Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Modernizing Plastic Recycling: The Key to Unleashing American Manufacturing

Modernizing Plastic Recycling: The Key to Unleashing American Manufacturing

I Watched the State of the Union Address: Everyone is “Winning” Except Child Care

I Watched the State of the Union Address: Everyone is “Winning” Except Child Care

Disinformation Wins: Justifying ICE Murders through Transphobia

Disinformation Wins: Justifying ICE Murders through Transphobia

A child putting a coin in a small piggy bank.

Trump Accounts: Who Benefits From the New Child Savings Accounts?

10 economic falsehoods debunked from Trump’s State of the Union speech

10 economic falsehoods debunked from Trump’s State of the Union speech

The Legal Costs and Risks of Trump’s 328 Lawsuits

Opinion

The Legal Costs and Risks of Trump’s 328 Lawsuits

A person filling out paperwork relating to a lawsuit.

Getty Images, boonchai wedmakawand
Steve Corbin
By Steve CorbinMay 21, 2025
Steve Corbin
See More Writings by author

As of May 1 – 101 days into the Trump 2.0 administration – the highly credible Bloomberg News reported over 328 lawsuits have been filed against Mr. Trump’s executive orders, proclamations, and policy decisions and Cabinet members’ actions. On May 13, Fox News gave cameo details on 208 of the lawsuits; virtually all lawsuits are individually cited in a recent Litigation Tracker report, published by Just Security of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law.

The 47th president leads the pack with over 75 lawsuits filed against him, followed by at least 39 cases challenging unelected Elon Musk and his non-Congressional approved Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). More than 40 other lawsuits over funding cuts and agency firings also mention DOGE.

Just Security notes that 21 lawsuits have been filed against the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice and 12 lawsuits reveal Linda McMahon’s Department of Education as the litigant. Legal challenges have been placed against each of the 21 Cabinet members’ respective endeavors. This news, in and of itself, lays bare the fact that the majority of our 100 Senators failed to do their due diligence in approving Mr. Trump’s nominees for Cabinet positions.

The volume of legal battles poses significant long-term risks to American democracy, let alone the cost to Americans like you and me who will have to pay attorney fees to defend Donald J. Trump, Cabinet members, and other officials’ actions.

On May 13, I asked three people elected to represent me (i.e., Iowans’ Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Joni Ernst, and Rep. Ashley Hinson) to provide an “approximate cost that Americans will have to pay legal counsel to defend Trump 2.0’s 328 lawsuits filed to date.” No reply has been received from any of my elected delegates. So, there goes accountability by Congress to the electorate and representation by, for, and of the people, a core principle of a representative democracy.

You might like to know the average hourly rate for lawyers in the U.S. is $341 and a mere $462/hour for attorneys at law in Washington, D.C. (Clio Report, 2024).

A Perplexity AI research-based inquiry noted—as compared to more recent presidents like Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden—“The Trump 2.0 administration has faced an unprecedented volume of litigation.”

Lawsuits are not novel to Mr. Trump. According to a comprehensive review by USA Today, published nine years ago (July 7, 2016), Donald Trump has been involved in at least 4,095 lawsuits where he was the defendant. These include a wide range of civil and criminal cases, relating to business disputes, defamation, political campaigns, casinos, taxes, golf clubs, real estate, government investigations, and sexual abuse. And, Mr. Trump has filed a documented minimum of 1,600 lawsuits against other individuals and organizations. In summation, Donald John Trump has encountered at least 5,695 lawsuits in his lifetime.

Besides the cost of Trump 2.0-related lawsuits that you and I — one way or another — will pay for, the long-term risks to American democracy seem unending, and they include:

1. The Brookings Institution independent research group noted that if the Trump administration disregards court rulings and/or pressures the Department of Justice and/or Supreme Court to act politically, America’s revered checks and balances will be eroded along with our 250-year understanding of what democracy represents.

2. If Donald Trump and the Trump administration disobey a Supreme Court order, the following legal consequences are possible: civil contempt of court, criminal contempt of court, monetary fines, imprisonment, constitutional crisis, and impeachment as the president is constitutionally required to ensure the faithful execution of the laws.

3. Congress’s failure to counter funding freezes or unconstitutional orders is already destabilizing the separation of powers for now and future presidencies, ushering in — with their non-action — an authoritarian, dictatorship, and fascist-oriented country. Our do-nothing 119th Congress (Jan. 2025-Jan. 2027) is a disgrace!

4. A Harvard Law Review article claims lawsuits challenging voting rights will exacerbate public distrust in the electoral system, discouraging voter participation.

5. The Emory Law Journal reports that litigation used as a political strategy could deepen partisan division and stall critical legislative reforms.

6. The Brookings Institution, along with the Campaign Legal Center, cites that executive abuses will test our 535 elected delegates to the U.S. Capitol to see if they will or will not strengthen anti-corruption laws like closing Citizens United loopholes, protecting the 74 statutory and independent Inspector Generals, and clarifying judicial enforcement mechanisms.

The cost of defending Trump 2.0’s 328 lawsuits is unknown, but the long-term risks to democracy are frightening. The future of democracy to withstand the legal perils brought about by Mr. Trump and his Cabinet appointees lies in the hands of 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, 74 Inspector Generals, 94 U.S. District Courts, the Court of International Trade, the Supreme Court, and, most importantly … you and me.


Steve Corbin is a Professor Emeritus of Marketing, University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance opinion editor and guest columnist contributor to 246 news agencies and 48 social media platforms in 45 states.


Latest news

The back of a person's head, they are holding a small rainbow colored flag.
Rule of Law

​A pride flag, a bathroom ban, a job change: LGBTQ+ federal workers challenge Trump in court

A stethoscope on top of the uniform a U.S. military solider.
Democracy

Trump Has Betrayed the Troops Again

Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."
Electoral Reforms

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Election Interference Is Weakening Our Republic
Elections

Election Interference Is Weakening Our Republic

Read More

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026