Navigating the Storm: Is the U.S. in a Constitutional Crisis? | Institute for Health Policy Leadership

American Flag and the United States Constitution

By IHPL - March 1, 2025

Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has issued over 60 executive orders, including measures involving withdrawal from the World Health Organization; roll back of regulations to focus on domestic energy production; creation of a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE); and implementation of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, to name a few. ^1,2,3 This flurry of orders has brought a wave of legal challenges, with numerous lawsuits contesting the White House’s decisions.¹ Several court rulings have blocked or paused some of the controversial policies, such as the sudden dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), freeze on federal grants, ending birthright citizenship, and urging federal government employees to resign.⁴

The speed at which the Trump administration has taken these actions suggests that the regulatory environment is evolving quickly and dramatically, and there are growing concerns.^3,5 If the administration ignores court orders halting its most aggressive actions, the nation could be heading towards a constitutional crisis – a scenario where the Constitution is either ineffective in functioning as intended or is disregarded by those in power.^4,6

While there are many potential routes and theories for how the administration could trigger a constitutional crisis, two routes seem the most likely. The first scenario is if President Trump were to take the advice of Vice President Vance and blatantly disregard court orders requiring him to follow the Constitution.^6,7 In such case, impeachment would be the only legal way to address his actions, though a successful impeachment seems unlikely given the failed attempts in the past.^6,8 The second scenario is if the courts, especially the Supreme Court, become complicit in President Trump’s attacks on the Constitution by failing to hold the executive branch accountable or by supporting unconstitutional actions, thereby undermining the system of checks and balances.^6,7,9

So far, the administration has inconsistently adhered to court orders blocking many of its unconstitutional actions.6,10 While the administration has complied with certain court orders, there have been instances where it has continued its actions despite judicial rulings. For example, federal judges have temporarily blocked the administration’s freeze on federal spending, yet agencies have continued to suspend funding, leading to legal challenges.¹⁰ This fragile situation could quickly spiral into a full-blown constitutional crisis at any time. Many of Trump’s executive orders conflict with federal laws, such as cutting off congressionally approved funds and unjustified dismissals of high-ranking officials.¹¹ The administration’s rapid policy shifts and the resulting legal battles highlight the precarious balance between executive power and judicial oversight, raising serious questions about the future of constitutional governance.

In addition to these concerns, the administration’s establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has raised legal and public alarm.^12,13 DOGE’s push to modernize government technology and reduce personnel has sparked controversy, especially as critics argue that the restructuring efforts are undermining federal workers and their ability to deliver services effectively.¹⁴ A federal judge recently denied an effort by 14 Democratic-led states to block DOGE from accessing government data or making personnel changes. The states argued that DOGE’s authority violated constitutional principles. However, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove imminent harm, allowing DOGE to continue its restructuring efforts.¹⁵ With this ruling, concerns about significant backlash persist. Critics argue that these abrupt cuts could undermine public trust, destabilize essential services, and provoke resistance from federal employees and the public.^14,16,17

While executive orders are often seen through the lens of policy and law, their effects on daily life cannot be overlooked. For vulnerable communities—especially women, children, elderly, and minorities—decisions made at the top levels of government can have lasting consequences. For example, executive orders related to immigration policies will have severe impacts on immigrant communities, criminalizing them through aggressive enforcement measures and worsening their mental health.² Under the Trump administration, federal agencies were ordered to detain immigrants “to the fullest extent possible” and conduct raids even in previously protected locations, such as places of worship, schools and hospitals, drastically increasing the number of people in overcrowded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities.^18,19 This not only separates families, but also makes it nearly impossible for asylum seekers to access legal counsel.19 Additionally, new policies penalize immigrants who fail to register, re-establish the harmful Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office, and expand agreements allowing state and local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration enforcement.^19,20 These measures deepen racial profiling, erode trust in communities, and perpetuate fear, particularly among the most vulnerable.

In the health and research realm, some of the executive orders and resulting federal agency action will likely have reverberating effects. For example, the executive order rescinding President Biden’s previous executive order to decrease drug prices will negatively impact the pockets of Americans that need medications.²¹ The latest firing of key personnel in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes significant cuts to its Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) officers, who play a crucial role in investigating and controlling disease outbreaks both across the U.S. and globally.^22,23 The EIS program has a long standing history of effectively responding to public health emergencies, including outbreaks of polio, smallpox, HIV/AIDS, SARS, and COVID-19.²² Without a structured pipeline of trained disease experts, the U.S. will lack professionals capable of managing outbreaks. While the layoffs are intended to cut costs, reducing CDC staff – especially EIS officers – may ultimately raise healthcare expenses. Unchecked outbreaks lead to costly hospitalizations and emergency response, making early detection and prevention the smarter investment.²⁴ The abrupt reduction in EIS personnel raises concerns about the nation’s ability to detect and respond to future health threats effectively.

With the flood of controversial executive orders issued in the first few weeks of the Trump administration and ensuing federal agency actions, the mounting legal challenges and potential defiance of judicial rulings threaten constitutional stability. It remains unclear whether the Trump administration will blatantly defy court orders or if the judiciary will prioritize party loyalty over the Constitution, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis. For now, we can only wait and see how this will unfold.

Author Bio:

Renée Chuang, M.S.

Renée completed her undergraduate education in Biochemistry and Sociology at the University of Oregon. She then received her Master of Science in Global Health at National Taiwan University. Currently, she is pursuing her DrPH in Health Policy and Leadership at Loma Linda University School of Public Health. Her research interests include patient-provider relationships and quality of care. When she is not working on her dissertation, she can be found exploring local coffee shops or training for a marathon

Author Bio:

References: