Impeachment: Holding Presidents Accountable For Lawbreaking

In the United States, the President is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. While the President is the highest elected official, they are not above the law. In fact, the President of the United States can be impeached and removed from office for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Despite this, the Supreme Court has granted Donald Trump immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office, setting a dangerous precedent. This has raised questions about how to hold a law-breaking president accountable for their actions.

Supreme Court grants Trump immunity for criminal conduct in office

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump is immune from criminal liability for his official acts, including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the election. The court's 6-3 majority freed presidents to use their official powers to engage in criminal acts without accountability.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of the District of Columbia filed a friend-of-the-court brief, arguing that the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law, not even the president. While the court agreed that a president's actions as a private individual are not immune to criminal prosecution, it held that presidents have substantial immunity for their official actions, even if undertaken for personal ends and criminal purposes.

The Supreme Court's decision grants absolute immunity to President Trump's use of the Justice Department for fraudulent purposes. The court sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether the actions for which Trump has been charged were official or personal acts and whether he is immune for those official acts.

The ACLU warned that there are "few propositions more dangerous" in a democracy than the notion that an elected head of state is above the law. The decision sets a dangerous precedent by giving presidents legal cover to break the law when using their formal powers. It also obstructs accountability for Trump and frees future presidents to act above the law.

The immediate consequence of the decision is the impact on the current federal prosecution of former President Trump for interfering in the 2020 election. While the prosecution is not dead, the Supreme Court has disqualified one set of allegations involving Trump's communications with the Department of Justice. This will result in a lengthy fact-laden inquiry and appeals process before any trial can commence.

Trump's plans to shut down USAID

In February 2025, it was reported that President Donald Trump, in collaboration with his top adviser and billionaire Elon Musk, planned to shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is the government's main overseas aid agency, distributing billions of dollars in aid to non-governmental organisations, aid groups, and nonprofits worldwide.

Trump and Musk's plan involved merging USAID with the State Department, a move that Democratic lawmakers criticised as "illegal and unconstitutional". They argued that such an action would require congressional approval, as USAID was established as an independent entity by Congress in 1998.

In response to the plan, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut stated, "He [Trump] cannot unilaterally close a federal agency. Another assault on the constitution."

On Monday, February 3, 2025, USAID employees were ordered to stay home, and the agency's website went offline. Hundreds of employees were locked out of their email accounts, and contractors and staff could no longer access their official records.

Trump's motivation for shutting down USAID stems from his belief that the agency often strays from his "America First" agenda and prioritises globalism over American interests. He and Musk have also accused the agency of being run by ''radical lunatics" and engaging in fraud and corruption.

The plan to shut down USAID is part of Musk's broader initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to slash government spending. However, legal experts have raised concerns that granting Musk's team access to sensitive government data may violate multiple federal statutes, including the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Granting Elon Musk access to sensitive government data

In early February 2025, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team was granted access to highly sensitive government data. This move has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and national security risks.

DOGE's access to the Treasury's payment system means they can access personal information from taxpayers, beneficiaries of federal programs, and contractors. This includes Social Security and Medicare customer payment systems. This has raised alarms over the potential for misuse or mishandling of such data by a billionaire with substantial government contracts through his companies, Tesla and SpaceX.

Legal experts argue that granting DOGE access 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 taxpayer privacy provisions under the Internal Revenue Code.

DOGE's access to the Treasury's payment system also poses a national security risk, according to senior US lawmaker Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. Wyden expressed concern about Musk's extensive business operations in China, stating that it "endangers US cybersecurity" and creates conflicts of interest.

Furthermore, DOGE's access to the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) systems has raised concerns about potential vulnerabilities and foreign intelligence threats. OPM was hacked in 2015, resulting in the theft of personnel records of over 22 million US government employees.

The speed at which DOGE members received security clearances has also been questioned, suggesting that customary precautions may have been skipped. The Trump administration has refused to provide details about the vetting process for handling sensitive systems.

This situation highlights the potential consequences of granting Elon Musk access to sensitive government data, including legal, security, and privacy implications.

Trump's federal buyout program

In 2025, the Trump administration offered a buyout program to all 2.3 million federal employees, excluding military personnel, U.S. Postal Service workers, roles related to immigration enforcement and national security, and "any other positions specifically excluded by [their] employing agency". The offer, communicated via email on January 28, 2025, was for employees to resign by February 6 in exchange for eight months of salary and benefits. The White House expected up to 10% of federal employees to take the buyout.

The program was framed as a way to make the government smaller and more efficient and to ensure that federal workers were on board with the new administration's plan to have federal employees in the office and adhering to higher standards. This was in line with Trump's push for federal employees to return to the office five days a week, scrapping work-from-home allowances implemented during the coronavirus pandemic.

However, the legality of the buyout program was questioned by legal and government experts. Some warned that it may violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits the government from spending more money than Congress has appropriated, and the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, which places strict limits on how federal employees can be placed on leave. There were also concerns about the program's potential impact on the functioning of the federal government, with critics arguing that it would cause chaos and have vast, unintended consequences.

The Trump administration's approach to federal employees was part of a broader pattern of testing the boundaries of executive authority and clashing with courts and Congress over executive overreach.

Unlawful impoundment in Trump's executive orders

Trump's second term in office has been marked by a series of controversial executive orders that have raised questions about their legality and constitutionality. One of the main issues with these orders is the potential unlawful impoundment of funds, which refers to the unilateral action of delaying or cancelling appropriations enacted into law.

Trump's executive orders have included directives to "pause" funds appropriated by Congress, including foreign development assistance and funding for "sanctuary" cities. These actions may violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which was passed to curb presidential power to withhold spending. The ICA establishes processes for the President to propose funding cancellations to Congress, and allows for temporary delays, or "deferrals", under specific conditions. However, Trump's orders call for unilateral action, bypassing Congress and potentially violating the ICA and Congress's constitutional "power of the purse".

For example, Executive Order 14154 on "Unleashing American Energy" freezes all funding provided in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This order prohibits the expenditure of funds, including those that have already been obligated, creating mass confusion across the Federal government and among stakeholders. Another executive order on "Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid" calls for a 90-day pause in foreign development assistance for an executive branch review, again taking funding decisions away from Congress.

These actions by Trump's administration have been criticised as unlawful impoundment, with some arguing that they set a dangerous precedent for future presidential power grabs. The Impoundment Control Act and Congress's power of the purse are meant to protect against executive overreach. By ignoring these checks and balances, Trump's orders threaten the rule of law and the proper separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.

The potential consequences of these actions are significant, impacting international relations, humanitarian aid, and domestic projects. The unlawful withholding of funds could hurt families, halt infrastructure projects, and cost jobs. It remains to be seen whether these executive orders will be successfully challenged and overturned, but they highlight a concerning trend of testing the limits of presidential power.

Frequently asked questions