Malcolm Rivera
There is a consensus among many legal experts, historians, and scholars that former US President Donald Trump violated the Constitution and federal law during his time in office. Trump's controversial actions, ranging from banning birthright citizenship to firing inspectors general and freezing federal spending, have been described as a blitzkrieg on the law and the constitution. Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, called Trump the most lawless and scofflaw president in US history. Trump's disregard for the Constitution and federal statutes has sparked lawsuits and criticism from various organizations, including the ACLU, highlighting the potential consequences for democracy and civil liberties.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump's bans | Banning birthright citizenship |
| Closing the U.S. Agency for International Development | |
| Freezing federal spending | |
| Pardoning violent criminals | |
| Firing public servants | |
| Dismissing members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) | |
| Impounding congressionally-appropriated funds | |
| Violating the emoluments clause | |
| Legal experts' opinions | "A blitzkrieg on the law and the constitution" - Laurence Tribe, constitutional scholar |
| "Without any doubt Donald Trump is the most lawless and scofflaw president we have ever seen in the history of the United States" - Laurence Tribe | |
| "I can’t remember another president who has tried to throw so much of the constitution out the window to do what he wants" - Julian Zelizer, historian at Princeton | |
| "We have to focus on the fact that the sum of this is greater than the parts. Violating the constitution and acts of Congress repeatedly not only creates rips in the fabric that occur with each violation, but shreds the whole thing" - Laurence Tribe | |
| "It’s only the very beginning of this administration" - Laurence Tribe | |
| "a power grab, a constitutional crisis, or even a coup" - experts | |
| "a post-constitutional moment" - Trump's lawyers | |
| "an anticonstitutional lawbreaking spree" - journalist Chris Hayes |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's ban on transgender people in public restrooms
In 2017, Donald Trump's government revoked guidance to US public schools that allowed transgender students to use toilets matching their gender identity. The guidance, issued by his predecessor Barack Obama, stated that transgender students should be allowed to use whichever bathroom corresponded to their gender identity. While Obama's directive was not legally binding, it warned schools that they could lose funding if they did not comply.
Trump's reversal of this policy was praised by conservative activists, who argued that it protected students' rights to privacy. However, transgender activists and allies countered that gender identity is a civil rights issue that should be enforced at a federal level, not left to individual states. Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, called the move a "major setback for trans rights," expressing concern for the safety and security of transgender children in schools.
In addition to the ban on transgender people in public restrooms, Trump has also faced legal challenges for his ban on transgender people serving in the US military. A federal judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of this ban while a lawsuit by current and would-be transgender service members challenging the measure went forward.
Trump's actions have sparked concerns about his disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law, with legal experts and watchdog groups asserting that he has violated constitutional constraints designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence.
Understanding the Constitution: Amendments Explained
You may want to see also
Violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) is a federal law that governs the role of Congress in the US budget process. The ICA outlines procedures that the President must follow if they seek to reduce, delay or cancel funding provided by Congress.
The ICA was passed in response to President Nixon's executive overreach, as he refused to release funds for certain programs he opposed. The Act reasserted Congress' power of the purse, establishing that the President may not unilaterally substitute their funding decisions for those of Congress.
Under the ICA, the President must notify Congress of their intent to withhold allocated funds, providing the amount, reasons, and period of the proposed deferral. Congress can then accept or reject this proposal, and if it does not act within a certain timeframe, the money must be released.
During his presidency, Donald Trump was accused of violating the ICA by freezing federal spending. Legal experts argued that Trump failed to follow the required procedures before implementing the spending freeze, which constituted a "clear usurpation of Congress's exclusive power of the purse."
Trump's actions regarding Ukraine security assistance funding further highlighted potential violations of the ICA. Emails released in 2019 showed that Acting Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Elaine McCusker expressed concerns that the withholding of funds from Ukraine could be a breach of the ICA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also found that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had withheld funds for policy reasons, which is not permitted under the ICA.
The Twofold Nature of the US Congress
You may want to see also
Trump's ban on birthright citizenship
In 2025, legal experts and historians claimed that former US President Donald Trump's ban on birthright citizenship violated the US Constitution. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship was blocked by a federal judge, who deemed it "blatantly unconstitutional".
