The foundation of the American legal system rests upon the principles of the rule of law and the framework established by the US Constitution. Understanding these concepts is crucial for evaluating the actions of any presidential administration. The rule of law, at its core, signifies that everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law. This encompasses several key tenets: the supremacy of law, meaning no one is above the law; equality before the law, ensuring fair and impartial application to all; accountability to the law, holding individuals and entities responsible for their actions; fairness in the application of the law, guaranteeing due process and just procedures; the separation of powers among different branches of government; and the protection of fundamental rights.1 The American Bar Association (ABA) has consistently emphasized the importance of these principles, even urging legal professionals to actively defend them.6 This repeated emphasis suggests a perceived significant threat to these foundational principles during the Trump administration, indicating a potential pattern of actions that deviated from established legal norms.
Complementing the rule of law is the US Constitution, which provides the supreme legal framework for the nation. It establishes the fundamental principles of American governance, including the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, ensuring a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power.3 The Constitution also enshrines principles of federalism, dividing powers between the federal government and the states, and guarantees individual rights and liberties through the Bill of Rights. Legal organizations and scholars have frequently invoked constitutional principles when analyzing the actions of the Trump administration, often highlighting instances where these actions appeared to push against or directly violate the established framework of governance.3 The concept of the "unitary executive theory," which posits that the President has broad, unchecked authority over the executive branch, emerged as a significant point of discussion, suggesting a deliberate attempt to expand presidential power beyond traditional interpretations.11 The frequency with which "Constitution" and "separation of powers" are mentioned in critical contexts underscores a core concern about the administration's approach to governing.
This report aims to document and analyze specific actions undertaken by Donald Trump or his administration that have been reported by legal scholars and reputable news organizations as challenging or contravening the rule of law and the US Constitution. By examining these reported instances and their supporting documentation, this analysis seeks to provide a well-documented and objective assessment of these critical issues.
Several actions taken by Donald Trump or his administration have been reported as challenging the fundamental principles of the rule of law. These actions span various aspects of governance and have drawn criticism from legal scholars and organizations.
One area of concern involves the targeting of law firms representing adversaries. The Trump administration issued executive orders that targeted law firms such as Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie.7 These actions were reportedly motivated by the firms' ties to individuals who were critical of the President or represented his political adversaries. The measures included suspending security clearances for firm employees, restricting their access to federal buildings, and initiating investigations into the firms' diversity initiatives.7 The American Bar Association (ABA) and legal experts expressed deep discomfort with these moves, arguing that they created a chilling effect throughout the legal profession and raised serious concerns about judicial independence and the constitutional separation of powers.7 The ABA explicitly stated that lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution.7 Targeting specific law firms with punitive measures based on their clients or associations directly interferes with the attorney-client relationship and the adversarial system of justice, both key components of the rule of law. This could lead to a situation where lawyers become hesitant to take on cases that might draw the ire of the administration.
Another significant challenge to the rule of law involved attacks on the American Bar Association (ABA). The Trump administration reportedly took multiple actions against the ABA, including freezing tens of millions of dollars in grant money from USAID and the State Department, threatening to withdraw the ABA's accreditation powers for law schools if it did not drop a diversity rule, and launching investigations into the ABA's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.6 These actions were widely perceived as retaliation for the ABA's public criticism of the administration's policies and actions.16 The ABA itself condemned these moves as "chaotic attacks on the rule of law".6 These actions suggest an attempt to silence or punish an independent organization that has historically advocated for the rule of law and often served as a critical voice against governmental overreach. This could weaken the legal profession's ability to act as a check on executive power. The ABA, as a leading legal organization, has a long-standing role in upholding legal standards, and the administration's attacks, seemingly motivated by disagreement with the ABA's stance on certain issues, are particularly concerning.
Reports also documented the defiance of court orders by the Trump administration. In one instance, the administration reportedly used the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants without due process, despite a U.S. District Judge ordering a stop to the deportations.9 Some White House sources even boasted about their defiance of the court order.9 This led to strong criticism, with the Brennan Center for Justice emphasizing that presidents cannot simply defy court orders they don't like without undermining the Constitution and democracy.9 A fundamental aspect of the rule of law is the obligation of all parties, including the government, to abide by court rulings. Ignoring or defying these rulings undermines the judiciary's role as an independent check on executive power and erodes the very foundation of a legal system based on precedent and judicial authority. If the executive branch can selectively choose which court orders to follow, it effectively places itself above the law, contradicting the core principle of the rule of law.
