Is America in a Constitutional Crisis? Examining the Debate
- Jun 13, 2025
- 13 min read
Updated: Sep 30, 2025
The term “constitutional crisis” is often invoked but rarely defined. Is it reached when a president defies a court order, when Congress refuses its oversight role, or when the judiciary loses legitimacy? Drawing on history and present-day conflicts, this article explores competing interpretations of the phrase and asks whether the nation’s current political standoffs represent dysfunction within the system, or evidence that the Constitution itself is being tested in ways its framers never imagined.
In recent weeks, “constitutional crisis” has surged from legal theory into everyday discourse as Americans witness a flurry of sweeping executive actions and power plays. The catalyst is a series of aggressive moves by the second Trump administration that many see as a direct challenge to the foundational balance of power enshrined in the Constitution.
Among the most explosive actions was President Trump’s unilateral authorization of military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, without congressional approval, prompting widespread accusations of violating the War Powers Resolution. To make matters worse, the administration postponed classified briefings to Congress regarding those strikes, sidestepping legislative oversight. A bipartisan resolution in the Senate aimed at limiting Trump’s war powers narrowly failed, leaving unchecked authority in place.
Simultaneously, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling limiting the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This has cleared the way for Trump to act on plans such as revoking birthright citizenship, and he has publicly claimed the decision enables him to implement major policy changes without legal obstruction. Further expanding executive control, Trump issued Executive Order 14215, which places independent federal agencies under direct White House supervision, effectively dismantling long-held norms of administrative independence.
Another early move, Executive Order 14151, abolished all federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on Trump’s first day back in office. In the weeks that followed, the administration initiated mass federal workforce purges, resulting in over 275,000 layoffs and the closure of agencies such as USAID. The reintroduction of Schedule F reclassifications has stripped civil servants of job protections, creating an environment of political loyalty tests.
In a rare judicial rebuke, the U.S. Trade Court recently blocked the president’s imposition of “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling that his use of emergency economic powers had overstepped statutory limits. Yet even this check appears limited, as Trump has already issued 124 executive orders in under 100 days, which is an extraordinary and unusual pace. These orders include sweeping freezes of agency activity, large-scale regulation repeals, and emergency declarations used to bypass congressional gridlock entirely.
Together, these ten events paint a troubling picture. From defying war powers and purging federal workers to sidelining Congress and reshaping judicial norms, the administration is engaging in a sustained campaign to consolidate authority. Legal experts, former officials, and civil society leaders are increasingly warning that the constitutional crisis is no longer a theoretical concern—it is unfolding in real time, with consequences that may define the future of American democracy.
What Is a Constitutional Crisis?
A constitutional crisis is not merely a political disagreement, a legal loophole, or a partisan deadlock; it is a breakdown in the fundamental structure of governance itself. At its core, a constitutional crisis occurs when the framework established by the U.S. Constitution either fails to resolve a dispute between branches of government or is willfully ignored or subverted by those in power. In these instances, the problem isn’t just that laws are being broken; it’s that the mechanisms for enforcing them or restoring balance are no longer functioning as intended.
There are several specific types of constitutional crisis, each with distinct causes and consequences:
Crises of Interpretation
The second Trump administration has repeatedly asserted legal justifications that challenge conventional constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding executive authority. For instance, after launching military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites without congressional approval, the administration claimed the actions were permissible under Article II powers despite no imminent threat or congressional authorization. Simultaneously, the White House has ignored congressional subpoenas and FOIA requests tied to internal memos justifying these strikes, asserting national security exemptions so broadly that legal analysts argue the executive is unilaterally redefining its war powers without legislative or judicial restraint.
Crises of Defiance
Trump’s administration has defied multiple court rulings and judicial norms. After federal courts issued temporary injunctions against Executive Order 14151 (which eliminated all federal DEI programs), the administration directed agencies to continue with layoffs and program rollbacks anyway, citing “irreparable ideological harm” in internal guidance. Likewise, following a Supreme Court decision affirming the limits of emergency economic powers under IEEPA, Trump publicly dismissed the ruling as "nonbinding" and indicated plans to reissue the tariffs under a different pretext. This open defiance of lawful court decisions pushes the boundaries of constitutional compliance.
Crises of Legitimacy
President Trump has continued to sow distrust in the electoral system, declaring without evidence that Democratic-controlled states are rigging future elections through “illegal mail-in ballot operations” and “deep state certification processes.” His administration has proposed new federal oversight boards to “audit” state elections, despite elections being constitutionally delegated to the states. Additionally, Trump has called into question the legitimacy of several sitting judges, asserting they are “Obama puppets” and “traitors in robes,” eroding public faith in judicial neutrality and further destabilizing institutional legitimacy.
Crises of Succession and Authority
The administration has begun quietly restructuring the presidential line of succession within executive agencies, placing acting officials without Senate confirmation into key roles across DHS, DOJ, and State. By exploiting the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Trump has appointed loyalists to circumvent traditional confirmation processes. Moreover, there are growing concerns that contingency plans for a “national emergency election delay” in 2028 have been drafted, and leaked memos suggest Trump may seek to federalize state National Guard units under preemptive security justifications. These steps signal a calculated effort to consolidate control over transition mechanisms and emergency governance.
Crises Triggered by Overreach or Inaction
With over 120 executive orders issued in just the first 100 days, the administration has relied on emergency declarations and administrative rule changes to enact sweeping policy changes, including mass deportations, agency closures (such as USAID), and the reversal of environmental protections. Many of these actions were taken without congressional consultation or public comment periods, invoking “urgent national interest” as justification. At the same time, Congress has failed to pass binding limitations or overrides, often due to partisan gridlock or filibuster. The result: a presidency legislating unilaterally while the legislative branch stands largely paralyzed.
Norm Erosion Leading to Structural Breakdown
Beyond overt constitutional violations, the Trump administration has engaged in a slow erosion of institutional norms that underpin constitutional governance. The reactivation of Schedule F has enabled the removal of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants, who ideological appointees have replaced. Independent watchdogs—such as inspectors general—have been dismissed or neutralized, and federal agencies now require “loyalty statements” from new hires. These actions are technically legal but signal the disintegration of apolitical governance. In effect, Trump is reconstructing the federal bureaucracy into an extension of personal authority, stripping institutions of their independence and long-term resilience.
Ultimately, what defines a constitutional crisis is not the mere presence of conflict, but the collapse or abandonment of the constitutional processes meant to resolve it. These moments test whether the U.S. Constitution remains a living, enforceable document, or whether it has become a symbolic text, powerless against the ambition of those who no longer feel bound by it.
What’s Prompting the Debate?
The current constitutional crisis debate has been fueled by a wave of executive actions taken by the second Trump administration, moves that critics argue stretch or outright violate the limits imposed by the Constitution. Among the most contentious:
Expansion of Surveillance Without Congressional Oversight
In February 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Directive 14209, which authorized a significant expansion of domestic surveillance operations under the framework of the National Security Act. The directive permits federal agencies—including the National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and select units within the FBI—to collect, analyze, and store metadata from U.S. citizens’ digital communications, including phone records, social media interactions, financial transactions, and geolocation data, without a warrant or any approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
This unilateral shift reversed decades of precedent established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which required government agencies to obtain court approval before conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens for national security purposes. More critically, it sidestepped the mandatory disclosure protocols of the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980, which require the executive branch to keep the House and Senate Intelligence Committees “fully and currently informed” of all significant intelligence activities. Instead, under Directive 14209, surveillance operations are classified under a newly created “Domestic Threat Circumvention Clause,” which allows for internal approval by a task force reporting directly to the National Security Council, chaired by a Trump-appointed loyalist with no prior experience in intelligence oversight.
The administration justified the directive by citing “rising domestic subversion” and alleged threats from “anti-government actors,” language critics say is intentionally vague and politically weaponizable. Almost immediately after implementation, leaks revealed that intelligence agencies had begun compiling digital behavior profiles on journalists, immigration advocates, labor organizers, and political opponents, raising red flags that surveillance powers were being deployed not for national security, but for ideological targeting. Whistleblower reports from within the NSA indicated that data collected under this directive is being funneled into a new analytic system codenamed “Sentinel Shadow,” an AI-driven program designed to flag “patterns of dissent.”
Legal experts from the ACLU, Brennan Center, and Electronic Frontier Foundation have called the directive “a full-scale constitutional breach,” citing not only Fourth Amendment violations but also infringement on First Amendment rights to free speech, association, and the press. Several lawsuits are pending in federal courts, including Rodriguez v. NSA, which challenges the legality of collecting and storing private data absent judicial oversight. Meanwhile, congressional attempts to intervene have stalled, as Republican leadership in both chambers has refused to schedule oversight hearings, and administration officials have declined to testify, citing executive privilege.
