Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court accepts appeals to hear transgender student sports ban cases from Idaho and West Virginia — The US Supreme Court announced it will hear appeals from Idaho and West Virginia challenging lower court decisions that struck down state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams in public schools. The students who sued argued the bans violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee and Title IX's prohibition on sex-based discrimination in education. The Court is expected to hear oral arguments during its October 2025 term, marking another major civil rights case involving transgender restrictions.

Supporting reports

• Gun Owners of America filed lawsuit challenging National Firearms Act — Within hours of Trump signing the budget reconciliation bill into law, Gun Owners of America and other pro-gun organizations filed a lawsuit claiming the measure makes the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) unconstitutional. The NFA regulated machine guns and short-barrel guns through taxation and registration requirements. The budget reconciliation bill ended those taxes, and plaintiffs argue this eliminates the constitutional justification for the law. Gun Owners of America stated in a press release that its team had been "working behind the scenes with Congress since the November 2024 election to fully repeal the NFA" and that the new law had positioned their lawsuit against the registry.
• Budget bill eliminates $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms — Trump signed a budget reconciliation bill on July 4, 2025, that eliminated the $200 federal tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, while preserving NFA registration requirements and machine gun restrictions. The provision was drafted by Gun Owners of America and inserted by sympathetic Republican lawmakers including Andrew Clyde, Roger Marshall, Mike Crapo, and Steve Daines.
• Gun Owners of America files lawsuit to overturn National Firearms Act restrictions — Following passage of a budget bill that eliminated the $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled rifles (while preserving registration requirements), Gun Owners of America filed a lawsuit on July 4, 2025, seeking to overturn NFA restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled long guns entirely. Within a month, 15 Republican-led states joined as plaintiffs. The Firearms Policy Coalition and NRA filed a similar lawsuit on August 1. The litigation represents an escalation of efforts to dismantle one of America's oldest gun laws, passed in 1934.

Supporting reports

• US Army veteran charged with federal conspiracy for participating in ICE protest — Bajun Mavalwalla, a 36-year-old US Army veteran, was arrested in July 2025 and charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers after participating in a June 2025 protest against ICE in Spokane, Washington. He faces six years in prison, three years supervised release, and a $250,000 fine. Mavalwalla has pleaded not guilty and refuses to accept a plea deal. The case reflects an escalation in Trump administration prosecutions of anti-ICE protesters, with the DOJ issuing a memo prioritizing such prosecutions.

