CNN Legal Expert Shuts Down Democrat Narrative, Calls Trump’s Moves On DOGE, Border ‘Not Unconstitutional’

A CNN legal analyst dismissed claims that President Donald Trump’s actions regarding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and his border policies are unconstitutional, pushing back against the narrative pushed by Democrats and some media figures.

On Monday, legal expert Elie Honig acknowledged that Trump has taken a legal approach in which he acts first and forces opponents to challenge him in court. However, he made it clear that this approach, often criticized by left-leaning commentators, does not violate the Constitution.

“The strategy that Donald Trump has used here so far is he’s going to do what he wants first, and then he’s going to make plaintiffs, state attorneys general, or private citizens sue him in court,” Honig explained. “If they want to stop him from doing what he wants, they have to make him. So that’s definitely been a strategy by the president, but that’s not unconstitutional.”

Honig, a former federal prosecutor, said that a constitutional violation would only occur if the executive branch defied a court ruling. “Where it crosses a line is if he goes into court and a court says, ‘You’re not allowed to do this, I’m putting an injunction,’ and then if the president or the executive branch defies that, that’s where we get into real trouble,” he clarified.

“This Supreme Court has generally been taking a broad view of executive power,” Honig said. “But I also think it’s a mistake to say, ‘Oh, they’re a 6-3 Supreme Court, they ruled in favor of Trump on immunity, they’re going to do whatever he says.’ They have rejected Donald Trump at many key junctures.”

WATCH:

Trump has faced criticism from Democrats over his handling of the border crisis and his establishment of DOGE. Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border—an effort to secure additional funding for wall construction without congressional approval—has already drawn legal scrutiny as well.

The move, reminiscent of his 2019 declaration, has prompted lawsuits arguing that the use of emergency powers in this manner circumvents congressional authority and risks setting a dangerous precedent. Some legal experts anticipate challenges over the administration’s efforts to divert military construction funds for the project, a tactic that previously faced pushback from the courts.

At the same time, Trump’s push to consolidate government operations under DOGE has drawn its own legal battles. A federal judge recently issued a temporary block on DOGE’s access to Treasury Department payment systems, citing concerns over potential privacy violations and the risk of irreparable harm.

The decision came after a coalition of 19 state attorneys general argued that the administration had overstepped its legal authority in granting DOGE access to financial infrastructure. Other legal challenges have emerged over DOGE’s attempts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, a move critics say requires congressional approval and could violate statutes governing federal agencies.

The initiative’s approach—characterized by rapid restructuring and agency shakeups—may violate multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act. The courts are expected to play a central role in defining the limits of executive authority.

With a conservative-leaning Supreme Court that Trump helped shape during his first term, the final word on his administration’s aggressive restructuring efforts may ultimately rest with the justices.

Despite repeated efforts from Democrats and left-wing legal scholars to paint Trump’s actions as unlawful, the former president has largely acted within constitutional boundaries. While legal challenges may arise, the courts—not partisan rhetoric—will ultimately determine the validity of his policies.