Trump's recent memo order pausing or "freezing" federal grant spending (except for Social Security, Medicare and direct payments to individuals) threatens many valuable and ongoing federal grant programs. The target seems to be spending on diversity, equity and inclusion, "green initiatives" and anything that sounds "woke." That's a phrase referring positively or pejoratively to all manner of generally non-Republican causes and interests. Truly, Trump's action throws the baby out with the bathwater. It's also unconstitutional.

Former President Richard Nixon tried to do the same thing in the 1970s regarding environmental funding. It's illegal and was found to be so at the time. However, Trump is endeavoring to do so writ large, which is fantastic. Rather than issue fiats, Trump should ask the U.S. Congress to stop any such spending within 45 days under the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act, which is the law as well. Congress doesn't have to agree. Of course, Trump's party now controls both houses of Congress.

A federal judge temporarily halted Trump's order for those programs funded through the beginning of his order via "open grants." These are grants where a call for proposals generates applicants whom the federal funding agency awards under particular terms and processes. That is a major relief, hopefully not just for the moment.

On the heels of the judge's staying of the order, Trump has rescinded his order. Before that, he floated the idea of salary buyouts. This means his ultimate goal is reducing the size of the federal government and/or replacing current appointees and civilian bureaucrats.

Even with the order's (temporary) recission, damage has occurred, as several grant agencies have pulled back their funds. It's something of a mess, mostly for those depending on the grants and their communities. It also may be an end, quite an early end, to the honeymoon of Trump's second administration.

Away from the matters of money, Trump also wants to end "birthright citizenship" for children of undocumented immigrants in the United States. The U.S. Constitution enshrines the principle that any child born in the United States or its territories is a U.S. citizen from birth. Children of foreign diplomats are excluded, as they are not subject to U.S. law. A federal judge has already said the action to suspend birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship is a much taller order, ultimately requiring a proposal approved and then ratified by three-fourths of the states' legislatures or ratifying conventions. Not likely. However, that route is what the rule of law would call for to undo what Trump attempts to do by fiat or dictum.

One of the most important aspects of American law and constitutional history is the separation of powers. A president, even one with a mandate to change, isn't above the law. The current president must act with the Congress, a friendly Congress at that, to enact laws that implement his mandate, subject to all of the checks and balances that exist under the U.S. Constitution. White House press releases speaking of a president's right to shape the spending of the federal government treat unconstitutional actions as a kind of right. That shaping spending occurs through the budget process is precisely what the rhetoric ignores.

It's no wonder that a "man in a hurry" like Trump wants to push all this aside or, perhaps more craftily, see if anyone chooses to invoke the constitutional protections. Demagogues and autocratic leaders test the rule of law and see if it has cracks. The real need now is for the U.S. Congress, the American people, advocates of those who will lose citizenship, those who will lose grant funding and the like to stand up and seek judicial protection of their rights and of the laws that support them. Trumping Trump requires action, legal action and its possibility is the central hope for many at this time.

The president of the United States is not the lawmaking branch of government. His statutory authority is much more limited than in unitary systems, let alone autocratic government systems. His government could work to accomplish his goals through legal means, but Trump instead likes to act as if he is above the U.S. Constitution. This isn't new. And it isn't new that the only thing to push Trump back, to trump Trump, is to use the democratic and constitutional processes of law to do so. That is what occurred with the order on grants. It may be something that has to occur more often.

Bernard Rowan is associate provost for contract administration and academic services at Chicago State University, and a professor of political science. He is a past fellow of the Korea Foundation and a past visiting professor at Hanyang University.