Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Major Jason Watson arrested at Capitol in uniform during protest against administration Iran policy — Major Jason Watson, a 17-year Air Force officer, stood on the Capitol steps in uniform on July 1, 2026, holding a sign reading "Impeach. Convict. Remove," and was arrested. DC criminal charges have been declined for prosecution, but an Air Force investigation remains open covering four articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: contempt toward officials, failure to obey an order, conduct unbecoming an officer, and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Watson is restricted to Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling and placed under a written gag order prohibiting contact with the press or posting about his case.
• Active-duty Air Force officer publicly called for Trump and Vance impeachment — Active-duty Air Force Major Jason Watson stood on the Capitol steps in uniform holding a sign reading "Impeach Convict Remove" and publicly called for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of Trump and Vice President JD Vance. He is believed to be the first active-duty commissioned officer to do so publicly. The Air Force has opened an investigation that could end his career of more than twenty years; military rules sharply limit political activity in uniform. Watson stated he was willing to pay the price for his constitutional stand.

Supporting reports

• Complaint and TRO motion filed in Mytych v. Griess (D.D.C.) — David Mytych, a member of Accountability NOW USA, filed a complaint and motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the National Park Service's denial of his permit to hold a counter-demonstration within sight and sound of the Freedom 250: Salute to America event on the National Mall on July 4, 2026. NPS offered McPherson Square and Indiana Plaza as alternate demonstration sites, which Mytych alleges are more than half a mile from the event and do not provide meaningful access to his intended audience. Mytych alleges the denial violates the First Amendment's speech and assembly protections, constitutes viewpoint discrimination and retaliation based on his anti-Trump message, and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down Trump executive order on birthright citizenship — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship violated the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, plus conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh dissented in part, arguing the order violated federal law but not the Constitution. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions. The decision affirmed that citizenship is a constitutional right for all persons born in the United States.
• US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump executive order — The US Supreme Court ruled that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors are citizens under the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Brown Jackson, and Barrett (with Kavanaugh concurring in judgment), rejected the Trump administration's attempt to redefine "subject to the jurisdiction" to exclude such children. Conservative justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. The ruling affirmed the 128-year-old precedent from United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
• US Supreme Court upholds constitutional right to birthright citizenship — The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to birthright citizenship for children born in the US to immigrant parents on June 30, 2026, rejecting Trump's executive order attempting to end the practice. However, the majority ruling was closer than anticipated, with four justices either dissenting or refusing to plainly state the executive order violates the Constitution, raising concerns about the stability of the precedent.
• Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in 6–3 decision — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump's executive order. However, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence indicated he would overturn birthright citizenship if Congress rewrote relevant law, meaning four of nine justices are willing to rewrite the Constitution. The decision upheld more than a century of settled law, though right-wing figures immediately called for escalated immigration enforcement.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — The Supreme Court ruled that Trump's executive order targeting birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The decision upholds the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all persons born in the United States, striking down the administration's attempt to restrict this constitutional right through executive action.
• Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, striking down Trump executive order — The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Trump v. Barbara, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority that children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S. satisfy the Citizenship Clause and are citizens at birth. Justice Alito dissented, calling it "a serious mistake," while Justice Thomas filed a 91-page dissenting opinion. The ruling blocked Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
• US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship but with narrow margin — The Supreme Court rejected President Trump's attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship as a core tenet of American life. However, only five justices upheld the constitutional right to citizenship for anyone born in the US. Four conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—challenged the long-held principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment, with Kavanaugh arguing the policy violated federal law but not the Constitution.
• US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejects Trump executive order — The US Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Trump's executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents violates the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Brown Jackson, and conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, affirmed that nearly all people born on US soil are American citizens. The order, issued on Trump's first day of his second term and set to take effect February 19, 2025, would have affected hundreds of thousands of babies annually. Trump responded by calling the ruling "too bad for our Country" and urging Congress to pursue legislative action.
• Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship — On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of birthright citizenship, ruling against an executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump that sought to deny citizenship to individuals born in the U.S. if their parents lacked legal permanent status. The decision was made with a 6-3 vote, with some justices expressing concerns about the implications of the order on constitutional rights. The ruling reinforces the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all individuals born in the United States.
• Supreme Court struck down Trump's birthright-citizenship order — The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States, including children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders. This decision counters efforts by the Trump administration to exclude these groups from birthright citizenship. The ruling has sparked significant backlash from right-wing commentators, who have expressed extreme opposition to the decision. Despite this, polls indicate that a majority of Americans support maintaining birthright citizenship.
• — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Barbara that Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship was unlawful, reaffirming that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen. Five justices grounded the decision in the 14th Amendment, while a sixth agreed on narrower grounds. Trump had attempted to limit citizenship to children of citizens and permanent residents; the Court rejected that limitation.

