As Donald Trump and allies flout the law, Democrats struggle to fight back

by Ashley Murray, Missouri Independent
February 7, 2025

WASHINGTON — Less than three weeks into his second term, President Donald Trump and those working under his auspices — most prominently billionaire Elon Musk — are making no apologies for barreling over institutions and flouting the law.

The Trump administration’s sweeping actions tee up a major test for the guardrails Americans, red or blue, count on — fair application of the law, privacy of tax and benefit information, civil rights in schools, labor laws in the workplace.

Protests led by Democratic lawmakers, former officials and activists have popped up in the nation’s capital and around the U.S. — from Georgia to Maine to Utah, and several other states. Democrats outnumbered in the U.S. House and Senate during the past week have tried to gain attention with tactics like barging into the House speaker’s office and rallying outside agencies.

Senate Democrats gave speeches overnight Wednesday into Thursday objecting to the nomination of Project 2025 architect Russ Vought as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought was confirmed on a party-line vote, 53-47.

With opponents unable to deploy more than these limited defenses, and many powerful Republican lawmakers either shrugging or downright agreeing, the federal courts have emerged during the past weeks as the only obstacles to some of Trump’s more provocative moves. That has included the president’s orders to freeze many federal grants and loans, corner federal workers into slap-dash career decisions and outright strip the Constitution of birthright citizenship.

Casey Burgat, a George Washington University legislative affairs professor, said, “Historically, presidents are stopped when members of Congress think they’re going too far.”

“Congress could stop it today, but again, that would take Republicans signing on. The courts are probably the best option, given that Congress seems to be unwilling to do that,” Burgat said.

Republicans indeed cheered Trump along the campaign trail as he promised to stamp out diversity and inclusion, orchestrate mass deportations, maintain tax cuts for corporations, amp up tariffs and close legal immigration pathways.

The majority of Americans backed this campaign pitch. Trump handily won the Electoral College over his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and squeaked by with 49.8% of the popular vote. Voters in all seven swing states backed Trump.

That likely will leave it to the third branch of government, the courts, to determine just how much upheaval and constitutional crisis the United States can withstand — though there as well Republicans hold the upper hand, with a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

A legal tracker by the online forum Just Security as of Friday registered 37 lawsuits already lodged against the administration, beginning on Inauguration Day.

Here is a rundown of just some of the executive orders unleashed since Jan. 20 and the legal pushback:

Breaking into Americans’ data

When Trump signed an executive order on his first night in office to establish the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, he aimed to make good on his campaign promise to put the world’s richest man — and major campaign donor — Musk in charge of cutting $2 trillion in federal spending.

DOGE is not an actual department because only Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to create new government agencies. Musk, at the helm of DOGE, was not vetted or confirmed by senators.

Musk is a “special government employee,” according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who told reporters Feb. 3 that she is “not sure” of Musk’s security clearances. The White House did not respond to States Newsroom follow-up requests for terms of Musk’s special government employee status, signed ethics agreements or financial disclosures.

The White House defended Musk’s actions in a statement, saying DOGE is “fulfilling President Trump’s commitment to making government more accountable, efficient, and, most importantly, restoring proper stewardship of the American taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars. Those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities. The ongoing operations of DOGE may be seen as disruptive by those entrenched in the federal bureaucracy, who resist change. While change can be uncomfortable, it is necessary and aligns with the mandate supported by more than 77 million American voters.”

But details of Musk’s far reach across numerous federal agencies are steadily coming to light. Musk and his DOGE appointees gained access to the U.S. Treasury’s central payment system that processes everything from tax returns to Social Security benefits.

Two unions and a retirement advocacy group, together representing millions of Americans, sued Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, arguing he granted access to Americans’ personal information, including bank account and Social Security numbers, that is protected by federal privacy law.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Treasury Department to limit Musk’s access to “read only” status for just two DOGE personnel — Tom Krause, a former tech executive, and software engineer Marko Elez.

Elez resigned Thursday after the Wall Street Journal linked him to a deleted social media account that was brimming with racist statements as recently as the fall of 2024. Elez, 25, worked for Musk at SpaceX and X, according to the publication WIRED, which uncovered that Musk filled DOGE with several engineers barely out of college.

Vice President J.D. Vance advocated on X Friday for Elez’s return to DOGE. Musk agreed: “He will be brought back. To err is human, to forgive divine.” The White House did not immediately respond to States Newsroom on whether Elez will be rehired.

Gutting the feds

Within days after Trump’s inauguration, Musk’s team reportedly asked the Treasury Department to block all funds appropriated for the U.S. Agency for International Development but was denied by a top career official, according to CNN.

Musk’s team broke into the USAID’s Washington, D.C., headquarters over the weekend of Feb. 1 to access agency records. The data security personnel who tried to stop them were subsequently placed on leave.

Musk declared on his platform X: “USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.” Meanwhile, USAID’s X platform disappeared, as did its website.

Congress created the global humanitarian agency in 1961 and appropriated roughly $40 billion for its programs in 2023, according to the Congressional Research Service. The agency’s expenditures hover around 2% of all federal spending.

By Thursday, the New York Times was reporting that the Trump administration planned to keep only 290 of the agency’s approximately 10,000 employees.

Together the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees on Thursday filed suit against Trump, Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and related federal agencies for “unconstitutional and illegal actions” that have “systematically dismantled” USAID.

“These actions have generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors. They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests,” the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

A federal district judge temporarily blocked the USAID layoffs late Friday.

The turmoil at USAID also came amid targeted threats at the Department of Justice.

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents sued Tuesday to keep their identities secret after acting deputy Attorney General Emil Bove — who last year represented Trump in his case against the DOJ — requested records of all agents who were involved in investigating Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, according to the Wall Street Journal.

‘Fork in the road’

Employees across nearly every federal agency — now including the intelligence communities — received an email beginning Jan. 28 titled “Fork in the Road.”

The offer, bearing the same subject line as the memo Musk sent to Twitter employees in 2022, contained a “deferred resignation” for federal employees who preferred not to return to the office in-person full-time and abide by new pillars that include being “reliable, loyal, trustworthy.”

The offer promised full pay and benefits until Sept. 30 with hardly any obligation to continue working. Employees were told they had until Feb. 6 to decide.

A federal judge extended the deadline after four large government employee unions sued, arguing the offer is “arbitrary and capricious in numerous respects.”

In just one example, the lawsuit points out, Congress’ temporary funding package for most federal agencies expires March 14, causing questions about whether deferred resignation paychecks are guaranteed.

“I think there’s real uncertainty that they can promise that the money to pay the salaries is actually going to be available,” said Molly Reynolds, an expert in congressional appropriations at the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

Pause on grants and loans

While federal employees wonder about their livelihoods, state and local governments, early childhood schools and numerous social safety net nonprofits were sent into panic when the Trump administration announced it planned to freeze trillions in federal grants and loans.

The Jan. 27 memo from the OMB set off widespread confusion over which programs would face the cut, including questions over whether millions could lose services through community health centers, Head Start, low-income home heating assistance funds —  and anything else for which Congress has appropriated funds, for example, small business loans.

A federal judge in Rhode Island blocked the order on Jan. 31, making clear that a law on the books since 1974 gives the president a legal pathway to ask Congress to rescind funds that have already been allocated and signed into law.

“Here, there is no evidence that the Executive has followed the law by notifying Congress and thereby effectuating a potentially legally permitted so-called ‘pause,’” Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island wrote in the 13-page ruling.

Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse,” and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act governs how the executive branch can challenge funding.

Trump’s newly installed OMB director, Vought, has repeatedly argued the 1974 law is unconstitutional.

Reynolds told States Newsroom that power of the purse is the “biggest remaining sort of bulwark of congressional power and congressional authority.”

“In addition to a number of these things being potentially illegal on an individual level, overall, we’re just in this world where, depending on how things unfold, we are in for a really profound rebalancing of power between Congress and the presidency,” Reynolds said.

Another stab at the Constitution

As Trump’s second Inauguration Day stretched into the evening, he signed a flurry of immigration-related executive orders and some are already facing legal challenges.

The president’s order to end the constitutional right of citizenship under the 14th Amendment by redefining birthright citizenship has been met with a nationwide injunction.

“Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country. That law and tradition are and will remain the status quo pending the resolution of this case,” wrote Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

House Republicans, separately, introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship, and welcomed legal challenges to the measure in the hopes that it heads to the Supreme Court, where Trump has picked three of the six conservative justices.

Another executive order, which declared an “invasion” at the southern border and has effectively shut down the ability for immigrants without legal status to claim asylum, is being challenged in a major lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Can the president root out diversity?

Since Inauguration Day, Trump has issued several orders aimed at limiting options at school, work and the doctor’s office for particular groups of Americans.

He campaigned on a vision to “save American education,” and end DEI and “gender ideology extremism.”

Not even 24 hours after the first major tragedy of his presidency — the Jan. 29 midair collision between an Army helicopter and commercial airliner — Trump pointed his finger at diversity, equity and inclusion as the cause. The president blamed the deadly crash at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that killed 67 on diversity hires, singling out people with disabilities. 

On Feb. 5 he issued an executive order that bars transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams consistent with their gender identity. The effort — which aims to deny federal funds for schools that do not comply — is sure to face legal challenges.

Other orders are already facing lawsuits.

Trump’s pledge to “keep men out of women’s sports” reflects only part of his broader anti-trans agenda. He took significant steps in January via executive orders to prohibit openly transgender service members from the U.S. military and restrict access to gender-affirming care for kids.

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown sued the Trump administration Feb. 7 for its late January order that cuts federal funding to hospitals or medical schools that provide gender-related care for transgender children and young adults that the order defines as age 19 and under.

Trump is also facing multiple lawsuits from active U.S. troops, and those seeking to join, over an order banning openly transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. 

Per Trump’s order on Jan. 27, “[A]doption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

Six transgender service members argued in a complaint filed Jan. 28 that Trump’s order “invokes no study of the effectiveness of transgender service members over the past four years, of their ability to serve, or of their integrity and selflessness in volunteering to serve their country, and the directive’s stated rationale is refuted by substantial research and testimony, as well as by years of capable and honorable service by transgender service members without issue.”

Ariana Figueroa, Jennifer Shutt and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

Last updated 4:51 p.m., Feb. 7, 2025

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.