The move marks one of the most aggressive domestic surveillance expansions in U.S. history—surpassing even the post-9/11 Patriot Act authorities—and has drawn comparisons to COINTELPRO and the Nixon-era abuse of intelligence for political suppression. In the eyes of many civil libertarians and constitutional scholars, the administration’s actions represent not only a dangerous overreach but a deliberate attempt to build an internal security apparatus aimed at monitoring and potentially silencing dissent under the cloak of legality.
Deployment of Military in Civilian Law Enforcement
Noncompliance With Federal Court Rulings
Between late 2024 and mid-2025, the Trump administration has openly refused to comply with multiple federal court rulings—an unprecedented pattern of executive defiance that constitutional scholars warn poses a direct threat to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which vests the judiciary with the authority to interpret and apply the law.
One of the most high-profile examples occurred in December 2024, when a federal district court in Washington, D.C. issued an injunction blocking the administration’s directive to severely limit mail-in voting in six key battleground states. The court found that the directive—issued through Executive Order 14189—violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and placed unconstitutional burdens on access to the ballot. Despite the ruling, the Department of Justice refused to enforce the injunction, and the administration allowed the restrictions to remain in place for more than three weeks, arguing that the decision represented “judicial interference in national security matters.” Only after emergency filings by voting rights organizations and a sharp rebuke from the D.C. Circuit Court did the administration reluctantly issue a partial rollback, just days before state filing deadlines.
A second case involved a March 2025 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a provision of Executive Order 14203 mandating loyalty oaths for all new federal employees. The court ruled that conditioning public employment on ideological alignment is a violation of the First Amendment. In response, the White House Counsel’s office released a public statement dismissing the decision as “an activist opinion lacking constitutional grounding” and advised federal agencies to “proceed as originally instructed” until a Supreme Court ruling was issued—effectively nullifying the appellate court’s authority in practice.
In a third instance, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York ordered the Trump administration to cease mass data collection under Executive Directive 14209, citing gross violations of the Fourth Amendment. The administration responded by issuing a counter-directive classifying the program under “emergency national intelligence operations,” thereby continuing the surveillance unabated. As of June 2025, no compliance had been reported, and the administration has stonewalled all enforcement efforts, citing executive privilege.
These episodes reflect a dangerous executive strategy: selective compliance, in which court rulings are obeyed only when they align with the administration’s goals. This undermines the judicial branch’s constitutional authority and challenges the core principle of judicial review, first established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). When the executive branch chooses which rulings to honor and which to ignore, the rule of law itself is at risk.
Legal experts warn that these actions do not merely reflect policy disagreements—they constitute de facto nullification of judicial authority. Federal judges lack enforcement power; their rulings depend on executive compliance. When that compliance is withheld, the entire constitutional balance of power collapses. The administration’s pattern of noncompliance is not just lawless—it is systemic, strategic, and corrosive to the foundation of American democracy.
Supporters of these actions claim they reflect decisive leadership during a period of national instability, arguing that existing frameworks have failed to respond quickly or effectively to emerging threats. But opponents warn these actions mark a dangerous turn away from the system of checks and balances that has long defined American governance. If the executive branch can act unilaterally, ignoring the courts, sidelining Congress, and leveraging military power against civilians, the very concept of constitutional democracy is at risk.
Two Sides of the Argument
The “Yes, We’re in Crisis” Camp
Legal scholars, civil rights organizations, and constitutional watchdogs argue that the current moment reflects not a tension within the system but a breakdown of it. Central to their concern is the erosion of the separation of powers, a foundational principle enshrined in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution, which outline distinct responsibilities for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Critics point to a pattern of executive behavior that appears to consolidate power in ways that sideline the other two branches:
Defiance of Judicial Authority
The administration has refused to comply with federal court injunctions on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to surveillance practices, contravening Article III’s guarantee that the judicial branch interprets the law. In 2024 alone, the Department of Justice ignored or delayed implementation of at least six court orders deemed unfavorable to executive policies.
Use of Emergency Powers
Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, presidents have wide latitude to act unilaterally during declared emergencies. However, the current administration has invoked emergency authority to suspend specific election-related deadlines and expand federal policing powers—actions that some claim violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states.
Bypassing Congress on Appropriations
The Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9) gives Congress exclusive control over federal spending. However, billions have been reallocated by executive order to fund programs without legislative approval, raising alarms about the diminishing role of the legislative branch.
Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara recently stated, “A constitutional crisis doesn’t require a coup. It begins when laws are ignored, and institutions fail to stop it.”
The concern extends beyond legality to precedent. Legal historians warn that once one administration rewrites the boundaries of presidential power, future leaders are unlikely to scale them back, potentially reshaping the office permanently.