Supporting reports

• Trump questioned Zohran Mamdani's immigration status and threatened arrest — Trump questioned the immigration status of Zohran Mamdani, claiming that a "lot of people are saying he's here illegally," despite Mamdani becoming a US citizen in 2018. Trump said his administration is "going to look at everything," and stated that Mamdani would be arrested if he followed through on campaign promises to defy ICE officials. Mamdani responded that Trump's comments represent "an attack on our democracy" and an attempt to intimidate New Yorkers who speak up.
• Trump called for investigation into former Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas — At a press conference in Ochopee, Florida, Trump called for an investigation into Alejandro Mayorkas, who served as Homeland Security Secretary under President Joe Biden. The call for investigation occurred in the context of Trump's broader statements about arresting and deporting individuals.
• Trump threatened arrest of Democratic NYC mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani — Trump threatened to arrest Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, if he does not work with ICE agents to arrest migrants. Trump falsely claimed Mamdani is a communist and stated that "a lot of people are saying he's here illegally," despite Mamdani being a naturalized U.S. citizen. Trump also asserted that local and state governments have no legal obligation to work with federal immigration enforcement, contradicting established law.
• Trump amplifies accusations against naturalized NYC mayoral candidate and signals investigation — President Trump amplified Rep. Andy Ogles' accusations against Zohran Mamdani, a naturalized U.S. citizen who won New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, claiming "a lot of people are saying he's here illegally" and stating "We're going to look at everything." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt earlier tacitly approved investigating Mamdani based on Ogles' unverified claims. Trump also stated his administration could deport citizens, which would violate the Constitution and federal law.
• Trump posts attack on naturalized NYC mayoral candidate on Truth Social — President Trump posted on Truth Social attacking Zohran Mamdani, the naturalized U.S. citizen who won New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, calling him a "Communist Lunatic" and stating "I hold all the levers, and have all the cards" in reference to his power to act against Mamdani. The post signals Trump's intent to use executive power to prevent Mamdani from winning office.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court limits judicial power to block presidential policies nationwide — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings that impede presidential policies, while leaving unresolved the question of whether the president can limit birthright citizenship. The decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejected arguments that courts must protect citizens from government overreach. Trump held a White House press conference celebrating the ruling as a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law" and indicated plans to pursue policies on birthright citizenship, sanctuary city funding, and refugee resettlement.
• US Supreme Court rules on nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship case, declines to address constitutionality of Trump's executive order — On Friday, June 28, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case challenging Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. The Court did not rule on whether the president has constitutional authority to end the 14th Amendment right. Instead, it addressed whether individual district court judges can block federal policies nationwide. The Court held that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions except in narrow circumstances, requiring challengers to pursue class-action litigation instead. The ruling creates a 30-day pause on the executive order's enforcement.
• Supreme Court limits federal judges' power in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court decided the case of Trump v. CASA, which limits the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump claimed this decision would allow him to end birthright citizenship, asserting that the principle of citizenship for those born in the U.S. is based on a historical myth. This ruling could have significant implications for immigration policy and citizenship rights.
• Trump executive order limiting birthright citizenship challenged in Supreme Court — One day after Trump's inauguration, five pregnant immigrant women, led by an asylum seeker from Venezuela, sued over the president's executive order limiting automatic birthright citizenship, fearing their unborn children would be left stateless. The case reached the Supreme Court, which on Friday sided with the Trump administration by restricting the ability of federal judges to block the order in a 6-3 vote. The ruling does not address the constitutionality of the order itself but opens the door for partial enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration conducts unilateral bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities without Congressional authorization — The Trump administration conducted direct military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without seeking Congressional approval or presenting intelligence justification to Congress or the public. Ansari characterizes this as a violation of constitutional war powers and notes the lack of transparency regarding the rationale for strikes, particularly problematic given U.S. history of military interventions in the Middle East.
• Trump orders strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — President Trump announced via Truth Social that he ordered more than 125 aircraft and 75 weapons, including 14 bunker-busting bombs, to strike three Iranian nuclear targets to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He followed with a White House speech declaring the strikes "a spectacular military success" and claiming Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities were "completely and totally obliterated." A leaked intelligence report later suggested the operation set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months.

Supporting reports

• Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship remains in effect after 30-day pause expires — Trump's executive order attempting to unilaterally end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors remains enforceable after a 30-day pause granted by the Supreme Court. The order targets the 14th Amendment guarantee of citizenship to all persons born in the United States. Immigration rights groups and states have filed lawsuits challenging the order's constitutionality, but the Supreme Court's ruling on injunctions means they must now pursue class-action litigation rather than seeking nationwide blocks on enforcement.
• Trump announces intent to end birthright citizenship — In May 2023, Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate, announced his intention to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship on the first day of his new presidential term. He claimed that the current understanding of birthright citizenship is based on a historical myth and misinterpretation of the law. This statement reflects ongoing debates about citizenship and immigration policy in the U.S.

Supporting reports

• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 27, 2025, celebrating a Supreme Court decision that restricts the use of nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The document states that the ruling "restores the proper separation of powers" and claims that 35 of 40 nationwide injunctions filed against Trump's second-term executive actions originated from five jurisdictions (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and D.C.). The fact sheet lists pending policy actions it states can now proceed, including ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and other measures.
• Trump celebrates Supreme Court ruling as vindication of executive power expansion — President Trump declared the Supreme Court's decision a "giant win" and stated that the ruling would allow his administration to "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." Trump framed the decision as freeing the executive from judicial constraints, signaling intent to enforce previously blocked policies across all states without nationwide court protection.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces plan to end birthright citizenship via executive order — Following the Supreme Court's Trump v. CASA decision, President Trump announced to reporters his intention to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment was based on a misinterpretation of law and rooted in a fabricated historical narrative about the Civil War ending in 1869 and a case filed on that exact day concerning "babies of slaves."

Supporting reports

• Trump announces plan to end birthright citizenship via executive order — Following the Supreme Court's Trump v. CASA decision, President Trump announced to reporters his intention to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment was based on a misinterpretation of law and rooted in a fabricated historical narrative about the Civil War ending in 1869 and a case filed on that exact day concerning "babies of slaves."

