Presidential Lawbreaking: Consequences And Implications For The Us Leader

The US Constitution does not explicitly state whether the president can be removed from office for breaking statutory law. However, the Supreme Court has set a precedent by granting Donald Trump immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office, suggesting that presidents are above the law. This decision has sparked concerns about presidential immunity from prosecution and the potential for future presidents to escape criminal accountability for corrupt acts. Legal experts argue that some of Trump's actions during his second term, such as attempting to dismantle independent agencies and granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, may be breaking specific laws and testing the boundaries of executive authority. The consequences of a president breaking the law can have far-reaching impacts on the country's democracy and the rule of law.

Supreme Court grants Trump immunity for criminal conduct in office

In July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that former President Donald Trump was granted immunity for official acts which fall within his "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority".

The Supreme Court's ruling also stated that for official acts that do not fall within this "inner core", but are nevertheless within the "outer perimeter" of his official responsibility, Trump enjoys at least a presumptive immunity. The ruling further clarified that when it comes to unofficial acts, there is no immunity.

The case was returned to the lower courts to determine whether Trump's actions related to the January 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol were official or not, and if so, to what degree of immunity they would be entitled.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity for criminal conduct during his presidency has been highly controversial. Critics argue that it sets a dangerous precedent, allowing presidents to break the law without consequence. However, supporters of the ruling claim that it is necessary to protect the president from frivolous lawsuits and allow them to carry out their duties without fear of litigation.

The full implications of the Supreme Court's ruling remain to be seen, and it is likely that this issue will continue to be a subject of debate and further legal interpretation.

Trump's interference in the 2020 election

In August 2023, a grand jury indicted former US President Donald Trump on four charges related to his alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election. The charges included conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The indictment alleged that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 election results and interfere with Americans' right to vote.

Trump and his allies spread false claims of election fraud and pressured officials and lawmakers in seven states, federal agencies, and the vice president to keep Trump in power. This culminated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, which Trump and his co-conspirators exploited in a final attempt to delay the electoral count.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating Trump's actions in January 2022, and in November of that year, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to lead the investigation. The scope of the federal election interference investigation included:

• The false presidential elector schemes in seven states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
• The attempted legal and congressional maneuvers to overturn the 2020 election results.
• The pressure campaign on state officials and state legislators to change the election results.
• The events leading up to the January 6 attack.

Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges and appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming "presidential immunity" from prosecution for official acts. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that former presidents have "some immunity" for official acts but "no immunity" for unofficial acts.

The trial proceedings were delayed multiple times due to Trump's appeals and the need to re-evaluate the indictment in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. Trump was eventually acquitted of the charges after his reelection in 2024, as the DOJ dropped the case in accordance with its policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents.

Trump's plan to shut down USAID

In February 2025, a federal judge temporarily blocked former President Donald Trump's plan to place 2,200 workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on administrative leave. The ruling came after the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees asked the judge to order the Trump administration to "immediately cease actions to shut down USAID's operations."

Trump's efforts to shut down the independent government agency and place its employees on leave were part of a broader attempt to target USAID and other government agencies for additional scrutiny for wasteful spending. Trump, along with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who also headed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), had repeatedly signalled that USAID should be shut down and cease distributing taxpayer funds to aid and relief projects around the world.

The judge's ruling was intended to prevent irreparable harm to the 2,200 USAID employees who were at risk of being placed on leave. The restraining order was directed at these employees and temporarily blocked plans to put them on leave and recall nearly all agency workers abroad. The judge also ordered the temporary reinstatement of 500 agency employees who had already been placed on administrative leave.

The case against Trump's plan to shut down USAID was brought by the largest union representing federal workers and the union that represents Foreign Service officers. The ruling was the latest in a series of legal battles over Trump's attempts to expand presidential authority and gut federal departments and agencies.

While the specific consequences of a U.S. President breaking statutory law depend on the nature and circumstances of the violation, the potential implications can be serious, including impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution. In the case of Trump's plan to shut down USAID, the intervention of the federal judiciary through a restraining order prevented the potential harm to employees and disrupted the administration's agenda.

Granting Elon Musk access to sensitive government data

In February 2025, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team was granted access to highly sensitive data systems within the U.S. Treasury. This move was authorised by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and included access to the Treasury's payment system, which disburses around $6 trillion in federal funds to American households.

The DOGE team's access to these systems has raised concerns about national security and potential conflicts of interest due to Musk's extensive business operations in China. There are worries that Musk's access could pose a "national security risk", with one senior U.S. lawmaker, Ron Wyden, stating that Musk's access to the Treasury systems "risks severe damage to our country and the economy."

In addition to the Treasury, the DOGE team has also gained access to sensitive personnel data maintained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This data includes personally identifiable information for millions of federal employees, including addresses, demographic profiles, salary details, and disciplinary histories. There are concerns that the DOGE team's access to this data could create novel vulnerabilities and increase the risk of data breaches or abuses.

The granting of access to these sensitive government data systems to Elon Musk's team has sparked worries among security officials and experts that foreign adversaries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, could exploit the situation by launching new cyber intrusions or targeting the devices and communications of Musk's team.

Trump's federal employee buyout program

In 2025, President Donald Trump offered a buyout program to all federal employees who opted to leave their jobs by February 6. The unprecedented move was an attempt to shrink the U.S. government at an unprecedented speed. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent an email to millions of employees, stating that those who leave their posts voluntarily will receive about eight months of salary. This was framed as a respite from the administration's push to end telework for most federal workers, relocate employees, and eliminate programs.

The buyout offer was part of a broader effort to make agencies inhospitable to workers. The Trump administration's goal was to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers would not want to stay. The offer was also in response to Trump's return-to-office mandate, with the email stating that a "majority" of agencies will see reductions in force and "the reclassification to at-will status" for many federal employees.

The OPM email outlined four directives that Trump was mandating for the federal workforce:

• Most workers must return to their offices full-time.
• Trump "will insist on excellence at every level."
• The majority of federal agencies are likely to be downsized.
• The federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy, and who strive for excellence.

The buyout offer was not without controversy. Employee groups, Democrats, and experts warned federal employees not to accept the offer, stating that it should not be viewed as voluntary. They argued that it was a tactic to pressure workers not considered loyal to the administration to leave their jobs. There were also concerns about the legality of such a massive buyout program, with the current cap on voluntary separation incentive payments being $25,000, which would be far exceeded by eight months of salary.

The Trump administration expected up to 10% of federal employees to take the buyout offer. However, even a fraction of the workforce accepting buyouts could send shockwaves through the economy and disrupt federal services across the nation.

Frequently asked questions