Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US House blocks extension of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) section 702 — The US House of Representatives failed to pass a short-term extension of FISA section 702 in a 198-218 vote on June 11, 2026. Democrats blocked the renewal in protest of Trump's appointment of Bill Pulte, a major Republican donor with no national security experience, as acting director of national intelligence. The law will lapse on June 12, though a FISA court certification allows collection to continue under existing orders through approximately March 2027.
• House rejected FISA renewal measure — Nineteen Republicans joined all but seven Democrats to reject a measure to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expires on June 12, 2026. Under the fast-track procedure used by House Speaker Mike Johnson, the measure required a two-thirds majority but failed 218 to 198, not reaching even a simple majority. The rejection reflected concerns about Pulte's potential oversight of the program.
• Congress fails to reauthorize Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before deadline — Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits warrantless collection of communications involving foreigners outside the US and incidentally sweeps up American communications, was set to expire on June 12, 2026. Congress failed to reauthorize it by the deadline. House Speaker Mike Johnson blocked votes on reform amendments, particularly a warrant requirement for surveilling Americans' communications, refusing to allow longer extensions that included such reforms. The program continues operating under existing court certifications through March 2027, but the statutory authorization lapsed.
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act lapses — The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which grants the executive branch broad surveillance powers, lapsed on June 12 after Congress failed to pass a short-term extension. The lapse occurred amid Senate outrage over Pulte's potential appointment as acting DNI. Some Republicans attempted to pass a two-week extension, but their efforts failed.

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

• Supreme Court lifts injunction on ICE roving patrols in Los Angeles — The Supreme Court's conservative majority temporarily lifted a lower court injunction that had restricted "roving" immigration patrols in the Los Angeles area. The lower court had found that federal ICE agents were indiscriminately targeting people based on race, language, employment, or location. The lifting of the injunction allows ICE to resume these patrols without the prior civil rights constraints. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling and warned it could trigger broader erosion of civil rights protections nationwide.
• Supreme Court lifts order barring race-based immigration enforcement — On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted an order that had previously barred the Trump administration from stopping people solely on the basis of race, language, or job. Immigration advocates expect this ruling will enable further acceleration of deportation raids targeting Southeast Asian communities.
• Supreme Court lifts restraining order on ICE immigration raids in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority granted a stay against a lower-court restraining order that had barred ICE agents from conducting "roving patrols" in Los Angeles based on race, language, or occupation. U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong had found "mountain of evidence" that enforcement tactics violated the Constitution and amounted to racial profiling. The 6-3 decision allows the Trump administration to resume sweeping immigration operations without the judicial restrictions, marking a major victory for the administration's mass deportation campaign.
• Supreme Court lifts restrictions on immigration patrols in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision lifting a temporary restraining order that had barred federal immigration agents from stopping people in Los Angeles based on race, ethnicity, language, employment type, or location. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence cited race as a "relevant factor" in forming reasonable suspicion. The ruling immediately enabled the Department of Homeland Security to resume "roving patrols" across the LA area, where prior sweeps had detained U.S. citizens and separated families. Civil rights advocates and local officials condemned the decision as legalizing racial profiling.
• Supreme Court lifts temporary restraining order on ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reverse a temporary restraining order that had banned ICE from stopping people based on race, language, or job. U.S. District Judge Maame E Frimpong had granted the order after finding "mountain of evidence" of constitutional violations through racial profiling. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion held that ethnicity can be a "relevant" factor in immigration enforcement. ICE immediately resumed sweeping raids in Los Angeles, with the agency announcing it would "flood the zone" in the city.
• Supreme Court ruled racial profiling legal in immigration detentions — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that racial profiling is permissible when conducting immigration detentions. Justice Kagan's dissent documented that ICE in Los Angeles was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: race, language spoken or accent, location, and type of work. The District Court had previously ruled such stops constituted illegal racial profiling. The decision applies nationwide. Justice Kagan warned that the ruling undermines Fourth Amendment protections for people based on appearance, accent, or low-wage employment.
• U.S. District Court judge issued order prohibiting race-based immigration stops; Supreme Court enjoined the ruling — On July 11, 2025, a U.S. district court judge issued an order prohibiting federal agents from stopping individuals as potential undocumented immigrants based primarily on apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, working in agriculture or construction, or combinations thereof. On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court enjoined that ruling, allowing federal agents to continue targeting people based on perceived race, language, or occupation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion dismissed concerns about Constitutional violations, while Justice Sonya Sotomayor dissented, warning that "constitutional freedoms are lost."
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. Perdomo — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Noem v. Perdomo. This decision allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue conducting immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, California, without the restrictions imposed by a lower court order. The lower court had previously ruled that the federal government must stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court's decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Supreme Court paused ruling preventing ICE racial profiling — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 unexplained decision, paused a lower court ruling preventing federal immigration officials from stopping suspects in Los Angeles based solely on factors like race, occupation, accent, or speaking Spanish. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the decision allows "the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."
• US Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ICE racial profiling in immigration enforcement — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority lifted judicial restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles, allowing federal agents to stop people if they appear Latino or speak Spanish. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling. The ruling reversed the temporary restraining order that had provided relief to Los Angeles communities and reinstated the government's ability to conduct indiscriminate enforcement operations based on perceived immigration status indicators.
• Supreme Court shadow docket decision permitting racial profiling — The Supreme Court issued a shadow docket decision that allows racial profiling. The decision was characterized as ominous in its implications for civil rights and equal protection. No additional procedural or factual details were provided in the source text regarding the specific case, parties, or scope of the ruling.

Supporting reports

• DOJ announces it will not release additional Epstein files despite campaign promises — Over the summer, the Trump administration's justice department announced it would not release any additional files related to Jeffrey Epstein, despite Trump's campaign promises to do so. The decision sparked bipartisan outrage and accusations of a "cover-up" from both sides of the political aisle. The announcement contradicted Trump's pre-election commitments on transparency regarding the Epstein case.