The Trump administration's recent actions have ignited widespread legal and political controversy, as experts weigh in on the implications of federal spending freezes and the dismissal of independent inspectors general. These moves have raised alarms regarding constitutional violations that potentially disrupt essential services for millions of Americans.
In a shocking maneuver, the Trump administration ordered a pause in federal spending, which Laurence Tribe, a prominent constitutional law scholar, described as "a clear usurpation of a coordinate branch's exclusive power of the purse." This decision sparked significant concern among legal experts who argue it contravenes both the Constitution and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.
The ramifications of this spending freeze have been severe. Programs vital to the well-being of many Americans, including Medicaid payments, childcare services, meals for seniors, housing subsidies, and special education programs, have all faced disruptions. Erwin Chemerinsky, a legal scholar, emphasized the scale of the crisis, stating, "The freeze of federal spending potentially affects tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of people."
As confusion and chaos spread across the nation, the Trump administration rescinded the spending freeze on Wednesday after facing intense criticism. However, this retreat came too late for many Americans who rely on these essential services. Compounding the controversy, Trump dismissed 18 inspectors general—independent officials responsible for auditing and investigating federal agencies for waste, fraud, and abuse—prompting accusations of unprecedented and illegal overreach.
Kate Andrias, a professor of constitutional and administrative law at Columbia University, criticized the firings as being without justification. According to her, the National Labor Relations Act specifies that "the president can fire board members only for neglect of duty and malfeasance." Notably, Trump's dismissals included Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). These dismissals occurred without providing Congress with the required 30-day notice or specific reasons.
A federal district court judge in Washington D.C., Loren AliKhan, took action by suspending the spending freeze, further complicating matters for the Trump administration. The actions have drawn comparisons to Richard Nixon's illegal conduct during the Watergate scandal. Legal scholars note that while Nixon's lawbreaking was significant, Trump's apparent willingness to flout constitutional norms may be unprecedented.
Historian Julian Zelizer pointed out that Trump's actions reflect a concerning trend. He stated, "I can’t remember another president who has tried to throw so much of the constitution out the window to do what he wants." Meanwhile, Andrias suggested that Trump might find some support from the Supreme Court regarding his actions but warned that it could "reject 90 years of legal precedent."
In response to growing concerns around birthright citizenship, Trump attempted to ban this practice. However, Judge John Coughenour in Seattle temporarily blocked his order. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Trump's measures as necessary for national integrity.
Tribe weighed in on Trump's presidency by declaring, "Without any doubt Donald Trump is the most lawless and scofflaw president we have ever seen in the history of the United States." He further described the situation as "a blitzkrieg on the law and the constitution," attributing part of the chaos to a strategy designed to overwhelm public attention with rapid-fire actions.
Zelizer remarked on the historical context of such actions by presidents, noting that Andrew Jackson also had a record of constitutional violations aimed at expanding presidential power. However, he emphasized that modern presidents have not acted with such blatant disregard for constitutional principles.
As legal experts continue to dissect these events, the implications for American governance remain profound. Chemerinsky remarked on the unprecedented nature of these actions: "I certainly doubt that any president has done so much lawless so quickly that affects so many people."