Malcolm Rivera
There have been several accusations of former US President Donald Trump violating the Constitution. Legal experts, historians, and scholars have pointed to Trump's rapid-fire and controversial moves, including banning birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, and dismissing members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Trump's spending freeze was seen as an attempt to ignore Congress's constitutional power of the purse. In addition, Eisen, Painter, and Tribe filed a suit asserting that Trump violated the Emoluments Clause. Trump's statements at a rally, which were interpreted as calls to violence, also led to impeachment proceedings, although his attorneys argued that these statements were protected by the First Amendment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Violating the emoluments clause | Trump's ongoing business arrangements may be in violation of the Constitution. |
| Violating the Due Process Clause | The White House counsel objected to investigations into impeachment on the ground that they lacked the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding. |
| Violating the First Amendment | Trump's attorneys argued that his political statements at a rally were core free speech under the First Amendment and thus not an impeachable offense. |
| Violating the Impoundment Control Act | Trump's federal spending freeze was an effort to ignore Congress's constitutional power of the purse. |
| Violating the Constitution's two-term limit for presidents | Trump has expressed interest in a third term, stating that "there are methods which you could do it." |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Violating the Emoluments Clause
The Emoluments Clause is a part of the US Constitution that acts as an anti-corruption measure. It is designed to prevent presidential corruption and foreign influence. There are two Emoluments Clauses: the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits federal officials, including the president, from accepting money, gifts, or any form of profit from foreign governments without the explicit consent of Congress. This clause is intended to prevent foreign influence on the president and protect national interests.
The Domestic Emoluments Clause, on the other hand, sets the president's salary and bars the federal government and states from increasing the president's salary or providing bonuses. This clause ensures that the president's compensation remains unchanged during their term and is not influenced by external factors.
Donald Trump was accused of violating both the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses during his presidency. He retained ownership and control of his business empire, which presented ongoing conflicts of interest. Trump International Hotel in DC, for example, received payments from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Arab Emirates, without Congressional approval. This was a clear violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, as Trump accepted payments from prohibited sources without seeking permission from Congress.
In addition to the foreign violations, Trump's businesses also profited from domestic sources. The governor of Maine, for instance, stayed at the Trump International Hotel on the taxpayers' dime, which may have violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
Multiple lawsuits were filed against Trump during his presidency, alleging violations of the Emoluments Clauses. These lawsuits sought to hold Trump accountable for his actions and uphold the integrity of the US Constitution's anti-corruption provisions. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these cases, citing that Trump was no longer in office, and missing an opportunity to set a precedent for future presidents.
Slavery and the US Constitution: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Impeachment inquiry
The impeachment inquiry into former US President Donald Trump was initiated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in September 2019. The inquiry focused on allegations that Trump had improperly pressured Ukrainian leaders. The impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: the initiation of the impeachment process, the Judiciary Committee investigation, and the full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
The first phase began with Pelosi's announcement, but she did not introduce a resolution formally launching an impeachment inquiry. The second phase is typically led by the Judiciary Committee, which can hold public hearings, subpoena persons and records, and incur expenses as part of the investigation. The committee then decides if the evidence merits drafting impeachment articles for the full House to consider.
In this case, the House later took action to explicitly approve the impeachment investigation, authorising House committees to continue their investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry. However, the White House and other Executive Branch offices refused to comply with the House investigators' requests for information, including subpoenas. Trump's refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by Congress was in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
The third phase involves the full House consideration of the articles of impeachment. A majority of House members voted in favour of the initiation of the impeachment inquiry. Following public impeachment inquiry hearings, more than 850 legal scholars signed an open letter stating that Trump had committed "impeachable conduct" and abused his office, which threatened democracy.
The specific articles of impeachment against Trump included obstruction of justice, violation of federal election law, obstruction of Congress, and violation of the Emoluments Clause. Trump's attorneys invoked the First Amendment as a defence, arguing that his political statements constituted free speech. However, the House managers disagreed, stating that impeachment seeks to protect the nation from a President who has abused the public trust.
Understanding Part 36 Offer Validity
You may want to see also
Federal funding freeze
During his second term, US President Donald Trump ordered a pause on federal aid, which could have affected trillions of dollars in funding for critical services, including education grants, medical research, and small business loans. This move was deemed by many as a violation of the US Constitution.
