President Donald Trump’s recent claim that he’s unsure if he must uphold the U.S. Constitution has sent shockwaves through political and legal circles. In a May 4, 2025, interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump responded, “I don’t know,” when asked if he’s obligated to follow the Constitution, particularly regarding due process for immigrants.
This statement, coming just over 100 days into his second term, raises profound questions about his commitment to the oath he swore to “preserve, protect, and defend” the nation’s founding document.
A Stunning Exchange on Due Process
The controversy erupted during a discussion about Trump’s aggressive deportation policies. Host Kristen Welker pressed Trump on whether he agrees with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who affirmed that everyone in the U.S., citizen or non-citizen, deserves due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Trump replied,
“I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,”
even after Welker noted that the Fifth Amendment explicitly guarantees due process to all persons, not just citizens.
When Welker pushed further, asking if he must uphold the Constitution as president, Trump doubled down: “I don’t know,” adding that his “brilliant lawyers” would follow the Supreme Court’s guidance.
He argued that providing due process for millions of immigrants would require “a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” slowing his deportation agenda. This stance clashes with the Constitution’s clear mandate and his own oath of office, taken on January 20, 2025.
What’s at Risk?
The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has long held that this applies to non-citizens, as seen in cases like Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which affirmed basic rights for immigrants. Trump’s remarks suggest a willingness to sidestep these protections, particularly in high-profile cases like that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father wrongfully deported to El Salvador despite a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires the president to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Trump’s claim of uncertainty undermines this obligation, raising concerns about executive overreach. If the president can selectively ignore constitutional mandates, it risks eroding the checks and balances enshrined in Articles I and III, which grant Congress and the judiciary authority to curb executive actions.
For everyday Americans, this could weaken protections against arbitrary government actions, from property seizures to unfair legal proceedings.
Testing Constitutional Limits
Trump’s comments prompt urgent constitutional questions:
- Can a president lawfully prioritize policy over constitutional duties? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, per Article VI. Trump’s suggestion that deportation efficiency trumps due process conflicts with this principle. Ignoring the Fifth Amendment could lead to unlawful detentions or deportations, violating the rule of law.
- Does reliance on lawyers absolve presidential responsibility? Trump’s deference to his legal team doesn’t negate his oath. The president, not his advisors, is accountable for upholding the Constitution. This deflection could set a precedent for future leaders to dodge accountability.
- What happens when the executive defies the judiciary? Trump’s administration has flouted a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in the Abrego Garcia case, prompting accusations of defying judicial authority. Article III empowers courts to check executive actions, and non-compliance threatens the separation of powers.
These questions highlight a tension between Trump’s campaign promises and constitutional governance. His supporters may see his deportation push as fulfilling a mandate, but bypassing due process risks undermining the legal framework that protects all Americans.
Why This Matters
Trump’s remarks aren’t just legal jargon—they hit home for millions. The Fifth Amendment protects everyone, citizen or not, from government overreach. If due process is eroded for immigrants, it could set a precedent for weakening protections for all. For example, Americans mistakenly detained in immigration sweeps—already reported under Trump’s policies—could face similar denials of rights.
Economically, Trump’s deportation focus could strain communities. Deporting workers, even those with clean records like Abrego Garcia, disrupts families and local economies. The Congressional Budget Office notes that immigration enforcement costs billions annually, potentially diverting funds from services like Social Security or infrastructure. For consumers, the uncertainty around Trump’s constitutional stance could fuel distrust in government, impacting everything from market stability to public safety.
A Broader Context: Third-Term Talk and Beyond
Trump’s Meet the Press interview also touched on other controversies. He downplayed speculation about seeking a third term, prohibited by the 22nd Amendment, saying,
“This is not something I’m looking to do.”
Yet, he noted “strong requests” from supporters, fueled by items like “Trump 2028” hats sold by his family’s business. This ambivalence, paired with his constitutional uncertainty, amplifies fears of authoritarian tendencies.
On economic policy, Trump defended his tariffs despite a 0.3% economic contraction in Q1 2025, blaming Biden’s policies while claiming, “The tariffs are going to make us rich.” Critics argue these measures could raise consumer prices, hitting working families hardest. His foreign policy musings, like annexing Canada or Greenland, further muddle his constitutional priorities, suggesting a focus on personal agenda over legal duty.
What This Means Moving Forward
Trump’s “I don’t know” marks a pivotal moment. His supporters may view it as a pragmatic push to deliver on campaign promises, but critics see a dangerous disregard for the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s rulings, like the 9-0 decision on Abrego Garcia, show judicial willingness to check Trump’s actions. Yet, his administration’s defiance—coupled with firing immigration judges and bypassing Congress—suggests a broader challenge to democratic norms.
For Americans, the fallout could be tangible. Weakened due process might embolden arbitrary enforcement, affecting citizens caught in bureaucratic errors. Economically, deportation costs and tariff-driven price hikes could strain budgets. Constitutionally, Trump’s stance tests the resilience of checks and balances. As his second term unfolds, the nation watches whether he heeds his oath or redefines presidential power.