Furthermore, the Trump administration and its allies reportedly engaged in attacks on judges and the judiciary. These included personal attacks on judges who ruled against the administration, as well as calls for their impeachment and questioning the legitimacy of judicial review.3 The ABA firmly rejected efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession, noting a "clear and disconcerting pattern" of government actions targeting judges when the administration disagreed with their decisions.5 The independence of the judiciary is crucial for ensuring impartial application of the law. Attacks on judges for their rulings can be seen as an attempt to intimidate them and undermine public trust in the fairness of the legal system. This politicization of the judiciary threatens its role as a neutral arbiter. When the executive branch publicly criticizes and threatens judges for unfavorable rulings, it creates an environment where judges might feel pressured to rule in favor of the administration, compromising their impartiality.
The Trump administration was also accused of refusing to spend congressionally appropriated funds, a practice known as impoundment.3 This was described by the ABA and legal experts as a violation of the rule of law and the constitutional framework, which vests the power of the purse in Congress.3 The executive branch's refusal to spend these funds without congressional approval disrupts the separation of powers and undermines Congress's legislative authority. This action challenges the established legal process for allocating and utilizing government resources. If the President can unilaterally decide not to spend funds approved by Congress, it effectively gives the executive branch a veto power over legislation that goes beyond what the Constitution intended.
Concerns were also raised about the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Reports indicated a potential weaponization of the DOJ for political purposes, including directing investigations of political adversaries and eroding the DOJ's independence from the White House.11 The "Project 2025" plan, for example, outlined strategies that could lead to the DOJ being used to target political opponents.24 The DOJ's role is to impartially enforce the law. Politicizing its operations, whether by targeting political opponents or protecting allies, undermines the principle of equal application of the law and erodes public trust in the justice system. When the DOJ is perceived as acting on the President's personal or political agenda rather than on the basis of legal merit, it compromises its integrity and its ability to ensure fair and just outcomes.
Finally, the Trump administration reportedly undertook the firing of multiple Inspectors General (IGs) across various federal agencies without providing adequate notice or rationale to Congress.10 These actions raised concerns about accountability and oversight within the government. IGs serve as independent watchdogs within government agencies, providing crucial oversight and accountability. Their removal, particularly without clear justification, can be seen as an attempt to weaken this oversight and potentially shield the administration from scrutiny. The timing and pattern of IG firings suggest a potential effort to remove individuals who might investigate or report on wrongdoing within the administration.
In addition to actions perceived as challenging the rule of law, several steps taken by Donald Trump or his administration have been reported as contravening the US Constitution itself.
One of the most prominent examples is the reported attempt to end birthright citizenship. President Trump reportedly signed a decree aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a principle explicitly enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.3 This action was widely criticized by legal scholars, with one federal judge even describing a similar directive as "blatantly unconstitutional".10 The 14th Amendment clearly establishes birthright citizenship, and an executive order attempting to overturn this constitutional provision represents a significant overreach of presidential authority and a direct challenge to the Constitution itself. The Constitution can only be amended through a specific process outlined in Article V; an executive order cannot supersede a constitutional amendment.
Numerous actions undertaken by the administration have also been characterized as challenging the separation of powers. This foundational principle of the US Constitution divides governmental authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Actions such as the refusal to spend congressionally appropriated funds, attempts to dismantle agencies created by Congress like USAID, and assertions of expansive executive authority based on the "unitary executive theory" have all been cited as examples of this challenge.3 The ABA, for instance, stated that comments criticizing judges pose "serious risks to our constitutional framework that separates power among three co-equal branches".8 The Constitution divides governmental power among three branches to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful. Actions that disrupt this balance, such as the executive branch unilaterally assuming powers belonging to Congress or the judiciary, undermine the core structure of American governance designed to prevent tyranny. The framers of the Constitution intentionally created a system of checks and balances, and when one branch attempts to dominate the others, it violates this fundamental principle.
Reports also suggest that the Trump administration took actions that potentially constituted an infringement on First Amendment freedoms. These include the targeting of law firms based on their clients, the revocation of visas for individuals engaging in speech disliked by the administration, and the potential influence on university funding related to responses to protests.5 The First Amendment guarantees fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and association. Government actions that punish or discourage the exercise of these rights are unconstitutional. A healthy democracy requires the free exchange of ideas and the ability to hold the government accountable. Actions that suppress dissent or punish those who express unpopular views undermine these essential elements.
