Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down 91-year-old precedent, grants president unlimited removal power over independent agencies — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Slaughter v. Trump that federal law restricting the president's ability to fire members of independent executive agencies (including the FTC) violates the constitutional separation of powers. The decision overruled Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., a 91-year-old precedent, and endorsed the "unitary executive" theory, granting the president sweeping authority over approximately two dozen multi-member agencies Congress intended to be independent.
• Supreme Court rules in Trump v. Slaughter to expand presidential removal power over independent agencies — On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president has broad authority to remove members of independent federal agencies, effectively overturning the 91-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent. The decision arose from Trump's March 2025 firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Fired officials and legal experts warn the ruling eliminates civil service protections, enabling politicization, corruption, and pay-to-play dynamics in federal agencies designed to operate independently.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump can fire independent agency leaders, overturning 90-year precedent — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president can fire leaders of independent agencies without cause, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent. The case centered on Trump's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter via email. The ruling affects approximately two dozen agencies with multi-member bipartisan boards, including the FTC, NLRB, and Federal Reserve. Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan dissented, arguing the decision grants the president unconstitutional power and defies centuries of political practice and congressional authority.
• Supreme Court rules president has unrestricted power to remove independent agency officials — The Supreme Court decided Slaughter v. Trump in a 6–3 decision, holding that the president has complete authority to remove officers from independent agencies established by Congress without cause. The case arose when Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner, claiming her service conflicted with his administration's priorities. The majority rejected 90 years of precedent requiring removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the ruling grants the president power exceeding even the English Crown and undermines centuries of bipartisan practice protecting nonpartisan expertise in agencies like the FTC, EPA, SEC, and others.
• Supreme Court Affirms Federal Reserve Independence — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of maintaining the independence of the Federal Reserve, rejecting challenges that could have subjected the institution to increased political influence. This decision preserves the Fed's ability to operate without direct political pressure, which is crucial for maintaining economic stability and policy effectiveness.
• Supreme Court Decision Weakens Independent Agencies — The Supreme Court delivered a ruling that significantly weakens the authority of certain independent federal agencies. This decision could lead to increased political influence over these agencies, potentially affecting their ability to function autonomously and effectively.
• Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power — The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump has the authority to fire the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner, effectively overturning a significant limitation on presidential power. This decision marks a shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, potentially increasing presidential control over such agencies. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal regulatory bodies and the separation of powers within the U.S. government.
• Supreme Court Overturns 90-Year-Old Independent Agency Protections — The Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old precedent protecting members of independent agencies from being fired by the president without cause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in dissent that the ruling "reshapes our government," noting that dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the president's hands.
• Supreme Court Overturns Protections for Independent Agencies — The Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old precedent that protected members of independent agencies from being fired without cause by the president. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that this decision could transform these agencies into executive-controlled entities, concentrating power in the presidency. This ruling is seen as a significant shift in the balance of power within the U.S. government.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. Slaughter (25-332) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. Slaughter. Docket number(s): 25-332.
• Trump claims unchecked power following Supreme Court ruling — Following the Supreme Court's decision in Slaughter v. Trump, President Trump stated that he now has the authority to remove heads of independent agencies at will, which he believes will allow him to control these agencies to serve his administration's interests. This claim raises concerns about the potential politicization of agencies that have historically operated independently of presidential influence.
• Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump in Slaughter v. Trump — On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of President Donald J. Trump in the case of Slaughter v. Trump, allowing him to fire members of independent agencies created by Congress. This decision overruled nearly 90 years of precedent that limited presidential power over such agencies, asserting that the president has complete control over executive branch officials. The dissenting justices warned that this ruling undermines the independence of agencies designed to operate free from political influence.
• US Supreme Court rules president can fire independent agency heads at will — On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Trump in a case brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was fired in March. The court overturned a 90-year-old precedent by holding that the president has the right to remove the head of any federal government agency at will. The decision, justified through the unitary executive theory, grants the president sole total control over the executive branch and opens the door to what critics call an "imperial presidency."

