Malcolm Rivera
Former US President Donald Trump has been involved in numerous legal controversies during his tenure, with critics arguing that some of his actions are illegal or unconstitutional. Trump's administration has faced legal challenges over his travel ban, which has been called discriminatory, as well as his ban on transgender troops, and attempts to defund public broadcasting. Trump has also been accused of executive overreach and granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems. Many legal scholars believe Trump was constitutionally ineligible to run for a second term due to his role in the January 6 insurrection. Despite this, Trump won a second term and has even hinted at running for a third, which would be in violation of the 22nd Amendment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump's Travel Ban | Unconstitutional |
| Trump's Ban on Transgender Troops | Unconstitutional |
| Trump's Ban on Federal Funding for Public Radio | Unconstitutional |
| Trump's Access to Sensitive Information | Violation of the Privacy Act |
| Trump's Eligibility to Run for President in 2024 | Ineligible |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's travel ban
The Brennan Center for Justice argues that the ban is discriminatory and violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from enacting policies that favour or disfavour a particular religion. They highlight President Trump's history of anti-Muslim statements and assert that the ban's genesis was rooted in discriminatory motives. The inclusion of non-predominantly Muslim countries in the ban is argued to be insignificant in practice as very few people from those countries would be affected.
In addition to the travel ban, Trump has also faced legal challenges over a range of other executive actions. These include a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, an attempt to defund NPR and PBS, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, and offering federal employee buyouts. Many of these actions have been characterised as overreach and unconstitutional, with critics arguing that Trump's administration is usurping Congress' power and infringing on free speech and press rights.
Trump's supporters, however, defend his actions as necessary to uphold his "America First" agenda and believe he has the legal authority to make such decisions. The outcomes of these legal challenges remain to be seen, and the debate over the constitutionality of Trump's actions is ongoing.
Protecting Our Freedoms: National Security and the Constitution
You may want to see also
The ban on transgender troops
The Trump administration's ban on transgender troops is one of several controversial policies enacted by the former president. In 2017, Trump issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the US military. This order was blocked by multiple federal courts, which found it to be unconstitutional and discriminatory. President Biden reversed the ban in 2021. However, in 2025, Trump reinstated the ban on transgender service members, leading to legal challenges and nationwide protests.
On February 19, 2025, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Lambda Legal challenged the constitutionality of the ban and urged a District Court to block its enforcement. They argued that the ban was "not only un-American, it's unconstitutional" and that it undermined national security and military readiness. The court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction and blocking the ban from taking effect. This decision was upheld by two other federal judges in the following week.
Despite these lower court rulings, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's ban to take effect while legal challenges proceeded. In Shilling v. Trump, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that had paused the Pentagon's transgender military ban. The court's ruling was based on procedural grounds and did not address the merits of the case or Trump's executive order. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the lower court injunction should have been kept in place.
The Trump administration's ban on transgender troops has been widely criticized as discriminatory and unconstitutional. Legal challenges to the ban continue, with plaintiffs in the Talbott case filing a letter brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, highlighting Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's disparagement of transgender troops. The fight against the ban aims to protect the rights and honour the service of transgender individuals in the US military.
German Constitution: Court's Interpretive Role Explored
You may want to see also
The 22nd Amendment
Another question that has been raised is whether the 22nd Amendment infringes on democratic rights. Some have argued that it does, and there have been several attempts to repeal or alter the amendment over the years. For example, in 1956, just five years after the amendment's ratification, the first efforts were made in Congress to repeal it. Between 1997 and 2013, Representative José E. Serrano introduced nine unsuccessful resolutions to repeal the amendment. In January 2025, Representative Andy Ogles proposed a joint resolution that would allow a president to serve a third term if their first term was completed while they were vice president.
The Iroquois Confederacy's Influence on the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, specifically Section 3, also known as the Insurrection Clause or Disqualification Clause, states that any person who:
> (1) [has] sworn to support the Constitution as a Member of Congress, officer of the United States, member of a State legislature, or state executive or judicial officer; and (2) [has] subsequently engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or [given] aid or comfort to its enemies
Is disqualified from holding federal or state public office.
In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates. This decision overturned the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that former President Donald J. Trump was ineligible for the office of President under Section 3 due to his participation in the insurrection on January 6, 2021.
While the Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly address travel bans, it establishes the principle of equal protection under the law, which has been invoked in legal challenges to President Trump's travel bans targeting individuals from predominantly Muslim countries. The National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, reintroduced in Congress in response to Trump's travel bans, seeks to prevent future bans by strengthening the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination based on religion.
Separately, there have been proposals to amend the 22nd Amendment to allow President Trump to serve a third term, citing his "decisive leadership" and loyalty to the American people. Critics, however, argue that Trump has undermined the Constitution and the rule of law.
Congress' Powers: Understanding Constitutional Limits
You may want to see also
Public radio funding ban
On May 2, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to cut federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order instructed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and other federal agencies to “cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and root out indirect sources of public financing for the news organizations.
Trump cited his authority as president under the Constitution and federal laws in making the order, stating that government funding of the news media is "not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence." He further asserted that NPR and PBS do not present a "fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens," referring to them as “left-wing propaganda."
In response, NPR and three of its local stations—Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio, and KUTE, Inc.—sued the Trump administration, arguing that the executive order violates their free speech rights and that the president does not have the authority to cut their funding. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, DC, alleges that the order is “textbook retaliation” and an “existential threat to the public radio system that millions of Americans rely on for vital news and information."
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has also sued Trump over his move to fire three members of its five-person board, claiming that the president was exceeding his authority and that the decision would deprive the board of a quorum needed to conduct business.
The funding ban has raised concerns among public radio stations, such as Boise State Public Radio, which relies on federal funding from the CPB to carry out its mission. The outcome of the legal challenges against the funding ban remains to be seen, with PBS also considering legal action to protect its ability to provide essential programming and services.
Executive Order's Purpose: Unraveling Intentions Behind the Directive
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional. The ban was enacted despite a rich record of Trump's anti-Muslim statements, including those linked to the ban.
No, Trump's ban on transgender troops is unconstitutional. The ban violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
No, Trump is not allowed to impose tariffs without congressional approval. Trump's global tariffs were blocked by a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade.
