Trump's Law-Breaking: Is He Above Federal Law?

In the early weeks of his second term, Donald Trump has been accused of breaking federal laws and violating the US Constitution. Trump's administration has been characterised as a blitzkrieg on the law, with the President accused of rampant lawlessness. The actions in question include attempting to dismantle independent agencies, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, and offering unprecedented federal employee buyouts. Legal experts have also pointed to Trump's freezing of federal spending, his firing of 18 inspectors general, and his attempt to end birthright citizenship as potential violations of the law. Trump's handling of national security information and classified documents has also come under scrutiny, with the DOJ investigating potential violations of three federal laws.

Trump's handling of national security information

In his second term, President Trump has been accused of breaking federal laws and violating the US Constitution through his handling of national security information.

Trump has been accused of granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, which has triggered legal challenges and debates over the limits of presidential power. One such instance is the establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been granted access to the federal payment system that handles trillions in federal disbursements annually. Legal experts argue that this move potentially violates multiple federal statutes, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Another instance of Trump's handling of national security information is his administration's attempt to dismantle 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 shut down USAID without congressional approval, as it was established as a government agency by Congress in 1998.

Trump has also been accused of nullifying laws, such as ordering the Justice Department to refrain from enforcing a ban on the TikTok app and blocking migrants from invoking a statute allowing them to request asylum. He has also moved to shutter a federal agency created by Congress and attempted to freeze congressionally approved spending, including foreign aid.

The rapid-fire nature of these controversial moves has made it challenging to focus on and address each violation. Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, has described Trump's actions as "a blitzkrieg on the law and the constitution."

Trump's actions against the U.S. Agency for International Development

In 2025, President Donald Trump, in his second term, took several actions against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Trump's administration planned to merge USAID with the U.S. Department of State, effectively shutting down the agency by stripping it of its independence. This move was part of Trump's broader campaign to slash federal programs that he deemed ineffective or wasteful, particularly those that did not align with his "America First" agenda.

Trump's actions towards USAID included:

• Freezing most foreign aid, disrupting humanitarian programs and threatening the provision of medical care and the safe operation of refugee camps.
• Blocking access to secure financial data at USAID headquarters for officials working for Elon Musk, who was tasked with identifying spending cuts in the federal budget. This resulted in two senior security officials at USAID being placed on leave.
• Shutting down the USAID website.
• Ordering USAID staff to stay away from the office and putting thousands of employees on leave.
• Accusing USAID leadership of "insubordination" and installing Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the acting head of the agency.
• Publishing a list of USAID projects that allegedly demonstrated "waste and abuse," including grants to an LGBTQ group in Serbia, funding for electric vehicles in Vietnam, and tourism initiatives in Egypt.
• Implementing a 90-day freeze on almost all international spending, causing widespread disruption to services and humanitarian programs.

Legal experts and Democratic lawmakers argued that Trump lacked the constitutional authority to shut down or significantly alter USAID without congressional approval. They emphasized that USAID was established as an independent entity by a law passed by Congress in 1961 and solidified through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. Any attempt to dissolve or significantly reorganize USAID would require new legislation from Congress.

The fate of USAID remained uncertain, with legal challenges and intense debate over the limits of presidential power expected to follow.

Trump's federal buyout program

The terms of the buyout program include providing employees who resign by the deadline with approximately eight months of salary and benefits, along with the option to continue teleworking or working remotely during this "deferred resignation period." The program also includes exemptions for certain categories of workers, such as those in immigration enforcement and national security roles.

The Trump administration's stated goal for this buyout program is to reduce the size of the federal government and increase efficiency. According to a senior administration official, the program aims to ensure that "all federal workers are on board with the new administration's plan to have federal employees in the office and adhering to higher standards." Additionally, the White House expects up to 10% of federal employees to accept the buyout offer.

However, the legality of Trump's federal buyout program has been questioned by legal and government experts. They argue that the program may violate rules and laws governing buyout payments, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act and the Administrative Leave Act. The potential legal issues revolve around the large scale of the program and the promise of future payments beyond the current appropriations period.

The program has also faced criticism from employee groups, Democrats, and experts, who warn federal employees not to accept the "deferred resignation" offer. They argue that the program is part of a broader effort to create a toxic work environment and make agencies inhospitable for workers. Additionally, they highlight the potential unintended consequences of purging dedicated career federal employees, which could cause chaos for Americans who rely on a functioning federal government.

Trump's violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974

In 2025, during the first few weeks of his second term, President Trump froze nearly all federal grants and loans, including foreign aid, medical and scientific research, and educational institutions. This move was in direct conflict with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which was passed to curb the practice of presidents impounding funds.

The ICA establishes a process by which presidents must request and receive permission from the House and Senate to rescind appropriations. Under the ICA, the president may defer spending funds for up to 45 days while awaiting a response from Congress. If Congress does not approve the request within 45 days, the funds must be spent.

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 agencies to submit detailed lists of projects suspended under the new order and to assign a senior political appointee to track federal spending.

The freeze was temporary and only to the extent permissible by law, but it caused significant harm to those affected, as the withholding of funds caused irreparable harm. The freeze was seen as a unilateral power grab by the Trump administration, in direct conflict with Congress's constitutional power of the purse.

The ICA was enacted in response to President Nixon's unprecedented volume of impoundment efforts. Even without the ICA, the kind of across-the-board impoundment attempted by the Trump administration is unconstitutional, as it is inconsistent with Congress's power to specify the purposes for which appropriated funds are spent.

The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that there is no inherent authority for the president to impound funds and that doing so would be inconsistent with the president's obligation to faithfully execute the laws.

The Trump administration's spending freeze provoked a crisis over the constitutionality of impoundment, which may need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Trump's firing of 18 inspectors general

In the opening weeks of his second term, President Trump fired 18 inspectors general, receiving significant backlash from critics who fear he is attempting to replace independent watchdogs with loyalists.

Inspectors general are independent officials within federal agencies who investigate claims of waste, fraud, and abuse of power. They conduct audits, evaluations, and special reviews, among other responsibilities. They are expected to be nonpartisan and are protected by the Inspector General Act, which requires presidents to give Congress a 30-day notice and substantive reasoning for the firing before an inspector general is removed from their post.

Trump's firing of the inspectors general is similar to a move he made in 2020 when he dismissed five inspectors general from their roles. The White House did not comment on the firings, but Trump told reporters that the move was "a very common thing to do."

Legal and government experts have raised questions about the legality of Trump's actions, with some saying that he has technically violated the law. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and ally of Trump, acknowledged that the president "technically" violated the law but claimed that he has the authority to do so. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts called the firings "a purge of independent watchdogs in the middle of the night."

The role of the modern-day inspector general dates to post-Watergate Washington, when Congress installed offices inside agencies as an independent check against mismanagement and abuse of power. Though inspectors general are presidential appointees, some serve presidents of both parties, and all are expected to be nonpartisan.

While it is unlikely that Trump will face any legal repercussions for the firings, his actions have raised concerns about the potential for corruption and abuse of power in his administration.

Frequently asked questions