Did Trump make a statement suggesting the Constitution should be thrown away?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has made multiple public statements and policy moves critics say amount to rejecting or sidelining constitutional limits — including an explicit past post saying massive fraud could “allow for the termination of … even those found in the Constitution” and a string of executive orders that legal scholars say challenge constitutional norms [1] [2]. Courts and legal experts have repeatedly blocked or criticized administration actions such as the attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of that order [3] [4] [5].
1. A direct quote that read like “terminate” the Constitution — and the response
Reporting records show a December 2022 Truth Social post from Trump saying “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” a line opponents and moderators repeatedly cited in 2023 debate coverage [1]. Trump later pushed back, calling claims he wanted to “terminate” the Constitution “DISINFORMATION” and saying he meant corrective steps were needed, but the original phrasing was explicit and has been widely reported [1].
2. Actions that legal scholars call a challenge to constitutional order
Scholars and watchdogs describe the administration’s early-second-term flurry of executive orders — and moves such as firing inspectors general and attempting to halt federal funds — as an unprecedented stress on constitutional norms. A legal commentary argued Trump’s “counter-constitution” approach places executive orders above other branches, and constitutional experts have said these rapid actions “destroyed many of the certainties of the American constitutional system” [2] [6]. Congressional Democrats accused the administration of “undermining the Constitution” through repeated legal violations [7].
3. The birthright citizenship fight: concrete attempt to override a constitutional guarantee
The clearest policy-level example is the administration’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for many children born in the U.S. Lower courts have repeatedly concluded the order violates the 14th Amendment and an existing federal statute; the Supreme Court has now agreed to resolve whether the president’s order can stand, making this an active constitutional test case [3] [4] [5]. Civil-rights groups and legal commentators say the order would “upend” over a century of precedent [3] [8].
4. Competing perspectives in the record
Supporters argue the president is exercising executive power to address immigration and public-safety concerns and have pointed to the breadth of executive orders in the Federal Register as normal presidential governance [9]. Critics — including conservative and liberal legal scholars quoted in coverage — say the moves exceed constitutional authority and risk a constitutional crisis; some academics use words like “blitzkrieg on the law” to capture the breadth and speed of actions [6]. Both sides are present in the reporting, but courts so far have generally sided with challengers in lower-court rulings on key policies [5].
5. What the sources do and do not say about “throwing away” the Constitution
Available reporting documents instances where Trump used language suggesting parts of the Constitution could be terminated (the Truth Social post) and where his administration pursued policies many legal experts say violate constitutional text or precedent (birthright citizenship, impoundment/funding moves) [1] [5] [6]. The provided sources do not show a single on-the-record remark in which Trump said verbatim “throw the Constitution away” in a contemporaneous press setting; they do show rhetoric and policy that critics interpret as sidelining constitutional limits [1] [2].
6. Why courts and scholars matter here
The practical question isn’t only rhetoric but enforceability. Multiple lower courts have blocked the birthright-citizenship order and ruled it likely violates the Constitution; the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the case elevates the dispute to the final arbiter of constitutional meaning [5] [4]. Legal scholars’ warnings about a “constitutional crisis” reflect both the unusual speed of executive actions and the judiciary’s current role as a check — though scholars disagree on the long-run outcome [10] [2].
7. Bottom line for readers
Trump has used language and legal measures that critics say amount to calls to suspend or override constitutional protections; that includes an explicit past post about “termination” of constitutional articles and a series of executive moves that courts and scholars have found constitutionally suspect [1] [6]. Whether those words and actions legally “throw away” the Constitution is precisely the dispute now being litigated in courts, including the Supreme Court’s imminent review of the birthright-citizenship order [5] [3].