Trump's Constitutional Violations: A Comprehensive Review

https://lawshun.com/article/what-laws-in-the-constitution-is-trump-broke






Last updated Aug 05, 2025
Difficulty Advanced
Posted by Keith Mack



[...]

From his first days in office, Trump was accused of breaking the law by pardoning violent criminals, firing public servants, dissolving federal agencies, and freezing federal spending. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship was blocked by federal judges, who deemed it blatantly unconstitutional. The former president has also been criticised for firing inspectors general without notice and for his administration's takeover of the Treasury Department's payment system, which gave Elon Musk access to sensitive information. Trump's actions have been described by legal scholars as a blitzkrieg on the law, with some arguing that he undermined the Constitution and the rule of law.

[...]




The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) was passed by Congress to curb presidential abuse of power in withholding funds. The ICA grants the President two options to reduce funding: the President may propose that Congress rescind appropriated funds and obtain a vote without the risk of a filibuster, or the President may propose to defer spending to later in the same fiscal year. In both cases, a special message must be sent to Congress. The President may withhold funds for 45 days while waiting for Congress to act, but they must then spend the money as specified in the appropriations act.

Within hours of his inauguration, President Trump ordered a "90-day pause" in foreign development assistance, which may violate the ICA. Legal experts have argued that Trump's executive orders call for unlawful impoundment, or unlawful deferrals, which if withheld long enough, can turn into unlawful cancellations. Trump's spending "pause" on federal programs qualifies as a rescission under the ICA, but he has refused to follow the Act's procedures.

Trump's actions have been described as a "blitzkrieg on the law", with Laurence Tribe, one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, calling him the "most lawless and scofflaw president we have ever seen in the history of the United States".
Unlawful termination of inspectors general

On 27 January 2025, President Trump removed 17 inspectors general from their positions. These inspectors general were tasked with government spending oversight and supervising a significant portion of the federal workforce.

The removals have been deemed unlawful by some, as Trump did not provide Congress with the legally required 30-day notices about the terminations. The lawsuit filed by the inspectors general alleges that their attempted removals violated 5 U.S.C. §403(b), which mandates that the President notify Congress 30 days prior to removing an inspector general and provide a detailed, case-specific rationale for the removal.

Trump defended the terminations, stating that "it's a very common thing to do". He also asserted that he would put good people in their place and that the new appointees would have some independence. However, the removals have been criticised by members of Congress, who suggest that they violated federal oversight laws and undermined the independence of the inspectors general.

The legality of the terminations is a matter of debate. While Trump's actions may have defied the 2022 Securing Inspector General Independence Act, which amended the Inspector General Act of 1978, the notice requirement specified in these laws may be unconstitutional. The Court has recognised the president's unrestricted removal power over executive branch officials, and it is possible that inspectors general are considered inferior officers under the Appointments Clause.

The impact of these terminations is significant, as they have affected the oversight of the federal government's operations and finances. The inspectors general have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking reinstatement to their previous positions and an injunction against interference with their job duties.
Unconstitutional executive orders

The US Constitution vests the president with executive power over the government, including the obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". An executive order is a written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take specific actions to ensure "the laws be faithfully executed". While executive orders can be an effective way to carry out policy, they cannot override federal laws and statutes.

Donald Trump's rapid-fire and controversial executive orders have been described by some historians and legal scholars as showing a greater willingness than his predecessors to violate the Constitution and federal law. These orders range from banning birthright citizenship to firing 18 inspectors general, even though they were confirmed by the Senate and had several years left in their terms. Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, has called Trump "the most lawless and scofflaw president we have ever seen in the history of the United States".

One of Trump's executive orders, titled "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies", requires independent regulatory agencies, including the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to submit their major regulations to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other groups have filed a lawsuit challenging this order, arguing that it unlawfully extends presidential control over independent agencies and undermines their mandated independence.

Trump has also issued executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the public and private sectors, seeking to dismantle diversity efforts in the federal government and pressure corporations, nonprofits, schools, and professional associations to roll back similar initiatives. These orders have been criticised as attempts to undo his predecessor's pro-civil rights legacy and unravel progress made towards building a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive society.

Additionally, Trump has issued executive orders calling for unlawful impoundment, which involves delaying or cancelling appropriations enacted into law. This violates the Impoundment Control Act and Congress's constitutional power of the purse.

Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens has also been blocked by federal judges, who have called it "blatantly unconstitutional" and a violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Unauthorised disclosure of personal data

During his presidency, Donald Trump was accused of sharing classified information, including national defence information on social media and in private, both known and unknown. This included disclosing information to Russia, which caused a negative reaction from foreign countries. While Trump had broad authority to declassify information, some legal scholars argued that his constitutional power over national security information was not absolute, and his disclosure may have been illegal under federal law.

In addition to this, Trump's administration attempted to collect personal data from states, including motor vehicle records, after the Supreme Court blocked their attempt to add a citizenship question to the census. Critics argued that the administration's reasons for collecting this data were not consistent, suggesting that they saw value in having the data beyond any single use. This data collection effort raised concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of personal data to monitor immigrants and ideological opponents.

Trump's administration also granted private individuals access to sensitive government systems, which legal experts claimed constituted a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, prohibiting unauthorised disclosures of personal data.

Furthermore, Trump's actions during his second term, including firing public servants and dissolving federal agencies, were criticised as undermining the Constitution and violating the law. Trump's administration was accused of attacking the rule of law and perverting the mission of the Department of Justice by promoting an anti-civil rights agenda.
Unlawful interference with student visas

In 2025, the Trump administration revoked the visas of hundreds of international students and detained dozens of others on college campuses across the US. The administration targeted students with pro-Palestinian views and those with minor legal infractions, such as speeding tickets or drunk driving. Many of those affected had no warning or recourse for appeals.

The administration's actions were based on a provision of a 1952 law that grants the Secretary of State broad authority to expel foreigners believed to pose a potential threat to the country. However, the actions have been widely criticised as a violation of the First Amendment and an attack on freedom of speech.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that at least 300 visas had been revoked, stating that the department was targeting individuals involved in activities that \"run counter\" to US national interests. However, the vague nature of this justification has sparked concerns that it could be applied to a wide range of speech and political activities.

The Trump administration's actions have led to lawsuits from academic associations, civil rights organisations, and individual students. The administration has been accused of stretching Mr Rubio's power to revoke visas and green cards to stifle the speech of activists and chill political activity on campuses. The outcome of these lawsuits remains to be seen, with the conservative majority in the Supreme Court potentially influencing the decision.

The revoking of student visas by the Trump administration has sent shockwaves through the international student community, with over 80 universities reporting revoked visas. The detentions and arrests of students, often by plain-clothes officers, have been captured on video, sparking protests and rallies from demonstrators. The administration's actions have been characterised as an "ideological litmus test" and an unlawful interference with the rights of students to express their opinions.