The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act has also been challenged on constitutional grounds.9 The application of this wartime law to deport individuals in peacetime without due process raises significant constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee due process. Using a law intended for specific circumstances—declared war or invasion—in a different context, and in a manner that bypasses fundamental legal protections, is problematic. Due process ensures fairness in legal proceedings, and deporting individuals without a fair hearing violates this fundamental constitutional right.
Finally, the pardoning of individuals involved in the January 6th insurrection has drawn criticism from some legal observers who argue that it could potentially undermine the rule of law and the Constitution's principles of accountability.10 While the President possesses the constitutional power to grant pardons, the wholesale pardon of individuals involved in an attack on the very foundations of American democracy and the peaceful transfer of power raises questions about the administration's respect for constitutional processes. Pardoning those who attempted to subvert the Constitution could be seen as undermining the principles they swore to uphold.
The actions documented above, if left unchecked or repeated, carry significant implications for the American system of governance. The erosion of the separation of powers and checks and balances could lead to an imbalance where the executive branch increasingly asserts dominance over the legislative and judicial branches. This could weaken the essential system designed to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful and potentially lead to an overreach of executive authority.11
Furthermore, these actions contribute to the weakening of the rule of law. Principles such as equality before the law and accountability to the law are undermined when the executive branch appears to operate outside of or in defiance of established legal norms and judicial pronouncements.3 If the executive branch is perceived as being above the law or selectively enforcing it, public trust in the legal system and the fairness of governmental processes could be significantly diminished.
The documented actions also deviate from established constitutional norms. Repeated challenges to fundamental principles such as birthright citizenship and the separation of powers, along with the questioning of judicial authority, could set dangerous precedents for future administrations, potentially normalizing actions that were previously considered outside the bounds of constitutional propriety.10
Ultimately, these trends pose a potential for long-term damage to democratic institutions. The normalization of actions that challenge legal and constitutional boundaries could erode the very foundations of democratic governance, leading to a system where the rule of law and constitutional principles are weakened and the balance of power is disrupted.9 This could have profound and lasting consequences for the health and stability of American democracy.
This analysis has identified several actions undertaken by Donald Trump or his administration that have been reported as challenging the rule of law and the US Constitution. These include targeting law firms, attacking the American Bar Association, defying court orders, attacking judges and the judiciary, refusing to spend congressionally appropriated funds, politicizing the Department of Justice, firing Inspectors General, attempting to end birthright citizenship, challenging the separation of powers, infringing on First Amendment freedoms, using the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime, and pardoning January 6th insurrectionists.
These actions, documented by legal scholars and reputable news organizations, raise significant concerns about the administration's adherence to fundamental legal and constitutional principles. The rule of law and the US Constitution serve as the bedrock of American democracy, ensuring a system of governance that is both accountable and protective of individual rights. Upholding these principles is paramount for maintaining the integrity of our democratic institutions and ensuring a just and equitable society. The role of legal scholars, the judiciary, and other institutions in scrutinizing and safeguarding these principles remains crucial in preserving the foundations of American governance for future generations.
Action Challenging the Rule of Law | Summary of Legal Arguments Against It | Source(s) |
Targeting Law Firms Representing Adversaries | Undermines independence of legal profession, right to counsel, and adversarial system of justice. Creates a chilling effect. | 5 |
Attacks on the American Bar Association (ABA) | Retaliation against an independent organization for criticizing the government. Weakens the legal profession's ability to act as a check on executive power. | 1 |
Defiance of Court Orders | Undermines the judiciary's authority and the principle that everyone, including the government, is subject to the law. | 4 |
Attacks on Judges and the Judiciary | Undermines judicial independence and public trust in the fairness of the legal system. Politicizes the judiciary. | 3 |
Refusal to Spend Congressionally Appropriated Funds (Impoundment) | Violates Congress's constitutional "power of the purse" and disrupts the separation of powers. | 3 |
Politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) | Undermines the principle of equal application of the law and erodes public trust in the justice system. | 11 |
Firing of Inspectors General (IGs) | Weakens independent oversight and accountability within the government. | 10 |
Action Challenging the US Constitution | Summary of Constitutional Arguments Against It | Source(s) |
Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship | Violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the US. | 3 |
Challenging the Separation of Powers | Encroaches on the powers of the legislative and judicial branches, disrupting the balance of authority. | 3 |
Infringement on First Amendment Freedoms | Punishes or discourages the exercise of free speech and association, essential for a functioning democracy. | 5 |
Use of the Alien Enemies Act | Application of a wartime law in peacetime without due process violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. | 9 |
Pardoning January 6th Insurrectionists | May undermine accountability for actions that challenged the Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power. | 10 |