Rules For Thee, But Not For Me

By: Aashi Mehrotra and Charlie Hoang 

[Close up of the Constitution of the United States of America with quill feather pen Adobe Stock]

This article offers an in-depth analysis of such examples that can now only be fought at the highest levels of the courts.

Brash. Audacious. Harmful. The second term of President Donald Trump’s presidency has so far proved to be a series of events characterized by unprecedented challenges to democratic norms and institutions. Defined by lack of respect for the law and an avoidance of checks and balances, Trump proudly resides in an unconstitutional gray area. Just a few months in and there are numerous cases that outline these problematic government interactions. This article offers an in-depth analysis of such examples that can now only be fought at the highest levels of the courts. 

ISSUE 1: DOGE

Out of all the Trump Administration’s unconstitutional acts, granting the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) full, unauthorized access to millions of American’s private information is perhaps the most brazen, appalling move. 

On January 31st, Elon Musk, the de facto head of DOGE, and his team were given access to critical data systems operated by the Treasury Department. The systems contain highly personal information regarding Medicare and Medicaid for millions of Americans. 

While framed as an effort to monitor and reduce government spending, the initiative was not originally approved by Congress. In fact, attempts to prevent DOGE’s intrusion were punished: David Lebryk, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department, refused to grant DOGE access and was swiftly placed on leave before abruptly retiring. 

In response, a coalition of 19 Democratic state attorneys general, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed a lawsuit to cease DOGE’s unauthorized access. On February 8, Judge Paul Engelmayer granted a preliminary injunction, ordering any DOGE officials to destroy copies of data retrieved from Treasury systems and barring further access.

“This is a dangerous power grab,” James announced in a public statement. “Giving the world’s richest man unauthorized access to our nation’s central payment system, and our most sensitive personal information, puts all Americans—and the essential funds they depend on—at risk.”

Despite these concerns, just last week, a federal appeals court temporarily lifted the injunction, allowing Musk and DOGE to continue accessing the data pending a full hearing. The court set an expedited schedule, with oral arguments scheduled for May 5. 

Critics fear that DOGE’s unprecedented authority over the data will enable them to exploit it for political power, possibly targeting undocumented immigrants or labor union workers. 

Aside from the obvious concern—the unconstitutional nature of the situation—, many have begun questioning the validity of DOGE itself. The department is not a legally established federal agency, but rather a task force led by Elon Musk, chosen by President Trump, and Musk’s appointees. Many were recruited from Musk’s private companies and seem to operate without traditional security clearance protocols or obligation to public transparency. 

The lazy organization and establishment of DOGE paired with its reckless disregard for the security of the people it serves indicates an unsettling trend toward a repressive government and away from the nation’s defining democratic values. 

ISSUE 2: SPENDING

Coins jangle in Congress’s purse. Constitutionally, only Congress holds “power of the purse” as stated in the Appropriation and Spending Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution. That’s why it’s such a big deal for President Trump to be freezing spending without consultation or permission of Congress. This attempt to unilaterally control federal spending has been met with immediate legal challenges. The Trump administration’s executive actions to curb government spending are seen by legal experts as potentially setting the stage for major challenges to Congress’s authority to tax and spend.

Just a week into his second administration, President Trump initiated a freeze on trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, impacting a wide range of critical services already approved by Congress. Multiple courts immediately responded by temporarily blocking this funding freeze, with judges like Loren Alikhan stating that the administration’s actions “run roughshod over a ‘bulwark of the Constitution’ by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds.” Judge John J. McConnell Jr. further ruled the funding freeze as “likely unconstitutional” and ordered the immediate restoration of funds. 

Despite these court orders, the Trump administration has shown indications of not backing down and has continued to suspend funding in some cases. They have employed various tactics, such as citing a memo claimed to be exempt from court orders, denying funds based on the granting agency not being a defendant in specific legal challenges, and arguing that withholding is due to the agencies’ own judgement. This has resulted in confusion and uncertainty for organizations relying on federal funding, forcing some to lay off staff and cut services. Legal observers suggest this confusion might be an intentional policy goal. 

The Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally freeze congressionally-approved funds, despite a constitutional limitation and legal challenges highlight a significant confrontation over the “power of the purse” and the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

ISSUE 3: IMMIGRATION

Disregarding direct federal court orders seems to be the trend right now for President Donald Trump. He recently proceeded with the deportation of an alleged gang member to El Salvador without the due process required to make such a decision. U.S. District Judge James Boasbery issued verbal instructions on a Saturday evening to turn around any deportation flights that were still in the air after a hearing concerning the use of the Alien Enemies Act (an act that allows the President to deport illegal immigrants deemed dangerous to the safety of this nation). 

However, sources indicated that top administration lawyers and officials determined that the order did not apply once the flights were in international waters and thus did not turn the planes around. Judge Boasberg strongly contested this interpretation, stating it was a “heck of a stretch” to argue his direct order could be disregarded simply because it wasn’t immediately in written form.

Lawyers for the ACLE and Democracy Forward Foundation argued in a court filing that the administration may have committed a “blatant violation” of the court’s directive  by acting as if it only applied to flights in U.S. airspace. The plaintiffs’ attorneys further argued that the U.S. retained custody of the individuals until they were turned over to foreign governments, regardless of whether or not the planes had left U.S. territory. It didn’t matter where the individuals were. If the U.S kept them under custody, they were to be dealt with under the same U.S laws and process. The plaintiffs’ attorneys essentially argued that the act of deportation wasn’t complete until the transfer of custody to the receiving nation had occurred, meaning the planes should have turned around. 

The Trump administration’s alleged decision to proceed with deportation flights despite a federal judge’s verbal order to turn them around represents a potential violation of the Constitution because it undermined the authority of the judicial branch to issue and enforce court orders. The Judicial branch, as established under Article 3 of the Constitution, is meant to administer justice fairly and resolve cases, including issuing injunctions and restraining orders that the executive branch is expected to respect. This relationship between branches of government is called “checks and balances,” a concept this country is founded upon to keep one branch from having too much power. This action suggests a disregard for the judiciary’s role in providing a check on executive power, potentially rendering court orders meaningless if the executive can unilaterally decide when to comply. By seemingly disregarding Judge Boasberg’s directive based on their own interpretation of its applicability in international waters, the executive branch arguably overstepped its authority.

ISSUE 4: DOMESTIC POLICY – DEI, LGBTQ, AND ENERGY

In early February, the Trump administration ordered the removal of more than 8000 government web pages across multiple federal agencies, erasing mentions of diversity, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and mentalc health guidance. More than 3,000 CDC pages were removed, including research on chronic disease, STD treatment, Alzheimer’s, overdose prevention, and vaccine guidance for pregnant people. Over 1,000 pages disappeared from the Office of Justice Programs, including content on teen dating violence and hate crime prevention. Other deletions include 200+ pages from Head Start, 180+ from the DOJ (including all state hate crime data), nearly 150 from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and 100+ FDA pages on clinical trial diversity and drug safety. These are only a few examples of deleted , not ecluding resources referencing “transgender and diverse persons,” which were flagged for violating the new order’s language mandates.

Behidn the massive purge lay a new executive directive aimed at elimiating all references to “gender ideology” and diversity initiatibes from government materials. 

On February 11, Judge John D. Bates issued a temporary restraining order, compelling the CDC to restore the deleted pages. He wrote that the missing information placed “everyday Americans—and most acutely, underprivileged Americans—at risk,” and emphasized that many of the pages were not abstract academic texts but “vital for real-time clinical decision-making.”

One such example was shared in court: a doctor treating a chlamydia outbreak couldn’t access the most up-to-date CDC guidance, which had been erased from the site. “This isn’t about ideology,” said Zach Shelley, attorney for Public Citizen, representing the doctors. “This is about saving lives. It’s about access to the tools needed to do that.” 

Many worry about the profound implications this move by the Administration has, indicating a shift in government commitment to transparency and truth. It is no surprise that this is a great concern, considering the evident crumbs of censorship the government has sprinkled in its newfound tactics for power. Furthermore, ignoring ideology altogether, critics also focus in on the public health safety issues the government has disregarded entirely. 

This sweeping erasure of public health information marks not just an attack on inclusivity but a threatening dismissal of essential data for the health and medical safety of all Americas. As legal battles unravel, civilians are left to reflect on their new government: one willing to sacrifice trutth and safety for political control. 

Works Cited

“Attorney General James Stops Elon Musk and DOGE from Accessing Americans’ Private Information and Cutting Federal Funds Through the Treasury.” New York State Attorney General, 21 February 2025, https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-stops-elon-musk-and-doge-accessing-americans-private. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Kang, Cecilia. “Elon Musk’s DOGE Seeks Access to Americans’ Data, Alarming Government Employees.” The New York Times, 19 February 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/us/politics/elon-musk-doge-personal-data.html. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Nauman, Qasim. “Judge Halts DOGE Access to Treasury Payment Systems.” The New York Times, 10 February 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/nyregion/attorneys-general-trump-musk-suit.html. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Rappeport, Alan. “Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Payments System.” The New York Times, 1 February 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/politics/elon-musk-doge-federal-payments-system.html. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Savage, Charlie. “Is That Legal? A Guide to Trump’s Big Moves So Far.” The New York Times, 20 February 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/upshot/trump-executive-orders-legality.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20250311&instance_id=149720&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=264877055&segment_id=193180&user_id=4c377ea1cd9d4aac51f77ffcccd3e5ad. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Savage, Charlie. “Is That Legal? A Guide to Trump’s Big Moves So Far.” The New York Times, 20 February 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/upshot/trump-executive-orders-legality.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20250311&instance_id=149720&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=264877055&segment_id=193180&user_id=4c377ea1cd9d4aac51f77ffcccd3e5ad. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Singer, Ethan. “Thousands of U.S. Government Web Pages Have Been Taken Down Since Friday.” The New York Times, 3 February 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/upshot/trump-government-websites-missing-pages.html. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Stempel, Jonathan, et al. “Musk’s DOGE team can access sensitive data for now, appeals court rules.” Reuters, 7 April 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musks-doge-team-can-access-government-data-now-appeals-court-rules-2025-04-07/. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Judge Orders CDC to Temporarily Restore Pages Removed After Trump Edict.” The New York Times, 11 February 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/cdc-website-restore-pages-trump.html. Accessed 11 April 2025.

“Tracking the Trump Administration’s Harmful Executive Actions | Congressman Steve Cohen.” Congressman Steve Cohen, https://cohen.house.gov/TrumpAdminTracker. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Damon, Jake Pearson,Anjeanette. “The Courts Blocked Trump’s Federal Funding Freeze. Agencies Are Withholding Money Anyway.” ProPublica, 10 Feb. 2025, www.propublica.org/article/trump-administration-funding-freeze-workarounds.

Faulders, Katherine, et al. “Judge to Hear Arguments over Trump Administration’s Decision Not to Turn around Deportation Flights.” ABC News, 17 Mar. 2025, abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hear-arguments-trump-administrations-decision-turn-deportation/story?id=119877727.

Federal Judicial Center. “Executive Enforcement of Judicial Orders | Federal Judicial Center.” Fjc.gov, 2020, www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforcement-judicial-orders.

“The Executive Branch and the Courts | Federal Judicial Center.” Fjc.gov, 2024, www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-branch-and-courts.

United States Courts. “Court Role and Structure.” United States Courts, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2025, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure.Venzke, Cody. “Trump’s Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding Is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic | ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union, 10 Feb. 2025, www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/trumps-attempt-to-unilaterally-control-state-and-local-funding-is-dangerous-dumb-and-undemocratic.