Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Representative Robin Kelly announces impeachment articles against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem — Democratic Congresswoman Robin Kelly announced she will file articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, charging her with obstruction of justice, violation of public trust, and self-dealing. The announcement follows Noem's defense of the fatal shooting of US citizen Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent and her announcement that hundreds more federal agents would be deployed to Minneapolis. Kelly's action represents formal congressional impeachment proceedings against a cabinet officer.
• Rep. Kelly introduced three articles of impeachment against Kristi Noem — Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) introduced three articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, which were backed by nearly 70 other House Democrats. The first article accuses Noem of obstruction of Congress by implementing policies limiting lawmakers from conducting oversight visits at ICE detention facilities. The second accuses her of violating public trust by directing DHS agents to arrest people without warrants, use tear gas against citizens, and ignore due process. The third accuses her of self-dealing by steering a federal contract to a firm run by her friend.
• Democratic lawmakers file articles of impeachment against Kristi Noem — Representative Robin Kelly and 70 House Democrats formally introduced three articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on January 15, 2026, citing obstruction of Congress, violation of public trust, and self-dealing. The action follows the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis. Kelly alleges Noem withheld appropriated funds, blocked congressional access to DHS facilities, authorized warrantless arrests and violence against citizens, and misused taxpayer dollars for ICE recruitment advertising and contracts. The Republican-controlled House is unlikely to advance the charges.

Supporting reports

• Bill and Hillary Clinton refuse House subpoena in Epstein investigation — Bill and Hillary Clinton announced they would not comply with subpoenas issued by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee demanding testimony about their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. Their attorneys argued the subpoenas were invalid, lacked legislative purpose, and violated separation of powers. Committee Chair James Comer stated he would move to hold Bill Clinton in contempt for failing to appear. The Clintons criticized the investigation as politically motivated and noted the committee had interviewed only two officials while declining to question seven others who had been subpoenaed.
• Rep. Comer said he would hold Clintons in contempt — Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said he would take steps to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt after the couple refused to testify as part of the House's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. In a letter, the Clintons wrote that they had decided to "fight for this country, its principles, and its people, no matter the consequences."
• House Oversight Committee moves to hold Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress — House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer announced the panel will move to hold Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress after she refused to comply with a subpoena to testify about Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons jointly declined to appear for depositions, citing separation-of-powers concerns. Comer stated the committee will consider a contempt resolution the following Wednesday; the measure requires approval by the full House before referral to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution.
• Representative Comer threatens contempt of Congress against Bill Clinton — Representative James Comer (R-KY) threatened to hold former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for a closed-door deposition regarding Epstein. The Clintons responded with a four-page public letter calling the subpoenas invalid and noting that Comer had subpoenaed eight people, then dismissed seven without testimony, while taking no action to force the DOJ to release Epstein files as required by law.

Supporting reports

• Senator Mark Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for military censure in retaliation for protected speech — Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Defense Department, Navy Secretary John Phelan, and the Navy Department, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights, the Speech and Debate Clause, separation of powers, due process, federal law governing retired officer ranks (10 USC 1370), and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit challenges Hegseth's January 5 formal censure of Kelly, which followed Kelly's November 18 participation in a video with five other Democratic veterans in Congress warning military and intelligence personnel that they have a legal duty to refuse unlawful orders. The lawsuit seeks to declare the censure and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional, vacate them, and enjoin their enforcement.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Kelly v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00081 — Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Sen. Kelly sued Secretary Hegseth to block reduction of his Navy rank and retirement pay for protected speech — Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seeking an injunction to prevent unilateral reduction of Kelly's Navy rank and retirement pay in retaliation for a video urging service members not to follow unlawful orders. Kelly's complaint alleges First Amendment violation, retaliation for protected legislative speech, and an unprecedented executive attack on congressional independence and military oversight authority.
• Senator Kelly sued Defense Secretary Hegseth over military retaliation — Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon to block their efforts to punish him for a video he participated in last year with other Democratic lawmakers calling on military members to refuse illegal orders, asking a federal judge to find the move "unlawful and unconstitutional."
• Mark Kelly sues Hegseth over military rank reduction and pension censure — Democratic Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit in Washington DC federal court challenging Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's formal censure and threatened demotion/pension reduction. The censure targeted Kelly and five other military-veteran lawmakers for a November video urging service members to resist unlawful orders. Kelly argues the action violates free speech, legislative independence, and separation of powers. The lawsuit names Hegseth, the Department of Defense, the Navy, and Navy Secretary John Phelan as defendants and seeks to vacate the censure and all related actions.
• Senator Mark Kelly files lawsuit against Defense Secretary Hegseth over retaliation for protected speech — Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attempt to reduce his rank and pension as punishment for the video urging troops to refuse illegal orders. Kelly characterized Hegseth's actions as an "unconstitutional crusade" that sends a chilling message to retired military members that speaking against the administration will result in loss of rank and pay. Kelly argued that such retaliation violates constitutional protections and sets a dangerous precedent for suppressing military veterans' free speech.
• Pentagon censures Senator Mark Kelly and launches administrative proceedings — Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth formally censured Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, in January and initiated administrative proceedings that could result in rank reduction and pension cuts. Kelly participated in the same November video about military duty to illegal orders. Kelly has responded with litigation arguing the Pentagon's actions violate constitutional protections.

Supporting reports

• Senate Democrats advance resolution halting Venezuela military action without congressional authorization — Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer announced that the chamber voted to advance a resolution halting further attacks on Venezuela without congressional permission. The move reflects Democratic messaging that Republicans under Trump prioritize military adventurism overseas while Democrats focus on affordability and domestic costs. The resolution represents a legislative effort to reassert congressional oversight over executive military decisions.
• Republican-controlled Senate voted against war powers resolution on Venezuela — The Republican-controlled Senate voted against a war powers resolution designed to limit Trump's ability to conduct further strikes on Venezuela after two Republican senators who joined with Democrats the previous week to advance the resolution flipped under pressure from Trump.
• US Senate defeats war powers resolution limiting Trump military action in Venezuela — The US Senate voted 50-50 on a war powers resolution that would have required President Trump to seek congressional authorization before taking further military action against Venezuela. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to kill the resolution. Republican senators Josh Hawley and Todd Young, who had initially supported the measure, flipped their votes after receiving assurances from the Trump administration that no US troops remained in Venezuela and that Trump would seek congressional approval for any major military operations.

Supporting reports

• Senator Slotkin said she is under federal investigation — Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said in an interview that federal prosecutors are investigating her for participating in a video with other Democratic lawmakers calling on military members to refuse illegal orders.
• DOJ threatens Federal Reserve with criminal indictment over interest rate policy — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell publicly stated that the Department of Justice threatened criminal charges against the Fed related to a multi-year renovation project of Federal Reserve office buildings. Powell characterized the threat as retaliation for the Fed's decision to set interest rates based on economic conditions rather than presidential preference, stating the threat was "a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President."
• Federal investigation opened against Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin for video urging troops to refuse illegal orders — Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin announced she is under federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for her participation in a video released in 2025 in which she and five other Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds urged U.S. troops to refuse unlawful orders. The video's message aligns with established military law and constitutional principle. President Trump called the video "seditious behavior by traitors" punishable by death; the White House later clarified he did not seek execution but wanted them "held accountable." Slotkin characterized the investigation as weaponization of federal government to intimidate political opponents.
• Senator Elissa Slotkin faces federal criminal investigation for oath video — Senator Elissa Slotkin is now under federal criminal investigation for appearing in a video urging service members to remember their oath and refuse illegal orders. The investigation represents potential criminalization of speech encouraging military personnel to uphold constitutional obligations and refuse unlawful commands.
• Four additional Democratic lawmakers said they are under investigation — Four additional Democratic lawmakers said they are being investigated by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia over their participation in a viral video calling on military members to refuse illegal orders.
• Trump DOJ investigates Democratic lawmakers over military video on illegal orders — Three House Democrats—Jason Crow (Colorado), Maggie Goodlander (New Hampshire), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pennsylvania)—confirmed that the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C., led by Jeanine Pirro, requested interviews regarding their participation in a November video instructing troops they need not comply with illegal orders. The investigation expands to five lawmakers total; the Pentagon also formally censured Senator Mark Kelly and launched administrative proceedings. Trump called the video "seditious" and threatened capital punishment, later walking back but maintaining the lawmakers face "serious jeopardy."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration refused congressional oversight visit to ICE detention facility in Minneapolis — On January 10, the Trump administration denied Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar access to conduct an oversight visit at an ICE detention facility in Minneapolis. This denial came two days after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem signed a new policy memo restricting congressional visits to such facilities. Omar stated the action was "a blatant attempt to obstruct members of Congress from doing their oversight duties."

Supporting reports

• ICE blocks three House members from detention facility visit despite prior judicial ruling — Three Democratic House members from Minnesota—Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig, and Kelly Morrison—were blocked from entering an ICE detention facility near Minneapolis on January 10, 2026, despite having notified the facility in advance. Although initially permitted entry, they were ejected approximately 10 minutes later. This action directly violated a federal judge's ruling from the previous month that the Trump administration cannot bar members of Congress from visiting immigrant detention facilities. Officials cited funding from the Big Beautiful Bill Act as justification for the denial.
• U.S. Representatives attempt entry to Minneapolis ICE facility — On the morning of Saturday, January 11, 2026, U.S. Representatives Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig attempted to enter a Minneapolis ICE facility. ICE unlawfully denied them entry, according to the representatives' subsequent accusations.
• Minnesota congressional delegation denied access to ICE detention facility — A contingent of Minnesota representatives, including Rep. Angie Craig, attempted to gain access to a local ICE detention facility and were turned away by a large group of ICE agents in full tactical gear. ICE officials told the representatives that because the facility was funded by the "Big Beautiful Bill" rather than the congressional appropriations act, they would not be allowed to enter. When Craig informed them they were violating the law, ICE officials responded that "they didn't care."