Supporting reports

• Stephen Miller disclosed Palantir stock holdings — News broke that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, widely believed to be responsible for the administration's draconian immigration policies, owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of stock in Palantir, the data and intelligence software company owned by Peter Thiel. Palantir has valuable contracts with ICE to track undocumented immigrants.
• Conflict-of-interest disclosures for new ACIP members not published in writing before meeting — The eight newly appointed ACIP members were asked to verbally disclose conflicts of interest at the meeting, but it is unclear whether written conflict-of-interest disclosures were published in advance. The new members did not appear on the Trump administration's conflict-of-interest tracker for ACIP members as of Wednesday morning. An HHS spokesperson stated ethics reviews had been conducted but did not clarify when or where disclosures would be published. One member dropped out Tuesday evening after a government financial review.
• Trump celebrates Supreme Court ruling as vindication of executive power expansion — President Trump declared the Supreme Court's decision a "giant win" and stated that the ruling would allow his administration to "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." Trump framed the decision as freeing the executive from judicial constraints, signaling intent to enforce previously blocked policies across all states without nationwide court protection.
• Supreme Court limits lower courts' power to block federal executive orders via nationwide injunctions — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa Inc ending the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders. The ruling prevents judges from halting or slowing presidential orders before their constitutionality is tested, including Trump's executive order attempting to remove birthright citizenship protections. Liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision undermines the rule of law and shifts the burden of defending constitutional rights onto individuals.
• Supreme Court restricts courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders — The Supreme Court issued a decision significantly limiting lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. The ruling fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach. Previously, courts had issued approximately 35 nationwide injunctions against Trump administration actions during the first six months of his second term. The decision leaves narrow exceptions, such as when a judge determines nationwide relief is necessary to protect plaintiffs from irreparable harm, as in the birthright citizenship case.
• US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, restricting federal judges' power to block Trump orders — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies; instead, court orders apply only to specific plaintiffs who sue. The decision arose from Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. While the ruling did not immediately implement the birthright citizenship ban, it fundamentally shifts judicial oversight by preventing courts from protecting all Americans from allegedly unconstitutional policies. The policy cannot take effect for 30 days. Immigration advocates are refiling lawsuits as class actions to seek broader protections.
• Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court decided Trump v. CASA, restricting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling was announced on June 27, 2025. President Trump immediately claimed the decision as a major victory that would enable him to end birthright citizenship by executive action, citing a fabricated historical narrative about the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil War.
• SCOTUS ruled on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship executive order — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that nationwide injunctions likely exceed congressional authority, narrowing the scope of injunctions that had blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The ruling left underlying injunctions in place for named plaintiffs but created uncertainty about nationwide relief. A class-action lawsuit was immediately filed after the ruling to seek broader protection.
• Supreme Court Grants Partial Stay in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, which was consolidated with Trump v. New Jersey and Trump v. Washington. The Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lower courts had issued universal injunctions blocking the enforcement of Executive Order 14160, which directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children of non-citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts likely exceeded their equitable authority by issuing nationwide injunctions and limited the injunctions to the named plaintiffs only. The ruling narrows the use of nationwide injunctions but did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order or the question of birthright citizenship.
• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 27, 2025, celebrating a Supreme Court decision that restricts the use of nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The document states that the ruling "restores the proper separation of powers" and claims that 35 of 40 nationwide injunctions filed against Trump's second-term executive actions originated from five jurisdictions (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and D.C.). The fact sheet lists pending policy actions it states can now proceed, including ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and other measures.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Docket number(s): 24A884.

