weak president pushing unpopular views; he could not realistically survive a conflict with the court given the credible threat of impeachment from Congress. As for Trump, even though his policies are not popular, Congress is currently no check on his power. This all suggests that if Trump defied the court, he would probably survive in the sense that he would not be impeached. But it could be a pyrrhic victory: he could emerge severely politically damaged, perhaps cripplingly so.

The deeper worry is this: Trump has tested the boundaries of executive power like few presidents before him. Even if defying the Supreme Court carries significant political costs, those costs may be relatively meaningless — especially if the standoff involves elections or an expansion of his own authority. Political damage after the fact would mean little if defying the court works to secure more presidential power at the expense of democratic norms. And in the end, the most significant check would be a credible threat of congressional impeachment and removal — something that was historically present, but for now remains absent.

Maya you

Maya Sen is professor of public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.