Presidential Misconduct: Breaking Laws, Shattering Trust

There have been several instances of US presidents allegedly breaking the law. One of the most notable cases was the impeachment inquiry into former President Donald Trump's conduct during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump was accused of pressuring Zelensky to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and withholding military aid as leverage. While the impeachment inquiry centred on whether Trump's actions constituted treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, Justice Department veterans claimed that Trump may have violated several federal laws, including campaign finance laws, bribery, misappropriation, and conspiracy.

Trump has also been accused of acting unlawfully on other occasions, such as when he granted Elon Musk's team access to sensitive government data and offered federal employee buyouts. These actions have raised legal questions and sparked intense debate over the limits of presidential power.

It is important to note that the interpretation of laws and the impeachment process can be complex and influenced by political factors. Ultimately, it is up to legal experts, lawmakers, and the courts to determine whether a president has broken the law.

Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government

In 2019, President Donald Trump was accused of illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government. Specifically, Trump was accused of asking the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate one of his political rivals, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. This request was made during a phone call on July 25, 2019, and was later corroborated by a summary of the call released by the White House.

Trump's actions were widely seen as an abuse of power and a violation of campaign finance law. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it is unlawful for a foreign national to directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation of money or other things of value in connection with a federal, state, or local election. In this case, Trump was accused of soliciting a "thing of value" from a foreign government by asking them to investigate his political opponent. While the Justice Department initially blocked the transmission of a whistleblower complaint on this issue, determining that there was no campaign finance violation, this conclusion has been disputed by legal experts.

In addition to the Ukrainian scandal, Trump was also accused of illegally soliciting money from foreign nationals to fund his presidential campaign. In June 2016, Trump's campaign committee sent fundraising emails to foreign politicians and officials in Iceland, Scotland, Australia, and England. This violation of federal law raised concerns about foreign influence in US elections and prompted the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 to file a complaint with the FEC.

The implications of Trump's actions extend beyond legal considerations. Critics argue that by encouraging foreign interference in US elections, Trump undermined national security and the integrity of the electoral process. The acting director of national intelligence at the time, Mr Maguire, identified foreign interference in elections as the most pressing national concern. Trump's actions also complicated the work of the US intelligence community and national security community, making it harder to protect the country from foreign influence.

Bribery

In the United States, bribery is listed as one of three reasons for Congress to impeach a president, the other two being treason and high crimes and misdemeanours. While impeachment does not require a president to have broken the law, there are laws in place that prohibit bribery.

In 2024, an inquiry was launched into whether then-President Donald Trump broke the law by pressuring the new president of Ukraine to investigate the family of a political rival, Joe Biden. Trump also appeared to stall funds to support Ukraine's military to increase that pressure. This was interpreted as an attempt to gain a competitive advantage over his adversary in the election, which would amount to soliciting a valuable contribution from a foreign entity, forbidden by campaign finance laws.

In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Justice to pause enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law that prohibits American companies and foreign firms from bribing officials of foreign governments to obtain or retain business. Trump's order also instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to review current and past actions related to the law and prepare new guidelines for enforcement.

Trump's decision to pause the enforcement of the FCPA was met with criticism from anti-corruption watchdogs, such as Transparency International, which stated that the FCPA made the United States a leader in addressing global corruption. They argued that weakening the law could end up costing corporate America and create an open season for kickbacks.

Trump's actions regarding bribery, both in terms of his dealings with Ukraine and the pausing of the FCPA, highlight a broader pattern of behaviour during his presidency. Trump has publicly admitted that he believes he can break any law he wants, stating, "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." This sentiment echoes that of disgraced President Richard Nixon, who famously claimed that "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

Misappropriation

In the context of US law, misappropriation has been a topic of discussion regarding certain actions taken by President Donald Trump and his administration. One notable example is the Ukraine call incident, where Trump allegedly pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the family of a political rival, Joe Biden. This incident led to an impeachment inquiry, with Democrats arguing that Trump abused his power by enlisting foreign help in his campaign for a second term.

Additionally, the Trump administration's handling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has raised legal concerns. The administration's decision to unilaterally shutter USAID, with the help of Elon Musk, has been described as a potential violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 and other laws.

Trump has also made controversial statements regarding his belief that he can break any law he wants, echoing similar sentiments expressed by disgraced President Richard Nixon. Trump's actions and statements have sparked concerns about presidential power and accountability.

Conspiracy

In the case of Trump v. United States, former President Donald Trump was indicted on four counts related to his actions following the 2020 election. One of these counts was "participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States" by making false claims of election fraud to overturn the legitimate election results.

In addition, Trump's actions during his first term in office, which was marked by repeated clashes with the courts and Congress over executive overreach, have been described as "a concerted attack on the rule of law". One of these actions includes the move to freeze all federal grants and loans across the government, amounting to about $1 trillion. This was seen as a breach of the Constitution, which gives Congress the "power of the purse" in appropriating money for federal activities.

Legal experts have also weighed in on the granting of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to sensitive government data, which they say 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).

Violating the Privacy Act of 1974

The Privacy Act of 1974 establishes a code of fair information practices that govern the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier, such as a social security number.

The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. It prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual from a system of records without the written consent of the individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means to seek access to and amendment of their records and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements.

The Privacy Act was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal, with Congress concerned about curbing illegal surveillance and investigation of individuals by federal agencies. It was also concerned with potential abuses presented by the government’s increasing use of computers to store and retrieve personal data by means of a universal identifier.

The Act focuses on four basic policy objectives: restricting the disclosure of personally identifiable records maintained by agencies; granting individuals increased rights of access to agency records maintained on them; granting individuals the right to seek amendment of agency records maintained on themselves if the records are not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete; and establishing a code of 'fair information practices' that requires agencies to comply with statutory norms for collection, maintenance, and dissemination of records.

In 2025, the Trump administration may have violated the Privacy Act of 1974. Following a sweeping executive order from President Trump to shut off funding for foreign aid programs, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) may have violated the Act by providing access to thousands of employees' personal information to engineers from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This included information gathered during security clearance background checks, such as Social Security numbers, credit histories, and home addresses.

According to John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, "It is a catastrophic privacy and information security violation for a band of some government and some nongovernment personnel to barge into an agency and take over systems that contain personal information." Breaking the law can carry civil penalties and a minimum $1,000 fine for each violation if the victim can prove they were harmed, or much more if there were damages like loss of income.

Frequently asked questions