Just three weeks into Donald Trump’s high-speed push to overhaul the federal government, the legal resistance has been just as relentless. Lawsuits have flooded the courts, challenging his executive orders at every turn, and the administration's Justice Department is struggling to keep up. Government lawyers are finding themselves in a courtroom whirlwind, trying to defend Trump's decisions amid mounting legal setbacks that have repeatedly forced them into damage control.
A Legal Battlefield Unfolds
In one of the latest developments, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found itself in hot water over inaccurate statements made during a court hearing about dismantling the foreign aid agency USAID. In a filing on Monday night, DOJ attorneys admitted to making two significant misstatements regarding the number of employees affected by the administration’s decision. Initially, they claimed that only future contracts were paused and that 500 employees were placed on leave. However, the reality was much more severe—more than 2,100 employees had actually been sidelined, and both existing and future contracts had been frozen.
DOJ lawyers acknowledged the error in their filing, stating, “Defendants sincerely regret these inadvertent misstatements based on information provided to counsel immediately prior to the hearing.” They assured the judge that they were working to provide accurate information moving forward. But the damage had already been done—Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump-appointed judge, was visibly frustrated by the government’s lack of clarity.
“I need to know what the government's official position is right now. What is happening?” Nichols demanded. “Is the government paying people or not?”
A Surge of Lawsuits Against Trump’s Policies
Trump’s administration is facing legal fire on multiple fronts. In just the past few days, courts have blocked his orders to enforce a federal buyout program, cut health research funding, and remove public health data from government websites. The rapid succession of rulings against the administration has only heightened tensions within the DOJ, where government attorneys are scrambling to defend policies that seem to be crumbling under judicial scrutiny.
One particularly high-profile setback came when a New York judge halted the administration's newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing Treasury Department records. In response, both DOGE head Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance openly considered the idea of defying the court orders, a move that would escalate tensions even further. The Justice Department, however, declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.
DOJ’s Own Mistakes Add to the Chaos
Compounding their legal woes, the DOJ has had to issue multiple corrections in various cases. In one instance, during a hearing related to the Treasury Department, government attorneys incorrectly described Marko Elez—a former SpaceX employee and a key figure in DOGE—as a mere “special government employee.” But in a filing on Monday, they backtracked, clarifying that Elez was, in fact, a full-fledged Treasury Department employee with the title “Special Advisor for Information Technology and Modernization,” which also made him subject to stricter ethics regulations.
Meanwhile, in another case involving the DOJ’s handling of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack investigation, government lawyers found themselves struggling to answer critical questions. During a hearing on whether they planned to release a list of FBI agents involved in the case, DOJ attorney Jeremy Simon faltered when pressed for answers.
“You represent the government,” Judge Jia Cobb sternly reminded him. “The White House wants this information. Does the government have present intent to publicly release names of FBI agents that worked on Jan. 6 cases?”
Simon’s response only deepened the judge’s frustration: “People who have the list don’t have present intent.” He then repeatedly had to request recesses to confer with his superiors over the phone.
Confusion and Stumbles in Courtrooms
The confusion doesn’t end there. When the DOJ defended the Trump administration’s short-lived federal funding freeze, their attorneys appeared unprepared to explain its full implications.
“It seems like the federal government currently doesn’t actually know the full scope of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause. Is that correct?” asked U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan.
“I can only speak for myself, which is just based on the limited time frame here, that I do not have a comprehensive list,” DOJ lawyer Daniel Schwei admitted. “It just depends.”
These courtroom struggles have only reinforced concerns that the Trump administration is rushing forward with sweeping policies without fully grasping—or preparing for—the legal battles they ignite.
The Birthright Citizenship Fight
One of the most controversial legal clashes revolves around Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship. During a court hearing on the matter, Brett Shumate, acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s civil division, was put on the spot.
“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour asked.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate responded.
The judge didn’t hold back. “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour shot back. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
A Pattern of Judicial Pushback
Legal experts say these courtroom rebukes aren’t coming from any one political direction. Judges from across the spectrum—including those appointed by Reagan, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—have all raised concerns about the administration’s legal arguments.
“They are doing this regardless of geography and regardless of who appointed them,” said Justin Levitt, a constitutional law expert and professor at Loyola Marymount University. “So you’ve seen pushback from Reagan appointees, you’ve seen pushback from Bush appointees, you’ve seen pushback from Obama appointees and Trump appointees and Biden appointees, and that’s going to continue.”
And so far, the Trump administration’s legal record isn’t looking great. “As far as I can tell, they’re winless in the courts,” Levitt noted.
The Road Ahead
With more lawsuits in the pipeline, it’s clear that Trump’s aggressive approach to reshaping government won’t go unchallenged. While the administration continues to roll out new policies at breakneck speed, the courts are proving to be a major roadblock, forcing government lawyers into a never-ending cycle of litigation, corrections, and courtroom battles. Whether the administration can find a winning legal strategy remains to be seen—but so far, the odds aren’t in their favor.
Login