Malcolm Rivera
During his time in office, former US President Donald Trump has been accused of violating the Constitution and federal law on numerous occasions. From the earliest days of his presidency, Trump has been criticised for his controversial use of executive orders, his disregard for the rule of law, and his willingness to fire public servants and dissolve federal agencies. Trump's actions have sparked intense debate over the limits of presidential power and raised urgent legal and constitutional questions. Some of the accusations levelled against him include granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, offering unprecedented federal employee buyouts, and attempting to dismantle independent agencies.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Violating the Constitution | Banning birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, dismissing members of the NLRB and EEOC, attempting to dissolve USAID, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems |
| Undermining the Rule of Law | Pardoning violent criminals, firing public servants, dissolving federal agencies, taking taxpayer money from communities, refusing to enforce the law when it comes to his own misconduct, firing inspectors general without notice or rationale |
| Violating Civil Service Law and Procedures | Firing federal workers, instructing federal workers that executive orders "trump" all other sources of law, reclassifying civil service jobs as political positions requiring loyalty to the president |
| Violating Privacy Laws | Granting Elon Musk and his associates access to sensitive government databases |
| Violating Immigration Laws | Making cruel changes to immigration rules |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Pardoning violent criminals and insurrectionists
On his Inauguration Day, President Trump pardoned violent criminals and insurrectionists involved in the January 6 Capitol riots, sparking outrage and concerns about his respect for the rule of law. This pardon has been described as a ""corrupt pardon spree"" that undermines the Constitution and the sacredness it holds.
Trump's pardon of the insurrectionists has been heavily criticized by the House Judiciary Committee, which stated that it deprived victims and survivors of crimes of $1.3 billion in restitution and fines. This includes money owed directly to victims and American taxpayers, as well as funds for victims' assistance and compensation programs. The committee's analysis revealed that Trump's pardon wiped out restitution payments and fines for white-collar criminals, fraudsters, and tax evaders, allowing them to keep their ill-gotten gains.
The pardon has also raised concerns about public safety, as at least ten pardoned insurrectionists have been rearrested, charged, or sentenced for other serious crimes, including plotting the murder of FBI agents, child sexual assault, possession of child sexual abuse material, and reckless homicide. Some of these crimes were committed after receiving the pardon. For example, Andrew Taake, who was pardoned for assaulting Capitol Police officers during the insurrection, was later rearrested on charges of soliciting a minor.
Trump's decision to pardon violent criminals and insurrectionists goes against traditional standards for granting pardons, which require individuals to accept responsibility for their actions and make restitution to their victims. By granting unconditional pardons, Trump has enabled perpetrators to avoid accountability and continue profiting from their crimes.
This pardon is part of a broader pattern of controversial pardons issued by Trump, which have been described as a "corrupt pardon spree" that includes fraudsters, crooked politicians, violent extremists, and unrepentant cop beaters. Trump's willingness to pardon individuals associated with violent and insurrectionist activities undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent.
Constitutional Democracy vs. Autocracy: What's the Difference?
You may want to see also
Unconstitutional executive orders
During his presidency, Donald Trump has been accused of violating the law and undermining the US Constitution through his executive orders. One of the most notable examples is his attempt to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens, which was blocked by federal judges as likely unconstitutional, with one judge specifically citing the 14th Amendment.
Trump has also been criticised for his administration's attacks on academic freedom and free expression, with Congressman Steve Cohen condemning the targeting of elite academic institutions like Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, accusing them of antisemitism and promoting "anti-American" values. The administration's actions have been described as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and a dangerous assault on the rights of universities to govern themselves without political interference.
Another instance of Trump's controversial executive orders is the freezing of federal grants and loans, amounting to about $1 trillion. This move was seen as an attempt to stop "Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies", but it threatened essential services like education and healthcare. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse, and Trump's unilateral action was deemed a breach of constitutional principles.
Trump has also been accused of unlawfully firing members of independent boards, such as Gwynne Wilcox of the NLRB and two members of the EEOC, despite them being appointed by Democratic presidents and having active terms. These actions were described as "unprecedented and illegal" by Kate Andrias, a professor of constitutional law, who highlighted the legal protections afforded to board members.
The cumulative impact of Trump's executive orders has led scholars and legal experts to express concern about his disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. They argue that his willingness to violate constitutional norms and federal laws weakens respect for the legal system and has tangible negative consequences for millions of Americans.
