Executive power grabs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sidelining Congress
A defining feature of most kleptocratic regimes is the gradual erosion of the national legislature’s power, reducing it to little more than a rubber-stamp institution. Democratic systems rely on carrying out legal reform through their parliaments or legislatures. Trump, on the other hand, governs unilaterally, minimizing congressional oversight, bypassing legislative procedures, and punishing lawmakers who oppose him. By sidelining Congress and concentrating power in the executive branch, the Trump administration weakens a key check on corruption. When lawmakers are unable to exercise oversight, or are intimidated into inaction, an administration can engage in self-dealing, dispense political favors, and direct public funds with little accountability.
ACTION 44 | Rule by executive orders
Since inauguration, Trump has signed at least 137 executive orders. Documented in the Federal Register, such orders are to be treated as law by agencies. In the US legal system, however, they are subordinate to legislation and regulation. While all presidents use them, Trump has taken this tool to new extremes, issuing directives that may be found by courts to override congressional intent, including orders that redirect federal funds and restrict constitutional rights. Indeed, the large volume of litigation underway has necessitated trackers from law firms, media outlets, think tanks, universities to keep up.
ACTION 45 | Bypassing the regular appointment process
By filling agencies with interim appointees who do not require legislators’ approval, Trump is consolidating control while avoiding the scrutiny that comes with formal nominations. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires the president to appoint officers of the United States subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The constitution allows Congress to delegate the appointment of inferior officers to the president or heads of departments. Similarly, Trump undermined the Senate confirmation process in his first term through the long-term use of “acting” roles.
The libertarian Cato Institute raised concerns that this process could repeat itself, especially with some of the less conventional political appointees. Nowhere has this been clearer than with Elon Musk, an unelected official with the status of "special government employee," who has wielded massive power over the federal bureaucracy. Fourteen states' attorneys general have sued Musk, as it is unclear if Trump installed Elon Musk at the head of that agency without vetting and Senate confirmation, or if Musk is acting without legal authority and is thus unauthorized to carry out much of his work.
Intimidating the opposition
Kleptocrats often allow opposition parties to exist—within certain limits. Opposition politicians may be harassed and forced to spend significant amounts on money on legal defense and other concerns. Kleptocrats often attempt to undermine or attack the opposition publicly.
ACTION 46 | Trump loyalists open inquiries on political opponents in Congress
In February 2025, Ed Martin, acting U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. and a Trump ally, revealed he that had opened inquiries into public statements by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York and Representative Robert Garcia, a second-term House Democrat from California. The inquiry "alleges that the public statements of Democratic legislators could constitute a threat to Supreme Court justices and the newly hired employees of the Trump administration's new Department of Government Efficiency" as reported by CBS News. In the case of Senate Minority Leader Schumer, the “letter of inquiry” referred to a March 2020 statement about Supreme Court justices that had already been walked back by the Senator. Making public such an inquiry is unusual. CBS News further reported that "two sources inside the Justice Department told CBS News Martin's memo to staffers breaks from a Justice Department policy by declaratively and openly detailing a pending inquiry." In March 2025, The Washington Post reported that the inquiry into Senator Schumer was dropped after concluding that the probe was "unfounded." As documented by the Post, analysts "called Martin’s direct inquiries to lawmakers highly irregular and troubling," and his approach to testing free speech protections "more chilling than clarifying." (Last updated 3/4/25)
ACTION 47 | Trump orders the Justice Department to investigate the Democrats' main fundraising platform
In April 2025, the White House directed the Attorney General to investigate ActBlue, the main fundraising platform for the Democratic party, citing allegations that it may have permitted "'straw' or 'dummy' contributions" and "foreign contributions to U.S. political candidates and committees." As reported by USA Today, "the investigation targets the financial underpinnings of Trump's opposition as Democrats step up efforts to challenge his administration." As reported by the Associated Press, this is "the latest example of Trump using the tools of the government to go after his political opponents." (Last updated 4/24/25)
Undermining Congress' power of the purse
Trump has explicitly expressed a desire to exert direct control over federal spending and to strip lawmakers of their constitutional power over the budget. Article 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power of the purse: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” By “impounding” funds—locking up federal money and preventing it from being spent—Trump ensures that only his priorities are funded while depriving programs and agencies of resources they were legally allocated. This issue is at the center of the emerging conflict between the administration and the courts. Notably, the ranking Democrats on the Appropriations Committees in the Senate and House issued fact sheets further explaining Congress's constitutional budgetary authority and why Trump's actions pose risks to taxpayers and US interests.
