Trump's Constitutional Law Violations: What's The Verdict?

There have been several accusations and claims that former US President Donald Trump broke constitutional law. One of the most notable instances is the hush-money payments made to two women who claimed they had affairs with him. Trump denied any wrongdoing and argued that the payments did not come from his campaign funds. However, legal experts and courts have weighed in on the matter, with some arguing that the payments violated campaign finance laws and resulted in a conviction for Trump. Additionally, Trump has been accused of violating the Constitution's emoluments clauses by accepting gifts from foreign and state governments through his business ventures while in office. Cities have also filed lawsuits against the Trump administration, arguing that his actions towards the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, violated the Constitution. These allegations and legal challenges have sparked intense debates and protests surrounding Trump's presidency and potential violations of constitutional law.

Trump's hush money payments

In May 2024, former U.S. President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Clifford) before the 2016 presidential election. Trump denied the affair and any wrongdoing, but his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to serious campaign finance violations, stating that the crimes were directed by Trump "for the principal purpose of influencing the election."

The hush money payments were made to silence two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump: Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. Daniels received $130,000, and McDougal received $150,000 three months before the November 2016 election. Some legal experts believe these payments violated campaign finance laws, while others disagree, stating that they were not campaign expenditures and, therefore, not subject to disclosure.

In January 2025, a New York judge, Juan Merchan, upheld Trump's conviction in the hush money case but ruled that he would face no penalties. Trump's lawyers had argued that the case should be dismissed based on presidential immunity, but Judge Merchan disagreed, stating that the evidence presented was unrelated to Trump's official conduct as president. Merchan sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, meaning he will not be imprisoned, fined, or face probation. However, his conviction stands, and he will enter his second term as a convicted felon.

Trump has continued to deny any wrongdoing and has called the case a "political witch hunt." He and his lawyers plan to appeal the verdict.

Violating the Constitution's emoluments clauses

The United States Constitution's Emoluments Clauses are anti-corruption provisions that prohibit the president from receiving any profit, gain, or advantage from any foreign or domestic government. These clauses are located at Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 (Foreign Emoluments Clause) and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 (Domestic Emoluments Clause) of the Constitution.

The Framers of the Constitution included these clauses to prevent foreign influence on the president and to guard against undue influence from individual states and officials profiteering from new federal offices. The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits anyone holding any "Office of Profit or Trust under the United States" from receiving any "emolument" from foreign powers, where "emolument" is defined as any "profit, gain, or advantage." The Domestic Emoluments Clause, on the other hand, is a blanket prohibition against the president receiving any advantage from any state government or the federal government.

President Donald Trump has been accused of violating these clauses by retaining ownership and control of his business empire, which has led to accusations of profiting off the presidency. For example, the president of Ukraine tried to curry favor with Trump by mentioning that he patronized Trump's business, and the government of Saudi Arabia funded hundreds of thousands of dollars in spending at his D.C. hotel. These incidents, while not strictly constitutional violations, represent significant breaches of the spirit of the Constitution and the original intent of the Emoluments Clauses.

Impeachment is a proper remedy for egregious violations of the Emoluments Clauses, as outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 and by Edmund Randolph, one of Virginia's delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Trump's conduct in office has undermined public faith in the integrity of government institutions and the belief in an impartial, neutral government, which is critical for democracy to function.

Violating his oath of office

On taking office, US presidents are required to recite the following statement:

> "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Some legal scholars believe that Donald Trump violated his oath of office on multiple occasions during his presidency.

Firstly, in 2018, Trump was accused of violating the Presidential oath of office after a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, where he repudiated US intelligence that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, claimed that Trump's interactions with Putin were a violation of the president's oath of office. Former CIA Director John Brennan went further, claiming that Trump's performance was "treasonous".

In 2019, Joe Biden, then a presidential candidate, accused Trump of violating his oath of office by pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden's son, Hunter, and his business dealings in Ukraine. A whistleblower's complaint detailed numerous efforts by Trump's personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Biden family. This incident led to an impeachment inquiry against Trump.

In 2024, two legal scholars, Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, argued that Democrats would be within their rights to block Trump's certification on the grounds of "an oath-breaking insurrection", referring to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. They cited the 14th Amendment, which states that no person who has engaged in insurrection against the US can hold office. Despite this, Democrats showed no willingness to block Trump's certification, and he was elected for a second term in 2024.

Finally, Trump was accused of violating his oath of office by attacking the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Four cities filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that his attempts to weaken the program by eliminating protections, discouraging enrollment, and driving up costs, directly violated a clause in the US Constitution, which states that the president and their administration must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

Interference in the 2020 election

On August 1, 2023, a grand jury indicted former US President Donald Trump on four charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The charges included conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The indictment alleged that Trump and his co-conspirators spread lies about election fraud and pressured officials from seven states, federal agencies, and the vice president to keep Trump in power. This culminated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, which was exploited by Trump and his allies in a final attempt to delay the election certification.

The investigation, led by DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith, focused on several key areas:

• False presidential elector schemes: Trump and his allies organized fake elector slates in seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and pressured state officials to change the election results.
• Legal and congressional maneuvers: They attempted to use the DOJ to conduct sham investigations and influence state officials, as well as enlist Vice President Mike Pence to alter the election certification.
• Pressure campaign: There was a sustained pressure campaign on state officials and legislators to change the election results in the targeted states.
• Events leading to the January 6 attack: Trump's false claims of election fraud and encouragement of his supporters to come to Washington, DC, contributed to the attack on the Capitol.

Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed absolute immunity for his actions as president. However, a federal judge rejected his claim of presidential immunity, and the case proceeded. Trump's trial was initially set for March 4, 2024, but it was postponed pending the resolution of his appeal to the Supreme Court.

The indictment and investigation revealed a coordinated effort by Trump and his allies to subvert the democratic process and undermine the will of the American people. The investigation and legal proceedings sought to hold Trump accountable for his actions and ensure the rule of law and the integrity of elections.

Attacking Obamacare

In 2023, four cities—Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Columbus, Ohio—filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the president broke constitutional law by attempting to weaken the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare. The lawsuit argues that Trump's actions directly violate a clause in the U.S. Constitution, which states that the president and their administration must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Since Congress failed to repeal the ACA in 2017, Trump has attempted to weaken the program through various administrative actions, including shortening the sign-up period, cutting funding for outreach, and expanding insurance options that don't comply with ACA standards. The lawsuit against the Trump administration points to how these executive changes have cost the cities by leading to more uninsured patients seeking care and more city-funded ambulance transports.

Trump has consistently criticized Obamacare, pledging to repeal it during his 2016 presidential campaign and referring to it as "out of control" and "not good healthcare." In 2023, he renewed his attacks on the policy, vowing to "replace it" with something "much better." These attacks have been deemed risky, given the enduring popularity of the ACA among Americans.

Trump's focus on repealing Obamacare may be driven by a desire to appeal to his base by attacking the legacy of President Barack Obama, who was extremely unpopular with the GOP base. Additionally, Trump has long appeared obsessed with attacking and undoing Obama's achievements, and there may also be a racial component to his attacks on the legacy of the first Black president.

Frequently asked questions