McCormick said Trump is breaking laws and defying centuries of legal precedent

In a stark rebuke that echoes the foundational principles of American democracy, activist Lisa McCormick has launched a searing condemnation of President Donald Trump’s escalating efforts to unilaterally dismantle federal agencies, warning that his actions threaten to unravel the constitutional order itself.

At the heart of the controversy lies a question as old as the Republic: Who holds the power to shape the machinery of government—Congress, or a President acting alone?

McCormick, citing a litany of Supreme Court rulings spanning nearly a century, argues that Trump’s aggressive campaign to eliminate agencies, slash federal programs, and reconfigure the executive branch without congressional approval constitutes a brazen power grab.

“The President’s oath is to execute the laws, not to erase them,” McCormick declared, citing the landmark Youngstown decision of 1952, in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a President cannot seize legislative authority, even in times of crisis. “When Trump claims the right to unilaterally ‘transform’ agencies created by statute, he isn’t exercising executive power—he’s usurping the role of Congress. This isn’t leadership; it’s autocracy.”

The legal bedrock of McCormick’s argument is unambiguous.

Federal agencies, as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the 2022 NFIB v. OSHA case are “creatures of statute,” their existence and functions defined solely by laws passed by Congress.

From the earliest days of the republic, the judiciary has rejected presidential attempts to bypass this separation of powers.

In Myers v. United States (1926), the court emphasized that Congress alone holds the authority to establish offices and define their duties—a principle Trump’s sweeping reorganization efforts openly flout.

Historically, presidents seeking structural changes to the executive branch have sought congressional approval, a tradition dating back to the 1930s.

Trump, however, has dismissed this precedent, framing his actions as the fulfillment of a populist mandate.

But legal scholars warn that such rhetoric simply tries to justify dangerous constitutional overreach.

“The Founders were explicit: Liberty can not survive if one person wields both legislative and executive power,” said McCormick, quoting Justice Anton Scalia’s opinion in Bowsher v. Synar (1986). “What Trump is attempting isn’t just illegal—it’s a direct assault on the architecture of checks and balances.”

McCormick said Democrats must do more than sit around and talk about Trump’s assault on the republic.

Critics confirm McCormick’s fear that the implications are dire.

If a president can unilaterally abolish agencies, defund programs, or reassign statutory duties—all without congressional input—the executive branch risks becoming an unchecked engine of ideological whimsy.

Programs protecting public health, labor rights, and environmental safety could vanish overnight, not through democratic debate, but by presidential decree.

The White House has yet to respond to these charges, but Trump’s allies have dismissed the criticism as partisan fearmongering.

Yet the urgency in McCormick’s message is palpable.

“This isn’t about politics. It’s about whether we still believe in the Constitution,” said McCormick. “If Congress surrenders its power to restrain the executive, the damage may be irreversible.”

As the nation watches, the clash transcends partisan divides, striking at the core of a 235-year experiment in self-governance.

The question now is whether the institutions designed to prevent concentrated power can withstand a president intent on testing their limits—or whether the rule of law itself will become another casualty of ambition.

McCormick is the progressive leader of Democrats for Change, and she got more votes than any statewide primary challenger to an incumbent in New Jersey since 1980 when she took on disgraced former US Senator Bob Menendez in 2018.

She made her comments during a discussion about the April 28 lawsuit—filed by a nationwide coalition of labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments— arguing that the president is illegally seizing powers that belong to Congress.

The lawsuit argues that no law allows the president to order sweeping layoffs or to force agencies to abandon their legal obligations and core functions.

The case, AFGE v. Trump, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On February 11, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.”

This sweeping directive required every federal agency to submit plans to carry out massive layoffs aimed at radically shrinking the federal government.

Trump’s executive order attempts to deconstruct critical government functions without any approval from Congress, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers.

McCormick questioned the credibility of establishment Democrats who keep losing, suggesting that they are posturing for the public and secretly working to please billionaires who fund their campaigns.