President Donald Trump’s second term has been characterized by relentlessly testing (and often overriding) the legal and constitutional limits of presidential authority. A mountain of legally dubious executive orders, a number of ethically questionable actions, and countless examples of executive overreach have blurred the line on where presidential power starts and ends.
Many of these actions have left the American people wondering: Can President Trump do that?
Quite often, the answer to that question is no.
Campaign Legal Center has created a running list of notable actions taken by President Trump that he does not, in fact, have the authority to take.
Can Trump and his administration build a national citizenship database?
As part of the administration’s unlawful efforts to control elections, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been attempting to retrieve sensitive voter data for unclear and potentially harmful purposes.
This data collection violates voters’ privacy and could even discourage voters from participating in the democratic process altogether.
The DOJ sued several states that refused to hand over this sensitive voter data, and Campaign Legal Center took legal action to protect voters in a number of these states. We also filed an amicus brief in the League of Women Voters v. DHS to fight back against any attempts by the DHS to use voter data to improperly verify citizenship.
In our brief, CLC highlights the separation-of-powers concerns implicated by DHS’s intervention in verifying voter eligibility.
This attempt to consolidate private and sensitive data by DHS is part of a larger effort to unconstitutionally shift election administration functions to the executive branch.
Can Trump change federal election rules?
On March 25, 2025, Trump signed an executive order claiming to direct several federal agencies to change the rules for federal elections and implement unnecessary barriers to registering to vote.
Congress — not the president — has the power to pass laws that set national voting standards and override state laws governing federal elections. The Constitution does not give the president any role in setting election rules. This executive order contains a host of illegal and unconstitutional demands. That’s why Campaign Legal Center took Trump to court on this matter and won.
Trump attempted to change the federal voter registration form by imposing burdensome documentation requirements. After issuing a temporary pause in our favor in April 2025, the court ruled in October 2025 that the president has no constitutional authority to dictate the contents of the federal voter registration form, and it permanently struck down his unlawful attempt to do so, issuing a final judgment against the government.
On January 30, 2026, a federal court permanently struck down another part of President Trump’s March 2025 anti-voter executive order that attempted to require burdensome registration and ballot request requirements for military and overseas voters. Campaign Legal Center, on behalf of a pro-voter coalition, successfully argued that the president acted beyond his legal authority in violation of the separation of powers.
This ruling by the court — and our previous victory halting another provision of President Trump’s executive order — vindicates the longstanding constitutional principle that the states and Congress, not the president, set the rules for federal elections.
Can Trump change federal election rules?
On March 25, 2025, Trump signed an executive order claiming to direct several federal agencies to change the rules for federal elections and implement unnecessary barriers to registering to vote.
Congress — not the president — has the power to pass laws that set national voting standards and override state laws governing federal elections. The Constitution does not give the president any role in setting election rules. This executive order contains a host of illegal and unconstitutional demands. That’s why Campaign Legal Center took Trump to court on this matter and won.
Trump attempted to change the federal voter registration form by imposing burdensome documentation requirements. After issuing a temporary pause in our favor in April 2025, the court ruled in October 2025 that the president has no constitutional authority to dictate the contents of the federal voter registration form, and it permanently struck down his unlawful attempt to do so, issuing a final judgment against the government.
On January 30, 2026, a federal court permanently struck down another part of President Trump’s March 2025 anti-voter executive order that attempted to require burdensome registration and ballot request requirements for military and overseas voters. Campaign Legal Center, on behalf of a pro-voter coalition, successfully argued that the president acted beyond his legal authority in violation of the separation of powers.
This ruling by the court — and our previous victory halting another provision of President Trump’s executive order — vindicates the longstanding constitutional principle that the states and Congress, not the president, set the rules for federal elections.
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued his second executive order on elections. Like his March 2025 order, this is another illegal and unconstitutional attempt by the federal government to take control of our elections.
This second elections-focused executive order purports to impose new requirements for mail-in voting; create a national database of “verified” eligible voters based on faulty information; and direct the United States Postal Service (USPS) to only send mail-in ballots to certain individuals.
But, again, the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules.
That’s why Campaign Legal Center sued again, alongside its co-counsel, Democracy Defenders Fund. On behalf of LULAC, Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), we are working to prevent this illegal executive order from going into effect. In September 2026, a federal judge granted our motion to block the USPS’s new rules that would have implemented this order from taking effect.
