Is Trump doing things in office that goes against the Constitution
Executive summary
Legal challenges and watchdog reports say many of President Trump’s 2025-era executive actions and policy moves are being litigated as unlawful or unconstitutional — including attempts to limit birthright citizenship, reshape federal funding and election rules, and expand immigration enforcement — and multiple federal judges and coalitions have blocked or sued over specific orders (see litigation tracker and cases) [1] [2] [3]. Congressional Democrats, state attorneys general, civil-rights groups and legal clinics characterize a large swath of these actions as unconstitutional; the White House defends them as restoring lawful limits on the “administrative state” [4] [5] [6].
1. What critics say: a pattern of actions labeled unconstitutional
Democrats in Congress, progressive legal groups, and policy organizations argue the administration has repeatedly overstepped constitutional limits — citing executive orders that attempt to deny birthright citizenship, withhold funds Congress appropriated, change election administration, and condition federal funding on compliance with federal priorities — and they have launched lawsuits and public trackers documenting these challenges [2] [7] [5] [8].
2. Where courts have stepped in: active litigation and injunctions
Independent legal trackers and news outlets show numerous cases against administration policies; some courts have enjoined enforcement. For example, litigation trackers report mixed rulings including a Supreme Court stay in a passport‑policy case and district court injunctions against other measures, illustrating an active judiciary confronting these actions [1]. Congressional and state suits—such as multistate challenges to an election-related executive order—are part of that litigation wave [5] [9].
3. The birthright citizenship flashpoint
Multiple sources single out an executive order aimed at ending the practice of birthright citizenship as raising plain constitutional questions. Legal experts and commentators say the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is implicated; reporting characterizes that order as a central driver of claims that the administration is provoking a constitutional crisis [10] [2].
4. Funding and impoundment: separation of powers disputes
Policy analysts and Senate investigators point to the administration’s moves to pause or withhold funds that Congress has appropriated as potentially violating the Impoundment Control Act and the constitutional budgetary authority of Congress. The Office of Management and Budget’s nominees and the administration’s public messaging have fueled concerns that withholding funds would be unlawful [3] [7].
5. Election policy and federal overreach claims
Civil‑rights groups and coalitions of state attorneys general describe an executive order directing federal agencies — including the Election Assistance Commission — to alter voter registration or condition federal support as an unlawful attempt to centralize control over state-run elections. Legal filings from groups such as Campaign Legal Center argue the president lacks authority to issue such sweeping election directives [9] [5].
6. Administration’s defense: restoring lawful limits on agencies
The White House frames many measures as correcting an “unconstitutional administrative state,” ordering agency reviews and directing enforcement discretion to rein in perceived regulatory overreach. The administration points to statutory and executive authorities for those directives and produced a public fact sheet describing the DOGE deregulatory initiative and a Unified Agenda to rescind regulations [6].
7. What’s clear from available reporting — and what’s not
Available sources document a large number of executive orders (217 listed for 2025) and an extensive docket of lawsuits and injunctions challenging them, so there is clear, attributable controversy and sustained legal scrutiny [11] [1]. Sources do not provide a definitive, single constitutional ruling that all or most of these actions are unconstitutional; instead, reporting shows a mix of court orders, ongoing litigation, and competing legal theories [1].
8. Why context matters: politics, litigation and institutions
Many critiques come from partisan officials and advocacy groups and therefore carry explicit political agendas to check the administration [4] [8]. At the same time, nonpartisan legal trackers, state attorneys general, and federal judges are also active participants. That mix—political accusation and independent judicial review—frames a national debate over executive power rather than an uncontested legal consensus [1] [5].
9. Bottom line for the question “Is he doing things that go against the Constitution?”
Reporting and legal trackers show the administration has issued multiple actions that opponents say exceed constitutional authority and that courts and state actors are actively challenging; some orders have been enjoined or stayed, while others remain litigated or defended as lawful regulatory reform [1] [2] [6]. Whether any specific action “goes against the Constitution” depends on final judicial rulings still pending in many cases [1].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided sources, which document litigation, advocacy positions, and administration statements but do not contain the full universe of court decisions or final appellate outcomes on every policy cited [1] [11].