Trump's Abuse Of Power: What Laws Were Broken?

Former President Donald Trump has been accused of breaking the law on several occasions. One of the most notable instances was when he pressed the newly elected Ukrainian president to investigate a candidate challenging Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, which constitutes a violation of campaign finance law. This incident led to a whistleblower complaint and sparked widespread concern about the abuse of executive power.

In addition, Trump has been accused of violating laws related to election tampering by pressuring Georgia's top election official to find enough votes to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden in the state. Legal experts have weighed in on the potential legal violations, and while prosecution is unlikely, it remains a contentious issue.

Trump's actions during the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol have also come under scrutiny, with the House Jan. 6 committee referring him to the Justice Department for potential prosecution on four charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding and inciting or aiding an insurrection.

Furthermore, legal experts have questioned the legality of some of Trump's proposals during his second term, such as granting Elon Musk access to sensitive government data and offering federal employee buyouts, which may violate multiple federal statutes and laws.

Trump's aggressive use of executive power has resulted in numerous lawsuits, with the Administrative Procedure Act being routinely invoked to challenge his policies.

Trump broke campaign finance law by asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden

In 2019, then-US President Donald Trump was accused of violating campaign finance law by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden, who was a candidate challenging Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

A whistleblower complaint filed in August 2019 detailed reports from multiple U.S. government officials that Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." The complaint described a phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019, during which Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden, his political rival.

The White House released a summary of the call, which corroborated the whistleblower's account. In the call, Trump asked Zelenskyy for a "favor": to work with Trump's personal attorney and the U.S. Attorney General to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

Trump's request served no apparent purpose other than to benefit his reelection efforts, amounting to soliciting a campaign contribution from Zelenskyy. In the world of campaign finance, a "contribution" is any "thing of value" given to affect an election.

By directly requesting that Zelenskyy use Ukraine's resources to help his reelection efforts, Trump violated campaign finance law. He asked Ukraine to make an "expenditure" by spending resources to influence the 2020 election, which qualifies as a campaign contribution since it was made at the "request" of a candidate.

The Justice Department initially blocked the transmission of the whistleblower complaint, concluding that there was no campaign finance violation. However, this determination was controversial, and legal experts argued that Trump's actions did violate campaign finance law.

Trump's actions led to a formal impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives, where he was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. However, he was later acquitted by the Senate.

Trump may have broken a federal law against election tampering by pressuring Georgia's top election official to find enough votes to overturn his loss

According to legal experts, Trump may have violated a federal law and a Georgia state law against election tampering by pressuring Georgia's top election official, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to overturn his loss to President-elect Joe Biden.

Georgia has a state law against "criminal solicitation to commit election fraud," which makes it illegal for a person to intentionally solicit or request another person to engage in election fraud. A separate federal law also makes it illegal to attempt to "deprive or defraud" people of a "fair and impartially conducted election process."

During a phone call with Raffensperger, Trump stated, "All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have." Legal experts interpreted this as a threat to push Raffensperger to alter a legitimate vote count. Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in California, called the phone call a "flagrant federal criminal violation."

Trump's potential defense could be that he was simply offering his opinion on the election results and not making a demand. Criminal laws generally require a guilty state of mind or a deliberate intent to carry out a crime. However, experts noted that Trump's power as a sitting president, combined with vague threats of prosecution, could be interpreted as an unlawful demand under the Georgia statute.

While prosecution of Trump arising from the phone call is considered unlikely, some legal experts believe he may have violated one or both of the federal and state laws mentioned.

Trump's administration may have broken the law by granting Elon Musk's team access to the federal payment system

In February 2025, it was revealed that Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency" team had been granted access to the federal payment system, exposing the sensitive personal data of millions of Americans. This move was made possible by Donald Trump's new treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, who gave the team full access to the system.

The federal payment system controls more than $6 trillion of federal cash flow each year and is used to distribute social security and Medicare benefits, federal salaries, and more. Until the advent of the Trump administration, only a select few officials had clearance to access the system. However, since Trump took office, members of Musk's team have been pushing to gain access.

The decision to grant Musk's team access to the system has raised concerns about the potential for Musk to block payments to federal programs as part of his mission to slash government spending. There are also national security concerns, given Musk's extensive business interests in China, which could give Chinese intelligence services access to sensitive US data.

The move by the Trump administration has been criticized by some as a potential violation of the law, with questions arising about the legality of granting a private individual and their team access to such sensitive government information. This access could be seen as a threat to national security and a potential overreach of presidential power.

In addition to the concerns about the federal payment system, there have been other instances of Trump breaking the law during his time in office. One notable example is when Trump violated campaign finance law by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate one of his political rivals, Joe Biden. This abuse of power was detailed in a whistleblower complaint and confirmed by a summary of the call released by the White House.

Trump's federal buyout program may have violated the Anti-Deficiency Act

Nick Bednar, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, argued that the program's structure could potentially violate the Act by promising expenditures that exceed what Congress has allocated. He explained that the Act "strictly limits the government's ability to promise expenditures that exceed what Congress has allocated" and that the Trump administration's offer of payments extending eight months into the future could "raise the risk of incurring obligations beyond provisions in the federal budget".

The Trump administration defended the program, asserting that it would not result in any guaranteed payments beyond the current appropriations period. However, the potential for legal violation remained a concern, and the program faced scrutiny from unions and Democrats, who warned federal workers against accepting the offer.

Trump's administration's attempt to dismantle independent agencies may have broken the Administrative Procedure Act

Trump's attempts to dismantle independent agencies may have broken the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law passed in 1946 that requires federal agencies to use sound factual considerations for their decisions, seek public comment when making new rules or repealing old ones, and avoid actions that are "arbitrary and capricious."

Trump's actions to gut the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and pause foreign aid, for example, have been challenged in court as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The law passed with bipartisan support after the death of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who greatly expanded the influence of the federal government while tackling crises such as the Great Depression and World War II, and creating the New Deal social welfare agenda.

Legal experts argue that Trump's attempts to dismantle independent agencies, such as USAID, are unlawful and require congressional approval. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which solidified USAID's legal status as an independent entity, restricts the president's ability to abolish the agency unilaterally. Any attempt to dissolve USAID would require new legislation from Congress.

Furthermore, the Administrative Procedure Act has been cited in lawsuits challenging other Trump administration policies, including a rollback of an immigration directive that previously barred deportation raids at sensitive locations like churches, and the effective repeal of protections in a federal law aimed at stopping prison rapes.

While the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority may increase the likelihood of Trump prevailing on appeals, experts argue that the administration's rapid and opaque decision-making may result in significant damage before external scrutiny can be applied.

Frequently asked questions