Supporting reports

• Sean Charles Dunn acquitted of assault for throwing sandwich at federal agent — Sean Charles Dunn, a former Department of Justice paralegal, was found not guilty of assault by a DC jury on November 6, 2025, after throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent during a protest on August 10, 2025, in Washington DC. Dunn's attorneys argued the sandwich throw was a harmless protest gesture, while prosecutors contended it was an assault. The acquittal represents another legal setback for federal law enforcement efforts during Trump's federal intervention in the capital.
• Jury acquits former DOJ paralegal of assault charge — On November 6, 2025, a jury acquitted Sean Dunn, a former DOJ paralegal, of a misdemeanor charge for allegedly throwing a salami submarine sandwich at a federal agent. The federal agent, wearing a bulletproof vest, had claimed the sandwich "exploded" against his chest, though the sandwich remained intact in its wrapper. The acquittal occurred after jury selection began on November 4.
• Sean Dunn acquitted of assault for throwing sandwich at Border Patrol agent — Sean Dunn, charged with assaulting Border Patrol agent Greg Lairmore by throwing a Subway sandwich, was found not guilty by jury. Lairmore testified the sandwich "exploded all over" his chest, but photographic evidence showed the sandwich remained in its wrapper on the ground after contact with Lairmore's bulletproof vest. The acquittal contradicted the agent's account of the incident's severity.

Supporting reports

• Judge Susan Illston grants temporary restraining order blocking Trump's mass layoffs during government shutdown — On Wednesday (October 15, 2025), Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court's Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's latest mass layoffs from the government shutdown. The order represents a significant legal victory for unions battling the administration's workforce reduction efforts.
• Federal court rules Trump's federal worker layoffs during shutdown illegal — A federal court in San Francisco ruled that Trump's layoffs of federal workers during the government shutdown were illegal. The ruling represented a judicial check on executive action during the shutdown.
• Federal judge temporarily blocked firing of federal employees during shutdown — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the government shutdown, saying the move appeared to be politically motivated and adding, "It's a human cost that cannot be tolerated."
• Federal judge issues temporary injunction blocking federal worker layoffs — A federal judge on October 16, 2025, issued a temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration's layoffs of more than 4,000 federal workers. The injunction halted the firings, though the administration signaled that additional cuts were planned and that the current layoffs represented only a partial reduction in the workforce.
• Judge Illston grants temporary injunction blocking Trump administration federal employee firings during shutdown — Federal Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's mass firings of federal employees during the government shutdown. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions (AFGE and AFSCME) alleging that the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management violated law by threatening and executing reductions in force during the shutdown. Judge Illston found evidence that OMB and OPM "took advantage of the lapse in government spending" and acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in excess of authority.
• Trump administration lays off 4,000 federal workers; federal judge issues temporary injunction — The Trump administration laid off more than 4,000 federal government workers during the shutdown. On October 16, 2025, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the firings. The Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, stated that the 4,000 layoffs were merely a "snapshot" and that the total number could exceed 10,000. The administration indicated further cuts were expected.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court grants stay on Education Department layoff order — The Supreme Court's right-wing majority granted a stay on a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from gutting the Department of Education while litigation proceeds. Federal Judge Myong Joun had ordered reinstatement of 1,378 fired workers after nineteen states and D.C. sued to stop the layoffs. The stay permits the layoffs to continue. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the majority enabled executive defiance of law and violated separation of powers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10677 — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to grant a stay of a preliminary injunction that had blocked the administration's plans to dismantle the Department of Education and fire thousands of department employees. The majority did not provide any reasoning. In dissent , Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned that the Court's order enables the executive branch to functionally “abolish” an entire department “by executive fiat.”
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. McMahon (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10601 — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of McMahon v. New York. This decision temporarily allows the Department of Education to proceed with a reduction in force that impacts nearly 50% of its workforce, approximately 1,378 employees. The stay was granted in a 6-3 decision, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The case was initially brought by twenty states and the District of Columbia, challenging the reduction in force as unlawful.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in McMahon v. New York — The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, allowing it to move forward with gutting the Department of Education by firing nearly half of the agency's workforce. The decision bypassed lower-court review and normal appellate procedures.
• Supreme Court grants emergency appeal allowing Department of Education workforce cuts

