Examining the first six weeks of the 2025 Trump administration, this report analyzes apparent breaches of international law and their legal implications.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
WASHINGTON,US: In the early weeks of Donald Trump’s 2025 presidency, his administration has launched a series of actions targeting lawyers involved in past investigations and legal proceedings against him. These measures, which include inquiries and administrative directives, have sparked serious concerns among legal scholars and international observers, who warn of a troubling politicization of the legal profession.
Federal prosecutors and prominent legal figures are already facing scrutiny, with shifts in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and executive orders signaling a broader effort to weaken judicial independence and legal checks on executive power.
The global legal community has responded with alarm, cautioning that the erosion of legal norms in the United States could set a dangerous precedent for the rule of law worldwide. Institutions that once viewed the U.S. as a model for legal integrity are now questioning the resilience of its democratic safeguards, as executive retaliation threatens to suppress dissent and accountability.
If this trend continues, it could have long-term consequences for international legal cooperation, the enforcement of transnational legal standards, and the U.S.’s credibility as a global leader in upholding the rule of law.
Challenges to Territorial Integrity
- Threats Against Canada, Panama, and Greenland President Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the “future 51st State,” his State of the Union assertion that the U.S. will “have Greenland, one way or another,” and his claim that the Panama Canal “still belongs to the U.S.” raise significant legal concerns.
These statements appear to contravene the peremptory norm (jus cogens) prohibiting aggression, as well as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which explicitly states:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
This prohibition is a well-established jus cogens norm, reaffirmed in Nicaragua v. United States and the International Law Commission’s work on state responsibility.
- Specific Threats Regarding Greenland President Trump’s March 4th declaration that the U.S. would acquire Greenland “one way or another” further raises concerns about violations of the principle of self-determination, as enshrined in Articles 1 and 55 of the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Statements on Gaza President Trump’s assertion that the U.S. could “take over” Gaza may violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and undermine Palestinian self-determination. Depending on its implementation, such actions could constitute ethnic cleansing or even genocide under international criminal law.
- Recognition of Russian Claims to Ukrainian Territory Trump’s statement that “Russia has all the cards” and that Ukraine should “recognize the reality on the ground” violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and threatens Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Additionally, a war of aggression is an international crime, and aiding or abetting such actions could also amount to an international offense.
The U.S. decision to withhold military support from Ukraine breaches the 2024 Bilateral Security Agreement between Ukraine and the USA (the 10-Year Agreement), signed in June 2024, which includes a six-month termination clause that has not been invoked.
The U.S. also appears to have violated the 2003 US-Ukraine Agreement on the Protection of Classified Defense Information by ceasing intelligence-sharing without proper termination procedures.
ALSO READ: Law Ministry Directs Gujarat Court to Serve Summons To Adani in U.S. SEC Lawsuit
Trump Issues Memo Targeting Law Firms That Challenge His Administration
President Donald Trump has issued a new memorandum titled
“Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court”,
which authorizes the attorney general and the homeland security secretary to take action against law firms that file lawsuits deemed “frivolous.” Legal experts and former Justice Department officials have described the move as a significant escalation in Trump’s efforts to suppress legal opposition.
New Trump Memo Targets Law Firms Filing ‘Frivolous’ Lawsuits
The memorandum, issued on Saturday, directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to consider revoking attorneys’ security clearances or terminating law firms’ federal contracts if their lawsuits against the administration are deemed “unreasonable” or “vexatious.”
Executive Orders Target Major Law Firms
The memo follows recent executive orders against three prominent law firms:
- Covington & Burling, which provided pro bono services to former special counsel Jack Smith, who indicted Trump multiple times.
- Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and worked on an opposition research dossier about Trump.
- Paul Weiss, where former partner Mark Pomerantz had sought to build a criminal case against Trump while working for the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
Sanctions and Restrictions on Targeted Law Firms
The executive orders impose several punitive measures, including:
- Suspending the security clearances of firm employees.
- Barring them from certain federal buildings.
- Reviewing the federal contracts of their clients, which could discourage businesses and organizations from hiring these firms.
Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp, in a leaked message to employees, warned that the executive order posed a serious threat to the firm’s clients.
“The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm,”
Karp wrote, emphasizing the risks of losing government contracts.
Civil Rights Groups Condemn the Memo
A coalition of 22 civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), denounced the memorandum, arguing that it aims to:
- Suppress legal dissent.
- Evade accountability.
- Weaponize the government against critics.
White House Defends the Decision
The White House has defended the move, with assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers stating,
“President Trump is ensuring that the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people. His only retribution is success and historic achievements.”