Campaign Legal Center also submitted amicus briefs in a similar case in Massachusetts that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In a decision on the shadow docket, the Supreme Court declined to block an order from the Massachusetts court that likewise struck down the illegal rule published by USPS at the direction of the president’s executive order.
Can Trump take control of independent agencies?
On February 18, 2025, Trump signed an executive order purporting to give the president veto power over decisions made at independent agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Congress designed these agencies to be independent from the executive office, and attempting to place their decision-making underneath presidential authority is illegal. Campaign Legal Center filed a legal brief in the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging the constitutionality of this order.
Can Trump get rid of ethics enforcement?
On January 24, 2025, Trump announced the immediate firing of at least 17 inspectors general (IGs) across the federal government.
IGs are ethics enforcers who conduct independent investigations to ensure that public officials are not engaging in unethical or corrupt behavior at the expense of taxpayer funds and the public good. IG investigations in Trump’s first term uncovered at least eight instances of corruption among Cabinet members.
These immediate firings are illegal — the president can only remove IGs after providing a 30-day notice to Congress.
Can Trump end birthright citizenship?
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. The order would apply to children born to people who are in the country without authorization or who hold work, student or tourist visas.
But the 14th Amendment and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent are clear: Individuals born in the United States are citizens — no matter who their parents are.
Birthright citizenship is the law of the land and cannot be changed by any politician. That’s why Campaign Legal Center submitted a brief on behalf of Secure Families Initiative in State of Washington et al. v. Trump to urge the court to block Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to end birthright citizenship. CLC did so again when this case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that birthright citizenship is the law of the land. The 14th Amendment and more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent are clear: Children born in the United States are citizens.
Can Trump construct a privately funded ballroom?
President Donald Trump’s planned construction of a massive ballroom at the White House undermines the fundamental trust and expectation that the government works on behalf of the people.
Trump’s proposed White House ballroom is currently being funded entirely by private donors, some of whom are kept secret, rather than by Congress exercising its power to spend money in the public interest. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, control over the nation’s spending.
Campaign Legal Center, alongside Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), submitted amicus briefs in both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Supreme Court in National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service calling on the courts to stop the president’s ballroom construction unless and until Congress approves and funds the project, as the Constitution requires.
As the Constitution outlines, the federal government cannot spend money unless it is approved by Congress. This constitutional bulwark was designed to protect against corruption and to ensure the accountable, transparent use of taxpayer funds. Congress has neither approved the construction nor authorized funding for the president’s proposed ballroom.
By unilaterally demolishing the East Wing and trying to construct a massive ballroom with private funds, the president has overstepped his constitutional authority, while also raising the risk of corruption that the Constitution seeks to prevent.
Can Trump use taxpayer money to launch political television ads?
With voting already underway for the 2026 midterm elections, President Donald Trump and members of his administration are illegally and unconstitutionally using taxpayer funds for overtly political television advertisements.
These ads are illegal because they use taxpayer funds earmarked by Congress for other uses. Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse. This fundamental separation of powers principle is one of the bedrocks of our political system.
Despite this, the administration shifted funds from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fund political ads.
For more than 75 years, Congress has repeatedly and firmly established one category of activity it does not fund: publicity and propaganda for political candidates and causes. Nevertheless, the administration is attempting to completely circumvent this practice and Congress's role altogether.
Additionally, the use of taxpayer money for political purposes violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law, and the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets rules for how federal administrative agencies propose regulations, make decisions and interact with the public.
So, Campaign Legal Center Action is suing alongside Democracy Forward and Public Integrity Project Action on behalf of Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ (SEIU Local 32BJ), Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC, Common Cause and Robert Hunt, a candidate for State House in Alabama to immediately stop these unlawful ads from receiving any more airtime.
In a victory for the rule of law, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from airing illegal taxpayer-funded political ads on television until at least after Election Day. These ads also violate the Hatch Act, a federal law that restricts government employees from using their official authority or government resources to influence elections or engage in partisan political activity. It is an essential safeguard against corruption.
As a result, Campaign Legal Center also filed a Hatch Act complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act.
As voters head to the polls, they should not be subject to the president using his administration and machinery of the government to influence electoral outcomes.