Supporting reports

• Federal threat to defund states serving undocumented immigrants — The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding from any state that provides services to undocumented immigrants. This threat places safety-net health systems in a legal bind: federal law requires them to serve all patients regardless of immigration status, while the administration threatens to punish compliance with that law through funding cuts. St. John's Community Health CEO Jim Mangia describes this as a fundamental contradiction in creed that will force clinic closures and staff reductions.
• ICE conducts mass deportation raids under Trump administration with minimal transparency and accountability — Under the Trump administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has conducted widespread raids resulting in mass deportations, including of individuals with legal status and children. The agency operates with minimal transparency, employs plainclothes and masked agents who often refuse to identify themselves, and has expanded beyond traditional immigration enforcement into protest suppression. Border crossings have reached historic lows, crops are rotting due to labor shortages, and a four-year-old U.S. citizen with cancer was deported. Legal scholars and civil rights experts characterize ICE's operations as increasingly authoritarian and outside established legal boundaries.
• ICE raids in Los Angeles causing widespread healthcare avoidance among immigrant residents — Since ICE enforcement operations began in Los Angeles County, immigrant residents have dramatically reduced medical visits out of fear of deportation. St. John's Community Health reports no-show rates jumping from under 10% to over 30%. Patients are avoiding clinics, schools, and work, creating severe health consequences including untreated hypertension and near-diabetic emergencies. The raids have also created financial strain on safety-net clinics, forcing closures and staff layoffs, while health systems face a legal contradiction: required by law to serve all regardless of immigration status, yet threatened with federal funding cuts for doing so.
• Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants set to expire — Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian migrants expires on August 3, 2025. Springfield, Ohio, which has integrated a large Haitian population into its workforce and community over recent years, anticipates an enforcement blitz similar to LA raids following the expiration. Health systems and community leaders fear the loss of legal status will result in job loss, loss of health insurance, and continued healthcare needs under threat of deportation, creating unsustainable strain on safety-net providers.
• ICE raids intensify across Los Angeles, triggering widespread fear and economic disruption — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids have escalated in Los Angeles, creating pervasive fear among undocumented immigrants and mixed-status families. The raids, described by residents as resembling "kidnappings," have caused streets to empty, businesses to close or reduce hours, and families to avoid leaving home for work, school, or groceries. Multiple U.S. citizens have reportedly been detained. In response, community organizations, mutual aid networks, and local businesses have mobilized to provide financial support, food delivery, and legal guidance to affected families.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court stays judicial order blocking third-country deportations — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority issued an unsigned order on Monday pausing a federal judge's ruling that required immigrants facing deportation to third countries to receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest removal. The stay allows the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to nations they are not citizens of, including conflict-ridden places like South Sudan. The decision overturned a May ruling by Boston-based Judge Brian Murphy, who had blocked the deportation of eight men to South Sudan after finding the administration violated due process rights.
• U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump administration authority to deport migrants to third countries — On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to deport migrants to countries other than their country of origin, including nations plagued by violence, without additional legal process beyond an initial removal hearing and without regard to conditions migrants may face in those countries. The court majority did not explain its reasoning. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented sharply. Legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted the ruling expands prior decisions that had already cleared the way for treating up to one million migrants as removable.
• Case update — D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10676 — The Supreme Court stopped a lower court's order which has prevented the administration from removing immigrants to third countries without an opportunity to present their claims of potential torture first. The Supreme Court's order is now in place while the litigation proceeds. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. — The Supreme Court granted the Department of Homeland Security's emergency application for a stay in the case of Department of Homeland Security, Applicants v. D.V.D., et al. This decision allows the federal government to proceed with its actions that were previously blocked by a lower court order. The case involved immigration enforcement actions challenged by the respondents, and the stay permits the continuation of these actions pending further litigation. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries — On June 23, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to allow the Trump administration to move forward with sending migrants to countries other than their own, temporarily overturning a lower court ruling that prevented the deportations until migrants could challenge them in court. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin posted on Twitter, "Fire up the deportation planes."

Supporting reports

• Judge Breyer rules Trump's federalization of California National Guard unlawful — U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled in mid-June 2025 that Trump's order to federalize California National Guard troops without the governor's permission was unlawful and set a "dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity." The ruling temporarily blocked the federalization order, reasserting state sovereignty and constitutional limits on executive military deployment authority.
• Trump federalizes California National Guard and deploys Marines to suppress Los Angeles protests — Trump issued an order federalizing thousands of California National Guard troops and deploying Marines to Los Angeles to suppress largely peaceful protests against immigration enforcement. California sued, and U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled in mid-June that Trump unlawfully federalized the guard without the governor's permission, setting a "dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity." A three-judge appeals panel (two Trump appointees) ruled on June 19 that the federalization order could remain in place; California appealed on June 20.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court reverses district judge ruling on military deployment — An appeals panel reversed a district court ruling that had found President Trump exceeded his authority in deploying national guard and marines to Los Angeles and had ordered the return of control of the state national guard to California. The reversal allowed the military deployment to continue, undermining the initial judicial check on executive power and leaving the deployment in place indefinitely.

