What are some of the illegal actions of Donald Trump
Executive summary
Legal challenges, court orders, and policy analyses in 2025–2025 document numerous actions by President Donald Trump that critics and some courts describe as unlawful: federal judges ordered certain Office of Personnel Management (OPM) memos rescinded as “unlawful, invalid” for directing mass terminations of probationary workers [1], courts have blocked parts of immigration and citizenship-related executive orders and a Supreme Court granted certiorari in a major case [2] [3], and watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers say many fiscal, regulatory and personnel actions violate statutes or the Constitution [4] [5].
1. Executive orders and legal pushback: the scale and the courts
Trump’s second term relied heavily on executive orders—Ballotpedia counted 218 EOs by December 7, 2025—and multiple orders have been enjoined or litigated for alleged conflicts with statutes and the Constitution [6] [7]. Legal groups and courts have repeatedly blocked or scrutinized these orders; for example, an EO aimed at ending birthright citizenship is the center of litigation now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Barbara v. Trump (cert granted Dec. 5, 2025) and remains enjoined in lower courts [2] [3].
2. Fired career civil servants and OPM’s unlawful memos
Congressional critics and a federal judge described OPM guidance used to terminate probationary federal employees as unlawful; on February 28, 2025 a judge ordered OPM’s memos directing mass terminations “unlawful, invalid, and must be stopped and rescinded,” and required notice to affected agencies—an explicit judicial finding that at least some personnel moves exceeded legal bounds [1].
3. Immigration measures repeatedly blocked or challenged
Multiple immigration-related directives have been enjoined. Organizations tracking the administration’s immigration actions report broad pauses or expansions of travel bans, indefinite pauses on applications from numerous countries, and a DHS/USCIS reorganization and vetting measures; courts and advocates challenge those steps as unlawful or constitutionally suspect [2] [8]. Civil‑liberties groups and legal analysts say the citizenship-denial EO would strip federal recognition of U.S.-born children under new conditions, a policy they view as unlawful and currently litigated [3].
4. Fiscal and regulatory maneuvers that critics call illegal
Policy analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities catalog “many” fiscal and regulatory actions they view as unlawful, citing freezes of funding, improper repeal or amendment of rules, and attempts to deny citizenship documentation—actions that, according to CBPP, raise statutory and constitutional problems [4]. Congressional Democrats accuse the administration of “stealing funds” and dismantling agencies created by statute—charges framed as legal violations by the House Appropriations ranking members [5].
5. National security uses of force and questions of legality
Reporting in late 2025 highlights controversial strikes on vessels and threats of military action—stories now under congressional scrutiny and public debate over whether targeting and escalation complied with law and proper authorization [9] [10]. CNN and The Guardian report closed-door hearings and investigations into specific strikes and proposed wider military actions, indicating significant legal and political questions remain [9] [10].
6. Partisan framing and competing interpretations
Sources assert different motives and legal readings. Democratic committee statements and progressive legal groups frame these moves as systematic violations of law and the Constitution [5] [3]. Conservative outlets and legal monitors catalog the sheer volume of executive action and defend urgency or policy goals; neutral trackers like the Federal Register and Holland & Knight document the administrative record without verdict [11] [12]. Time and Bloomberg analyses cited on Wikipedia note many EOs mirror Project 2025 proposals, suggesting ideological, not purely legal, drivers [7].
7. What sources do and do not say
The provided sources document court orders, injunctions, policy analyses, and congressional accusations against Trump administration actions [1] [2] [4] [3] [5]. Available sources do not mention criminal convictions of Donald Trump in the context of these executive-branch actions; they focus on civil litigation, injunctions, and legislative oversight (not found in current reporting).
Limitations and reading advice: the record here is evolving—many claims are litigated rather than finally adjudicated, and some reporting mixes legal findings with partisan statements; readers should treat judicial orders and injunctions as decisive legal markers (e.g., OPM memo ruling) while recognizing that broader accusations (e.g., “stealing funds”) appear in partisan committee statements and policy analyses [1] [5] [4].