List of times Trump violated the Constitution
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple watchdogs, lawmakers and legal trackers say the Trump administration has taken actions repeatedly challenged as unconstitutional — most prominently an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, which lower courts blocked as violating the 14th Amendment and which the Supreme Court agreed to review [1] [2]. Congressional Democrats’ report and litigation trackers document hundreds of lawsuits and dozens of injunctions against administration moves, including alleged defiance of court orders and use of executive power to sidestep Congress [3] [4].
1. A single headline case: birthright citizenship under legal assault
President Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office aiming to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born here to noncitizen parents; federal judges called that order unconstitutional and blocked it, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide the dispute after lower courts found the order inconsistent with the 14th Amendment [1] [5] [2]. Commentary from civil‑liberty groups and reporters frames the measure as the clearest, repeatedly litigated example of an asserted constitutional breach by executive fiat [5] [2].
2. Scores of lawsuits and a pattern of judicial pushback
Senator Gary Peters’ committee summary and independent litigation trackers say more than 350 lawsuits were filed against the administration for a variety of actions, and judges from both parties have issued orders halting steps they deemed unlawful, suggesting a systematic pattern of legal challenges rather than isolated disputes [3] [4]. The litigation tracker catalogues suits ranging from funding withholdings to personnel and administrative moves that plaintiffs allege violate separation of powers and statutory limits [4].
3. Executive orders, agency purges and inspectors general removals
Analysts and advocacy groups point to an unusually large volume of executive orders and personnel actions—such as firing inspectors general—taken without the notice and congressional engagement critics say statutes and norms require. The Brennan Center characterized early moves as “flagrantly” violating rules, statutes or constitutional norms, specifically citing the birthright‑citizenship order and abrupt inspector‑general dismissals [5].
4. Accusations of power‑grabs and retaliation against critics
Senator Peters’ report charges the administration with seizing congressional powers and retaliating against officials and private citizens who criticized or oversaw the government, framing those actions as threats to constitutional checks and the rule of law [3]. That account is a political and institutional critique produced by Senate Democrats; other sources in the sample focus more on legal outcomes than on motive [3] [4].
5. War powers and use of force: contested constitutional terrain
Some commentators and members of Congress contend certain military actions — for example, bombing operations referenced by critics — violated the Constitution’s War Powers Clause by exceeding Congress’s authority to declare war; these claims feature in opinion pieces and calls for impeachment but in the provided results are framed as political and legal arguments rather than settled judicial findings [6]. Available sources do not detail final judicial dispositions on those specific War Powers claims [6].
6. Administrative withholding and conditional funding fights
The administration’s practice of conditioning federal funds on state or local cooperation with federal immigration objectives produced lawsuits by states asserting constitutional and statutory violations; Just Security’s tracker and contemporaneous reporting show multiple suits alleging separation‑of‑powers and Administrative Procedure Act violations [4]. Courts have at times enjoined or stayed parts of those policies while proceedings continue [4].
7. How watchdogs and media frame the broader pattern
The Brennan Center, congressional Democrats, and press outlets characterize the pattern as an unprecedented use of executive authority that invites litigation and judicial correction; they present multiple arenas—immigration, personnel, foreign aid, and funding—as recurring flashpoints where courts have intervened [5] [3] [7]. Other outlets included here chronicle news and litigation developments without endorsing a single political narrative, focusing on legal rulings and pending appeals [2] [8].
8. Limits of the public record in these sources
Available sources document many lawsuits, injunctions, and at least one major executive order deemed unconstitutional by lower courts, but they do not provide a dispositive, court‑by‑court list proving a blanket constitutional “violation” for every contested action; some claims remain under appeal or before the Supreme Court [3] [4] [2]. Where sources attribute motive (retaliation, lawlessness), those are conclusions from partisan actors or advocacy groups and should be weighed against ongoing litigation and appeals [3] [5].
9. What to watch next
The Supreme Court’s decision on the birthright‑citizenship order will be a pivotal legal judgment referenced across reporting and policy debates [2]. The litigation trackers and Senate report indicate continuing legal challenges and injunctions to monitor for definitive judicial rulings that either confirm or reject the pattern described by critics [4] [3].
If you want, I can extract a more detailed, itemized list of the specific lawsuits and injunctions referenced in the trackers and reports cited here.