President Donald Trump is facing a federal lawsuit from top Democratic Party organizations after issuing an executive order they say unlawfully grants him sweeping control over the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and other independent government agencies.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, marks the first formal legal action by Democrats against Trump during his second term. It was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).
At the center of the complaint is Trump’s February 18 executive order, titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” which critics have labeled an unprecedented consolidation of executive power. The order makes the legal opinions of the president and attorney general binding for all federal employees in the executive branch, including those working at agencies traditionally considered independent.
According to the complaint, the order undermines the autonomy of agencies such as the FEC, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by allowing the White House to dictate legal interpretations and silence internal dissent. The Democrats argue that this directive violates federal election laws and the constitutional separation of powers by allowing the president to interfere directly with the operations of regulatory bodies created by Congress.
The plaintiffs allege that the order “inflicts irreparable harm” by threatening the impartiality of the FEC, which is responsible for overseeing federal elections and enforcing campaign finance laws. The lawsuit claims that by asserting control over how the FEC interprets and enforces those laws, the White House could effectively manipulate the outcomes of election-related disputes to benefit the president or his political allies.
The order also prohibits executive branch employees from expressing or acting on any legal views that contradict those of the president or attorney general — a move Democrats say stifles independent judgment and accountability.
Defendants in the case include Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Federal Election Commission, and three of its commissioners. The complaint contends that these individuals and institutions are being coerced into following presidential directives that contravene their legal duties and compromise their neutrality.
The Department of Justice responded to the lawsuit with a brief statement. “This department has already been fighting in court to vigorously defend President Trump’s agenda and will continue to do so,” a DOJ spokesperson said in an email.
The FEC declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Created by Congress in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the FEC was designed as a bipartisan commission to provide a check on election misconduct and to enforce campaign finance regulations. The lawsuit cites historical support for the agency’s independence, including remarks by then-President Gerald Ford, who noted that both parties favored the FEC’s creation to ensure fair competition in federal elections.
Democrats now say that Trump’s executive order directly contradicts that principle. By enabling a sitting president to control how election rules are interpreted and enforced, they argue, the order opens the door to partisan manipulation and abuse of power.
“This order allows a single partisan political figure to override the bipartisan structure of the election commission,” the lawsuit states. “It permits the president to resolve election disputes in ways that serve his political interests, not the public interest.”
The lawsuit provides a concrete example of the order’s impact, pointing to a complaint filed by Senator Ted Cruz’s 2024 reelection campaign. The DSCC says it is struggling to defend against the complaint, citing the executive order’s chilling effect on its ability to advocate freely and fairly under the law.
Legal experts have voiced concern that Trump’s directive could dismantle the framework of independent oversight that has governed key regulatory bodies for decades. While presidents have always wielded significant influence over policy, the order’s attempt to extend that influence into traditionally apolitical enforcement agencies is viewed by critics as a sharp break from precedent.
Former officials from the SEC and NLRB have quietly raised alarms, noting that the order could compromise agency decisions that have real-world implications for campaign finance, labor rights, and corporate regulation.
Trump’s administration has framed the order as part of a broader effort to hold federal agencies “accountable” to the American people. However, opponents argue that it amounts to little more than political control dressed in bureaucratic language.
The timing of the lawsuit is notable, coming just six weeks into Trump’s second term, which has already been marked by aggressive executive action. In addition to the February 18 order, the White House has moved to scale back regulatory authority, centralize agency leadership under presidential loyalists, and restrict internal dissent among federal employees.
While several advocacy groups have filed lawsuits challenging various executive orders since Trump’s January 20 inauguration, this case marks the Democratic Party’s first direct legal challenge to the president’s post-reelection agenda.
The Democrats’ legal team argues that the executive order violates multiple federal statutes, including the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. They are seeking a court ruling that would strike down the order as unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement within the FEC and other similarly structured agencies.
If the court agrees to hear the case, it could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle — one that may ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Observers say the outcome could determine how far a president can go in exerting control over federal agencies that were intended to operate independently of political influence.
“Our democracy depends on neutral referees, not partisan enforcers,” said a legal representative for the DNC. “This executive order is a direct threat to that neutrality and must be stopped before it can undermine the legitimacy of our electoral system.”
As the case moves forward, Democrats vow to keep using every legal and legislative tool available to protect the independence of institutions they believe are under siege.
The broader implications of the lawsuit could shape not only the future of the FEC but also the fundamental boundaries of executive authority in the United States.