The consequences of Trump's ban on birthright citizenship and other unconstitutional actions are significant. They have been described as creating "rips in the fabric" of the Constitution and undermining the rule of law in the United States. Trump's actions have also led to lawsuits and impeachment proceedings, with watchdog groups and legal organisations filing suits against him for violating the Constitution.
In conclusion, Trump's ban on birthright citizenship is part of a broader pattern of behaviour that demonstrates a disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law. This behaviour has been characterised by legal experts and historians as unprecedented and dangerous, with potential far-reaching consequences for American democracy and society.
Exploring Fed 51: Its Place in the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's tax lawyer claims violation is justifiable
Trumps' Tax Lawyer Claims Violation is Justifiable
Trump's longtime tax lawyer, Sheri Dillon, defended his partial measures at a January press conference, claiming that selling his assets would be difficult. She argued that without Trump's connection, the businesses might be worth much less and would have to be sold at a discount. Dillon also stated that even if Trump sold his business interests, he would still have the right to receive royalties. She did not explain why he couldn't sell those as well.
Dillon's argument highlights the potential economic loss Trump could face if he were to liquidate his business interests. However, this potential loss is not a valid justification for violating constitutional constraints designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence. Trump's history of controversial decisions, including banning birthright citizenship and firing inspectors general, has led historians and legal scholars to question his commitment to upholding the Constitution and federal law.
While Dillon's legal experience in constitutional law is unclear, she maintains that Trump's actions do not constitute a violation. She suggests that the potential financial impact on Trump's businesses justifies any potential breach of ethical standards. However, legal experts and watchdog groups disagree, asserting that Trump's actions violate the Emoluments Clause and put competing businesses at a disadvantage.
Trump's administration has been marked by a rapid succession of controversial decisions, leading some to describe it as a ""blitzkrieg on the law and the constitution." The administration's actions, such as the spending freeze, have been seen as an attempt to consolidate power and ignore congressional authority. Legal scholars and historians have expressed concern over Trump's willingness to disregard the Constitution and federal law, potentially creating a precedent for future presidents.
In conclusion, while Trump's tax lawyer, Sheri Dillon, claims that the potential economic impact justifies Trump's actions, this argument fails to address the broader implications for constitutional integrity and the potential for corruption and foreign influence. The violation of constitutional constraints sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the foundations of American democracy.
Understanding the Executive Branch: What's Excluded?
You may want to see also
Trump's counter-constitution
The Trump administration has been accused of undermining the US Constitution and federal law on numerous occasions. Trump's disregard for the Constitution has been described as a "'blitzkrieg on the law'" by legal experts, historians, and constitutional scholars. Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, called Trump the "most lawless and scofflaw president" in American history.
One of the main accusations against Trump is his violation of the emoluments clause. A lawsuit was filed by Eisen, Painter, and Tribe on behalf of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit watchdog group, alleging that Trump is violating the emoluments clause. The lawsuit argues that Trump's ongoing business arrangements with foreign officials or agents constitute forbidden "emoluments" under the Constitution.
Trump has also been criticised for his spending freeze, which was seen as an attempt to ignore Congress's constitutional power of the purse and circumvent the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The Act requires the president to notify Congress of their intent to withhold funds and follow specific procedures, which Trump failed to do. This action was described as a "usurpation of Congress's exclusive power" by Tribe.
Furthermore, Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship was blocked by a federal judge who deemed it "blatantly unconstitutional." Trump has also been accused of firing public servants without cause, dissolving federal agencies, and taking taxpayer money from communities, all of which violate the law and undermine the Constitution.
Trump's actions have been interpreted as a power grab and a move towards autocracy, with some experts claiming that the US is on an ""autocratic path, paved by law." Trump's use of presidential immunity and the support of lawyers who advocate for a "post-constitutional moment" further strengthen his counter-constitutional stance.
Checks and Balances: Constitutional Cornerstone?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military was seen as a violation of the constitution. This ban was part of a series of moves that showed Trump's willingness to violate the constitution and federal law, according to legal experts and historians.
Trump has been accused of violating the constitution in numerous ways, including freezing federal spending, dismissing members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and attempting to end birthright citizenship.
The Framers considered the violation of the constitution grounds for impeachment. However, no action is expected from the Republican Congress. To enforce the Constitution, public pressure and multiple lawsuits may be necessary.
