Gavin Howe
There is a significant body of evidence and expert opinion that suggests former US President Donald Trump has repeatedly disregarded the laws of the Constitution. Trump's controversial actions have included banning birthright citizenship, firing inspectors general, freezing federal spending, and dismantling agencies created by acts of Congress. Trump has also pardoned violent criminals and used lawsuits to shield himself from scrutiny, all while exploiting the law to benefit himself and his administration. Trump's disregard for the Constitution has been described as a 'blitzkrieg on the law' and a power grab, with some experts claiming that his actions have undermined democracy and the rule of law in the United States.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Pardoning violent criminals | Hundreds pardoned upon taking office |
| Dismantling agencies | USAID, FBI, and agencies created by acts of Congress |
| Firing civil servants | Inspectors general, members of the NLRB and EEOC |
| Violating the Constitution | Ending birthright citizenship, guaranteed in the 14th Amendment |
| Illegally withholding funds | Freezing federal spending and grants/loans totalling $1 trillion |
| Exploiting presidential immunity | Suing the Wall Street Journal |
| Unconstitutional power grab | "Unitary executive theory", seeking primacy of executive power |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Pardoning violent criminals
On the first day of his second term, President Trump pardoned 1500 people involved in the January 6 Capitol riots, including those who violently assaulted police officers. This was an unprecedented and dangerous use of the pardon that created a mockery of federal law enforcement. Many of the pardoned rioters had prior convictions and outstanding charges for rape, child sexual exploitation, domestic violence, manslaughter, drug trafficking, and other crimes.
Trump's grant of clemency was described by counterterrorism researchers as encouraging future political violence. Bruce Ackerman, a law and political science professor at Yale Law School, called the action, "...a president pardoning his allies for their participation in a violent coup d'etat". US District Judge Royce Lamberth, appointed by Ronald Reagan, stated during a case on 25 January 2025 that during his time on the bench, he could never recall "such meritless justifications of criminal activity". Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and professor at George Washington University Law School, called the pardons an abuse of power by Trump, signaling that if they commit crimes on Trump's behalf, there would be no accountability.
Trump's pardoning of violent criminals is part of a broader pattern of disregard for the US Constitution and federal law. Some historians and legal scholars argue that Trump has shown a greater willingness than his predecessors to violate the Constitution, pointing to actions such as banning birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, and firing members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Laurence Tribe, one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, stated that "Without any doubt, Donald Trump is the most lawless and scofflaw president we have ever seen in the history of the United States."
Trump has also benefited from and exploited legal immunity like no other president in American history. In 2025, he became the first president to receive criminal immunity from prosecution based on a previously nonexistent doctrine with no credible basis in the Constitution. On the civil side, Trump has frequently invoked presidential immunity to force plaintiffs with serious legal claims against him to endure years of litigation.
The First Mate: Law's Right-Hand Man
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$15.95
Violating birthright citizenship
On 23 January, a federal district judge in Seattle, John Coughenour, temporarily blocked Trump's order to end birthright citizenship, stating that it was "blatantly unconstitutional". Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, further expressed his disbelief at how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that the order was constitutional. Despite this, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, defended the president's move to ban birthright citizenship, arguing that President Trump believes it is a necessary step to secure the nation's borders and protect the homeland.
Trump's order ending birthright citizenship has faced widespread criticism and legal challenges. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision to block the nationwide enforcement of the order, which would deny citizenship to babies born to people illegally or temporarily in the U.S. The court's decision was made in a 2-1 vote, upholding the ruling of U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle. The Trump administration is facing at least nine lawsuits challenging the executive order.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that people born or naturalized in the U.S. or "subject to United States jurisdiction" are American citizens. However, Department of Justice attorneys argue that this does not automatically grant American citizenship based solely on birth location. Trump's executive order would deny American citizenship to children born to parents without legal or permanent status in the U.S.
Trump's actions regarding birthright citizenship are part of a broader pattern of disregarding the laws and the Constitution. Legal scholars and historians have pointed to other instances where Trump has allegedly violated the Constitution, such as freezing federal spending, dismissing members of government agencies, and pardoning violent criminals. Some experts have characterized Trump's approach to the presidency as a ""power grab" and a move towards autocracy, exploiting the law and weakening democratic institutions.
Constitutional Carry Law in Rhode Island: What's the Status?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Firing inspectors general
During his first week in office, President Donald Trump fired inspectors general (IGs) across 17 different federal agencies. These inspectors general are nonpartisan officials charged with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuses of office at their respective agencies. They are crucial components of proper government oversight and a healthy democracy. The mass firing has been deemed illegal and an alarming show of contempt for independent oversight.
Inspectors general exist to protect taxpayer money by preventing corruption and calling out ethical violations. IGs were first introduced in the executive branch when President Jimmy Carter signed the Inspector General Act of 1978. They are expected to act independently – while they are under the supervision of their agency head, they cannot be prevented or prohibited from conducting an investigation.
