It did not take long before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a federal watchdog agency designed to oversee financial institutions and protect people from scams — became a target of the Trump administration.

On February 1, Trump fired Rohit Chopra, the CFPB director under former President Joe Biden, and on February 7, Musk wrote on X, "CFPB RIP."

Shortly after, Russell Vought, the bureau's acting director, sent an email to employees ordering them to "not perform any work tasks this week." The agency's Washington, DC, headquarters was also ordered closed.

The National Treasury Employees Union and other workers' unions quickly filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in Washington, DC, federal court, alleging that the move to "dismantle" the CFPB is unlawful since the agency was created by Congress.

US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is overseeing the case, said in a ruling on February 14 that the Trump administration could not terminate any CFPB employee without cause. She also ordered that the defendants not "delete, destroy, remove, or impair any data or other CFPB records covered by the Federal Records Act."

In a February 24 court filing, Justice Department attorneys argued against the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and said that the Trump administration plans to streamline the CFPB.

Jay Kesten, a law professor at Florida State University who researches securities regulation and corporate law, called the CFPB "one of the few governmental watchdogs for our financial markets."

"In the short-term, while litigation is pending, this is very likely to disrupt the ability of consumers to hold bad-actors in the banking and credit markets to account," Kesten told BI.

A lawsuit brought earlier this month against the Trump administration by the city of Baltimore, Maryland, higher education groups and a restaurant workers' organization challenged Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the federal government.

One executive order calls for federal agencies to terminate all "equity-related" grants or contracts, while another requires federal contractors and grant recipients to "certify" that they do not operate any illegal DEI programs.

The plaintiffs — which include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United —argued in their lawsuit that the orders are "unconstitutionally vague."

US District Judge Adam Abelson issued a preliminary injunction on February 21 temporarily blocking the Trump administration from enforcing parts of the orders.

In his written opinion, the judge added that the plaintiffs "have shown they are unable to know which of their DEI programs (if any) violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and are highly likely to chill their own speech."

The Trump administration has moved to appeal the ruling.

Peter Woo, a California lawyer specializing in corporate diversity practices at the firm Jackson Lewis, told BI that though the case does provide some temporary reprieve at least to federal contractors and private entities that receive federal grants, the court's ruling does not prevent the Department of Justice or other federal agencies from launching a probe over DEI initiatives.

"The only thing that it blocks the AG from doing is to use the term 'illegal DEI' as the basis to conduct those investigations," Woo said.

One of Trump's executive orders encourages the private sector to end "illegal DEI discrimination and preferences." As part of that plan, the order tasks each federal agency to "identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations" of enterprises including publicly traded corporations and large nonprofits.

Hampton Dellinger, the head of an independent government watchdog agency that protects federal whistleblowers, sued the Trump administration, including US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, after he was fired through a one-sentence email this month.

In his lawsuit filed in Washington, DC, federal court, Dellinger argued that his termination from the Office of Special Counsel was unlawful and the president may only cut his five-year term short "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a temporary restraining order on February 12, reinstating Dellinger to his post for 14 days. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Trump administration filed an emergency petition, and the court left Jackson's order in place for now.

Jackson, on February 26, extended the temporary restraining order reinstating Dellinger by three days before she rules on the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Also on February 26, Trump administration's acting solicitor general urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, arguing in part that a "fired Special Counsel" shouldn't be allowed to continue "wielding executive power."

Roderick Hills, a New York University School of Law professor, told BI that the case could be consequential for the business world. That's because, he said, it appears the Trump administration wants to use the case as a vehicle to try to get the nation's high court to overrule a 1935 legal precedent called Humphrey's Executor, which says Congress can insulate agency chiefs from presidential removal.

If that precedent — which is cited in Dellinger's lawsuit — gets overruled for all independent agencies, that means that even the Federal Reserve Board could be placed under presidential control, said Hills, who researches administrative and constitutional law.

"If the Federal Reserve Board served at the pleasure of the president, you can just imagine the chaos that Trump could reap," Hills said.

Following reports that DOGE was seeking broad access to sensitive taxpayer data at the Internal Revenue Service, a group of watchdog organizations and workers unions filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. In it, they allege that DOGE's efforts to gain access to the confidential information is illegal.

The data in question includes individuals' social security numbers, income and net worth, bank account information, tax liability, deductions and charitable donations as well as confidential business information like profit and loss statements and payroll lists, the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs — which include the advocacy groups Center for Taxpayer Rights and Main Street Alliance, along with workers' unions National Federation of Federal Employees and Communications Workers of America — argue that Congress has not granted DOGE the authority to view the data and that such sweeping access violates the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The White House and the Treasury Department later agreed to block DOGE's full access to the IRS's payment systems, instead granting read-only access to anonymous taxpayer data.

Kesten, the law professor at Florida State University, told BI that lawsuits involving alleged privacy violations like this one could fuel greater cybersecurity concerns within the business community.

"This may be a very novel kind of problem that they face where privacy information, data leaks, come not from hackers or other folks trying to obtain access, but coming from leaks through governmental sources," Kesten said.

In Trump's first few days in office, the Trump administration fired more than a dozen inspectors general, telling them in a two-sentence email they were being terminated because of "changing priorities."

After their termination, eight inspectors general from the departments of defense, veterans affairs, health and human services, state, education, agriculture, labor, and the Small Business Administration sued the Trump administration, arguing that their firings "violated unambiguous federal statutes" designed to protect them from "interference" in their nonpartisan oversight duties.

Inspectors general — who conduct audits, investigate reports of misconduct, and look for waste and fraud in federal agencies and government contractors — are expected to be independent of the president.

The plaintiffs also argue that the Trump administration violated the Inspector General Act of 1978 by not notifying Congress of their terminations 30 days in advance, and not giving a reason for their removal.

On February 14, US District Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the case, denied the inspectors' general request to be immediately reinstated in their roles, saying that their emergency request was not necessary. The judge, however, allowed for the case to proceed, just on a slower timeline.

Joseph Slater, a law professor at the University of Toledo and an expert in labor and employment law, told BI that while this case directly involves rules specific to the federal sector, it could have downstream effects on the business world.

"The question will be how much an agency without traditional checks and with a decidedly partisan slant can abuse its authority in terms of regulating/not regulating and rewarding/punishing private sector businesses for what previously would have been seen as improper reasons," Slater said in an email.

Trump and Musk's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers was allowed to move forward.

In late January, the Trump administration gave just over 2 million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until September 30. Employees originally had until February 6 to accept the buyout.

Federal workers' unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Association of Government Employees, then sued the Trump administration, arguing that the country "will suffer a dangerous one-two punch" if the federal employees "leave or are forced out en masse."

The lawsuit said that the "fork in the road" deferred resignation offer was "arbitrary," "capricious," and unlawful.

US District Judge George O'Toole Jr. of Massachusetts initially issued a temporary restraining order to extend the deadline on the offer, but ultimately ruled on February 12 that the program could proceed. The judge wrote in his order that the labor unions who sued did not have standing to bring the lawsuit because they were not "directly impacted by the directive."

In a statement to Business Insider after the judge issued his order, Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees called the ruling "a setback in the fight for dignity and fairness for public servants," but said, "it's not the end of that fight."

About 75,000 federal employees have accepted the buyout offer, the Trump administration has said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.