Supporting reports

• DC Appeals Court reinstates two federal agency heads fired by Trump — The Washington DC Court of Appeals ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris (Merit Systems Protection Board) and Gwynne Wilcox (National Labor Relations Board), both fired by the Trump administration without stated cause. The 7-4 ruling, split along party lines, relied on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency heads from at-will removal. The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional basis of the 90-year-old precedent.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge compared Alien Enemies Act treatment to Nazi practices — During a court hearing, a federal appeals judge told a Department of Justice lawyer that "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act" than those sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration. The comparison reflects judicial concern about the severity of the administration's deportation practices.
• Federal judge temporarily banned trans military ban enforcement — A federal judge temporarily banned the enforcement of Trump's executive order barring trans people from the US military. The temporary block prevents implementation of the ban pending further litigation.
• Federal appeals court ruled on refugee admissions suspension — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can halt the approval of new refugees in the US but it must admit those who were conditionally accepted before the president suspended the country's refugee admissions system. The ruling partially upheld the suspension while protecting previously approved refugees.
• Federal appeals court upholds block on Alien Enemies Act deportations to El Salvador — A split three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a March 15 order by District Judge James Boasberg temporarily prohibiting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Trump administration had deported hundreds of people under a presidential proclamation designating the Tren de Aragua gang as an invading force. Boasberg had blocked further deportations and ordered planeloads of Venezuelan immigrants returned to the US, which the government did not comply with.
• Ninth Circuit refuses to pause reinstatement order for 17,000 fired federal workers — The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause a judge's earlier ruling requiring the Trump administration to reinstate more than 17,000 probationary employees fired from six federal agencies (Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury). A district judge had ruled on March 13 that the Office of Personnel Management improperly ordered the firings despite lacking authority to do so. The Trump administration had appealed the reinstatement order.
• US District Judge Ana Reyes blocks Trump transgender military ban implementation — US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington DC rejected the Trump administration's attempt to lift a court order preventing a ban on transgender military service scheduled to take effect Friday. Reyes criticized the proposed implementation plan requiring all 1.3 million military personnel to self-report annually on gender dysphoria, characterizing it as "rummaging through private medical records." The judge maintained the existing court order blocking the ban.

Supporting reports

• Judge issues restraining order against DOGE — U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a temporary restraining order against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), prohibiting the Social Security Administration from sharing personally identifiable information with DOGE. The judge criticized DOGE for lacking justification for its access to SSA records, highlighting concerns about privacy and government overreach.
• DOGE conducted unauthorized searches of Social Security data after court restraining order — According to the Department of Justice court filing, DOGE team members conducted searches of personally identifiable information on March 24, 2025, even after the Social Security Administration believed it had revoked all such access in compliance with a federal court's temporary restraining order issued March 20, 2025. The final search occurred at approximately 9:30 a.m., with full access terminated by noon that day. DOGE members had also been granted access to systems beyond what the agency previously reported to the court, including employee records and personnel access information.
• Federal judge blocked DOGE access to federal agency data — A federal judge temporarily blocked Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the private data of individuals at several federal agencies. The block prevents DOGE from obtaining sensitive personal information held by the government.
• DOGE staffer signed agreement to share Social Security data with election denial group — In March 2025, a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer embedded at the Social Security Administration signed a "Voter Data Agreement" with a political advocacy group seeking to overturn election results in certain states. According to a court filing by government lawyers, the DOGE employee sent the executed agreement on March 24, 2025. Emails suggest DOGE team members could have been asked to assist the group by accessing SSA data to match voter rolls. The SSA referred the involved employees to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for possible Hatch Act violations.
• Federal judge blocks DOGE access to federal employee personal databases — On February 3, Popular Information reported that DOGE staff at the Office of Personnel Management received unprecedented access to databases containing sensitive personal information for millions of federal employees. A week later, a coalition of labor unions representing federal workers sued OPM citing Popular Information's report seven times. On March 24, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking DOGE's access to the databases.

