Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Todd Blanche confirmation hearing for attorney general — Todd Blanche, Trump's personal attorney and acting attorney general since April 2026, faced Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on July 15–16. He downplayed his relationship with Trump, defended his handling of Epstein files (which contained redaction errors exposing survivor identities), and addressed a $1.8 billion "slush fund" settlement with the IRS that granted Trump and family immunity from tax audits. A federal judge had excoriated the settlement as collusive. Blanche also faced questions on January 6 clemencies, the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to minimum security, and the arrest of Newark's mayor at an ICE facility.
• Ex-DOJ lawyer testifies that Todd Blanche fired her for refusing to restore gun rights to Trump ally — Liz Oyer, former pardon attorney, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Todd Blanche, Trump's nominee for attorney general, terminated her employment after she refused to recommend restoring firearms rights to actor Mel Gibson, a Trump ally with a domestic violence conviction. Blanche denied the firing was retaliatory, claiming her decisions were inconsistent with Trump's authority. Oyer called his statement "provably false" and urged senators to reject his nomination, alleging he is weaponizing DOJ as Trump's personal law firm.

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

• Federal grand jury indicts Southern Poverty Law Center for wire fraud, false statements, and money laundering conspiracy — A federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The indictment alleges that between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals associated with violent extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America, while publicly claiming to oppose those groups. The DOJ alleges the organization used fictitious bank accounts to conceal the scheme and made false statements to financial institutions.
• Acting Attorney General Blanche announces 11-count indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center — Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche held a press conference announcing an 11-count federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, charging the civil rights organization with wire fraud, making false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to launder money. The charges relate to a now-defunct program in which the SPLC paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups and shared information with law enforcement. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing. The indictment was widely viewed as an effort by Blanche to demonstrate to Trump his willingness to use the DOJ against political rivals.
• DOJ pressured prosecutors to indict Southern Poverty Law Center despite case-strength concerns, whistleblower alleges — A Department of Justice lawyer, Aakash Singh, reportedly pressured federal prosecutors in Alabama to rush an 11-count indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center despite serious concerns about the case's strength, according to a whistleblower account shared with House Democrats. Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the indictment on April 21, accusing the civil rights organization of wire fraud and money laundering related to an informant program. Democrats Jamie Raskin and Mary Gay Scanlon opened an investigation into the matter, citing Singh's directive to prosecutors to expedite charges. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing.
• Justice Department indicts Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges — Trump's Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges, alleging the civil rights organization defrauded donors by secretly paying informants more than $3 million to infiltrate white supremacist and extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan. The tactic of using paid informants has been used by the FBI and other federal agencies for decades. Critics characterized the indictment as "nakedly political."
• DOJ indicts Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges — The Department of Justice, through Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, announced an 11-count federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) by an Alabama grand jury. The charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, alleging the SPLC funneled over $3 million to confidential informants within extremist groups between 2014 and 2023 using fictitious entities, and misrepresented to donors and banks how funds were being used. The SPLC's CEO Bryan Fair disputed the allegations and stated the informant program "saved lives."
• Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges by Trump administration DOJ — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted on federal fraud charges by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, alleging the organization improperly paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups without disclosing payments to donors. The indictment claims at least $3 million went to informants affiliated with the KKK, Aryan Nations, and other groups between 2014 and 2023. SPLC CEO Bryan Fair stated the payments were necessary to monitor violence threats and that information was shared with the FBI and law enforcement. Charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
• DOJ indicted Southern Poverty Law Center for fraud — The Department of Justice indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleging that SPLC used donor money to pay informants to infiltrate right-wing hate groups, but claiming the purpose was to create false flags to instigate violence and racist demonstrations. The indictment has refueled conspiracy theories that the January 6 insurrection was instigated by infiltrators paid by left-wing groups. Rep. Dan Goldman criticized the indictment as legally baseless, comparing it to prosecuting the FBI for funding drug trafficking through informants.

Supporting reports

• CREW files FOIA complaint against DHS over surveillance of immigration-enforcement protesters — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Freedom of Information Act complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Homeland Security, seeking records of DHS tracking and surveillance of protesters opposing expanded immigration enforcement. CREW's February 2026 FOIA requests sought memoranda, policies, and database records related to DHS collection of images, license plates, and personal data on protesters during operations including "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota and "Operation Catch of the Day" in Maine. CREW alleges DHS failed to timely process requests, grant expedited processing, or produce responsive records, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctions compelling disclosure, and attorney fees.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks RFK Jr's vaccine committee appointments and immunization schedule changes — Federal Judge Brian E Murphy ruled that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's firing of all 17 ACIP members and replacement with hand-picked advisers likely violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The judge stayed 13 of the new appointments, invalidating their votes and blocking unprecedented January changes to the US immunization schedule, including bans on thimerosal in flu vaccines and the MMR-chickenpox combination vaccine. The ACIP meeting scheduled for later that week was postponed.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge voided actions taken by Kari Lake at Voice of America — U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled on Saturday that Kari Lake, a Trump-appointed official, lacked lawful authority to serve as acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees Voice of America. Lake had exercised approximately 95 percent of the CEO's duties despite not being employed by USAGM when the former CEO resigned in January 2025 and lacking Senate confirmation. The court voided her actions, including layoffs of over 1,000 journalists and staffers, funding cuts, and restructuring that reduced VOA broadcasting from 49 languages to four. The ruling reaffirms that administrations must follow legal procedures when installing control over public institutions.
• Appeals court voids Kari Lake's tenure as head of US Agency for Global Media for lack of Senate confirmation — Senior judge Royce C Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia voided the tenure of Kari Lake, a Republican former gubernatorial candidate, who unlawfully led the US Agency for Global Media for several months in 2025 without Senate confirmation. The court voided mass layoffs and other actions Lake took to dismantle the agency overseeing Voice of America and related international news broadcasters, finding her appointment violated constitutional requirements.
• Federal judge voids Kari Lake's unlawful tenure at USAGM, invalidating mass layoffs — US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Kari Lake unlawfully served as head of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the parent agency of Voice of America, after Trump appointed her without Senate confirmation on 31 July 2025. During her tenure through 19 November 2025, Lake cut over 1,000 staff positions and terminated contracts. The judge voided all actions taken during her unlawful service, citing violations of the Appointments Clause and the Vacancies Act. The ruling relied on precedent from the Third Circuit's invalidation of Alina Habba's appointment to lead the US attorney's office in New Jersey.
• Federal judge ruled Kari Lake acted unlawfully in running Voice of America — U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Kari Lake, head of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, acted unlawfully in running the Voice of America and its parent agency. The judge declared all of Lake's actions over the past year null and void, including the layoffs of more than 1,000 journalists and staffers. Lake announced she would appeal the ruling.
• Federal judge voided Kari Lake's authority over Voice of America — A federal judge ruled that Kari Lake had been unlawfully running Voice of America without proper legal authority and voided her actions. Lake had previously laid off more than 1,000 journalists and reduced Voice of America's language broadcasts from 49 to four. The ruling invalidated these personnel and operational decisions made without lawful authorization to hold the position.

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

• Trump appoints Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney to prosecute Comey — Trump appointed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney to pursue charges against former FBI director James Comey. Halligan's prior role in the administration involved efforts to eliminate slavery from Smithsonian exhibits, which Cobb characterized as an attempt to "whitewash" American history and "paint America as something that it isn't."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court ruled Trump can proceed with federal workforce reduction — The Supreme Court ruled that Trump can proceed with his plan to reduce the federal workforce through mass layoffs. In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson panned the ruling, writing, "This was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground."
• US Supreme Court lifts stay on Trump federal workforce reductions — The US Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on Tuesday lifting a lower court freeze on Trump administration "reductions in force" (mass federal layoffs). The decision reversed San Francisco District Judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling that had blocked agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and ordered reinstatement of fired workers. The Court found Trump's executive order and implementing memorandum "likely to succeed" on lawfulness grounds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision would result in hundreds of thousands of job losses across agriculture, commerce, health, state, treasury, veterans affairs, and other agencies.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03698 — In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction which had blocked the administration from implementing widespread Reduction in Forces (RIFs) and agency reorganizations across 22 agencies. The majority noted that the Executive Order 14210 and related memorandum are likely to be lawful, and found the district court had based its injunction on those directives rather than individual agency plans. They declined to opine as to whether any specific RIFs or reorganization plans may be lawful. Justice Sotomayor concurred to emphasize that the lower court may still review individual agency plans on a case-by-case basis. Justice Jackson dissented.
• Supreme Court stays preliminary injunction in case challenging Trump's executive order — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had been issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction had temporarily blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative, which aimed to enact a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The Supreme Court's decision allows the federal government to proceed with the order while the legal challenge continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the 8-1 decision.
• Supreme Court stays preliminary injunction on Trump's workforce optimization order — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had been issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction had temporarily blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative, which aimed to enforce a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The Supreme Court's decision allows the federal government to proceed with the order while the legal challenge continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the 8-1 decision.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al. This decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with implementing an executive order that enacts a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The order had been previously blocked by a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Supreme Court's decision was made in an 8-1 vote, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

Supporting reports

• DOJ leader allegedly suggested defying court orders on deportations — Emil Bove, the Department of Justice's principal associate deputy attorney general and Trump nominee for the US Court of Appeals, reportedly told staff the department "would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'" regarding orders blocking deportations of undocumented people. Former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, in a whistleblower letter to Congress, alleged Bove made these comments in mid-March during discussions about invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Reuveni further claimed he witnessed DOJ officials systematically undermining court orders through lack of candor, deliberate delay, and disinformation, and that he was fired on April 11 after refusing to misrepresent facts in court filings.
• DOJ official Emil Bove stated DOJ would ignore court orders on deportations — DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni, who was subsequently fired, came forward as a whistleblower to Congress and the DOJ inspector general. Reuveni stated that senior DOJ official Emil Bove announced plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act for swift deportations and, when asked about potential judicial intervention, said the DOJ might have to tell courts "fuck you" and proceed with deportations regardless of legal injunctions. Reuveni reported that the statement was met with stunned silence among senior DOJ officials present.
• New York Times reported DOJ official Emil Bove told subordinates to ignore court orders — On June 24, the New York Times reported on a whistleblower complaint alleging that senior Justice Department official Emil Bove told his subordinates he would ignore court orders to further Trump's mass deportation efforts. Bove, who once served as Trump's criminal defense attorney and was recently nominated to serve as a federal appeals judge, later denied the comments during his confirmation hearing, saying "I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order."
• DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni filed complaint about defying court orders — On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice lawyer, filed an official whistleblower complaint alleging that DOJ leaders and the White House deliberately defied court orders and "engaged in unlawful activity, abused their authority, created substantial and specific threat to health and safety." Reuveni was fired after telling a court that the administration had made an error when it rendered Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia to CECOT despite a court order not to do so. In the complaint, Reuveni alleged that Emil Bove insisted planes carrying men to El Salvador must take off and said DOJ "would need to consider telling the courts 'f*ck you' and ignore any such court order."
• Bove fired DOJ prosecutors who investigated January 6 Capitol attack — Emil Bove issued a memo terminating dozens of DOJ prosecutors who had worked on cases related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, characterizing their prosecutions as a "grave national injustice." Bove justified the firings by claiming the prosecutors had been hired as temporary employees under the Biden administration and converted to permanent status, and that they were preventing a particular U.S. attorney from fully staffing his office. The terminations were carried out in furtherance of a Trump executive order.
• Whistleblower complaint filed alleging DOJ official directed defiance of court orders — Former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that Emil Bove, principal associate deputy attorney general, instructed prosecutors to disregard judicial rulings against Trump's immigration policies. The complaint surfaced hours before Bove's Senate confirmation hearing for a federal appeals court judgeship. Bove denied the allegations under oath, stating he has "never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order."
• Emil Bove denies whistleblower allegations of directing DOJ staff to defy court orders on immigration — Emil Bove, principal associate deputy attorney general and Trump's nominee for federal appeals court judge, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25, 2025, denying a whistleblower complaint filed by former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni. Reuveni alleged Bove instructed prosecutors to tell courts "fuck you" when ruling against Trump's immigration policies. Bove also denied Democratic allegations that he dropped corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams to secure his cooperation with immigration enforcement. Republicans signaled support for his nomination while Democrats characterized him as weaponizing the DOJ against Trump's political opponents.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration orders mass layoffs at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — The Trump administration, through staff from Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency," issued reduction-in-force letters terminating approximately 1,500 of the CFPB's 1,700 employees on April 17. The layoffs eliminated entire divisions including the office of servicemember affairs, office of older Americans, and office of fair lending. According to an employee declaration, the effort was managed by Gavin Kliger and staff were kept working 36 hours straight to ensure notices went out. Employees raised concerns about violations of court orders requiring "particularized assessment," but were told "all that mattered was the numbers."
• Federal judge bars Trump administration from rapid deportation policy — Federal Judge Brian Murphy on Friday barred the Trump administration from implementing a new policy that would allow it to rapidly deport hundreds or thousands of immigrants to countries other than their own without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate they face persecution, torture, or death. The ruling blocks a policy that would circumvent due process protections for asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants.
• Federal judge blocks mass layoffs at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration's termination of approximately 1,500 of the CFPB's 1,700 employees, announced on Thursday via reduction-in-force letters. The layoffs, orchestrated by staff from Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency," eliminated entire divisions including servicemember affairs, older Americans, and fair lending offices. The judge's order came after a federal appeals court had modified (but not eliminated) an earlier injunction limiting the agency's ability to terminate staff. The administration's compliance with the ruling remains unclear.

Supporting reports

• Trump issues executive order directing Smithsonian reshaping and ideological content removal — President Trump issued an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing Vice President JD Vance to remove what the administration deems "improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution's museums, education centers, research facilities, and the National Zoo. The order specifically targets exhibits addressing race and American history, directs the American Women's History Museum to exclude transgender recognition, mandates appointment of new board members aligned with the order's policy, and instructs the Secretary of the Interior to restore Confederate-era statues and memorials removed in the past five years. The order frames these actions as correcting a "concerted and widespread" effort to rewrite U.S. history.
• Trump issued executive order "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" directing federal historic sites to align with administration ideology — On March 27, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," asserting that the nation's history had been rewritten by ideology rather than fact. The order directed the Secretary of the Interior to review federal monuments, memorials, and statues removed or altered since January 1, 2020, and restore them to ensure they do not "inappropriately disparage Americans" and instead focus on "the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people." The order also targeted the Smithsonian Institution, directing a three-person review team to examine museum exhibitions and ensure they align with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism and remove divisive narratives.
• Trump executive order targets DEI programs at federal cultural institutions — An executive order issued on March 27, 2025, directs federal action against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, with specific targeting of the African American History Museum and the Kennedy Center. The order aims to eliminate or redirect DEI-related funding and operations at these institutions.
• Trump signed executive order directing removal of exhibits and narratives from federal historical sites and museums — President Trump signed Executive Order 14253 on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to remove what the order characterizes as "ideological" content from the Smithsonian Institution, Independence National Historical Park, and other Interior Department historical sites. The order instructs the Vice President to work through his Smithsonian Board seat to "remove improper ideology" from exhibits and programs; directs the Secretary of the Interior to reinstate pre-2020 monuments and ensure descriptions do not "inappropriately disparage Americans"; and mandates that future congressional appropriations to the Smithsonian prohibit exhibits that "divide Americans based on race" or conflict with federal policy. The order names specific current exhibits as examples of objectionable content.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14253 directing removal of exhibits and narratives from federal museums and historical sites deemed ideologically divisive, with authority delegated to the Vice President over the Smithsonian Institution. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14253 on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to remove exhibits, programs, and historical narratives from museums and monuments that the order characterizes as "divisive" or promoting "ideology" rather than "objective facts." The order specifically targets the Smithsonian Institution, directing the Vice President to work through his role on the Smithsonian Board of Regents to remove what the order calls "improper ideology." It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to audit and reinstate pre-2020 monuments and ensure all federal historical sites focus on "greatness" and "achievements" rather than narratives the order deems disparaging. Future appropriations are to be conditioned on prohibiting exhibits that "divide Americans based on race" or are "inconsistent with Federal law and policy."
• Trump issues executive order directing federal agencies to remove "ideological" content from Smithsonian Institution and federal historical sites — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing the Vice President, OMB Director, and Secretary of the Interior to remove what the order characterizes as "divisive, race-centered ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution, Independence National Historical Park, and other federal historical sites. The order mandates restoration of pre-2020 monuments and memorials, prohibits future federal funding for exhibits deemed to "degrade shared American values" or "divide Americans based on race," and requires the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to exclude recognition of transgender athletes. The order frames this as restoring "truth" and "sanity" to American history.
• White House issued fact sheet promoting executive order on Smithsonian and federal historical sites — The White House published a fact sheet on March 27, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump directing the Vice President to eliminate what the order characterizes as "improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution and its museums. The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to restore federal parks, monuments, and memorials altered in the prior five years, and instructs Congress to condition future Smithsonian appropriations on prohibiting exhibits that "degrade shared American values" or "divide Americans by race." The fact sheet asserts that prior administrations promoted "divisive ideology" and cites specific Smithsonian exhibits as examples.
• Trump administration issues executive order targeting Smithsonian Institution exhibits on race and American history — On Thursday, March 28, 2025, the Trump administration announced an executive order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" that orders a large reshaping of the Smithsonian Institution to eliminate what Trump described as "improper, divisive or anti-American ideology." The order specifically criticized the Smithsonian American Art Museum's exhibit "The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture" and the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Vice President JD Vance was ordered to "remove improper ideology" from Smithsonian museums and educational centers. Artists, academics, and civil rights figures have condemned the order as an attempt to censor and erase Black history and diverse perspectives from public institutions.
• Trump signs executive order on American history curriculum — Trump signed an executive order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" directing Vice President J.D. Vance, in his capacity as a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, to work to eliminate "improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution, its museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo. The order represents an attempt to reshape how Americans understand and learn their history.
• Trump signs executive order suspending security clearances for law firms representing Democratic clients — Trump signed executive orders suspending security clearances for law firms that represent Democratic clients and barring the federal government from hiring employees from those firms. The orders target legal representation based on client political affiliation, creating a mechanism to exclude attorneys from federal employment based on their professional representation.
• Trump administration challenges judges and undermines judicial credibility — The Trump administration has challenged judges who have ruled against Trump and worked to destroy public faith in the courts. The effort represents a systematic campaign to delegitimize judicial authority when it conflicts with administration preferences.

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

• 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

• Federal judges block DOGE from accessing Treasury data — At least two federal judges have blocked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive data from the Department of the Treasury. This action follows a lawsuit filed by Public Citizen on behalf of federal unions and a nonprofit organization, which argued that DOGE's access to such information would violate privacy rights. The Department of Justice agreed to restrict DOGE's access to Treasury data, except for two special employees who were granted limited access. One of these employees resigned after past racist social media posts were discovered.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — New York et al v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01144 — Judge Vargas granted a limited preliminary injunction, enjoining the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE-affiliated individuals to any payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees. The court noted that “a real possibility exists that sensitive information has already been shared outside of the Treasury Department, in potential violation of federal law.” The court ordered the Treasury Department to submit a report by March 24 including several forms of information and certifications including “the vetting and security clearances processes that members of the Treasury DOGE Team have undergone;” ”setting forth the legal authority pursuant to which each DOGE Team member was employed by or detailed to the Treasury Department;” and “explaining the reporting chains that govern the relationship between the DOGE Team members, USDS/DOGE, and Treasury leadership.”

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice announces removal of constitutional protections for administrative law judges — The Department of Justice, through Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle, announced on February 20, 2025, that it has determined multiple layers of removal restrictions protecting administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional. The department stated it is removing these protections to restore "constitutional accountability" and ensure Executive Branch officials answer to the President. The announcement invokes Supreme Court precedent but does not specify which case or provide legal analysis.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks federal employee buyout plan — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration and DOGE/Musk from implementing a federal employee buyout plan. Judge George O'Toole Jr. set a hearing to consider further blocking the offer, which unions argue is unlawful and harmful to federal operations. The plan's legality and impact on civil service stability are under scrutiny.
• Trump administration restricts DOGE access to Treasury systems — Following a lawsuit by government employee unions, the Trump administration filed a proposed order to temporarily restrict DOGE officials' access to sensitive Treasury payment systems. The order allows two DOGE employees to read data without further access. This move likely preempted a judicial restraining order, and its acceptance by the judge or plaintiffs remains uncertain.
• Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s buyout deadline for federal employees — A federal judge, George O’Toole, temporarily blocked the Trump administration's deadline for federal employees to decide on a buyout offer. The deadline, initially set for February 6, 2025, was extended to allow time for legal briefs before a hearing. The buyout offer involved severance pay and benefits for those leaving their jobs, with new reforms for those staying. The judge's decision provides time for further legal examination without indicating the final ruling outcome.
• Case update — American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10276 — Judge George O'Toole issued an order to pause the program and extend the deadline until Monday when a hearing is scheduled.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration halts federal grants and loans — On January 27, the Trump administration ordered a pause on all federal government grants and loans, requiring that they ban diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This directive affects a wide range of federal programs and funding.
• Trump freezes federal grants, loans, and payments — President Trump ordered an immediate freeze on federal grants, loans, and payments to millions of Americans, citing a need to review their appropriateness and potential ties to DEI initiatives. This action, which affects funds previously allocated by Congress, has been criticized as illegal under the 1974 Impound Control Act. The freeze has caused widespread confusion and concern, with reports of Medicaid portals being down nationwide and various federal programs in disarray.
• Trump administration freezes federal funding for DEI and environmental programs — The Trump administration announced a freeze on federal grants targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and environmental initiatives, described as "illegal DEI programs" and "green new scam" initiatives. This funding pause, set to activate on the evening of January 28, 2025, could impact trillions of dollars in grants and loans, affecting programs such as school meals for low-income students and wildfire preparedness. The Office of Management and Budget has requested details from federal agencies about over 2,600 programs that could be affected.
• White House rescinds spending freeze on federal loans and grants — The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescinded a policy that temporarily paused federal loans and grants, reversing a decision made earlier in the week. This policy had initially halted funding for various programs, including Medicaid. The rescission followed a federal judge's restraining order against the funding freeze, which was issued due to conflicting messages from the White House. Despite the rescission, the White House press secretary stated that the executive orders on federal funding remain in effect.
• Trump administration memo orders freeze on federal financial assistance — The Trump administration issued a memo directing federal agencies to freeze the disbursement of all federal financial assistance, effective January 30, 2025. The memo, authored by acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth, requires agencies to submit detailed information about their financial assistance programs by February 10, 2025. The freeze will remain until the Office of Management and Budget reviews and approves each program. The memo excludes direct assistance to individuals, such as Social Security and Medicare. The stated purpose is to prevent federal resources from advancing certain policies deemed wasteful by the administration.
• Trump administration rescinds federal funding freeze memo — The Trump administration rescinded a memo that froze federal funding after it caused widespread chaos and legal challenges. The initial freeze had paused federal grants and loans, affecting public programs and government spending.
• Case update — National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00239 — The Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated , “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
• Case update — State of New York v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00039 — The Government submitted a notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated , “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
• Trump administration sued over funding freeze — The Trump administration faced a lawsuit from multiple states over a funding freeze memo. Despite rescinding the memo, the administration argued in court for the lawsuit's dismissal. However, a judge ordered the release of funds, citing conflicting statements from the administration's press secretary, which suggested the freeze was still in effect.
• Reports of Medicaid portal outages following funding freeze — Following the Trump administration's memo to freeze federal financial assistance, reports emerged of Medicaid portal outages across all 50 states. Senator Ron Wyden confirmed the outages, describing them as a "blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans." The White House attributed the outages to technical issues, but the Medicaid website cited delays due to executive orders on grant payments. Medicaid provides health insurance to nearly a fifth of all Americans.
• Trump administration freezes federal funding — The Trump administration announced a freeze on all federal funding and grants, claiming it would ensure the removal of "Marxist" diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This decision affects various programs, including Meals on Wheels and Medicaid, which are essential for many Americans. The Office of Management and Budget later issued a memo to rescind the freeze, but the press secretary contradicted this, indicating the cuts were still in effect. The situation has led to significant public outcry and legal scrutiny.
• Trump issues executive order freezing government grants — Former President Trump issued an executive order freezing government grants, which was described as illegal and a direct assault on congressional authority. The order was rescinded after two days due to public outrage and pressure from lawmakers. The freeze caused significant disruption and uncertainty for millions of Americans dependent on government benefits and payments. The swift public and political response highlighted the power of civic engagement in countering executive overreach.
• Trump’s administration freezes federal grants — The Office of Management and Budget under Trump sent out a memo freezing all federal grants and loans without prior approval from the White House, leading to concerns about a constitutional crisis.
• Court issues injunction against Trump Administration — U.S. District Court Judge Jack McConnell issued an injunction against the Trump Administration, preventing it from impounding federal funds intended for states. The court found that the Executive's pause in disbursement of federal funding would cause irreparable harm to states' ability to provide vital services. The injunction ensures that federal financial assistance to states remains uninterrupted.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00039 — Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow the states to file their motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge McConnell's order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.” The judge also wrote, "the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims."

Supporting reports

• Trump DOJ fires prosecutors involved in investigations against him — The Department of Justice, under Acting Attorney General McHenry, terminated several career prosecutors who were involved in investigations of former President Trump. This action is framed as part of an effort to end the "weaponization of government" and aligns with Trump's agenda. The firings raise concerns about the independence of the DOJ and its role in upholding the rule of law.
• Trump administration fires DOJ lawyers in criminal cases — The Trump administration fired more than a dozen DOJ lawyers involved in two criminal cases against the president. This action raises concerns about the independence of the Justice Department and potential interference in legal proceedings.
• Trump justice department fires officials linked to Jack Smith — On January 27, 2025, Acting Attorney General James McHenry fired over a dozen federal prosecutors who had worked on criminal cases against Donald Trump. These prosecutors were part of Special Counsel Jack Smith's team, which had charged Trump in two cases related to mishandling classified documents and attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. The firings were justified by McHenry as necessary because the prosecutors could not be trusted to implement the president's agenda. This move is part of broader personnel changes within the Justice Department under the Trump administration.
• Trump fires federal prosecutors involved in his prosecutions — On January 27, Trump’s acting attorney general fired more than a dozen federal prosecutors who were involved in the criminal prosecutions against Trump. The official stated that the acting attorney general “does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda.”
• White House directed firing of special counsel prosecutors — The Justice Department, following instructions from the White House, fired more than a dozen federal prosecutors involved in criminal prosecutions against Donald Trump. The firings were directed by the acting Attorney General, James McHenry, and were linked to a memo from the White House personnel office. This action has raised concerns about the independence of the Justice Department and its potential use as an extension of the White House. The prosecutors were dismissed due to their roles in prosecuting Trump, which was seen as incompatible with the president's agenda.