Supporting reports

• Denial of entry and deportation of work visa holder "Jonathan" — A man with a US work visa provided an anonymous account of being denied entry to the US after a trip to Australia to scatter his sister's ashes. He was pulled aside on arrival in Houston, Texas, and accused of selling drugs and having improper paperwork. After detention for over a day, he was put on a flight back to Australia despite having worked on the US east coast for five years and living with his girlfriend.
• Denial of entry and detention of UK Subs band members — Members of the punk rock band UK Subs were denied entry and detained in the US on their way to play a gig in Los Angeles after being questioned about visas. Bassist Alvin Gibbs stated he wondered whether his frequent and critical public comments about Trump and his administration played a role. The three band members were kept in harsh conditions for 24 hours then deported back to the UK.
• Denial of entry to French scientist for criticizing Trump administration — A French scientist was denied entry to the US after immigration officers at an airport searched his phone and found messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump administration. The researcher was on his way to a conference in Texas. France's minister of higher education and research, Philippe Baptiste, stated that "freedom of opinion, free research, and academic freedom are values that we will continue to proudly uphold."
• Detention and alleged abuse of German green-card holder Fabian Schmidt — Fabian Schmidt, a 34-year-old German national and US green-card holder, was apprehended by border officials as he returned to New Hampshire from a trip to Luxembourg. His family stated he was held for hours at Boston's Logan airport, stripped naked and put in a cold shower, then deprived of food and medicine, and collapsed. His case is being investigated. He was released from ICE detention in Rhode Island in mid-May.
• Detention and deportation of British graphic artist Rebecca Burke — British graphic artist Rebecca Burke was arrested at the border while traveling from Seattle to Canada as a backpacker due to a visa mix-up. She became one of 32,809 people arrested by ICE during the first 50 days of Trump's presidency. After nearly three weeks of grueling detention conditions, she smuggled out poignant drawings of fellow detainees when released.
• Detention and deportation of German tourist Jessica Brösche — German tourist and tattoo artist Jessica Brösche, 29, from Berlin was detained by US immigration authorities and deported back to Germany after more than six weeks in US detention, including eight days in solitary confinement. Her family compared her ordeal to "a horror film."
• Detention and questioning of US citizen attorney Amir Makled at airport — Amir Makled, a Detroit-born attorney, was questioned at the airport upon returning from vacation and flagged to a terrorism response team. He was kept behind and pressured to hand over his phone and some of its contents. Makled represents a pro-Palestinian student protester arrested at the University of Michigan. Experts said the incident was evidence of a weakening of Fourth Amendment constitutional protections at the border against unreasonable search and seizure.
• Detention of Canadian visitor Jasmine Mooney in ICE facilities — Canadian Jasmine Mooney was shackled and detained in ICE facilities for two weeks over an alleged work visa irregularity while visiting California. She spoke out about harsh detention conditions, information blackouts, and her outrage that many other detainees she met remain stranded without access to resources that helped her secure release.

Supporting reports

• Congressional debate and legislative response to unilateral military action — Following Trump's June 21 airstrikes, Congress faced pressure to assert constitutional war powers. The article documents fractured Republican response—Senator John Fetterman praised decisive action while Representative Thomas Massie raised constitutional authority concerns. Democrats and independent voices called for congressional intervention and formal approval. The article calls for citizens to contact representatives demanding a resolution halting military operations until formal approval is granted and for Congress to reform War Powers limitations.
• Congress Criticizes Trump's Unilateral Military Action — Members of Congress, including Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Sean Casten, criticized President Trump's decision to bomb Iran without congressional approval, arguing it violated the Constitution. They emphasized that no imminent threat from Iran justified the military action and called for adherence to the War Powers Resolution.
• Representative Ronny Jackson rejected congressional notification requirement — Representative Ronny Jackson (R-TX) told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that Trump did not have to notify Congress because "[w]e do not have trustworthy people in Congress especially on the left side of the aisle." He claimed that sharing information with Democrats and opposing Republicans would be equivalent to "put[ting] the [ayatollah] on the phone." The article notes there is no basis for this statement.
• Representative Sean Casten called bombing an impeachable offense — Representative Sean Casten (D-IL) posted on social media that the bombing constituted "an unambiguous impeachable offense" because no president has authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat without congressional approval. He stated: "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach. I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval."
• House Democratic veterans announce support for War Powers Act resolution against Trump's Iran airstrikes — Twelve House Democratic military veterans, led by Representative Pat Ryan, issued a letter on Monday demanding congressional approval for Trump's airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The veterans, some with Iraq and Afghanistan service records, characterized the strikes as "preventive air strikes" conducted without congressional consent and drew parallels to pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan decisions. Multiple War Powers Act resolutions are gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pushing for a vote as early as the week of June 23. The veterans demanded clear answers on military objectives, costs, and potential casualties before escalation.
• Trump attacked Rep. Thomas Massie for opposing Iran strikes — On June 23, Trump posted on Truth Social attacking Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, writing "GET THIS 'BUM' OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!" after Massie introduced a War Powers Resolution and spoke out against Trump's military strikes on Iran.