Supporting reports

• Judge rules USAid shutdown likely violated US Constitution — A federal judge, Theodore Chuang, ruled that Elon Musk and the "department of government efficiency" (Doge) likely violated the US Constitution by shutting down USAid. The judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse actions taken to dismantle the agency, including halting efforts to terminate USAid officials and contractors, and reinstating former employees' access to government systems. The ruling also requires allowing USAid to return to its headquarters if the underlying case is successful. The administration is expected to appeal the decision.
• Federal judge blocked DOGE cuts to USAID — A federal judge ruled the dismantling of USAID likely violates the Constitution and blocked DOGE from making any further cuts to the agency, protecting the congressionally-created development organization.
• Judge Chuang rules against destruction of USAID — U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a 68-page decision finding that the actions of Elon Musk and the "Department of Government Efficiency" to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violated the Constitution. Chuang ordered parts of USAID to be restored, emphasizing the agency's importance to public interest and congressional authority.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders reinstatement of fired probationary staff — A federal judge in California, William H. Alsup, issued a preliminary injunction to reinstate thousands of probationary federal employees who were fired from six federal agencies. The ruling is part of a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees. The judge criticized the Trump administration's justification for the firings, stating that claims of poor performance were false. The order affects employees from the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. The judge also restricted the Office of Personnel Management from advising agencies on terminations.
• Judge orders Musk to comply with lawsuit — U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over their records and answer questions in response to a lawsuit filed by 14 attorneys general from Democratic-dominated states. They are required to comply within three weeks.
• Judge orders rehiring of federal employees — Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to immediately rehire tens of thousands of federal employees from various departments who were terminated due to Elon Musk's DOGE cuts. The judge criticized the administration for allegedly firing employees under false pretenses of performance issues, calling it a lie and expressing frustration over the lack of transparency in the process.
• Federal judge reinstates fired probationary workers — On March 13, 2025, a federal judge in California granted a preliminary injunction to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers at federal agencies. This decision was part of a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees. The ruling applies to employees from several departments, including Defense and Veterans Affairs, who were dismissed under claims of poor performance. The judge criticized these claims as false and prohibited the Office of Personnel Management from advising on terminations.
• Federal judges rule against Musk's firings — Two federal judges issued rulings against Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) regarding the firing of probationary employees. Judge William H. Alsup in California ruled that fired employees must be offered their jobs back, criticizing the process as a "sham." In Maryland, Judge James Bredar issued a temporary restraining order blocking further firings at 18 federal agencies. These rulings challenge Musk's cost-cutting measures, which have faced public disapproval and legal scrutiny.
• Judge orders reinstatement of federal workers — U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that federal agencies must immediately offer jobs back to thousands of probationary workers who were purged from the government early in President Trump's administration. The judge stated that the mass firings did not follow legal protocols. Additionally, Judge James Bredar ordered the reinstatement of these workers across multiple federal departments, indicating that the government likely engaged in an illegal scheme regarding the firings.
• Judge rules against mass firings — U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the mass firings of probationary workers from various federal departments did not comply with legal requirements. The judge expressed skepticism about the government's claims regarding the firings and criticized the lack of transparency in the process.

Supporting reports

• Judge blocks Musk agency access to personal data — U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a temporary restraining order preventing Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) from accessing sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The ruling stops the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management from sharing federal employees' and student borrowers' data with Doge, citing potential violations of federal privacy laws. This decision follows a lawsuit by federal employee unions, student loan recipients, and veterans, and represents a significant judicial check on Doge's activities since its establishment by a January executive order.
• Federal court issues injunction against DOGE — On February 24, 2025, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), preventing it from disclosing personally identifiable information of federal employees to the DOGE team. This decision followed a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, which cited a report by Popular Information and Musk Watch. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that OPM's actions violated the Privacy Act. The TRO is set to expire on March 10, 2025, pending further court determination.
• Judge blocks data sharing with Musk's department — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Department of Education and Office of Personnel Management from sharing sensitive data with Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. This decision addresses concerns about data privacy and security.
• Federal judge blocks Doge from accessing personal data — A federal judge temporarily blocked Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) from accessing sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. This decision challenges the Trump administration's efforts to downsize the federal government by limiting Doge's access to data maintained by the US education department and the US office of personnel management.

Supporting reports

• Judge blocks Trump from placing USAID employees on leave — U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols blocked the Trump administration from placing over 2,000 employees of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on paid leave, countering claims of corruption made by Trump and his allies. The judge's ruling prevents the administration from executing its plan without evidence.
• Judge blocks Trump and Musk's attempt to put USAid workers on leave — A judge temporarily blocked an effort by Donald Trump and Elon Musk to put thousands of workers from the US Agency for International Development (USAid) on leave. This action was part of Musk's "department of government efficiency" initiative, which has been attempting to dismantle various federal agencies, including shutting down DEI programs and eliminating entire agencies. The judge's decision halts the administration's move, pending further legal review.