Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Washington DC sues Trump administration over national guard deployment — Washington DC's attorney general Brian Schwalb filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trump's deployment of approximately 2,300 national guard troops from seven states to DC streets since August 11. Schwalb argues the deployment constitutes an illegal "involuntary military occupation" and violates the Posse Comitatus Act by using military forces for domestic law enforcement. The suit contends the troops, placed under Pentagon command and deputized by the US Marshals Service, exceed presidential authority and breach the Home Rule Act and the Constitution. The deployment is legally limited to 30 days unless extended by Congress, expiring September 10.
• District of Columbia sues Trump over national guard deployment — On Thursday, the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against President Trump challenging his deployment of troops to Washington DC. The suit represents a jurisdictional and constitutional challenge to the president's authority to deploy military forces in the nation's capital without proper authorization or consent from local authorities.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed emergency appeal on tariff ruling — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling that found the majority of the president's tariffs illegal, claiming in the filing that tariffs "are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity" and warning that a failure to allow them to move forward "would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe." The administration also filed a motion to expedite the case.
• Trump petitions Supreme Court to overturn federal appeals court tariff ruling — President Trump filed a petition with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 4, 2025, challenging a federal appeals court decision that struck down most of his "liberation day" tariffs imposed on April 2, 2025. The lower court ruled 7-4 that Trump overstepped his presidential powers by invoking a 1977 national emergency law to justify reciprocal tariffs of 10–50% on imports. Trump requested expedited review with arguments by November 10 and a ruling by year-end. The tariffs remain in place pending Supreme Court review.
• Trump appeals tariff ruling to Supreme Court — A federal appeals court ruled 7-4 that Trump exceeded presidential authority by imposing tariffs on nearly every country without statutory authorization. The court found that while the president has emergency powers, none permit unilateral tariff or tax imposition. Trump has already petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, signaling the case will likely reach the conservative-majority bench.

Supporting reports

• California governor files preliminary injunction to block extended national guard deployment — Following Judge Breyer's ruling, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a preliminary injunction on September 2 seeking to block the Trump administration's extension of national guard troops' deployment in Los Angeles through the November election. Newsom argued there was no justification for continued military presence against communities. Approximately 300 troops remained deployed at the time, down from thousands sent in June.
• Federal judge rules Trump administration illegally deployed national guard in Los Angeles — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court ruled that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) by deploying thousands of national guard troops to accompany federal immigration agents on raids in Los Angeles in June 2025. The ruling, effective September 12, barred troops from conducting arrests, searches, crowd control, and other law-enforcement functions. California Governor Gavin Newsom had filed suit in June, arguing the deployment constituted militarization of domestic streets. The Trump administration vowed to appeal.
• Judge Breyer ruled Trump administration's use of military in Los Angeles violated Posse Comitatus Act — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally when they deployed the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles. The judge found that armed soldiers set up protective perimeters, traffic blockages, and engaged in crowd control, directly violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. military to execute domestic law. The judge noted that 300 troops remain in Los Angeles and warned that Trump and Hegseth have stated their intention to deploy National Guard troops in other cities, "thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief." Breyer prohibited the defendants from deploying or using military or National Guard troops to execute laws and stayed the order until noon September 12 to allow appeal.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's LA military deployment violated Posse Comitatus Act — A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment of the military to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the army from performing domestic law enforcement actions without authorization from Congress. While the judge noted that it's legal to deploy the officials to protect federal property, he said that Trump is using the military as a "national police force with the President as its chief."
• Judge Blocks Military Deployment for Law Enforcement in Los Angeles — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer issued a ruling that prohibited the Trump administration from using military troops for law enforcement in Los Angeles, citing violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge's order prevents the deployment of National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement activities, emphasizing the need to uphold legal boundaries between military and civilian roles.
• Judge Rules Against Trump's Use of Military for Domestic Law Enforcement — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally by deploying the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles to enforce domestic law, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge prohibited the use of military troops for law enforcement activities and warned against creating a national police force under presidential control.
• Judge rules Trump violated federal law in Los Angeles national guard deployment — A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that President Trump violated federal law when he deployed thousands of national guard troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer during protests against ICE operations. The ruling represents a legal challenge to Trump's authority to unilaterally deploy military forces domestically without proper statutory authorization or state consent.
• Federal judge rules Trump's military deployment to Los Angeles unlawful — A federal judge found that Trump illegally deployed thousands of military troops to Los Angeles in June and barred the Pentagon from using National Guard and Marines for police functions such as arrests and crowd control. The order takes effect September 12. The ruling upheld California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit challenging the deployment as a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military use in domestic law enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court blocked rapid deportation of Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act — A federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting Venezuelans accused of being in a gang under the Alien Enemies Act, finding there was no "invasion" or "predatory incursion" to do so, which is required under the 1798 wartime law. The ruling prevented the misapplication of a wartime statute to immigration enforcement.
• Trump authorized military strike on alleged drug boat without congressional approval — Trump authorized a military strike on a boat in the Caribbean that his administration alleges was occupied by 11 members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were transporting drugs from Venezuela. The strike, which Trump said killed all 11 on board, took place without congressional approval and may have violated international human rights and maritime law. It remains unclear under what US legal or constitutional authority Trump took action or how the military determined that the individuals aboard the vessel were Tren de Aragua members.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court overturned federal court order halting ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — In July 2025, a federal court ordered federal agents to halt indiscriminate raids and racial profiling in Los Angeles. In September 2025, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling. The ACLU and immigrant rights groups have since submitted an amended legal complaint challenging the decision. The reversal left communities without judicial protection against profiling tactics.
• Supreme Court rules against racial profiling challenge in immigration enforcement case — In September 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority sided against Los Angeles-area plaintiffs challenging "roving" ICE immigration patrols. The plaintiffs alleged that stops based on race, language, employment status, or location violated Fourth Amendment protections. The ruling effectively legalized racial profiling in immigration enforcement, according to critics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion asserted that people with legal status would only be "briefly" questioned, a characterization contradicted by subsequent reporting of traumatic detentions of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
• Supreme Court ruling permits race and ethnicity as enforcement factors in immigration stops — In September 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing immigration enforcement agents in southern California to interrogate anyone they suspected of being in the country illegally, explicitly noting that perceived race or ethnicity can be a relevant factor in such determinations. Legal experts note this ruling may complicate challenges to racial profiling under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

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.