‘Presumption of Irregularity’: Trump's DOJ, Fed Power Grab Test Constitutional Limits

Washington, D.C. - A series of executive actions in late August 2025 has intensified a constitutional crisis, as the Trump administration escalates its use of federal power to investigate political adversaries, sideline independent officials, and deploy military personnel in American cities. Legal experts and commentators are warning that these moves represent a systemic assault on the rule of law, challenging foundational legal principles and forcing the judiciary to re-evaluate its traditional deference to the executive branch.

The coordinated actions, spanning the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, and the Pentagon, have prompted a growing chorus of legal scholars to argue that the long-standing "presumption of regularity"—the judicial assumption that government officials act in good faith—is no longer tenable.

"What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal, it is unconstitutional. It is un-American,” declared Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, responding to plans to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago without state consent. His sentiment captures a broader alarm within the legal and political communities about the erosion of institutional norms.

The Weaponization of the Justice Department

The administration's campaign of "uprooting the foot soldiers" within the Department of Justice has become a focal point of concern. According to reports, more than two dozen prosecutors involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot cases have been fired or demoted. This purge followed President Trump’s mass clemency for nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the event, effectively nullifying years of prosecutorial work.

Michael Gordon, a former federal prosecutor in Florida fired for his successful prosecution of January 6 rioters, told The New York Times that the DOJ he once served "was now helping to whitewash a traumatic event in American history."

This internal restructuring is coupled with an aggressive external campaign against perceived political enemies. The FBI's recent searches of the home and office of John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser turned vocal critic, have been widely condemned as a politically motivated fishing expedition. Vice President J.D. Vance appeared to confirm these suspicions, stating on television, "there’s a broad concern about, about Ambassador Bolton. They’re going to look into it."

Legal commentator Marc Elias argues that such actions demand a paradigm shift from the media and the courts. "The charges—or excuses for charges—serve only as distractions from the real news: the DOJ is being abused to target political opponents," Elias wrote. "Courts must instead approach such prosecutions with skepticism, recognizing the political context and being willing to dismiss indictments that clearly stem from retaliation."

This pattern of weaponization extends to threats against other critics, including former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and ongoing investigations into figures like New York Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff.

An Unprecedented Assault on Federal Reserve Independence

Simultaneously, the administration has launched a legally dubious attack on the independence of the nation's central bank. President Trump announced his intent to remove Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, citing unproven allegations of mortgage fraud from before her tenure.

In a letter to Cook, the president invoked the statute allowing a governor to be "removed for cause by the president," but added his own interpretive phrase, claiming she could be removed "at my discretion" for cause. This phrasing sets the stage for a landmark legal battle over whether "cause" is an objective, judicially reviewable standard or a matter of presidential whim.

Legal scholars and economists have decried the move as a transparent pretext to install a more compliant board willing to bend monetary policy to the president's political desires. Peter Conti-Brown, a professor at the Wharton School, warned it would spell "the end of central bank independence as we know it."

Governor Cook has refused to resign, stating through her lawyer that "no cause exists under the law" for her removal and vowing to "take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action." The standoff places Fed Chair Jerome Powell in a critical position, with many urging him to refuse to recognize Cook's dismissal without a clear legal basis.

The Supreme Court, while recently expanding presidential removal power over some independent agencies, specifically noted in a May 2025 ruling that the Federal Reserve was "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity" with distinct historical protections. The attempt to fire Cook appears designed to test the limits of that distinction.

Military on Main Street: Federalism Under Fire

Perhaps most alarmingly for constitutional scholars, the administration has begun to operationalize its long-held rhetoric about deploying military and federal forces to police Democratic-run cities. After declaring a crime emergency in Washington, D.C., and seizing control of its Metropolitan Police Department, the White House has signaled similar intentions for Chicago and Baltimore.

Governor Pritzker delivered a forceful rebuke, highlighting the lack of consultation with state or local officials. "This is not about fighting crime," he asserted. "This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city in a blue state to try and intimidate his political rivals... The state of Illinois is ready to stand against this military deployment with every peaceful tool we have. We will see the Trump administration in court."

These actions test the boundaries of federalism and the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. While the administration has used the pretext of protecting federal property, opponents argue this is a thin veil for an unconstitutional occupation of American cities.

The Death of the ‘Presumption of Regularity’

Across these disparate events, a single, powerful theme emerges: the collapse of good-faith governance. This has profound implications for legal practice. Jennifer Rubin, a columnist for The Contrarian , argues for abandoning the "presumption of regularity" when dealing with the current administration. "It is time to make the presumption of irregularity (i.e. bad faith) when it comes to the Trump crowd," she writes. "The rule of law cannot survive if judges allow government lawyers to treat them like suckers."

This sentiment is echoed in the ongoing case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant who was wrongfully deported, returned to the U.S. to face criminal charges, and then, upon release from custody, was immediately re-arrested by ICE for a second deportation. A federal judge has had to intervene repeatedly, signaling deep judicial skepticism of the government's motives.

As the administration continues to challenge legal and constitutional guardrails, the judiciary is being positioned as the last line of defense. However, with the Supreme Court's emergency docket increasingly favoring the executive, the strength of that defense remains an open and urgent question for the entire legal profession.