ACTION 48 | Trump issued an executive order to cancel or freeze funds for farmers
In March 2025, Trump cancelled or froze billions in funding from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Inflation Reduction Act allocated $38 billion over 10 years to the USDA, including its Rural Energy for America program. With funding freezes and cuts, rural farmers are left in limbo after planning investments. This includes farmers in rural New York, Iowa, and other states. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has tracked the struggles of farmers, organizing a congressional visit to call for the release of funds in February. In March 2025, farmers operating in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Mississippi sued President Trump and the Trump administration to lift the "unlawful and indefinite freeze of congressionally appropriated funds for farmers, nonprofit organizations, and other USDA grantees." (Last updated 3/13/25)
ACTION 49 | Trump suspends longstanding refugee program established by Congress and stops payment on funds legally contracted to US organizations
On January 20, 2025, Trump issued an executive order halting the US Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP), established by Congress in 1980 to formalize the process by which refugees vetted and approved by the US government are legally resettled. Thousands of flights for already approved refugees were cancelled. Soon after, the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services indefinitely suspended new applications, case processing, and refugee-related funding. This included suspending legally awarded grants and contracts of congressionally appropriated funds to a range of nonprofit, religious, and other organizations. The nonprofit International Refugee Assistance Project filed a lawsuit, Pacito v. Trump challenging the suspension, and won a preliminary injunction on February 25 halting the program's suspension. Religious groups, such as the US Catholic Bishops, have also sued the Trump administration, alleging that the fund suspension violates the Impoundment Control Act and other statutes. Church World Service documents the status of the executive order and its lawsuits on this timeline. (Last updated 4/18/25)
ACTION 50 | Trump administration freezes funding and attempts to dissolve congressionally mandated agencies
Within days of taking office, Trump began dismantling the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), freezing funding for global anti-corruption, health, humanitarian, security, agriculture, and other congressionally approved activities. This led to multiple lawsuits arguing that the suspensions have harmed their work and employees, exceed the President’s scope of authority, and violate the Constitution. In addition, the administration has used funding freezes and administrative orders to try to dismantle agencies completely, including the Department of Education and USAID, each of which were created by congressional statute. In March 2025, the administration announced that USAID would be dissolved by July.
ACTION 51 | Trump administration withholds funds for congressionally chartered independent organizations
Congress passes laws, establishing many different institutions consistent with its laws. The Trump administration has aggressively sought to eliminate, limit, or shape these institutions to its will. The potential list is long, but it is worth looking at one particular example.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was established by the National Endowment for Democracy Act of 1983. The NED is an independent organization, funded by annual congressional appropriations. Its aim has been to spread democracy worldwide since the early 1980s. It can withdraw funds from a Department of Treasury account on an as-needed basis. The executive, in this case, does not have the authority to withhold the funds Congress sets aside for the organization. Nonetheless, the Trump administration “denied the Endowment access to its congressionally appropriated funds—something that has never occurred before in the Endowment’s forty-two-year existence,” according to a lawsuit filed by the NED. The lawsuit alleges that the administration’s actions constitute an “unlawful impoundment” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the All Writs Act, the Presentment Clause, the Appropriations Clause, the Take Care Clause, and the Separation of Powers."
This is important because NED is independent and works with money directly appropriated by Congress. But this is only one example. Similar approaches have been taken with other congressionally chartered independent organizations such as the Smithsonian, the US Institute of Peace, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and others. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 52 | The administration tries to claw back congressionally appropriated funds from private bank accounts
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act established "green banks," which are responsible for lending and grant making for major energy infrastructure, to the tune of over $20 billion. In particular, much of the spending has the intention of reaching "energy poor" communities. By the time Trump had taken office, the money had already been moved into grantees' private bank accounts.
