Trump's Shutdown: Legal Or Lawbreaker?

President Donald Trump's recent actions have sparked concerns about the legality of his conduct, particularly regarding a potential government shutdown. Trump's aggressive approach in his second term has raised urgent legal and constitutional questions. His administration's attempts to dismantle independent agencies, grant private individuals access to sensitive government systems, and freeze government funding have created a highly unfavorable climate for bipartisan negotiations. Democrats are pushing back against Trump's unilateral moves, arguing that he is illegally blocking approved funding and attempting to shutter agencies without congressional approval. The situation has increased the odds of a government shutdown, with lawmakers expressing concern about the potential consequences.

Trump's unilateral actions

Dismantling of Independent Agencies

Trump has targeted independent agencies for dismantling or overhaul, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This has been met with resistance, as some legal experts argue that Trump lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally shut down or restructure agencies established by Congress. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 solidified USAID's status as an independent entity, and any attempt to dissolve it would require new legislation from Congress.

Granting Access to Sensitive Data

Trump's administration granted Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to highly sensitive government data, including the federal payment system and personal information of taxpayers, beneficiaries of federal programs, and contractors. Legal experts argue that this move potentially violates multiple federal statutes, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and taxpayer privacy provisions under the Internal Revenue Code. There are concerns about the potential for misuse or mishandling of sensitive data and the implications for national security.

Federal Buyout Program

Trump's administration offered federal employees an incentive to resign by providing them with eight months of pay and benefits. This has raised legal questions about whether it violates the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits the government from spending more than Congress has appropriated, and the Administrative Leave Act, which places strict limits on placing federal employees on leave. There are concerns about the legality of promising future expenditures that may exceed current appropriations.

Executive Orders

Trump has signed numerous executive orders, including those related to immigration, gender identity, military policy, and economic tariffs. Some of these orders have been temporarily blocked or face legal challenges, such as the order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed "blatantly unconstitutional." Trump's orders to reshape the military by removing diversity and inclusion efforts and banning gender transitions for minors have also sparked controversy and legal debates.

Impoundment of funds

The Impoundment Crisis of 2025 refers to the controversy surrounding the Trump administration's decision to freeze federal grants and loans. This decision caused chaos and confusion across America as hospitals, schools, non-profits, research organizations, pre-school programs, and police departments were unsure if they would continue to receive federal financial support.

The Impoundment Crisis specifically refers to the constitutionality of "impoundment". Impoundment refers to a president's power to refuse to spend or "impound" funds that have been appropriated by Congress for a designated purpose. While there have been statutes that give some spending discretion to the president, the consensus has long been that Congress's power of the purse, as outlined in the Spending Clause of the Constitution, grants them the authority to specify how appropriated funds are spent.

In direct conflict with Congress's power, the Trump administration's spending freeze was announced in a memo by Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. The memo directed federal agencies to submit detailed lists of projects that would be suspended under the new order and to assign a senior political appointee to track federal spending. The memo also stated that the freeze was temporary and only "to the extent permissible" by law, without providing further clarification.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, enacted in response to Richard Nixon's attempts to not spend funds appropriated by Congress, outlines the procedure for a president to attempt to impound funds. It requires the president to submit a "special message" to Congress requesting to rescind funds for specified reasons. The president may then defer spending those funds for up to 45 days, after which, if Congress does not approve the request, the funds must be spent.

The spending freeze implemented by the Trump administration was not in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act, and legal experts argue that it is a direct violation of Congress's constitutional power of the purse. The administration's actions have sparked lawsuits and intense debate over the limits of presidential power, with some predicting that the Supreme Court will need to resolve the matter.

Dismantling of agencies

President Donald Trump's administration has been marked by his attempts to dismantle independent agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Education.

Trump's administration has been discussing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, which he claims has been infiltrated by "radical zealots and Marxists". He has argued that the power of the agency should be transferred to the states. However, it is important to note that Trump does not have the authority to abolish the Department of Education by executive order, as eliminating a federal agency requires congressional action.

Trump's efforts to dismantle USAID have sparked similar concerns. He has signaled plans to shut down the agency by stripping it of its independence and placing it under the control of the State Department. Legal experts argue that Trump lacks the constitutional authority to do so without congressional approval. The fate of USAID hangs in the balance, with some sources suggesting that lawsuits targeting the administration's actions may be imminent.

In addition to these agencies, Trump has also targeted other departments for overhaul or reduction in size, including the Homeland Security Department, Veterans Affairs Department, Internal Revenue Service, Health and Human Services Department, and the Bureau of Land Management.

Freeze on federal aid

President Donald Trump's actions in his first two weeks back in office have stifled bipartisan negotiations toward a funding deal. Trump's "government efficiency" chief, Elon Musk, is working to bulldoze the federal bureaucracy while freezing billions of dollars in federal aid funding that Congress already enacted. Trump's funding freeze and unwillingness to abide by funding caps enacted two years ago under then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden create a "real risk" of a government shutdown.

Trump's recent actions are contributing to a lack of progress in government funding negotiations. Senator Patty Murray, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said it is "extremely difficult to reach an agreement" when the President is "illegally blocking vast chunks of approved funding" and "trying to unilaterally shutter critical agencies".

Democrats are discussing how to use the March 14 deadline to push back on Trump's attempted move to freeze substantial federal aid and his administration's effort to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development without congressional approval. They want Trump to unfreeze foreign aid and billions of dollars already promised to federal contractors and local governments.

Trump's funding freeze is causing a "shutdown blame game" between the two parties. While the Democratic leader in the House demands that Trump's funding freeze be "choked off" as part of any funding agreement, Republican lawmakers say it will be Democrats who take the fall for causing a funding lapse if they hold that line.

Trump's executive orders

President Donald Trump's second term has been marked by his aggressive approach to testing the boundaries of executive authority. While his supporters cheer him on, legal experts have raised concerns about a potential constitutional crisis, as many of Trump's actions raise urgent legal and constitutional questions.

Trump's recent executive orders have targeted independent agencies, private individuals' access to sensitive government systems, and federal employee buyouts. One of his most controversial moves has been the attempt to effectively shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID) by stripping it of its independence and placing it under the State Department's control. Legal experts argue that Trump lacks the constitutional authority to do this without congressional approval, as USAID was established as a government agency by Congress in 1998.

Trump's administration has also granted Elon Musk's team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to the federal payment system, which processes highly sensitive data, including personal information from taxpayers, beneficiaries of federal programs, and contractors. This move has alarmed critics due to the potential for misuse or mishandling of such data, and legal experts argue that it potentially contravenes multiple federal statutes, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA).

In addition, Trump's federal buyout program, which offered millions of federal employees an unexpected opportunity to resign by a certain date in exchange for eight months of pay and benefits, has sparked legal and political scrutiny. Some warn that it may violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits the government from spending more than Congress has appropriated, and the Administrative Leave Act.

Trump has also issued executive orders that impact higher education. In February 2025, higher education groups sued the Trump administration over its executive orders eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions in government and threatening to suspend funding to institutions with DEI policies. The lawsuit argues that Trump's orders violate the US Constitution, exceed executive legal authority, and violate the First and Fifth Amendments, threatening academic freedom and access to higher education for everyone.

Furthermore, Trump's administration issued an executive order called "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," which bars transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports. This order relies on a new interpretation of Title IX, the 1972 civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding. It directs the Department of Education to investigate non-compliant schools and withdraw funding, and it also instructs the State Department to push for changes within the International Olympic Committee.

Frequently asked questions