President Donald Trump’s second term began with an immediate legal onslaught, as more than 70 lawsuits have been filed challenging his administration’s policies on spending, federal employment, and immigration. Many of these lawsuits focus on executive orders signed by Trump upon entering office, while others contest his direct firings of government employees. Several of these cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court, where rulings could establish new precedents on the limits of executive authority.
One of the most contentious legal battles revolves around Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and those whose parents hold only temporary legal status. The president maintains that his executive action aligns with the 14th Amendment and federal immigration law, while opponents argue that it contradicts long-standing interpretations of the Constitution’s citizenship clause. At least four federal judges have issued preliminary injunctions blocking the order, ensuring the issue will likely remain in the courts for months, if not years.
Another lawsuit targets the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk. Multiple states and labor unions have sued to prevent DOGE from accessing personal financial data held by the Treasury Department, arguing that the administration is overstepping its authority. The Trump administration has countered that the states lack standing and are attempting to obstruct legitimate oversight of federal agencies. So far, two courts have issued rulings limiting DOGE’s access to Treasury data.
The administration also faces legal battles over the removal of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, whom Trump fired on February 7 before the completion of his five-year term. Dellinger sued the administration, claiming that federal law only permits his removal for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. A Washington judge sided with Dellinger, blocking the firing, but Trump has since appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Federal employees have also entered the legal fray. Multiple anonymous FBI employees and the FBI Agents Association sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) over a survey regarding their involvement in the January 6 investigations. They claimed the administration was preparing to retaliate against them based on their political views. The DOJ has since agreed not to disseminate the survey results, though the lawsuit remains active.
Several of Trump’s fiscal policies have also faced legal hurdles. His administration’s move to freeze certain federal spending drew immediate legal challenges, with two judges in Washington and Rhode Island issuing restraining orders. Similarly, lawsuits were filed against a federal worker buyout program, initially resulting in a court-ordered pause. However, a Massachusetts judge later ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, allowing the program to proceed.
Trump’s attempt to reform the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by placing employees on leave and halting foreign assistance was met with swift legal resistance. Unions and advocacy groups sued, claiming the administration was attempting to bypass Congress. A Washington judge sided with the plaintiffs, issuing an order blocking the policy from taking effect.
Other legal battles center on controversial social policies. One of Trump’s executive orders directed the Bureau of Prisons to prohibit the housing of biological males in women’s prisons and to end taxpayer-funded transgender medical procedures for inmates. Three anonymous transgender prisoners sued, arguing the policy discriminated based on sex and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. A federal judge blocked the administration from enforcing the order, allowing male prisoners who identify as female to remain in women’s facilities.
In another major dispute, the Trump administration ordered the removal of federal webpages and datasets related to gender ideology. A group known as Doctors for America sued, claiming the administration exceeded its authority. A judge issued a temporary restraining order, requiring the administration to restore the pages.
Additionally, Trump’s executive order capping the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) indirect cost rates for universities at 15 percent was challenged by multiple states, who argued the move violated the Administrative Procedure Act. A Massachusetts judge ruled against the administration, preventing the cap from taking effect.
The administration also faced a legal roadblock on its foreign aid policy. Trump’s executive order calling for a 90-day pause on foreign assistance was met with lawsuits from nonprofit groups, claiming the administration was unlawfully withholding funds appropriated by Congress. A judge issued an order halting the freeze, preventing the policy from being implemented.
