Isabella Carter
President Donald Trump has been accused of breaking the law and violating the US Constitution in several ways. These include illegally pardoning violent criminals, stealing funds from programs meant for American families and businesses, firing public servants, dissolving federal agencies, and attempting to ignore Congress's constitutional power of the purse. Legal experts have expressed concern over Trump's actions, characterizing them as a blitzkrieg on the law and the constitution and a constitutional crisis. Some of Trump's actions, such as shutting down agencies and granting access to sensitive government systems, have triggered legal challenges and debates over presidential power. Trump's attorneys have argued that he has not committed any crimes or violated any laws, and the impeachment proceedings against him did not result in a conviction.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Violating the law | Breaking the law on day one of his term, pardoning hundreds of violent criminals, illegally stealing funds, firing career civil servants without cause |
| Undermining the Constitution | Violating the Constitution every day, dismantling independent agencies, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, offering unprecedented federal employee buyouts |
| Violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause | Accepting payments from foreign officials at Trump businesses |
| Violating campaign finance laws | Orchestrating a campaign cover-up by making hush-money payments to two women who claimed they had affairs with him |
| Violating the Fourteenth Amendment | Abolishing birthright citizenship |
| Violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 | Freezing federal spending |
| Violating the Privacy Act of 1974 | Giving Musk's DOGE access to sensitive information |
| Violating the National Labor Relations Act | Firing board members of independent boards |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause by accepting payments from foreign officials
The Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal officials, including the president, from accepting any money or gifts from foreign governments without Congressional approval. This clause was established to prevent negative foreign influence and protect against presidential corruption.
In 2024, it was revealed that former President Donald Trump had received $7.8 million from foreign governments without Congressional consent. This was discovered through an Oversight Democrats staff report, which found that Trump had violated the Constitution by accepting payments at four businesses from at least 20 foreign governments, including China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Malaysia. Trump admitted to these actions at a Fox News town hall, and Ranking Member Raskin of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability demanded that he return the money and provide a full accounting of all foreign emoluments received during his presidency.
Trump's international businesses and real estate holdings were seen as a potential opportunity for negative foreign influence, as they positioned him to receive money from foreign governments. This "entanglement" between American officials and foreign powers was argued to be a threat to the Republic. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued Trump, alleging that his business interests could "sway" his decisions or create an opportunity for foreign influence in violation of the Emoluments Clause.
While the Department of Justice (DOJ) defended Trump, arguing that an Emoluments Clause violation occurs only when the president receives compensation or gifts due to his official duty, CREW countered that the clause covers anything of value, whether monetary or non-monetary. The Supreme Court dismissed two cases regarding Trump's alleged violations of the Emoluments Clauses, forfeiting an opportunity to set a precedent for future presidents.
Forensic Photography: False Representation and Its Unclear Boundaries
You may want to see also
Attacking Obamacare
On his first day in office, President Trump is accused of attacking Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Trump pledged to repeal the ACA, which protects over 100 million people with pre-existing conditions and requires insurance plans to cover preventative care. Trump's efforts to dismantle the ACA would result in millions of Americans losing their private insurance or Medicaid coverage, causing chaos in the healthcare system.
Trump's criticism of Obamacare stems from his belief that it is inferior to alternative solutions. He stated, "We have the biggest health care companies looking at it. We have doctors. We're always looking because Obamacare stinks. It's lousy. There are better answers." Trump's plan, according to CNBC's Joe Kernen, is to allow insurance companies to charge more for pre-existing conditions, effectively discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions.
Trump's actions towards Obamacare have been described as a sneak attack on Medicare, with his policies targeting Medicaid, NIH, CDC, Civil Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS, under Trump's administration, announced a pilot project in six states that would require pre-authorization for certain treatments, including deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease and arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis. While cracking down on abuses is not inherently negative, the private insurance industry's influence on these policies raises concerns.
Trump's approach to healthcare has been characterized by a focus on cutting spending and reducing entitlements. He has suggested that there is "a lot you can do in terms of cutting" Medicare and Medicaid, programs that millions of American families depend on. This aligns with his administration's actions, such as granting unprecedented federal employee buyouts and attempting to dismantle independent agencies.
Trump's attacks on Obamacare have been met with resistance and criticism. The DNC Rapid Response Director, Alex Floyd, stated that Trump's priority is "ripping away affordable healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans and screwing over people with preexisting conditions." Despite Trump's efforts, the majority of Americans approve of the ACA and believe the government is responsible for ensuring healthcare coverage for all citizens.
Increasing Constitution in Life is Feudal: Tips and Tricks
You may want to see also
Freezing federal spending
The Trump administration has been accused of violating the Constitution by attempting to freeze federal spending. In 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ordered a freeze on funding for a wide range of federal programs, causing confusion and uncertainty for local governments, nonprofits, and individuals. This action raised questions about the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch, with some arguing that it was an overreach of presidential power.
