Trump's Constitutional Law Violations: A Comprehensive Overview

There have been several instances where Donald Trump has been accused of breaking constitutional law. One of the most notable examples is when he allegedly orchestrated a campaign cover-up by making hush-money payments to two women who claimed they had affairs with him. This incident potentially violated campaign finance laws. Additionally, Trump has been accused of violating the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause by accepting payments from foreign officials at Trump businesses. Scholars also argue that his remarks on ending birthright citizenship are unconstitutional as they plainly violate the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, a lawsuit claimed that Trump broke constitutional law by attacking Obamacare.

Hush-money payments

In 2023, former US President Donald Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records arising from a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. Trump pleaded not guilty, but in 2024, he was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

The trial centred on a reimbursement Trump made to his former personal lawyer and "fixer", Michael Cohen. Cohen claimed on the witness stand that he paid Daniels $130,000 in exchange for her silence about her alleged tryst with Trump and that he did so at Trump's direction and with his assurance that he would be repaid.

In total, the former president was accused of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. In 2025, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge, meaning he will not be imprisoned, fined, or face probation. However, his conviction still stands, and he will enter office as a convicted felon.

Attacking Obamacare

During his 2024 campaign, Donald Trump made conflicting statements about the future of Obamacare. However, his record during his first term suggests that big changes could be in store, especially if Republicans maintain control of the House.

Trump's first year back in office could include a number of changes to the ACA. One of the first changes would be the expiration of the Biden-era enhanced ACA subsidies, which are set to end in late 2025. Without these subsidies, net premium payments are expected to increase by an average of 79% and more than double in some states.

If Republicans maintain control of the House, House Speaker Mike Johnson has stated that changes to the ACA could be "massive". Republicans could attempt to offset tax cuts by significantly reducing ACA subsidies and making massive funding cuts and changes to how Medicaid is financed. This would be similar to the 2017 "repeal and replace" push, which would have left tens of millions without affordable health coverage due to budget cuts.

Even if Democrats secure the House, Trump could still take several executive actions. For example, his administration could grant state waivers to allow red states more flexibility, such as by changing Marketplace rules or tightening Medicaid eligibility through work requirements or other restrictions. Trump's administration could also use executive authority to adjust ACA regulations, such as loosening requirements for non-ACA-compliant plans that discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, as he did in his first term.

Trump may also choose to defund ACA marketing and outreach, as he did during his first term, which had a downward effect on signups. Additionally, in response to concerns about fraud, his administration could add verification requirements that make it harder for people to sign up for ACA plans. Finally, his administration can decide whether to join legal challenges to the ACA or decline to defend the law in court.

Violating the Emoluments Clause

The Emoluments Clause, which is considered to be the country's original anti-corruption law, prohibits the president from receiving any profit, gain, or advantage from any foreign or domestic government. This includes any "emolument", which has been defined as any "profit, gain or advantage".

The Framers of the Constitution were concerned about the potential influence of foreign powers and individual states on the president and sought to prevent this with the Emoluments Clause. They were aware of the dangers of foreign influence, even in situations more subtle than quid pro quo bribery, and wanted to prevent foreign governments from purchasing undue influence.

In the months leading up to his inauguration, President Trump decided to retain ownership and control of his business empire, which included interests both in the US and abroad. This put him in violation of the Emoluments Clause as soon as he was sworn in as president.

For example, the president of Ukraine tried to curry favor with Trump by mentioning that he patronized Trump's business. While this might not constitute a strict constitutional violation, it still represents a significant breach of the spirit of the Constitution and the Emoluments Clause. Similarly, the government of Saudi Arabia funded hundreds of thousands of dollars in spending at Trump's DC hotel, and the Romanian president patronized the Trump Hotel in Washington, DC, the day before meeting with Trump. These incidents demonstrate how Trump's refusal to divest from his businesses led to potential conflicts of interest and violations of the Emoluments Clause.

Violating the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, passed in the Civil War's aftermath, was designed to prevent former Confederate officials from holding federal office. It states that a person who previously took an oath of office and "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the US cannot hold any office in the US. A two-thirds vote of Congress can remove that disqualification.

Donald Trump has long expressed a deep opposition to birthright citizenship, which is protected by the 14th Amendment. The first line of the amendment 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." This is known as the "birthright citizenship" statement and has almost universally been interpreted to mean that anyone born within the territory of the United States is automatically a full citizen.

Trump has referred to birthright citizenship derogatorily as "birth tourism" and claimed that thousands of women are coming to the country just to have children who would automatically become citizens. He also stated that he intends to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship, which scholars across the political spectrum agree is clearly unconstitutional.

Trump's actions have also been at odds with other key provisions of the 14th Amendment, such as the "due process" and "equal protection under the laws" clauses. His administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants and demand for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S." plainly violated the equal protection clause.

Trump critics have pushed for blocking him from taking power, citing the 14th Amendment. A political movement called "14th Now" has been holding protests in Washington, D.C., urging Congress to block Trump from taking office under Section 3 of the amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court also banned Trump from running for president in the state for violating Section 3, but the US Supreme Court ruled that states don't have the power to disqualify candidates from federal office under that amendment.

Trump's potential disqualification under the 14th Amendment remains a subject of debate, with legal scholars interpreting court rulings differently. Some argue that a disqualification would need to come explicitly from Congress, while others disagree and believe states have the authority to enforce the prohibition.

Violating the Republican Form of Government Clause

The Guarantee Clause, also known as the Republican Form of Government Clause, is outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. It requires the United States to guarantee every state a republican form of government, protecting them from foreign invasion and domestic violence.

The Clause, at its core, provides for majority rule, where the people govern through elections. This is reflected in the Federalist Papers, where Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government." The Clause imposes limitations on the type of government a state may have, preventing rule by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even if passed by majority vote.

The Guarantee Clause does not, however, dictate the details of the republican government. For instance, it does not address state denial of the right to vote based on race, sex, age, wealth, or property ownership. While the Clause guarantees majority rule, it does not specify the details of how that majority is achieved.

In terms of judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has held that the enforcement of the Guarantee Clause is a nonjusticiable political question, to be decided by Congress or the President, not the courts. This was seen in cases such as Luther v. Borden (1849) and Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Oregon (1912). In 2019, the Supreme Court reiterated in Rucho v. Common Cause that the Guarantee Clause is not a justiciable issue capable of being litigated in court.

Congress has interpreted the Clause as a political question to be resolved by Congress, as seen in cases like Luther v. Borden. During the Reconstruction era, Congress relied on this understanding to disestablish ten state governments and place them under military rule, deeming those state governments as "unrepublican" under the Guarantee Clause.

Frequently asked questions