​​Contact your Senators and Representative—all at once, in one easy step:
📬 Use or personalize the Action Letter below, then click here to send it.
(Powered by Democracy.io, a nonpartisan tool by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.)
​
To contact the Office of the President, click here.
Subject: Uphold Constitutional Limits on Executive Powers
Dear [Recipient],
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing erosion of legislative power and the increasing instances of executive overreach under the current administration. As an American citizen, I fear that these actions threaten the integrity of our Constitutional Republic and the fundamental checks and balances that safeguard our democracy.
Recent statements by Speaker Mike Johnson and Vice President JD Vance, as well as the Trump administration’s actions to make sweeping cuts to federal spending without Congressional approval, highlight an alarming shift away from the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to appropriate funds, a power that is central to maintaining the separation of powers between the branches of government.
However, this essential democratic principle is being undermined by attempts to centralize control in the executive branch.
The Trump administration’s efforts to withhold congressionally appropriated funds, as well as the support expressed by key figures like Speaker Johnson for this approach, pose a direct challenge to the Constitution and our system of government. Such actions suggest that certain members of the government are willing to abandon the established limits on executive power in favor of more unilateral executive actions that bypass legislative authority.
​
If allowed to continue, this trend has the potential to weaken our democratic institutions and normalize practices that are more akin to authoritarianism than a functioning democracy. The balance of power between the executive and legislative branches is crucial not only for maintaining accountability in government but for ensuring that the will of the people, as represented by their elected officials, is upheld.
I urge you to take swift and decisive action to:
-
Defend the power of the purse granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution by rejecting any attempts by the executive branch to bypass Congressional approval for federal spending decisions.
-
Ensure that checks and balances are restored by opposing executive overreach and affirming the legislative branch’s role in making decisions about fiscal policy and the allocation of taxpayer funds.
-
Prioritize the preservation of our democratic norms and values by safeguarding the separation of powers and upholding the integrity of the Constitution.
The ongoing erosion of checks and balances is not a theoretical concern; it is an urgent, present danger to our democratic system. It is imperative that we act now to ensure that our Republic remains intact for future generations. I trust that you will take the necessary steps to protect the fundamental principles of our Constitution.
​
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I look forward to your leadership in defending our democracy.
​
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Backgrounder
Backgrounder: The Trump Administration’s Expansion of Executive Power and Constitutional Implications
​
Overview:
The Trump administration’s ongoing push to expand executive authority has raised serious constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the separation of powers and judicial oversight. The administration's legal stance—especially its assertion of the president’s absolute power—challenges foundational principles of U.S. democracy. This backgrounder addresses two key issues: the administration's actions involving Elon Musk’s aides accessing the Treasury Department’s systems, and the broader trend of presidential overreach.
​
The Case of Treasury Access:
On February 10, 2025, the Trump administration argued that a court order blocking Elon Musk’s aides from accessing U.S. Treasury Department payment and data systems infringed upon the president’s absolute powers over the executive branch. A lawsuit filed by 19 state attorneys general contended that granting Musk’s team unrestricted access to sensitive government systems, which included critical data such as bank details and Social Security numbers, was unlawful and unconstitutional. The legal case revolves around key constitutional principles, including the separation of powers, judicial review, and executive authority.
​
A U.S. district judge, Paul A. Engelmayer, issued an emergency ruling on February 9, 2025, requiring Musk’s aides to destroy any copies of sensitive data accessed from the Treasury Department’s systems. The ruling was prompted by concerns over data security and the potential misuse of sensitive information. In response, the administration argued that the president’s powers were absolute, and judicial intervention was unconstitutional.
​
Constitutional Issues:
-
Separation of Powers: The doctrine of separation of powers, integral to the U.S. Constitution, ensures that no branch of government—executive, legislative, or judicial—holds unchecked power. The administration’s position that the president can grant access to sensitive government systems undermines the system of checks and balances. While the president does have broad powers over the executive branch, judicial review remains a critical safeguard against unconstitutional actions by the executive.
-
Executive Authority vs. Judicial Oversight: Judicial review has long been a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system, enabling courts to assess the constitutionality of executive actions. The Trump administration’s argument that courts cannot block presidential decisions regarding executive appointments and access to government systems directly challenges this fundamental principle. President Trump’s comments calling the court’s ruling a “disgrace” and stating that no judge should be able to make such decisions further suggest an erosion of judicial independence.
-
Congress’s Power of the Purse: The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to control government spending (Article I, Section 8). The state attorneys general’s lawsuit asserts that granting Musk’s aides access to Treasury Department records, allegedly to cut the budget, bypasses Congress’s constitutional role in allocating public funds. This could be seen as an attempt to undermine Congress’s oversight of fiscal matters.
-
Security and Ethical Concerns: A central concern of the lawsuit is the potential security risks posed by granting unauthorized individuals access to sensitive government systems. Unlike civil servants, who are subject to rigorous security clearances, political appointees like Musk’s aides may not be held to the same standards, raising questions about the accountability and security of federal data.
Legal Responses and Arguments:
In its filing, the administration argued that the court’s ruling was “markedly overbroad,” interfering with the president’s constitutional authority to oversee his cabinet and department officials, particularly politically appointed ones. The administration’s argument hinges on the idea that the executive branch has exclusive authority to oversee its operations, including granting access to sensitive government systems. Critics contend that this interpretation would grant the president unchecked power, bypassing constitutional safeguards designed to prevent one branch of government from accumulating excessive authority.
​
Broader Implications:
-
Executive Overreach: If the court sides with the administration’s argument, it could set a dangerous precedent for future executive actions that bypass constitutional checks and balances. Such a ruling would weaken judicial oversight, potentially allowing future presidents to exert unilateral control over key government functions without legislative or judicial review.
-
Impacts on Judicial Independence: The Trump administration’s rhetoric—particularly its description of the court’s ruling as a “disgrace”—has raised concerns about undermining judicial independence. This rhetoric reflects a broader trend of challenging the role of the judiciary in providing checks on executive power. A functioning democracy relies on the independence of the judiciary as a counterbalance to executive overreach.
Conclusion:
The Trump administration’s actions regarding Treasury Department access and its broader efforts to consolidate executive power highlight the growing tension between executive authority and the constitutional safeguards that limit it. The argument that the president has absolute control over executive decisions challenges the principles of separation of powers and judicial oversight. The outcome of the case concerning Musk’s aides could set a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power and may have lasting consequences for the future of U.S. governance.
​
Citations:
-
Meko, Hurubie, and Weiser, Benjamin. "Trump Argues That Courts Cannot Block Musk’s Team From Treasury Systems." The New York Times, February 10, 2025. Link
-
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2.
-
Harvard Law Review. "The Role of Judicial Review in Checks on Executive Power," 2018. Link
-
The Guardian. "Trump’s Executive Overreach: A Challenge to Democracy." February 7, 2025. Link
-
AP News. "Supreme Court that Trump helped shape could have the last word on his aggressive executive orders." February 2025. Link
-
The Washington Post. "The Expansion of Executive Power Under Trump: Legal Implications." February 2025. Link (suggested addition)