During the first three months of his administration, President Donald Trump has destroyed, captured, or marginalized institutions intended to check abuses of executive power.
A rights-respecting, multiracial democracy requires strong institutions to check abuses of power. It requires an independent judiciary, oversight roles like inspectors general, and a free, diverse, and independent press and civil society. International human rights law provides that judicial systems should be genuinely independent, not subject to political control. Since 1883, the United States has relied on nonpartisan civil servants to implement laws and policies impartially, regardless of the political party controlling the executive branch. A robust ecosystem of accountability institutions serves as a deterrent against rights violations and helps ensure that violations will not occur with impunity.
Accountability is essential to a society governed by laws and not by the dictates of a powerful individual or group. Accountability includes defined consequences for violations of rights, acts of corruption, or other harms inflicted on others, especially harms inflicted by those in power. It requires the establishment of—and respect for—institutions that can investigate and expose human rights violations and other abuses, as well as courts that can issue orders to stop or impose punishments for violations. Without effective, independent accountability mechanisms, those with power may become tyrants and no one under their rule is free or safe.
The Trump administration’s attacks on these critical institutions pose a real threat to US democracy, which already faced significant challenges before the new administration. Some of these efforts in the Department of Justice, the judiciary, and other executive agencies are described below.
The US should defend durable, transparent, and independent oversight structures to stop this or any future president from committing abuses with impunity.
Department of Justice
The Trump administration’s effort to dismantle accountability mechanisms began on day one. On his first day in office, the president unconditionally pardoned or commuted the sentences of approximately 1,600 people convicted or accused of crimes related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Congress that sought to overturn the presidential election. This action meant impunity for those who obstructed a co-equal branch of government carrying out its obligation to certify election results.
This action also set the stage for a broad attack on the Department of Justice (DOJ) itself. DOJ leadership fired specific prosecutors explicitly because they worked on the capitol rioters’ cases. This action warned officials that they face retribution for holding Trump’s allies accountable. The administration has continued to fire other FBI agents and career officials in what appears to be a purge of personnel seen as insufficiently loyal to the President. Individuals who worked on other criminal cases, such as the mishandling of classified documents were also fired or reassigned to new roles. A DOJ official wrote, “In light of their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda.”
Trump then appointed loyalists to senior roles in the DOJ and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), individuals with weaker objective qualifications for the positions than previous appointees. These institutions have long enjoyed a significant degree of independence from executive control, and this has long been treated as key to upholding the rule of law against presidential overreach. In a recent speech, Trump vowed to remake the DOJ and use it to retaliate against his enemies. Immediately upon taking office, AG Pam Bondi issued a memorandum instructing DOJ attorneys to “zealously defend the interests of the United States” entirely as defined by the President. She directed staff to focus on Trump “priorities.”
When a highly regarded DOJ immigration lawyer acknowledged in federal court that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had mistakenly deported a Maryland man who had been granted protection from being deported (i.e., a “withholding of removal”), to a brutal prison in El Salvador, Bondi placed that lawyer on indefinite leave, saying, “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”
While the administration has targeted officials for opposing its agenda or for not being sufficiently obedient, the DOJ dropped indictments against New York Mayor Eric Adams, after Adams promised he was “collaborating” with their immigration enforcement agenda. Prosecutors on the case resigned in protest, while the DOJ placed others on leave.
Other Executive Branch Agencies
President Trump fired 17 inspectors general across several executive branch agencies, without providing legally required 30-day notice to Congress or stating reasons for the terminations. The inspector general (IG) role is to monitor federal agencies and their appointed leadership for waste, fraud, and other misconduct. Created in the 1970s following President Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace, they have been statutorily and historically charged with holding the executive accountable, by providing non-partisan, independent investigations, audits, and analyses of agency policies and practices.
One critical function of these IGs is to protect whistleblowers, individuals who come forward with knowledge of improper actions within an agency. In 2022, the Department of Defense IG released a report that documented how the Trump administration in its first term had retaliated against a military official who disclosed information about the President’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden. The IG report provided credibility to the whistleblower’s claims. With this office disempowered, civil servants may be chilled from reporting abusive behavior by the executive.
Inspectors general frequently identify fraud. This ranges from improper spending of funds to bribery. A recent example includes the IG for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) being fired one day after releasing a report that warned the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign assistance funding would make it harder to ensure US funds were being spent properly and as allocated under law. The USAID IG who took over has been accused of not releasing reports that documented the harms of the administration’s aid freeze in Africa and the Middle East. When IGs cannot present such findings without fear of retaliation, chilling occurs.
