What specific instances did Donald Trump allegedly violate the Constitution?

1. Executive orders and birthright citizenship: a direct 14th Amendment challenge

Multiple sources document an executive order and related efforts by the administration to end birthright citizenship for children born to non‑citizens—a move federal judges and legal scholars called “blatantly unconstitutional” because it conflicts with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and was enjoined by courts ^{[1] [5] [6]}.

2. Invoking the Alien Enemies Act and due‑process concerns

The administration’s use of the 1789 Alien Enemies Act to authorize summary removals of alleged Venezuelan gang members has been criticized as bypassing statutory and constitutional due‑process protections; legal analysts and policy centers say the AEA cannot be read to permit deportations without the 5th Amendment’s procedural safeguards, and courts have been asked to intervene ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Freezing funds, impoundment, and separation‑of‑powers fights

Critics say rapid freezes of federal spending and attempts to reprogram appropriated funds ignored the procedures Congress set in the Impoundment Control Act and threatened the Constitution’s separation of powers; lawsuits were filed promptly and, in some instances, the administration rescinded freezes after legal pressure ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Firing inspectors general, dismantling agencies, and undermining independent oversight

The administration’s removal of multiple inspectors general and the dissolution or radical downsizing of agencies like USAID have been characterized by congressional Democrats and legal commentators as assaults on structural constitutional checks—actions that, they argue, weaken enforcement of federal law and congressional oversight ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

5. Targeting critics, lawyers, universities, and alleged viewpoint discrimination

A pattern of punitive measures—executive orders aimed at law firms, efforts to sanction lawyers who challenge deportations, threats and funding restrictions aimed at universities over campus speech—has been described by judges and civil‑liberties groups as using government power to punish dissent and chill protected speech, implicating the First Amendment and the right to counsel ^{[4] [5] [10]}.

6. Emoluments and conflicts of interest: constitutional questions about private business and public office

Longstanding concerns about retained private holdings and whether they create prohibited “emoluments” or conflicts that the Constitution forbids have been raised repeatedly by watchdog groups and congressional reports; those bodies argue Trump’s ownership model departs from norms that predecessors followed and raises justiciable constitutional questions ^{[11] [12] [9]}.

7. Courts pushing back, contested facts, and the political frame

A large share of these claims—more than 350 lawsuits by one count—have been litigated and many actions have been stayed, enjoined, or reversed by judges appointed by both parties, indicating that constitutional adjudication is ongoing rather than settled; at the same time, much of the reporting comes from partisan committees, advocacy groups, and editorial outlets, so interpretation of legal significance varies sharply between critics and administration defenders ^{[3] [6] [1]}.

8. What the sources do not prove and where authority lies

The assembled reporting documents allegations, court challenges, and blocked orders, but does not establish criminal convictions for constitutional violations; determination of illegality ultimately rests with courts and, where appropriate, Congress—reporting shows courts are actively resolving many of these disputes even as some actions were rescinded or remain contested ^{[3] [1]}.