On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order mandating a freeze on disbursement. When it became clear that money had already been disbursed, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to claw back billions in grants that finance climate-friendly projects. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin claimed, often without evidence, that the money was rushed out without appropriate oversight. The Department of Justice (DoJ) used laws normally reserved for organized crime to try to freeze and pull money back from the banks. A top federal prosecutor, Denise Cheung, resigned rather than follow the order to freeze funds held at Citibank. In her resignation letter, Denise Cheung said FBI’s Washington office did send Citibank a letter “recommending a thirty-day administrative freeze on certain assets.” A judge stopped the order from going through on March 19, 2025, but the case remains ongoing.
The case represents a serious escalation in several regards. First, it circumvents the Congress's clear appropriation and lawmaking functions. Second, it represents an unprecedented use of anti-money laundering and sanctions rules on lawful domestic activity. Third, it demonstrates a targeted use of the DoJ with little due process. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
Ignoring and threatening the courts
Kleptocrats try to capture the courts through appointments, bribes, and threats. When courts rule against them, kleptocrats may ignore the courts altogether. Courts have increasingly blocked and challenged the Trump administration’s actions as tracked by the Associated Press and Just Security. It is unlikely that the administration will win all of its cases. Where the courts rule against the administration, the question is now whether the administration will obey those court orders.
ACTION 53 | President Trump and Vice President Vance publicly defy the role of the courts
Both the president and vice president signaled early in the term that courts should not impede their actions. As of April 2025, as reported by Fox News, Trump said he would "never defy" the Supreme Court and committed to comply with courts despite a flurry of legal setbacks, but the proof will be in the actions of his administration.
The Trump administration seems to have acted in outright defiance of the courts in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia, married to a US citizen, was deported without trial to an El Salvadoran prison. The Supreme Court has affirmed the illegality of the deportation of the Maryland man and ordered the US government to facilitate his return. The administration has admitted his deportation was an error, but claims it does not have jurisdiction to return him. At the same time, the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, "the World's Coolest Dictator," claims that he is unable to return the man despite being paid by the United States for his retention. The case remains in court, as many view that the US government is actively resisting compliance. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 54 | The administration drags its feet on multiple court orders around spending
In February 2025, ProPublica detailed how the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) attempted to implement Trump's executive orders with a memo to agencies that aimed to end "financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” This had to do with spending on LGBTQ+ health care. Two lawsuits were filed in Washington, DC, by a group of nonprofits and another in Rhode Island by states. OMB withdrew the memo, but soon after, the White House announced that the executive orders would continue “in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” Judges in both cases temporarily blocked the administration from withholding spending based on the executive orders and the since-rescinded OMB memo.
Shortly thereafter, judges ruled that USAID contracts and FEMA expenditures were being withheld improperly. Judges granted additional motions to enforce their orders, finding that the administration was dragging its feet and remained out of compliance. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 55 | The administration fails to implement a court order to restore the Associated Press (AP) to the press pool
The Trump administration expelled the AP from the press pool for choosing not to refer the Gulf of Mexico by its "new" name. (See "Controlling Information" for details.) A federal judge ruled that the White House could not expel the organization for exercising its editorial prerogative. Instead of reinstating the AP, the White House instead eliminated permanent access for all wire services. The Associated Press responded with a complaint alleging that its speech rights were still being infringed. The complaint has not been resolved at the time of writing. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 56 | President Trump and Elon Musk call for impeachments of judges acting against their ideological agenda, and loyalists take action
Kleptocrats routinely threaten judges and justice institutions, especially when they rule against the government's interests. Both the president and vice-president signaled early in the term that courts should not impede their actions. Since then, a range of judges have ruled against the Trump administration's actions.
Loyalists have responded by targeting judges. Congressmen threatened the impeachment of US District Judge John McConnell Jr. The judge had ordered the White House to abide by an injunction against the funding freeze. A Republican congressman drafted articles of impeachment, accusing the judge of being a "partisan activist." Republicans are also exploring legislation and other strategies. Judges have not taken these threats lightly, however. Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court made a rare statement hitting back and sitting federal judges did not react well to these threats. In April 2025, Fox News reported that Trump said he would "never defy" SCOTUS, committing to comply with court orders. (Last updated 4/21/2025)