Supporting reports

• White House issued compilation of congressional statements supporting military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — The White House published a compilation of statements from Republican lawmakers in Congress expressing support for military strikes conducted against Iranian nuclear facilities. The document presents statements from Senate and House Republicans characterizing the strikes as necessary action against Iran's nuclear program, with lawmakers framing the operation as "peace through strength" and emphasizing Iran's status as a state sponsor of terrorism. The statements do not constitute new policy announcements but rather curate existing public statements of support.
• White House releases statement on precision strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities — The White House issued a press release compiling statements from Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio from Sunday morning television appearances. The officials stated that the Trump administration conducted precision strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, claiming to have destroyed Iran's nuclear program without civilian casualties. They characterized the strikes as a response to failed diplomacy and stated the administration remains open to negotiated settlement if Iran chooses diplomacy, while warning of "overwhelming force" if Iran retaliates.

Supporting reports

• Trump announced U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites — President Trump announced that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan—using twelve 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) for the first time in history. Trump declared the strikes "a spectacular military success" and stated Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated." He called on Iran to "make peace." The announcement came one week after a military parade and amid five million Americans protesting his administration.
• Trump ordered military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — On June 21, 2025, President Trump ordered U.S. military strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities, deploying 12 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs. According to New York Times reporting, Trump initially warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against striking Iran but reversed course after observing Israel's military operation receive favorable television coverage, particularly on Fox News. Trump had decided on the strike by June 17, following a military parade that drew large protests. The actual damage and effectiveness of the strikes remain unclear despite Trump's claims of "obliteration."
• Trump administration conducts airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites — The U.S. military conducted surprise airstrikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities on Saturday evening, targeting sites related to nuclear development. The strikes were announced by President Trump in a national address and were reportedly based on Israeli intelligence indicating Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon. The administration stated the raids targeted only nuclear enrichment infrastructure and avoided population centers, economic assets, and oil terminals. Vice President JD Vance later praised the precision of the B-2 bombers involved.
• Trump announces U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — At 7:50 p.m. Eastern Time, President Trump posted on social media announcing that the U.S. military had completed attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. He stated all aircraft had exited Iranian airspace and a full payload of bombs was dropped on Fordow. At 10:00 p.m., Trump addressed the nation from the White House, flanked by Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, and Defense Secretary Hegseth, declaring the strikes a "spectacular military success" and stating Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity had been "completely and totally obliterated." He warned of further attacks if Iran did not pursue peace.
• Trump administration bombs Iranian nuclear sites based on intelligence assessment contradicting U.S. Intelligence Community consensus — On June 21, 2025, the Trump administration announced bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, justifying the action with claims that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. Intelligence Community's official assessment, stated publicly by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on March 25, 2025, concluded that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized such a program. Trump publicly dismissed Gabbard's assessment, stating "my intelligence community is wrong" and "She's wrong." Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio mischaracterized or dismissed the March intelligence findings to justify the strikes, while Defense Secretary Hegseth avoided confirming whether intelligence had changed since March. Congressional briefings and the International Atomic Energy Agency corroborated the IC's March assessment that no decision to weaponize had been made.
• President Trump ordered coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional authorization — On June 21, 2025, President Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—using B-2 stealth bombers and possibly bunker-buster ordnance. No congressional resolution, debate, or formal declaration of war preceded the action. Trump described the strikes as "very successful" and claimed all aircraft had exited Iranian airspace. The strikes followed rapid regional escalation beginning mid-June, including Israeli operations and Iranian missile responses. Trump stated diplomatic avenues had been exhausted and cited the goal of denying Iran nuclear capability.
• U.S. Airstrikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities Ordered by President Trump — On June 21, 2025, President Trump ordered airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. This marks the first U.S. bombing of Iranian soil in decades. The strikes were carried out using B-2 stealth bombers and possibly GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators. The action was taken without a congressional resolution or debate, bypassing the War Powers Resolution, which requires legislative approval for military engagements of this magnitude. The decision has sparked a constitutional crisis, as it represents a unilateral escalation into a regional conflict without democratic oversight.
• Trump administration launched military strikes against Iran without congressional authorization — On June 21, the Trump administration conducted military strikes against Iran without seeking prior authorization from Congress or making a public case for the operation's necessity or timing. Trump subsequently claimed on Truth Social that "NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!" and warned that any Iranian retaliation would be met with "FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later admitted that congressional leaders were notified only after the planes had safely departed.
• Trump authorizes airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional approval — President Trump authorized airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday night without prior congressional approval or consultation. Congressional leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, were not adequately informed before the operation commenced. Schumer received a call from Trump officials but was not told which country would be targeted; Jeffries could not be reached until after the strikes had begun. The action prompted immediate calls for impeachment from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and accusations of executive overreach and constitutional violation from Democratic leadership.
• U.S. conducts airstrikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities — The United States bombed Iran's three nuclear enrichment facilities. President Trump announced the strikes on social media. The strikes targeted Iran's nuclear program narrowly after Israel had already degraded Iran's long-range strike capability. Iran responded with threats but had limited retaliatory capacity. The strikes did not trigger a broader military escalation or "boots on the ground" invasion, and Trump indicated he would back off after the nuclear facilities were destroyed, leaving further conflict to Israel.

