So far, federal courts have checked Trump most forcefully. That follows the pattern of the past two presidents. Both George W. Bush (mostly on national security and surveillance) and Barack Obama (primarily on domestic issues like immigration) demonstrated that Congress has limited ability to truly stop a president determined to push the boundaries of executive power. But each man saw the courts affirm limits on the president’s authority by blocking key initiatives—as several federal courts, led by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, have already done with Trump, by enjoining his executive order temporarily barring immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.

Many of the key legal fights against Obama were led by Republican state attorneys general, who repeatedly sued him en masse on initiatives from immigration to climate change. That opened a new front in checking a president; states controlled by the opposite party had not systematically sued Bush or Bill Clinton. Now, Democratic attorneys general have quickly adopted the GOP model, with 15 states joining Washington and Minnesota to sue Trump over the immigration ban. More suits from Democratic-controlled states and cities are inevitable, particularly over environmental issues.

Trump has also faced a swarm of damaging leaks from within his administration, the most consequential of which led to Flynn’s resignation after The Washington Post disclosed he had discussed loosening sanctions with Russia’s U.S. ambassador before Trump took office. Perpetual infighting among the distinct orbits of Trump’s skeletal staff partly explains this daily torrent of unauthorized disclosures. More worrying for Trump is how it reflects resistance to his agenda and endemic skepticism about his competence among career government officials, particularly in intelligence, national security, and law enforcement.

Perhaps the most ominous fact in the Post’s scoop was that no less than nine current and former intelligence officials had confirmed Flynn’s communications. That sends the White House two equally chilling signals: that the broader counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump team’s contacts with Russia during the presidential campaign is progressing, and that at least some involved are fearful it will be shut down without public disclosure. Several other reports reinforce that message, from an under-noticed story from CNN that intelligence officials have confirmed some aspects of the “dossier” on Trump and Russia—though not the most salacious or controversial details—to Tuesday night’s even more explosive New York Times and CNN stories on contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials during the campaign.

Other nations are asserting limits, too. After loudly questioning the One China policy during the transition, Trump last week quietly reaffirmed it in his first phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. That inevitable retreat reflected the U.S. need for Chinese cooperation on other fronts, such as imposing any restraints on North Korea, which baited Trump with a missile test last weekend while he was hosting the Japanese prime minister. Meanwhile, European officials say that Trump’s team, facing near-unified international resistance, has privately acknowledged it will uphold the Iranian nuclear deal he publicly disdains.