The IG firings may allow Trump to appoint individuals who are less inclined to properly investigate the administration and its allies, undermining their independence and effectiveness. Litigation regarding the dismissals’ legality is ongoing.
These purges are part of a broader pattern. Trump created the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), without Congressional authorization, purportedly to increase government “efficiency” and cut federal spending. Led by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE led the administration to gut billions of dollars in foreign assistance programs and fire thousands of staff, primarily nonpartisan, career civil servants. DOGE also instigated cuts that dramatically reduce capacity at the Social Security Administration, National Institute of Health, Internal Revenue Service, Veterans’ Administration, and many other agencies.
In March, DHS and DOGE essentially shut down the congressionally mandated Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by firing massive numbers of its workers. This office investigates complaints of violations of rights under the authority of DHS, ranging from denial of medical care to reports of rapes at detention facilities. Officials said “DHS … must streamline oversight to remove roadblocks to enforcement,” and accused the Office of being “internal adversaries.”
In addition to disabling oversight mechanisms, DOGE’s actions, while framed primarily as aggressive cost-cutting measures, also appear designed to advance a longstanding conservative strategy to deflate the effectiveness of the federal government, crippling regulatory enforcement designed to protect the public from harmful industrial and corporate practices. The Trump administration has made significant changes to executive agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Federal Trade Commission. All together, these reforms result in fewer institutions enforcing regulations and gathering data that can be used to hold officials accountable for policies that violate rights.
The Judiciary
With moves to consolidate power in the executive branch and supportive, if narrow, majorities in Congress, the judiciary’s role in holding the Trump administration accountable for abusive and unlawful actions is more important than ever.
As the UN special rapporteur on judges and lawyers wrote, “justice systems must be independent of political control.” However, President Trump and his allies have sought to undermine the authority of judges. They have publicly attacked those who rule against them. After one federal judge denied DOGE access to Treasury Department data, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that “political judges” were slowing his agenda. Elon Musk called for the judge’s impeachment, and Vice President JD Vance wrote on X, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” Every recent US president has complained about court rulings that impede their agenda, but there are worrying signs the Trump administration wishes to challenge the courts’ authority in more concrete ways.
In a recent example of the administration challenging judicial authority, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deported 137 Venezuelan men, to a prison in El Salvador without any hearing or other court or administrative process to determine their legal eligibility for removal. A federal judge imposed a stay on the deportation as it was underway, ordering officials to stop deportation flights and return to the US. DHS officials said it was too late to turn the flights around and have aggressively resisted the judge’s order to meaningfully verify that claim. Administration officials assert the court lacks authority to review they removals, invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives a president authority during times of war or invasion to deport citizens of an “enemy nation.”
DHS Secretary Tom Homan said he did not care about the judge’s orders and that such deportations would continue. Trump himself publicly denied the judge’s authority and called for his impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement rebuking such calls for impeachment, explaining them as an improper response to disagreements with judicial rulings. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide whether the administration’s underlying actions were lawful.
On April 19, 2025, the Supreme Court halted the Trump administration’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport a second group of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador. On May 1, a federal court ruled that using the Alien Enemies Act to justify Venezuelan deportations is unlawful because the administration’s claims about gang violence do not constitute an “invasion.” This sets the stage for what will likely be a decisive and critically important ruling on the matter by the US Supreme Court.
In another example, the administration unlawfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, where he has been held in prison since March despite a court order that explicitly barred his removal to that country. Officials said that his deportation was an administrative error but it dawn judicial ire for its apparent refusal to comply in good faith with orders to facilitate Garcia’s return. Writing of the growing conflict between the administration and the federal courts this case has sparked, a federal appellate court judge wrote, “Now the [governmental] branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around.”
The resolution of the ongoing contest between the Trump administration and the judiciary could be a tipping point. If the executive begins defying federal court orders, the rule of law risks breaking down.
With key checks on executive power under pressure or failing, and Congress either inactive or falling in line with the administration, a greater share of the burden to check abuses may fall on “fourth branch” institutions and individuals committed to defending against rising autocracy, including the media, academics, lawyers, labor unions, and, most importantly, mobilized members of the public at large.
