Trump's Legal Troubles: Is He Above The Law?

Former US President Donald Trump has been accused of breaking the law on several occasions. In August 2024, he was charged with four federal crimes, including conspiracy to defraud, obstruction, and conspiracy of rights, all of which could result in prison time if he is convicted. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, claiming that the case against him is a witch hunt.

In addition, Trump has been accused of violating Florida criminal law by failing to report to his local sheriff after being found guilty of falsifying business records in New York. He also voted in the August 2024 primary in Florida, despite the fact that convicted felons lose their right to vote in the state until their sentences are completed.

Trump's administration has also been accused of violating rules, laws, and the Constitution, including attempting to dismantle independent agencies, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, and offering federal employee buyouts. Legal experts argue that some of these actions may contravene multiple federal statutes and raise urgent legal and constitutional questions.

Did Trump break Florida law by not reporting a fraud conviction?

In 2024, former US President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws. The conviction related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

In Florida, a state statute requires anyone convicted of a crime in another state to report it to their local sheriff within 48 hours of returning to their Florida home. Trump did not do this, and was therefore in violation of the law.

Florida Statute 775.13 states that the offender must be fingerprinted and photographed, and that violation of the statute is a second-degree misdemeanour punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a potential fine of up to $10,000 per conviction.

Despite this, it is unlikely that the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office will investigate Trump for the offence, or that Palm Beach state prosecutors will charge him.

However, some observers have complained that Trump is receiving special treatment, and that he is not being treated like other convicted felons.

Trump's lawyer has argued that Trump's criminal case is not yet completed, and that there is "no final result to the criminal proceeding".

Did Trump illegally conspire to overturn the 2020 election?

In August 2023, former US President Donald Trump was indicted by a grand jury on four charges relating to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election result. The charges were: conspiracy to defraud the US, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

The indictment alleged that Trump and his co-conspirators, unwilling to accept his loss to Joe Biden, conspired and plotted to illegally hold onto power. It also detailed a scheme to pressure election officials to further his bogus claims of fraud and disenfranchise millions of voters.

Trump was accused of pressuring officials to reverse the 2020 result, knowingly spreading lies about election fraud, and seeking to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021. He denied any wrongdoing.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) argued that Trump's actions revealed the hallmarks of a coup. However, Trump avoided prosecution due to his re-election in 2024 and the DoJ's view that the US Constitution prohibits the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president.

Did Trump violate the law by granting Elon Musk access to sensitive government systems?

In 2025, days after his second swearing-in, Donald Trump, in his role as US President, granted Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to the federal payment system. This system handles more than more than $5 trillion annually in federal disbursements, including Social Security, Medicare, and tax refunds.

Legal experts argue that granting the DOGE team access to such sensitive government data potentially contravenes multiple federal statutes, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), as well as strict taxpayer privacy provisions under the Internal Revenue Code.

The move by the Trump administration drew a lawsuit from two major federal employee unions, claiming that granting access to the sensitive data breached the Privacy Act of 1974. Legal experts also pointed to potential breaches of FISMA, which mandates strict security controls for federal IT systems, and CFAA, which criminalizes unauthorized access to government networks.

While proponents of the move argue that Musk's team needed access to the data to root out inefficiencies and reduce government spending, critics are alarmed by the implications of giving a billionaire—whose companies hold substantial government contracts—and his team access to such sensitive information. Some have even questioned whether Musk's oversight could be used to politically manipulate or withhold payments, particularly given his known efforts to slash federal spending and his personal business interests in government contracts.

In response to the concerns, Trump told reporters that Musk "can't do and won't do anything without our approval," emphasizing that any action taken by Musk's team would require White House consent.

Did Trump break the law by offering federal employees buyouts?

On 28 January 2025, the Trump administration announced it would offer buyouts to federal employees who did not want to return to the office. The offer was made to all full-time federal employees, except for military personnel, the U.S. Postal Service, and those working in immigration enforcement or national security. Employees who chose to resign by 6 February 2025 would continue to be paid until 30 September 2025.

The proposal was criticised by employee groups, Democrats, and experts, who warned federal employees not to accept the offer. They argued that the buyout was part of a broader effort to make agencies inhospitable to workers and that it should not be viewed as voluntary.

It is unclear whether Trump broke the law by offering federal employees buyouts. However, employee groups, Democrats, and experts warned federal employees not to accept the offer, suggesting that there may be legal or ethical concerns surrounding the proposal. The buyout offer may have violated rules governing buyout payments, as the current cap on voluntary separation incentive payments is $25,000, which would be exceeded by the proposed buyout of nearly eight months of salary.

The White House expected 5% to 10% of federal employees to accept the offer, which could save taxpayers up to $100 billion a year. The Trump administration justified the buyouts as a way to reduce the government workforce and improve efficiency. However, critics argued that the move would lead to the loss of expert, knowledgeable civil servants and create a toxic work environment.

Did Trump violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974?

On his first day in office for his second term, President Donald Trump issued a directive to federal agencies to "pause" billions of dollars in spending on healthcare, housing assistance, and disaster relief. This directive may violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which limits the executive branch's authority to decline to spend or commit to spending funds that have been appropriated by Congress.

The ICA was enacted to curtail the practice of impoundment, which is an executive refusal to spend funds appropriated by Congress. Impoundment was historically carried out by U.S. presidents with some regularity but was abused by President Nixon, leading to the enactment of the ICA in 1974. The ICA now allows the president to withhold funds only in certain specific circumstances and for limited periods, such as to provide for contingencies or to achieve savings due to changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations.

Trump's directive to pause spending on certain programs appears to be an attempt to achieve policy goals, which is not permitted under the ICA. The directive states that "the use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars." This suggests that the pause in spending is motivated by policy considerations rather than practical or efficiency concerns, which would be a violation of the ICA.

Additionally, Trump's actions may violate the Constitution, which gives Congress the "power of the purse," or the authority to decide how to spend government funds. By unilaterally withholding enacted funding, Trump is overstepping his authority and undermining the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, is responsible for monitoring compliance with the ICA. The GAO can investigate spending and determine if the withholding of funds appropriated by Congress is legal. During Trump's first presidency, the GAO determined that his administration violated the ICA by withholding security aid for Ukraine.

Trump and his conservative allies have argued that the ICA is unconstitutional and that the president has the authority to spend less than what is appropriated by Congress. However, this interpretation is not widely supported, and Trump's actions set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.

Frequently asked questions