Pennsylvania Hit-and-Run Laws: What You Need to Know
You may want to see also
Unlawful firings
President Donald Trump has been accused of violating the law and the US Constitution through his termination of government employees.
In February 2025, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration's human resources unlawfully exceeded its authority by ordering agencies to fire thousands of probationary federal workers. While Judge Alsup said he did not have the power to reinstate employees who were fired, he acknowledged that agency heads could fire probationary employees, but they could not be directed to do so by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, called the ruling "an important initial victory for patriotic Americans across this country who were illegally fired from their jobs by an agency that had no authority to do so".
In July 2025, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers. The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority ruled in Trump's favour, stating that his administration was "likely to succeed on its argument" that his executive order and a memorandum implementing it were lawful. This decision was criticised by opponents, who warned that the mass firings could threaten critical government services.
In addition to the mass firings, Trump has also been criticised for firing specific individuals, such as Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and two members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels. Kate Andrias, a professor of constitutional law and administrative law at Columbia University, called these firings "unprecedented and illegal", noting that the National Labor Relations Act allows the president to fire board members only for neglect of duty and malfeasance.
Trump's firing of fraud-finding inspectors general across the government without providing notice or a rationale to Congress has also been cited as a violation of the law and the Constitution.
The Constitution's Sources: Understanding Their Influence
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Freezing federal spending
Trump's move to freeze federal grants and loans was a massive breach of the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress the "power of the purse", meaning that it controls the money appropriated for federal government activities. Trump's decision to freeze federal spending was a clear violation of this principle.
The funding freeze affected everything from education to healthcare, causing alarm and chaos across the nation. It disrupted Medicaid payments, childcare programs, meals for seniors, housing subsidies, and special education programs. It also blocked funding for cancer research, infrastructure projects, and disaster relief.
In response to the funding freeze, there was widespread opposition, with judges ruling that the freeze was illegal and violated the separation of powers. District Chief Judge John McConnell stated that the Trump administration had "put itself above Congress" and "imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress's authority to control spending."
Trump's administration argued that the law preventing the president from unilaterally overturning spending decisions made by Congress was an unconstitutional limit on presidential power. This view was shared by some Supreme Court justices, who have proven highly deferential to presidential power.
The funding freeze was part of a wider pattern of Trump's administration violating the Constitution and federal law. Trump's actions have been described by legal scholars as a blitzkrieg on the law, with concerns raised about the weakening of the rule of law and respect for the law.
New York Delegates: Constitution Voting Outcome
You may want to see also
Granting access to sensitive information
During his presidency, Donald Trump faced criticism for his handling of sensitive information. This included reports of him disclosing classified information and his administration's access to sensitive government data systems.
Trump's disclosure of classified information to the Russians caused concern among lawmakers and intelligence experts. It was reported that Trump shared sensitive intelligence with Russian envoys, which originated from a Middle Eastern ally, later revealed to be Israel. This incident raised questions about Trump's judgement and the potential impact on America's relationship with its allies. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer emphasised the seriousness of the matter, stating that Trump owed explanations to the intelligence community, the American people, and Congress.
In addition to this, there were concerns about Trump's frequent visits to Mar-a-Lago, a luxury resort frequented by guests and members. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies expressed unease about the potential security risks, viewing the practice as a vulnerability that could be exploited by foreign spy services.
Trump also faced criticism for his administration's access to sensitive government data systems. Privacy experts warned about the increasing influence of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which had accessed sensitive systems within federal agencies. This included the Treasury, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The executive order titled "Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos" aimed to promote inter-agency data sharing, but it raised concerns about the Trump administration's disregard for privacy norms and personal data security.
Furthermore, there were concerns about the vetting process of individuals granted access to sensitive information. Some DOGE workers were private-sector employees of companies run by Elon Musk, and they had not undergone the standard government clearance procedures. A federal judge determined that this likely violated the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution.
Trump's actions related to sensitive information sparked worries among experts, lawmakers, and privacy advocates. These incidents contributed to the perception of a disregard for established norms and potential risks to national security and personal privacy.
PA Constitution: Gendered Language and Equality
You may want to see also
![An Analysis of the constitutional standard for Presidential impeachment, by James D. St. Clair [and others] Volume 1974 1974 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61IX47b4r9L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