Trump's federal funding freeze caused alarm and chaos across the nation as it disrupted payments and funding for Medicaid, childcare programs, meals for seniors, housing subsidies, disaster relief, public safety, public health, infrastructure, and special education programs.
Several groups and legal experts argued that Trump's actions violated the Constitution and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which only allows presidents to withhold funds in limited circumstances and only if they follow specific procedures. Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, characterized the funding freeze as a "clear usurpation of a coordinate branch's [Congress's] exclusive power of the purse."
Trump's administration defended its actions, claiming that the funding stoppage was necessary to enforce compliance with its policies and prevent the use of federal resources to advance "Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies." However, critics accused Trump of attempting to unilaterally control state and local funding, disregarding the checks and balances designed by the Framers.
The funding freeze also led to legal challenges, with multiple courts issuing temporary restraining orders prohibiting the Administration from freezing funding. Additionally, Harvard University sued the Trump administration over a $2.2 billion funding freeze, arguing that it violated its First Amendment rights and was arbitrary and capricious.
The power of the executive branch over federal spending remains a subject of debate in various lawsuits, with federal judges asserting that agencies must comply with the law and applicable regulations, even when terminating individual grants.
Calm Amidst Chaos: Navigating Non-Emergencies with Poise
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$152.1
Birthright citizenship order
In 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which was quickly challenged in a series of lawsuits. The order stated that no government department or agency should issue documents recognising US citizenship to persons born to mothers who were unlawfully present in the US or lawfully present but temporarily, with non-citizen fathers.
The right to birthright citizenship was enshrined in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. The Citizenship Clause states that:
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The Supreme Court affirmed the right to birthright citizenship in a landmark case in 1898, ruling that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually anyone born in the US.
Trump's executive order was blocked by federal courts across the country, with judges ruling that it violated the constitutional rights of those born in the US. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated that the order "stands in flagrant opposition to our constitutional rights, values, and history."
The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on the case in May 2025, but the outcome is yet to be decided. The case has raised concerns about the power of individual judges to issue nationwide injunctions and the potential for a confusing patchwork of rules regarding citizenship.
Impeachment: A Constitutional Power Play?
You may want to see also
Third term
The idea of Donald Trump seeking a third term as US president has been floated by Trump himself, his supporters, and the media. Trump has repeatedly hinted that he would run for a third term as president, despite the US Constitution's 22nd Amendment, which states that "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". This amendment was added in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a third and fourth term, raising concerns about unlimited presidential terms.
Trump's comments on a potential third term have sparked strong reactions, with some accusing him of attempting to dismantle democracy and take over the government. However, it is unclear how seriously Trump is considering this idea, and some within his party, like Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin, have opposed it. Changing the Constitution to allow a third term would require a two-thirds approval from the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as approval from three-quarters of state-level governments, which seems unlikely given the current political landscape.
Trump and his supporters have suggested that there may be ways around the constitutional limit, such as through the vice presidency or a ""loophole" in the 22nd Amendment. The "loophole" theory, proposed by a 1999 law review article, argues that the 22nd Amendment only prohibits the reelection of a president who has already served two terms, but not their election to a third term. However, legal scholars have disputed this interpretation, calling it "implausible".
Representative Andy Ogles introduced a joint resolution in January 2025, proposing a constitutional amendment to allow a president to serve a third term if their first two are non-consecutive, specifically targeting Trump, who is the only living president to serve non-consecutive terms. Despite these efforts, constitutional law professors Jeremy Paul and Derek Muller have stated that there are "no credible legal arguments" for Trump to run for a third term.
Cabinet's Place in the Legislative Branch: Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, Trump violated the Constitution. Laurence Tribe, one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, said that Trump's actions were weakening the rule of law as well as respect for the law.
Trump violated the Constitution by freezing trillions of dollars in federal spending, banning birthright citizenship, and firing 18 inspectors general. He also dismissed members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), despite them being confirmed by the Senate with several years left in their terms.
Legal experts characterized Trump's disregard for the US Constitution as a blitzkrieg on the law. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, expressed dismay at Trump's flagrant flouting of the law. Laurence Tribe also said that Trump's actions were "a clear usurpation of a coordinate branch's [Congress's] exclusive power of the purse."
Eisen, Painter, and Tribe filed suit on behalf of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit watchdog group, asserting that Trump violated the emoluments clause. The ACLU also filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests to bring to light Trump's conflicts of interest. Trump's statements about serving a third term, which is prohibited by the Constitution, also sparked concerns.