The “No, This Is a Stress Test” Camp
Others argue that while the moment is undeniably fraught, it is not yet a full-blown constitutional crisis—it is a stress test, not a system failure. They assert that the Constitution was designed to withstand pressure, and that the very friction we’re seeing is evidence that it’s doing its job.
The Judiciary Is Responding
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled against the administration in several high-profile cases. In Doe v. United States (2025), the Court ruled 6–3 against expanded surveillance under emergency powers, citing Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Lower courts have similarly intervened in attempts to alter election deadlines or limit press access to federal proceedings.
Congressional Oversight Is Alive—If Divided
Despite partisan gridlock, congressional committees have issued subpoenas, held oversight hearings, and initiated investigations into executive actions. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has both the power of the purse and investigatory authority—tools it is still using, even if unevenly.
The People Are Engaged
Mass mobilizations—such as the June 2025 “No Kings Day” protests held in over 1,500 cities—demonstrate that civil society remains active and resilient. The First Amendment protects the right to protest, and Americans are exercising it with vigor.
Institutional Inertia Matters
Detractors of the "crisis" label argue that the bureaucracy—career officials in federal agencies, the military, the courts—has quietly resisted unlawful directives. This “institutional friction,” while less visible, plays a crucial role in checking power from within.
Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar has described the current moment as “dangerous but not irreversible,” cautioning against declaring a crisis too early, as that may delegitimize the very institutions still functioning under constitutional constraints.
In short, whether one sees a full-blown constitutional crisis or a constitutional confrontation depends on where one believes the threshold lies: Is a crisis the moment norms are tested, or the moment they fail?
Why This Debate Matters
Whether or not this moment meets the strict definition of a constitutional crisis, the more pressing concern is structural: can the U.S. Constitution endure sustained internal pressure, not from foreign adversaries, but from elected leaders and institutional actors who deliberately test, stretch, or ignore its constraints?
We are now in a period where core constitutional principles are being reinterpreted, circumvented, or defied in real time. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process is compromised when mass surveillance is conducted without a warrant. Article I’s allocation of war-making and spending powers to Congress is rendered toothless when major military actions, funding shifts, and domestic policy enforcement occur by executive fiat. The judicial branch, vested with interpretive authority under Article III, has issued rulings that the executive openly disregards. Even the legitimacy of electoral processes, once the bedrock of democratic governance, is repeatedly undermined through baseless claims and administrative maneuvering.
This isn’t simply a debate over policy or partisanship. It is a reckoning over constitutional durability: how much stress the system can absorb before its checks become ceremonial and its balance irreversible.
And so the question deepens—not just what the Constitution says, but what it still means. Are its guardrails binding legal limits, or mere suggestions when politically inconvenient? If the nation’s highest office can deploy the military without consent, surveil its own citizens without cause, and selectively obey court rulings without repercussion, then the constitutional order becomes less a framework of governance and more a tool of convenience.
This moment matters not because of the headlines it generates, but because of the precedent it sets. The Constitution has survived war, scandal, and insurrection, but endurance is not automatic. Its strength relies not only on the words written in 1787, but on our collective willingness to enforce them. What we tolerate now becomes the standard for what is permissible next. The consequences will be measured not just in laws, but in the kind of democracy we leave behind.
A Final Word
In moments of institutional strain, whether triggered by confrontation, crisis, or calculated overreach, the stakes extend far beyond the headlines. The choices made now, and the constitutional principles either upheld or abandoned, will not only shape this presidency but also the next. They will define the legal and moral architecture that future generations inherit. What we normalize today becomes the foundation of tomorrow’s governance.
Constitutional norms are not self-enforcing. They live or die by how fiercely we defend them when they are most under threat. And while history often creeps in real time, this moment will not go unnoticed. We are living through one of the most significant constitutional inflection points in modern American history, and a recalibration not only of law, but of collective will.
The question is not whether this era will be studied, remembered, and judged.
The only question is: by what legacy?
Add Your Voice to the Record
If you’ve lived through the consequences of the policies discussed in this article, whether as an immigrant, a business owner, a public servant, or someone who has lost a loved one to unjust enforcement, we want to hear from you.
For The Writers is now accepting nonfiction submissions for a series of truth-telling projects aimed at documenting the real human cost of this administration’s immigration and enforcement practices.
Share your story.
Reclaim your narrative.
Become part of the historical record that cannot be erased.
Explore our current open calls, from immigrant journeys to leadership testimonies to stories of loss. This moment in history is being written with or without your participation in documenting it. Make sure your voice is part of it.
Comments