Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Trump refuses to rule out declaring state of emergency before midterm elections — In a Time magazine interview, President Trump declined to rule out declaring a state of emergency before the November midterm elections, stating "I don't rule anything out or in. We'll see." He also said he "could use" the Insurrection Act to deploy military troops domestically, noting that "a lot of people think I should use it sometimes." Trump dismissed low approval ratings as "fake numbers" and blamed media for misrepresenting his earlier statements about the Iran war's duration.
• Trump expresses regret over Supreme Court appointments and discusses using Insurrection Act — In a 75-minute TIME magazine interview, Trump stated he regretted appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett because they ruled against him on tariffs, mail ballots, and birthright citizenship. He expressed unapologetic expectations of judicial loyalty, stating "I do like loyalty, yeah." When asked whether he would rule out declaring a state of emergency before the midterms unless there was widespread violence, Trump said "I don't rule anything out or in" and indicated he could use the Insurrection Act, saying "A lot of people think I should use it sometimes."
• Trump defies congressional authority in TIME magazine interview — The President of the United States openly defied Congress during a TIME magazine interview, according to the article. The specific nature of the defiance is not detailed in the text provided, but the article characterizes the President's statements as demonstrating "no grasp on reality at all" and notes the defiance as part of a pattern of constitutional violations occurring under the current administration.

Supporting reports

• North Carolina legislature added Republicans to Judicial Standards Commission — The North Carolina legislature added more Republicans to the Judicial Standards Commission a couple of years prior to August 2026. This action concentrated partisan control over the body responsible for investigating ethics complaints against judges, further enabling the targeting of Democratic justices.
• North Carolina legislature created new Family Court with judges appointed by Chief Justice — The North Carolina legislature's recent budget bill created a new "special" Family Court whose judges will be appointed directly by Chief Justice Paul Newby. These judges can serve until age 78, the highest mandatory judicial retirement age in the country, concentrating judicial appointment power in the chief justice.
• Chief Justice Newby given power over new business court with wide jurisdiction — Chief Justice Paul Newby was previously given power over a new business court with exceptionally wide jurisdiction, further concentrating judicial authority in his hands and enabling him to shape outcomes in commercial disputes.
• Chief Justice Paul Newby previously pushed investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls — In 2023, North Carolina Chief Justice Paul Newby initiated an investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls for ethics charges related to her discussing bias and lack of diversity on the state Supreme Court. The Judicial Standards Commission backed down after Earls filed a First Amendment lawsuit. This prior action demonstrates a pattern of using ethics complaints as a tool against Democratic justices.
• Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced baseless ethics complaint before 2024 reelection — Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced a baseless ethics complaint in the weeks before her 2024 reelection campaign. The complaint was filed as part of a pattern of using ethics processes to target Democratic justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
• GOP Supreme Court majority refused to sanction Republican judges who admitted ethics violations — In 2024, ProPublica revealed that the GOP-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court majority refused to sanction two Republican judges who admitted to violating ethics rules with serious consequences. This demonstrates a double standard in ethics enforcement, with Democratic judges targeted while Republican judges face no consequences.
• North Carolina legislature passes bill allowing GOP Supreme Court justices to remove Democratic judges — The North Carolina Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill that grants the state Supreme Court majority power to remove judges without the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. The bill would allow GOP justices to unilaterally determine ethics violations and remove Democratic justices, circumventing the votes of millions of voters who elected them. The measure faces a likely veto from Democratic Governor Josh Stein, though two former Democrats in the legislature have recently voted to override vetoes.

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

• Trump called for court-packing in response to Supreme Court tariff ruling — President Trump posted on social media complaining that the Supreme Court's decision declaring his "Liberation Day" tariffs of April 2025 unconstitutional had not included language stating that money paid to the United States did not have to be repaid. Trump criticized his own appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, for showing "so little respect to our Country" and explicitly called for court-packing, stating "PACK THE COURT! I'm working so hard to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and then people that I appointed have shown so little respect to our Country, and its people." He demanded they vote his way on birthright citizenship.

Supporting reports

• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments in birthright citizenship case — President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump sat in the front row alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The case arose from Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order declaring that individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. Three families, represented by the ACLU, sued to challenge the order. Trump departed after approximately ninety minutes, before the ACLU's oral argument began.
• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments on birthright citizenship case — On April 1, 2026, President Trump attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the birthright citizenship case, breaking precedent by sitting in the front row of public seating alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He left after an hour and a half, before the ACLU lawyer began her argument. Lower court judges had already called the executive order "blatantly unconstitutional."
• Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the legality of his executive order on birthright citizenship. This marked the first time a sitting president attended such proceedings, raising concerns about potential intimidation of the justices. Trump was present alongside his attorney general and commerce secretary but left before the plaintiffs' attorney began speaking.
• Supreme Court hears birthright citizenship arguments; justices skeptical of Trump position — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Justice Kagan stated directly that the text of the 14th Amendment does not support Trump's position and that the administration was relying on "pretty obscure sources." Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that other countries lack birthright citizenship but questioned its constitutional relevance. Justice Gorsuch raised the landmark precedent Wong Kim Ark in a manner unfavorable to the government's argument.
• Trump attends Supreme Court oral argument and leaves early — Trump became the first sitting president in history to attend a Supreme Court oral argument. He sat in the front row of the public gallery during the birthright citizenship case but left before the arguments concluded, apparently finding the proceedings not to his liking.
• ACLU Represents Families Against Trump’s Order — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing three families in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The case, Trump v. Barbara, includes an asylum applicant from Honduras whose child is due after the order's implementation.
• President Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court for the case Trump v. Barbara, which seeks to end birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This marked the first time a sitting president has attended such proceedings. The case stems from Trump's executive order issued on January 20, 2025, which declared that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. The ACLU represents families challenging this order.
• Trump’s Historical Precedent at the Supreme Court — President Trump’s attendance at the Supreme Court oral arguments on April 1, 2026, breaks historical precedent, as no sitting president has previously attended such proceedings. His presence is seen as an attempt to influence the court's decision on a case that could significantly alter the interpretation of citizenship in the U.S.

Supporting reports

• Trump attacked the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship case — Trump publicly attacked the Supreme Court, calling it "stupid" and "dumb" as he attempted to pre-spin a potential and likely loss in a case on birthright citizenship. The attack on the judiciary reflects contempt for the court and an attempt to delegitimize an unfavorable ruling before it is issued.
• Trump posted criticism of Supreme Court justices ahead of birthright citizenship oral arguments — Two days before Trump administration lawyers were scheduled to argue the birthright citizenship case before SCOTUS, Trump posted on social media that the justices are "dumb," stating: "Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the US. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES! The World is laughing at how STUPID our US Court System has become (TARIFFS!). Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!"

Supporting reports

• Trump defied court ruling on tariffs and claimed they remain in effect — Shortly after the federal appeals court decision striking down his tariffs, Trump posted on social media claiming "ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT" and calling the court's decision "Highly Partisan" and incorrect. Trump stated the United States would "win in the end" and that if the tariffs were removed it would be "a total disaster for the Country." Trump asserted that tariffs are "the best tool to help our Workers" and expressed confidence that "with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation." Trump's statement represents a direct defiance of the court's ruling and an assertion that executive will supersedes judicial authority.

Supporting reports

• Trump meets with El Salvador President Bukele; signals defiance of Supreme Court — On April 14, Trump held a staged meeting with El Salvador President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office. Trump made clear he would ignore the Supreme Court's unanimous order requiring the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. The administration maintained it has no power to order Bukele to release Abrego Garcia, and Bukele stated he would not release the Maryland man. Vice President J.D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller were present.
• Trump and Bukele announced defiance of Supreme Court order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia — President Trump met with El Salvador president Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office, where they jointly announced they would not comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a U.S. resident illegally detained in El Salvador. During the meeting, Trump told Bukele "We want to do homegrown criminals next" and discussed building additional detention facilities. The administration later filed a declaration to the court falsely claiming the Supreme Court had ruled 9–0 in their favor, when the Court had actually ruled against them on the merits while cautioning about presidential foreign-affairs power.