Supporting reports

• Democrats boycott Senate hearing on Biden's mental decline — On June 18, 2025, Democrats largely boycotted a Republican-led Senate hearing titled "Unfit to Serve: How the Biden Cover-Up Endangered America and Undermined the Constitution," which focused on allegations of President Joe Biden's mental decline and its concealment. Only Senator Peter Welch from Vermont attended the session. The hearing featured testimony from former Trump administration officials and a legal scholar, with discussions on Biden's alleged use of an autopen for signatures. Republican co-chairs John Cornyn and Eric Schmitt framed the hearing as addressing a constitutional crisis, while Welch criticized the focus on Biden and pointed to Congress's broader legislative failures.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors — On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors, ruling that it does not constitute sex-based discrimination. The decision in United States v Skrmetti was supported by the court's conservative majority, with Chief Justice John Roberts stating that the law applies equally to all minors, regardless of sex. The ruling has significant implications for transgender and non-binary individuals, as well as broader sex-based discrimination cases, potentially affecting future legal interpretations of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
• Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Transgender Care Ban — The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans youth, affecting similar laws in over 20 states. The ruling is a significant setback for transgender rights and access to healthcare.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in United States v. Skrmetti (23-477) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in United States v. Skrmetti. Docket number(s): 23-477.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge rules trans people can update gender markers on passports — A federal judge in Boston, Julia Kobick, issued a preliminary injunction allowing transgender and intersex individuals to update their gender markers on U.S. passports, countering an executive order from the Trump administration. This order had mandated that passports conform to the sex assigned at birth. The injunction expands a previous order that applied to six individuals, now extending the right to all trans citizens without a valid passport or those needing to renew or change their passport details. The ruling challenges the constitutionality of the executive order, which the Trump administration defended as not violating equal protection guarantees.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Orr v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10313 — Judge Kobick granted the class certification and preliminary injunction.
• Federal Judge Blocks Passport ID Ban — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from prohibiting trans or nonbinary individuals from using an "X" gender marker on passports. This ruling protects the rights of transgender and nonbinary people to accurate identification.

Supporting reports

• Second judge blocks Trump order to require proof of citizenship to vote — A federal judge in Massachusetts, Denise J Casper, has issued an injunction against parts of Donald Trump's executive order that required proof of citizenship to vote in US elections. This ruling follows a similar decision by a federal judge in Washington DC. The Massachusetts ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that the order overstepped presidential authority and could disenfranchise voters. The executive order had aimed to change voting eligibility and processes, including empowering federal agencies to cut funding to non-compliant states and instructing the Department of Justice to prosecute "election crimes."
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10810 — Judge Casper issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from enforcing key parts of the administration's election Executive Order , which requires states to demand proof of citizenship for voter registration, imposes new requirements on public assistance agencies, and penalizes states for ballot receipt deadlines and ballot curing practices. The court found that the coalition of states suing the government showed a “substantial risk” that their citizens would be disenfranchised.
• Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Election Overhaul Order — A federal judge blocked President Trump's executive order seeking to overhaul elections, including requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. The judge ruled that the Constitution does not grant the President specific powers over elections.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court temporarily returns control of California's National Guard to Trump — On June 12, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed a restraining order issued by US District Judge Charles Breyer, which had declared President Trump's federalization of the California National Guard illegal. The restraining order was paused pending an emergency hearing scheduled for June 17. Judge Breyer had ruled that Trump's actions exceeded his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment, ordering the return of control to California Governor Gavin Newsom. The legal battle is expected to escalate to the US Supreme Court.
• Federal judge rules against deployment of California National Guard — A federal judge ruled that President Trump had illegally deployed the California National Guard against demonstrators protesting immigration raids, ordering the force to be returned to the control of California's governor, Gavin Newsom. However, an appeals court later paused the judge's ruling, allowing Trump to retain control over the National Guard. This legal battle highlights the tension between state and federal authorities over the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.
• Case update — Newsom v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-04870 — The Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay before midnight on June 12.

Supporting reports

• California AG Files Lawsuit Against Trump — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a lawsuit against former President Trump, challenging the legality of his order to federalize the California National Guard. Bonta argues that the order was unnecessary and escalated tensions, leading to increased unrest. The lawsuit contends that the federalization of the National Guard was an abuse of federal authority and violated state rights.
• California lawsuit against Trump over National Guard deployment — California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit against Trump regarding the federalization of the National Guard is set to be heard by Judge Charles Breyer.
• California Sues Over National Guard Deployment — California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to rescind the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, arguing that it violates the state's sovereign rights and was done without lawful federal authority. This legal challenge highlights the ongoing conflict between state and federal powers.
• California files lawsuit against Trump administration over National Guard deployment — On June 9, 2025, California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the federalization of the state's National Guard to manage immigration protests in Los Angeles. The lawsuit claims that President Trump's deployment of troops exceeded federal authority and violated the 10th Amendment, bypassing Governor Gavin Newsom's authority. California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the legal action, seeking a court declaration that the deployment was unlawful and a restraining order to halt the use of troops. The lawsuit argues that the federal intervention was unnecessary and escalated tensions.
• California Governor announces lawsuit against Trump administration — Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to sue the Trump administration over its decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles without state consent. The lawsuit, previewed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, argues that the federal government overstepped its authority and violated state sovereignty. Newsom and Bonta contend that the deployment was unnecessary and inflammatory, as there was no significant threat that warranted such federal intervention. The legal challenge aims to protect state rights and prevent federal overreach in state matters.
• California sues federal government over National Guard deployment — The state of California has filed a lawsuit against the federal government following President Trump's deployment of 2,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The lawsuit claims this action violates state sovereignty and challenges the legality of federal intervention in state matters.
• California Attorney General and Governor Sue Trump Over National Guard Deployment — California attorney general Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit against President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for the unauthorized federalization of the California National Guard, calling the order unlawful and inflammatory.
• Case update — Newsom v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-04870 — State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Newsom v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-04870 — State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Defendants.
• Federal judge rules against Trump's troop deployment in LA — In a brief , the Department of Justice called the claims “baseless,” arguing that judicial intervention “would not only hinder federal law enforcement but also expose federal employees and property to violence and vandalism by the rioters in Los Angeles.”
• Judge Rules Against Trump's Federalization of National Guard — Judge Breyer heard arguments on California's request for a temporary order restraining Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from ordering National Guard troops and Marines to support immigration raids in Los Angeles.
• — Judge Breyer granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the administration from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles and directing the administration to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.
• — A federal judge ruled that President Trump's deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles to assist in civilian law enforcement was unlawful, bypassing congressionally mandated procedures. The ruling came in response to a legal challenge by California Governor Gavin Newsom. However, the administration appealed the decision, and a higher court temporarily paused the restraining order, allowing the deployment to continue until a hearing scheduled for the following Tuesday.
• — U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that President Trump unlawfully federalized the California National Guard, ordering the return of troops to Governor Gavin Newsom's control. The judge granted a restraining order but delayed enforcement until Friday at noon, while a panel of the 9th Circuit issued a stay allowing Trump to retain control until a hearing on June 17.