Legal Experts Call Move ‘Unprecedented’
David Laufman, a former Justice Department counterintelligence official with experience in both Republican and Democratic administrations, described Trump’s use of executive power to intimidate law firms as “unprecedented.”
The Trump Administration , has in the first few weeks of its coming to power has brought about significant changes and had also brought about other economic measures and affected different trade relations which are as follows:
Trade Relations and Economic Measures
- Tariffs on Canada and Mexico (25%) The administration’s imposition of a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico raises concerns about violations of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. Invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as justification appears tenuous under international trade law.
- Tariffs on Chinese and Hong Kong Goods (20%) The imposition of a 20% tariff on Chinese and Hong Kong goods represents an escalation in trade tensions and likely breaches WTO rules. The WTO ruled in 2020 that similar tariffs violated global trade laws, as they did not meet the necessary justification under Article XX(a) of GATT 1994.
- Threatened Tariffs on the European Union (25%) The administration’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on EU goods violates WTO principles and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ good faith requirement. The European Commission has indicated it will respond with countermeasures if such tariffs are implemented, potentially escalating into a trade war.
- “Reciprocal” Tariffs Threat The administration’s proposal for “reciprocal” tariffs—matching other countries’ tariff rates—violates WTO commitments by disregarding negotiated concessions, undermining the most-favored-nation principle, and bypassing established dispute resolution mechanisms.
ALSO READ: Cognizant Bribery | Court Asks Police to Probe Bribery Allegations Against IT Major
Federal Judge Criticizes Trump Administration’s Use of Wartime Law for Deportations
A federal judge strongly rebuked the Trump administration’s summary deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, stating that
“Nazis received better treatment”
from the United States during World War II.
On March 15, President Donald Trump authorized the deportation of two planeloads of Venezuelan migrants to a prison in El Salvador, invoking the rarely used 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA). That same day, James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, issued a restraining order temporarily blocking further deportations under the AEA.
The Justice Department has since sought to lift the order, with a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals hearing oral arguments on Monday.
During the proceedings, Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign argued that the judge’s ruling represented an
“unprecedented and substantial intrusion”
into executive authority, asserting that it interfered with the president’s war and foreign affairs powers.
However, Judge Patricia Millett questioned this reasoning, emphasizing that the lower court’s ruling was not disputing the president’s authority but rather the lack of individual hearings for deportees.
Attorneys representing several deported Venezuelans contended that their clients were not affiliated with the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang, had committed no crimes, and were targeted primarily due to their tattoos.
“Under the Alien Enemies Act, even Nazis received better treatment,”
remarked Millett, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
“They were granted hearing boards before being removed.”
She criticized the administration’s actions, stating,
“The individuals on those planes had no opportunity to contest their deportation under the AEA. The government could have mistakenly placed me on one of those flights, assuming I was part of Tren de Aragua, and I would have had no way to challenge it.”
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, also suggested that deportees should have access to court hearings but appeared more open to arguments that the restraining order impinged on executive authority. The panel’s third judge was appointed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush.
The AEA, previously invoked only during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, grants the government broad authority to detain citizens of a hostile nation during wartime.
Legal Concerns Over ‘Disappeared’ Migrants
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit challenging the deportations, told the court that the administration was using the AEA to bypass standard immigration proceedings.
If the restraining order were lifted, the government would likely resume deportations under the AEA immediately, Gelernt warned.
“These individuals are being sent to one of the most dangerous prisons in the world in El Salvador, cut off from communication,”
he said.
“They are, in effect, being disappeared.”
In a 37-page ruling issued Monday, Judge Boasberg stated that
” individuals facing deportation under the AEA should be entitled to individual hearings to determine whether the law applies to them”
Trump has repeatedly criticized Boasberg, even calling for his impeachment—a statement that prompted a rare public response from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
The case has raised broader constitutional concerns, with legal experts warning that the administration could potentially disregard the court order, leading to a constitutional crisis.
Ahead of the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced plans to deport three alleged TdA members to Chile under the AEA, citing pending extortion and kidnapping charges against them.
“The Justice Department is taking every legal measure to ensure these individuals are swiftly sent to Chile to face justice,”
Blanche stated.
The legal battle over the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for mass deportations highlights critical constitutional and human rights concerns. The federal judiciary’s intervention reflects deep skepticism about the denial of due process to deportees, with judges questioning whether the administration’s actions violate fundamental legal protections.
Beyond its immediate legal ramifications, this case highlights broader tensions between executive power and judicial oversight, raising concerns about the potential misuse of wartime laws in immigration enforcement.
As the courts continue to deliberate, the outcome will not only determine the fate of the deported Venezuelans but also set a precedent for the balance between national security measures and individual rights under U.S. law.
READ MORE REPORTS ON USA ADMINISTRATION
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE