Laws trump has violated
Executive summary
Multiple reputable trackers, watchdogs and news outlets report that the second Trump administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits, multiple injunctions, and findings by legal analysts and lawmakers that its executive actions overreach statutory and constitutional limits (for example: “more than 100 lawsuits,” “more than 350 lawsuits” cited by oversight reports) [1] [2]. Analysts and organizations — including the Brennan Center, CBPP, Lawfare and press outlets — identify specific categories of alleged violations: attempts to end birthright citizenship, withholding congressionally appropriated funds, violating the Antideficiency Act, and executive actions blocked by courts [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Lawsuits and court blocks: an administration in legal crossfire
Federal courts have repeatedly intervened against Trump administration policies: tracking projects and reporting note dozens to hundreds of legal challenges and multiple preliminary injunctions against executive actions such as changes to passport/sex-designation policy and an EO on birthright citizenship that federal judges called unconstitutional [1] [7] [3]. Legal trackers like Just Security catalog ongoing litigation and court stays, showing a pattern where ambitious executive moves are routinely litigated and sometimes enjoined [1].
2. Executive orders flagged as unconstitutional or unlawful
Advocacy groups and legal commentators say several orders appear inconsistent with federal law or the Constitution. The Brennan Center documented an EO seeking to end birthright citizenship and reported a federal judge blocking it as “blatantly unconstitutional,” and other analyses say many orders ignore statutory or constitutional constraints [3] [6]. The Federal Register and law-firm tracking show the White House issuing a high volume of orders that legal observers read as testing or exceeding traditional executive authority [8] [9].
3. Fiscal moves and alleged violations of appropriations law
Multiple sources assert the administration has taken fiscal actions that may violate congressional appropriations. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) and Lawfare document cases where the administration froze or reallocated funds in ways those organizations say contravene statutes and the Antideficiency Act; Lawfare argues the administration’s designation choices and obligations created strict violations of appropriations law [4] [5]. Congressional Democrats’ oversight materials cite dozens of instances where the administration allegedly “froze federal funds authorized by Congress” and “usurped key congressional powers” [2].
4. Accusations of retaliation and weaponizing agencies
Reporting in major outlets and congressional reports say the administration has used political appointees and lesser-known powers to pursue perceived political enemies, prompting legal and ethical concerns. The New York Times reports political appointees harnessing obscure powers “to go after his enemies,” while the Senate report led by Sen. Peters documents alleged retaliation, seizures of Congressional powers, and defiance of court orders [10] [2]. Those sources present this as a broader pattern rather than isolated incidents [10] [2].
5. State-federal fights and preemption attempts
Courts have blocked administration attempts to expand federal authority into areas states regulate. Reuters and Newsweek coverage say the administration contemplated measures — including preempting state AI laws — that prompted bipartisan state pushback and legal challenges; judges in some instances upheld state limits against federal claims [11] [12]. Newsweek documents court rulings that rejected federal arguments on immigration enforcement and National Guard deployments, signaling judicial skepticism of the administration’s asserted federal powers [12].
6. Tracking, partisan claims, and oversight reports — competing framings
There is consistent reporting that opposition lawmakers and watchdogs call the administration’s behavior “unprecedented” and “lawless” [2] [13], while law firms and the Federal Register catalog the sheer volume of orders and legal changes [9] [8]. Independent trackers (Just Security, Holland & Knight, NAFSA) document actions and litigation; advocacy and oversight sources (Brennan Center, CBPP, Sen. Peters’ office) emphasize legal violations and constitutional threats [1] [3] [4] [2]. Available sources do not mention a definitive, universally accepted legal list of “laws Trump has violated” as criminal convictions; instead, they catalogue litigation, injunctions, alleged statutory breaches and policy blocks (not found in current reporting).
7. What the sources don’t resolve — enforcement, final outcomes, and intent
The public record shows many suits and injunctions but does not uniformly resolve every alleged violation: courts sometimes block policies, sometimes stay injunctions, and some matters remain litigated [1] [6]. Lawfare and CBPP lay out legal theories of statutory breach (Antideficiency Act, appropriations law) but courts’ final rulings and potential criminal or civil penalties are separate processes and not uniformly detailed in the material provided [5] [4]. Available sources do not mention definitive criminal convictions tied to these administrative decisions (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: multiple independent trackers, legal analysts and oversight reports document a pattern of aggressive executive action met by more than a hundred legal challenges and dozens of court orders; commentators and watchdogs say many moves appear to violate statutes or the Constitution, while other sources emphasize the administration’s intent to push legal boundaries — but final legal outcomes remain in flux [1] [2] [3] [4].