Trump's Orders: Lawbreaking Or Leadership?

There is much debate surrounding the question of whether former US President Donald Trump encouraged officials to break the law. During his time in office, Trump was accused of breaking federal laws and undermining the Constitution.

Trump's administration was marked by repeated clashes with the courts and Congress over executive overreach. His supporters cheered him on, but legal experts saw a constitutional crisis unfolding, with Trump's moves raising urgent legal and constitutional questions.

The House Jan. 6 committee urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Trump for four different crimes related to his efforts to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election and his behaviour during the Capitol insurrection. The committee cited statutes including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting or aiding an insurrection.

Trump was also accused of violating the Impoundment Control Act by withholding $214 million in Defence Department aid for Ukraine without obtaining authorisation from Congress. He further revoked a 60-year-old executive order banning discrimination in hiring practices in the federal government and threatened federal employees with adverse consequences if they failed to report colleagues who defied orders to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

Trump's actions and proposals tested legal boundaries and raised questions about the limits of presidential power. While some argued that he was within his rights as president, others claimed that he was overstepping his authority and breaking the law. The debate over Trump's actions continues to be a source of contention and highlights the complex relationship between the executive branch and the legal system in the United States.

Trump's federal buyout program

On 28 January 2025, millions of federal employees received an email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with an offer to resign by 6 February in exchange for eight months of pay and benefits. Those who refused would be expected to return to the office full-time.

The Trump administration's federal buyout program has been criticised by employee groups, Democrats, and experts, who warn federal workers not to accept the offer. The buyout has also sparked significant legal and political scrutiny, with some unions and prominent Democrats warning federal workers against taking it.

The buyout offer entitles federal employees to stop working more or less immediately and continue to be paid through 30 September. Critics argue that the offer is illegal, and there is no real guarantee that people will get paid out. They argue that it is something that Congress would need to authorise. The administration rejects these assertions and says it is following through on a promise to restructure the federal government.

Legal and government experts have raised multiple questions about the OPM's buyout. Some warn that it may violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, a law that prohibits the government from spending more money than Congress has appropriated, and the Administrative Leave Act. It is not clear whether such a sweeping federal buyout, with promises of payments eight months into the future, can be legally implemented, particularly as the federal government's funding is currently set to run out in mid-March.

The Trump administration has insisted that the offer will not result in any guaranteed payments beyond the current appropriations period. However, the program's structure could raise the risk of incurring obligations beyond provisions in the federal budget, potentially violating federal law.

Another legal concern stems from the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, which places strict limits on how federal employees can be placed on leave. The law was designed to prevent government agencies from using administrative leave to sideline employees for extended periods without clear justification. The Trump administration's deferred resignation program, which effectively places employees on leave while continuing to pay them, could also run afoul of this statute.

Granting Elon Musk's DOGE access to sensitive data

In his second term, President Donald Trump has been quick to test the boundaries of executive authority, with some of his actions raising legal and constitutional questions. One such action is granting Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to the federal payment system, which handles over $5 trillion in federal disbursements annually, including sensitive personal information.

Days after his inauguration, Trump's Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, granted Musk's team access to the federal payment system. While proponents argue that this access is necessary to root out inefficiencies and reduce government spending, critics worry about the implications of giving Musk, a billionaire with substantial government contracts through his companies Tesla and SpaceX, access to such sensitive information. Musk has been known to make efforts to slash federal spending and has personal business interests in government contracts.

Legal experts argue that granting Musk's team access to such sensitive government data 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), as well as strict taxpayer privacy provisions under the Internal Revenue Code.

Alan Butler, a lawyer and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, claims that DOGE's access likely constitutes a violation of the Privacy Act, which prohibits unauthorized disclosures of personal data. He cites Musk's recent posts on X, which highlight records of specific payments from private organizations, as evidence that data is being disclosed outside of the Treasury Department.

Furthermore, experts say that DOGE's potential access to tax return information, which is strictly protected under the Internal Revenue Code, is particularly concerning. Only senior executive officials with a direct need for the data may access it, and even then, only under limited circumstances. It is unclear whether Musk or his team have been granted the proper security clearance for the records they are accessing.

The move to grant Musk's DOGE access to sensitive information has drawn a lawsuit from two major federal employee unions, claiming that the Trump Administration breached the Privacy Act of 1974. Legal experts also point to potential breaches of FISMA and CFAA, with the latter carrying significant penalties and potentially requiring a special prosecutor to investigate.

Obstruction of an official proceeding

On August 1, 2023, former US President Donald Trump was indicted by a grand jury on four charges, including "obstructing an official proceeding" and "conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding". The charges were related to his alleged involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The penal code defines "obstructing an official proceeding" as "corruptly" obstructing, impeding, or interfering with any official government proceeding. This carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

In Trump's case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that he obstructed Congress' certification of the electoral college results on January 6, 2021. The DOJ claimed that Trump created fake election certificates declaring himself the winner of key swing states and pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to disregard President-elect Joe Biden's electors. The DOJ also accused Trump of pushing the DOJ to falsely claim there were problems with the vote in Georgia or other states.

Trump's indictment is the third time he has been indicted for various alleged crimes and the first time a US president has been indicted for actions while in office. The charges against Trump focus on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and exploit the violence of his supporters during the Capitol attack.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

In August 2023, former US President Donald Trump was indicted on four counts in connection with his efforts to subvert the will of voters in the 2020 election. One of these counts was conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The indictment, filed by special counsel Jack Smith, accuses Trump of three conspiracies: one to defraud the United States; a second to obstruct an official government proceeding, the certification of the Electoral College vote; and a third to deprive people of a civil right, the right to have their votes counted.

The indictment states that Trump and six co-conspirators employed a variety of means to reverse his defeat in the election almost from the moment that voting ended. It describes how Trump promoted false claims of fraud, sought to bend the Justice Department to support those claims, and oversaw a scheme to create false slates of electors pledged to him in states that were actually won by Joseph R. Biden. It also describes how he ultimately pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to use the fake electors to subvert the certification of the election.

The indictment includes snippets of new information, such as a description of Trump telling Pence, "You're too honest," as the vice president pushed back on Trump's pressure to interfere in the certification of Biden's victory. It also includes an account of Trump telling someone who asked if he wanted additional pressure put on Pence that "no one" else but him needed to speak with the vice president.

Trump's lead lawyer on the case, John Lauro, has indicated that his defence could rest on showing that Trump truly believed he had been cheated out of re-election.

Conspiracy to make a false statement

In the context of former President Donald Trump, there have been numerous allegations and instances of him making false statements or spreading misinformation. During his first and second terms as President, Trump made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims, with fact-checkers documenting an average of about 21 false or misleading claims per day. These false statements covered a range of topics, including the 2020 election, the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration, and his own accomplishments.

While Trump himself has not been charged with conspiracy to make a false statement, his actions and statements have had significant consequences. The spread of misinformation by Trump and his allies contributed to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, with Trump making false claims about the election being rigged and stolen. Additionally, Trump's false statements during the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to a lack of trust in public health measures and contributed to the spread of the virus.

The spread of misinformation by public figures like Trump has led to increased scrutiny and calls for social media companies to do more to address the issue. While some platforms have taken steps to label or remove false information, the effectiveness of these efforts has been debated.

In conclusion, while there is no specific federal statute criminalising conspiracy to make a false statement, Donald Trump's actions and statements as President have had significant impacts and contributed to a broader issue of misinformation in society.

Frequently asked questions