Trump is Breaking the Law—And He Wants You to Know That

The Trump administration’s assault on democracy is often slapdash. This is largely because Elon Musk and his script kiddies at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency have been allowed to run wild, leading to grimly hilarious outcomes like the administration begging stewards of the nuclear stockpile to come back after it had fired them en masse.

Sometimes, though, this slapdash approach is a deliberate strategy rather than the byproduct of moving fast and breaking things. By refusing to provide even a sham justification for some of its actions, the administration is flexing its muscles, showing that it isn’t obliged to pretend to follow the law. This is part and parcel of Trump’s assertion that his executive authority is so vast that only he or his attorney general can say what the law is.

If the U.S. president is functionally a king, as Trump believes, then that president doesn’t need to justify their actions even if the law requires it. Take Trump’s firings of 17 inspectors general. Trump does have the power to remove those agency watchdogs as long as he notifies both houses of Congress at least 30 days before doing so, and provides “substantive rationale” and “case-specific” reasons for the removal.

Instead, Trump fired the inspectors general five days into his second term, effective immediately and without explanation or prior notice to Congress. He declared, wrongly, that this move was “a very common thing to do.” Perennial Trump lapdog Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, brushed off the violation, saying, “Just tell them you need to follow the law next time.”

All Trump needed to do here was give notice to Congress and wait 30 days. By ignoring that requirement and providing no real explanation, Trump is making clear that he doesn’t care what the law says. Waiting and providing an explanation would have acknowledged Congress’ authority, and Trump wants everyone to know that he isn’t going to do so.

It’s the same with his removal of various heads of independent agencies. Generally, those individuals can be fired only for cause, because Congress created those agencies to have a level of independence from presidents.

But Trump didn’t even pretend to follow the law when he attempted to remove National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox. At the time, he said she was being removed because “heads of agencies within the Executive Branch must share the objectives of [his] administration.”

And when he removed Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, he didn’t even bother with that meager justification. Instead, Dellinger received a curt email saying only that his position as special counsel was terminated effective immediately.

The failure to justify these removals isn’t sloppiness. It isn’t that Trump doesn’t understand the law. Instead, he doesn’t believe in the underlying principle that Congress has the authority to create independent agencies. Providing an explanation consistent with the law would be acknowledging that authority. So Trump’s approach of explicitly refusing to give that explanation is a declaration that he has no intention of following the law or recognizing Congress’s authority.

It’s the same approach Trump has taken in his quest to shutter agencies he dislikes. Although agencies created by Congress cannot be done away with by the president, that’s exactly what Trump has done with the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And he keeps threatening to eliminate the Department of Education via executive order.

Here’s the thing: There’s already ample GOP support in Congress for eliminating the CFPB and the Department of Education. Republicans have wanted to abolish the CFPB since it was created, and even made eliminating it a plank in their 2016 platform. With the GOP in control of Congress and committed to giving Trump whatever he wants, he could likely go to Congress and have them shutter the CFPB as the law requires.

Similarly, conservatives have a longtime hatred of the Department of Education, stretching back to the Reagan administration. Trump supporters in Congress have introduced multiple bills to close the agency since Trump won the 2024 election. As with the CFPB, Trump could likely get the GOP to vote to shut down the Department of Education. Going that route, however, would require Trump to acknowledge that Congress, not the president, has the sole authority to shutter agencies.

Instead, Trump appears to be intentionally exceeding his authority, showing that he can usurp Congress’ role whenever he wants.

The recent unprecedented—and likely unconstitutional—arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and legal U.S. resident, has given the administration another opportunity to flout the law. Yes, a provision allows Secretary of State Marco Rubio to personally determine someone is deportable if their presence here could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

And while Rubio has invoked that provision, there’s no explanation as to how Khalil’s actions compromise American foreign policy. Moreover, even if that provision is used, Rubio doesn’t have the authority to deport a green-card holder; they are entitled to due process in front of an immigration judge.

The administration has stated there is no allegation that Khalil broke any law. And though White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted that “pro-Hamas” fliers were distributed at protests Khalil attended, she neglected to provide evidence that Khalil distributed them. She also wouldn’t share the fliers with reporters because it would supposedly harm the dignity of the briefing room.

Every aspect of Khalil’s arrest was controlled by the administration. It could have rolled out evidence about Khalil’s alleged threat to our foreign policy and could have explained how Khalil’s actions may have broken laws. The White House is also gearing up for mass deportations of activists based on the content of their speech alone.

The failure to meaningfully justify Khalil’s planned deportation is an invocation of raw power. Trump has asserted he has incredibly expansive authority over immigration laws, so why would he feel the need to follow the law in removing Khalil? For Trump, he’s the only law that matters, and he wants to make sure we all know it.

Lisa Needham is an attorney who writes about federal courts, LGBTQ issues, and reproductive justice at Daily Kos. She can also be found at Balls and Strikes, Public Notice, and Rewire.