President-elect Donald Trump is preparing to invoke several centuries-old laws to implement key parts of his first-year agenda, focusing primarily on immigration policy and birthright citizenship. Trump plans to leverage laws with deep historical roots, dating back to the late 18th century, in an attempt to fulfill his campaign promises. However, his use of these laws could lead to significant legal challenges, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.

One of the laws Trump intends to use is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a controversial statute dating back to the Adams administration. This law allows the federal government to expedite the deportation of citizens from “hostile nations” in times of war or national emergency. Trump has suggested that he may use the law to target undocumented migrants, describing their arrival as an “invasion” and asserting that such powers are necessary to confront this “enemy from within.”

Although the law was last used during World War II to imprison Japanese nationals, legal experts warn that invoking it during peacetime would be a significant legal overreach. Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, argues that the law’s historical use in wartime makes its application outside of such a context highly questionable. Despite this, Trump’s strategy appears to be rooted in a belief that older, stronger laws could be his ticket to success.

In addition to the Alien Enemies Act, Trump has also expressed interest in enforcing the 1873 Comstock Act, which bans the mailing of “lewd” or “indecent” materials. Some of his allies, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have suggested that this law could be used to block the mailing of abortion medication. Although Trump has signaled that he would not prioritize the enforcement of the law regarding abortion drugs, pressure from anti-abortion advocates may push his administration to take action on this issue.

Trump’s stance on using military forces for domestic purposes also echoes past legal theories, such as the Insurrection Act of 1807. The act gives the president broad authority to deploy the military in domestic situations, including for immigration enforcement. Though the act has been used sparingly throughout history, including by President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, its potential invocation could face legal scrutiny due to the general prohibition on using the military for civilian law enforcement.

Finally, Trump remains focused on challenging birthright citizenship, a principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Legal experts believe that any attempt to restrict birthright citizenship would be met with strong opposition in the courts, as the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of those born on U.S. soil to citizenship.

As Trump prepares to push forward with these historic legal challenges, the Supreme Court may soon be called upon to weigh in on the constitutionality of his ambitious agenda.

As Donald Trump prepares for his upcoming inauguration next month, a range of Fortune 500 companies, crypto firms, and individual billionaires are pledging substantial financial support, with some donations reaching up to $5 million. These contributions, aimed at underwriting the inaugural events, are part of a larger effort to build relationships with the incoming administration.

Amazon, Ford Motor Company, and hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin are among the companies offering donations at the $1 million level. Cryptocurrency company Ripple is contributing $5 million in XRP digital currency, a move that highlights the growing influence of the crypto industry in Washington. While the swearing-in ceremony itself is funded by taxpayers, the accompanying events, including a candlelight dinner with Trump and exclusive VIP access, are privately financed.

The inaugural committee is offering perks such as access to private dinners with Trump and his wife Melania, and tickets to events like the “Starlight Ball” and the inauguration parade. These high-level donations are seen as a way for corporate interests and wealthy individuals to align themselves with the new administration, according to political analysts.

Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, explained that large donations are a way to gain access to the president and key officials. “Money is a way of building relationships in Washington,” he said. “Everyone is racing to make friends with the incoming president, who has significant power.”

There are no legal limits on the size of donations to an inaugural committee, allowing companies and individuals to contribute large sums without restrictions. The identities of donors who contribute more than $200 will be disclosed 90 days after the event, following a report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The crypto industry, in particular, has been eager to engage with the new administration. Coinbase, a major cryptocurrency trading platform, donated $1 million to support the inauguration, reflecting its goal of establishing regulatory clarity for digital currencies. Robinhood, an online trading platform, has also pledged $2 million, aiming to influence policies that promote free markets and consumer choice.

Companies like Ford and General Motors, which supported Trump’s first inauguration in 2017, are continuing their contributions this year, with each donating $1 million. These companies are hoping for favorable policies, such as trade deals and tax regulations, under Trump’s leadership.

In addition to corporate donations, individual supporters are also giving generously. Sheldon Adelson, a major donor to Trump’s first inauguration, was the largest individual contributor with $5 million in 2017. His widow, Dr. Miriam Adelson, is helping finance this year’s event.

The high-stakes nature of these donations underscores the deep ties between big business and politics, with many contributors seeking access to power in the new administration. As the inauguration approaches, these donors will enjoy unparalleled access to the president and his team, highlighting the significant influence of money in shaping the political landscape.