List of times Trump violated the Constitution

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/list-trump-constitutional-violations-c40e0e


Checked on January 22, 2026



Executive summary

A growing body of reporting and legal findings catalog actions by Donald Trump and his administration that critics and some courts say violated constitutional protections—ranging from First Amendment retaliation and attempted revocation of birthright citizenship to alleged misuse of military and executive power and repeated clashes with the judiciary [1] [2] [3]. Many of these actions have produced lawsuits, injunctive rulings, and congressional reports; defenders argue some measures were lawful exercises of executive authority, and in several high-profile claims the courts or the Supreme Court have issued mixed or evolving rulings [4] [3].


1. First Amendment: retaliation, targeting critics and suppression of speech


Multiple reports and lawsuits allege the administration used federal power to retaliate against critics and to suppress speech—examples include targeting lawyers and firms for representing clients or expressing viewpoints, ICE arrests of campus advocates, and executive actions aimed at universities that critics call viewpoint discrimination—all framed as violations of the First Amendment’s protections and related due process concerns [1] [5] [6]. Congressional and civil-society reports state the Administration has “targeted and retaliated against those who disagree with it,” a pattern regulators and judges have said threatens free speech and the rule of law [4] [7]. Legal defenses argue national-security and immigration authorities have latitude, but plaintiffs and some federal judges have found constitutional problems in specific instances [5] [8].


2. Fourteenth Amendment: the birthright citizenship executive order


The attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order was widely characterized in reporting and by legal experts as contrary to the 14th Amendment, and federal courts blocked such measures as “blatantly unconstitutional” in at least one early ruling cited by advocates and legal analysts [6] [2]. Coverage notes that lower-court rulings have rebuffed the administration’s legal theory and that the policy spawned immediate lawsuits and judicial injunctions, reflecting a consensus among many constitutional scholars that the move exceeded executive power [2] [6].


3. War Powers, the military and domestic policing


Observers and civil-liberties groups contend the Administration’s threats to invoke statutes like the Insurrection Act and actions that place military forces in domestic contexts raise grave constitutional and statutory concerns—specifically the Posse Comitatus tradition separating military from civilian policing and Congress’s exclusive war-declaring authority [9] [1]. Critics frame such conduct as an erosion of constitutional limits on presidential command of armed force; supporters claim these tools are available in severe emergencies, but the ACLU and other groups warn the pattern risks dismantling civil-military boundaries [9].


4. Separation of powers and defiance of judicial authority


A Senate report and multiple news accounts document instances where the Administration allegedly seized congressional powers, defied federal court orders, and attempted to shield presidential acts from scrutiny, prompting more than 350 lawsuits and a series of judicial rebukes [4] [3]. The Supreme Court’s complex rulings on presidential immunity have left some questions unresolved; while the Court granted expansive protections for official acts in one decision, it also remanded other issues, producing contested legal terrain rather than a clean vindication of either side [3] [4].


5. Partisan discrimination in executive-program enforcement and funding


Federal judges have ruled that certain cancellations and re-allocations of federal grants—targeting recipients concentrated in opposition-led states—violated constitutional protections by discriminating based on state political affiliation, and lawsuits alleged improper use of impoundment and executive fiat in contravention of statutes like the Impoundment Control Act [8] [10] [4]. Congressional Democrats and watchdogs have accused the Administration of weaponizing funding decisions against political adversaries; the Administration’s defenders argue these were policy choices within executive discretion, a claim courts have sometimes rejected [8].


6. Institutional assaults: inspectors general, agencies and rule-of-law concerns


Scholars and advocacy groups document a pattern of firing inspectors general, politicizing independent agencies, reprogramming funds, and aggressive enforcement policies—actions characterized as undermining checks and balances and constitutional governance, and challenged repeatedly in courts and Congress [11] [2] [7]. These institutional critiques are bolstered by lawsuits and watchdog reports; supporters frame some removals and orders as efforts to impose accountability or policy priorities, but opponents see a systematic campaign that tests constitutional boundaries [11] [4].


Conclusion: the record compiled by legal organizations, journalists and congressional offices presents numerous instances where courts, plaintiffs and experts say the Administration crossed constitutional lines, while legal outcomes remain mixed and contested in several arenas—reporting captures the disputes and judicial pushback, but definitive constitutional resolutions in many cases are still pending or in litigation [4] [3] [8].