Trump's firing of inspectors general is concerning because it removes the only independent offices within agencies that are designed to protect taxpayer money and root out corruption, fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Certain fired inspectors general had previously looked into or were actively investigating matters that could affect the business interests of billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk. For example, the Defense Department Inspector General Robert Storch had opened a review of SpaceX’s compliance with federal reporting protocols intended to protect state secrets. The inspector general of the Department of Agriculture, Phyllis Fong, had also launched an investigation of Musk’s Neuralink startup.
Eight fired inspectors general sued the Trump administration in February, asking a federal judge to declare their firings unlawful and to restore their positions. House Democrats condemned the firings, characterizing them as an "attack on transparency and accountability". Representative Gerry Connolly described the action as a "Friday night coup", further stating that it undermines public trust in government institutions.
Freedom of Speech: Constitutional Safeguards and Limits
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Immunity from prosecution
While Donald Trump has been accused of disregarding the laws in the US Constitution, he has benefited from and exploited presidential immunity from prosecution. In 2025, Trump became the first president in US history to receive criminal immunity from prosecution, in a case concerning his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. This was based on a previously non-existent doctrine with no credible basis in the Constitution's text or the Framers' expectations.
The Supreme Court has been steadily building up an extraordinary level of immunity for presidents, on both civil and criminal fronts. The concept of civil immunity for the president has no basis in the Constitution's text or in prior historical practice. However, Trump has frequently invoked presidential immunity to force civil plaintiffs with serious legal claims against him to endure years of litigation.
The law on civil immunity for the president is relatively sparse, as presidential immunity has only theoretically applied to 45 individuals in all of American history, most of whom have not faced legal proceedings. Nevertheless, Trump has been free to sue media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, for unflattering stories, while others are largely precluded from suing him. This has been described as an "incongruity in the law" and "asymmetry in the extreme".
Trump's administration has issued guidance across the government instructing all federal workers that his executive orders "trump" all other sources of law. Those who refuse to honour the executive orders have been fired or placed on administrative leave. This has resulted in a wave of resignations among federal workers unwilling to violate the law.
Were the Laws Constitutional?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Unitary executive theory
The Unitary Executive Theory (UET) is a US constitutional law theory that asserts that the President of the United States has sole authority over the Executive Branch. The theory is largely based on the Vesting Clause, which vests the president with "executive power" and places the office atop the executive branch.
Proponents of UET, sometimes referred to as "unitarians", argue that the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed") establishes a “hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President". They interpret the Vesting Clause of Article II of the Constitution as granting the president control over all officials in the executive branch.
Critics of UET point out that the Take Care Clause does not specify that the president should execute the laws but rather ensures that others are faithfully executing their responsibilities. They argue that the primary historical function of the clause was to impose a duty on the president, not to expand their powers. Additionally, they highlight the Opinion Clause, which states that a president may request the opinion of a department officer in writing, suggesting that the president was not intended to have extensive power.
The theory often arises in debates about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch, transparency and access to information, discretion over implementing new laws, and influencing agencies' rule-making. The Reagan administration first cited UET, and it entered public discourse during the George W. Bush administration. President Donald Trump has been a strong advocate of UET, using it to justify the dismissal of federal officials and asserting his authority over regulatory agencies created by Congress to act independently.
Legal analysts have observed that Trump's actions, guided by UET, aim to consolidate unprecedented power to remove and replace federal employees and impose his will on every decision in every agency. This includes regulatory agencies like the Federal Election Commission, which are vulnerable to conflicts of interest and political interference. Trump's expansion of presidential power has been enabled by the Supreme Court, which has steadily built up presidential immunity, as seen in the 2021 Collins v. Yellen case.
The Evolution of AML Laws in France
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes. Trump has disregarded the laws in the Constitution by issuing executive orders to abolish birthright citizenship, erase civil rights legislation, reverse efforts to curb climate change, and stop payments on federal programs. He has also fired inspectors general and career civil servants without cause, and dismantled agencies created by acts of Congress.
Some specific examples of Trump's disregard for the Constitution include the following:
- The order to end birthright citizenship, which was blocked by a federal judge as "blatantly unconstitutional".
- The firing of 18 inspectors general, who serve as independent officials investigating agencies for fraud, waste, and abuse.
- Freezing trillions of dollars in federal spending, which many legal experts argued violated the Constitution and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.
Trump's disregard for the Constitution has been described as a blitzkrieg on the law and a constitutional crisis. It has also been said to set a dangerous precedent for the future of American democracy, with some experts characterizing it as a power grab or even a coup.
There has been significant pushback and criticism of Trump's disregard for the Constitution. Federal courts have ruled against him on certain issues, and members of Congress and legal scholars have spoken out against his actions. Protests have also taken place outside the Supreme Court. However, Trump has also benefited from a high level of immunity granted by the Supreme Court, and some Republican lawmakers have remained silent on the matter.