The Constitution grants Congress the "power of the purse" as outlined in Article I, which means that Congress, not the President, decides how federal funds are allocated. Past presidents, including Nixon, have attempted to exert control over federal spending, but the Supreme Court has reaffirmed Congress's authority in this area. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 further complicates the issue, requiring the President to obtain Congress's permission to withhold discretionary spending.
Trump's attempted spending freeze affected a variety of areas, including education, healthcare, and foreign aid. In California, the administration's decision to freeze $6.8 billion in federal education funds disrupted school districts and led to concerns about layoffs and program cuts. The administration also froze foreign aid, threatening the provision of medical care and the safe operation of refugee camps.
Legal experts and lawmakers have raised concerns about the constitutionality and legality of Trump's actions. Some have argued that the administration's actions violated federal law by refusing to distribute congressionally appropriated funds. Lawmakers have promised to pursue legal action and scrutinize the administration's authority to withhold funds.
The attempted spending freeze by the Trump administration highlights the complex interplay between governance, services, and legal oversight within the constitutional republic. It remains to be seen what long-term impacts these actions will have on the balance of power between the branches of government and the delivery of essential services to citizens.
Understanding Valid Job Offers: LC 4650 (b)
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$152.1
Pardoning violent criminals
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump pardoned hundreds of violent criminals, including all those charged or convicted for their role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump's pardons and commutations were granted to people he described as "patriots". Many of those pardoned had extensive criminal records, including prior convictions and outstanding charges for rape, manslaughter, child sexual abuse, domestic violence, drug trafficking, and other violent crimes.
Trump's decision has been widely criticised as an abuse of power and a breach of the Constitution. Some critics argue that Trump's pardons send a message that political violence is acceptable in a democratic society, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution. Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and professor at George Washington University Law School, called the pardons an abuse of power, suggesting that they signal a lack of accountability for crimes committed on the president's behalf. Bruce Ackerman, a professor at Yale Law School, described the pardons as "a president pardoning his allies for their participation in a violent coup d'etat".
Trump has defended his decision by suggesting that evaluating each case individually would have been challenging due to the large number of people involved. He also stated that the prison sentences for the January 6 defendants were excessive. However, critics argue that Trump's pardons go beyond simply eliminating the consequences of criminal convictions. Pam Karlan, a legal scholar, notes that Trump's actions seem to imply that those pardoned were not guilty in the first place, which could have broader implications for how his actions are understood historically.
The pardons have also raised legal questions about the scope of presidential pardon power. While the president has the authority to grant pardons for federal crimes, some legal experts argue that the pardoned individuals may still be liable under state law for violations of state criminal laws. This is due to the doctrine of dual sovereignty, which allows states to prosecute individuals for similar conduct as federal authorities. As a result, there may be ongoing legal consequences for those pardoned by Trump, despite his attempts to exonerate them.
Florida Constitution: A Declaration of Independence?
You may want to see also
Dismantling independent agencies
During his second term, Donald Trump has been accused of dismantling independent agencies, which is seen by many as an attempt to undermine the separation of powers, a foundational principle of the Constitution.
Trump's supporters argue that centralizing more power in the presidency will restore the Constitution's vision of checks and balances. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, claims that liberals have diminished the president and Congress in favour of "all-empowered career 'experts' in federal agencies".
However, legal experts argue that Trump lacks the constitutional authority to shut down agencies without congressional approval. While USAID was initially created by President John F. Kennedy through an executive order in 1961, it was established as its own government agency by Congress in 1998. Legal scholars assert that Congress has the final authority to shut down the agency or allow it to be folded into the State Department.
Trump has also been accused of granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, such as allowing Elon Musk's DOGE access to Treasury's payment system, which has been deemed a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974.
In addition to targeting USAID, Trump has moved to rein in other independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He has asserted that these agencies have ""exercised enormous power over the American people without Presidential oversight", spending tax dollars and setting priorities without consulting him. Trump has issued an executive order requiring all agencies to submit draft regulations for White House review and consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans.
Exploring Constitutional Rights: Section 8 Powers
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Trump is accused of violating the Constitution in several ways, including illegally pardoning hundreds of violent criminals, stealing funds from programs meant for American families and businesses, firing public servants, dissolving federal agencies, and attempting to ignore Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
Trump's actions have weakened the rule of law and respect for the law, creating rips in the fabric of the Constitution. They have also led to real-world consequences such as tumbling stock markets and the closure of health clinics.
Legal experts have expressed concern over Trump's actions, characterising them as a "blitzkrieg on the law and the Constitution". Members of Congress from both parties have been criticised for not speaking out against Trump's actions. Federal courts and the Supreme Court have also been accused of being overly deferential to presidential power.