Supporting reports

• Trump posts about Slaughter decision and expanded presidential power — Trump posted on social media celebrating the Slaughter v. Trump decision, stating that 90 years of precedent had been "completely and unequivocally overruled" and that this greatly increases presidential power "at a time when it is most needed."

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

• Supreme Court strips TPS status from Haitian and Syrian nationals — The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 on Thursday to pause prior lower-court rulings that had temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and several thousand Syrians. The decision immediately exposes these populations to deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The ruling affects Springfield, Ohio, where Haitians have revitalized the local economy since 2018, and threatens up to 1.3 million people currently in the U.S. with legal TPS status.
• Supreme Court strips temporary protected status from 350,000 Haitian and Syrian immigrants — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision eliminating temporary protected status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitian and 6,000 Syrian immigrants, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with deportations to countries experiencing conflict and humanitarian crises. The ruling rejected claims of racial bias. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin subsequently stated that affected migrants must either seek permanent residence or accept deportation, with the government offering plane tickets and $2,100 to those leaving.
• U.S. Supreme Court rescinds Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision rescinding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians. The ruling removes legal protection for nationals of these countries who had been granted temporary refuge in the United States, exposing them to deportation.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's executive order restricting mail-in voting — US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled unconstitutional an executive order issued by Trump on March 31, 2026, requiring the postal service to implement a barcode tracking system for ballot envelopes tied to citizenship data. The order would have denied mail-in ballots to states refusing to submit voter rolls to federal officials. Voting rights groups, 23 states, and DC sued to block the rule, arguing the Constitution grants no presidential authority over election administration. The injunction prevents the administration from creating a federal program to control state voter rolls or prosecuting states for non-compliance, though states may voluntarily participate.
• Federal judge blocks Trump executive order requiring voter citizenship documentation — US District Court Judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts ruled on June 25, 2026, that Trump's executive order mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration was unconstitutional. The order would have required voters to present passports, birth certificates, or similar documents. Casper found that the Constitution grants the President no specific powers over elections, which are primarily governed by states and Congress. None of the order's provisions had been implemented before the ruling.
• Summary judgment ruling — State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-11581 — Judge Talwani granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 14399 - which directed DHS to compile “State Citizenship Lists” of eligible voters from federal databases and directed USPS to maintain “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists” and refuse delivery of mail ballots from voters not on those lists - legally void as ultra vires and unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers. The court held that voter eligibility is reserved exclusively to the states under the Constitution and that no federal statute delegates to the president or USPS any authority over mail-in ballot delivery. The court permanently enjoined defendant agencies from implementing those provisions with respect to the Nov. 3, 2026 general election and any earlier federal elections in Plaintiff States. The court also declared Section 5 of the EO - which provided that states should preserve election records for five years - is a nonbinding recommendation because the president lacks authority to impose a retention requirement beyond the twenty-two-month period Congress set in the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Defendants are ordered to file a status report with the court within seven days describing steps taken to ensure compliance.
• Federal judge voided mail-ballot restriction order — On Thursday, June 26, Judge Indira Talwani voided the core of the March mail-voting order, which would have used the Postal Service to limit mail-ballot delivery to a federally approved voter list and would have built that national list in the first place. Roughly two dozen states joined the suits challenging the order.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders Trump administration to explain tarp obscuring Kennedy Center facade — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the Trump administration to report by 31 July on the purpose and status of a tarp and scaffolding installed at the Kennedy Center after workers removed Donald Trump's name from the building's facade in a predawn operation. The tarp was placed following Cooper's court order requiring removal of Trump's name, which had been unlawfully added in December. The administration faces scrutiny for what critics characterize as obstruction of the restoration of the Kennedy Center's original name.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, grants presidents power to fire independent agency leaders — On June 24, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that the president may fire leaders of independent agencies without cause, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent that had protected agency independence for 90 years. The decision followed Trump's March 2026 firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and other agency officials. Legal experts warned the ruling abandons constitutional safeguards against executive overreach and replaces them with a "loyalty test," enabling future presidents to politicize agencies Congress designed to be insulated from presidential coercion.

Supporting reports

• Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Trump administration suit against Michigan for voter roll access — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's lawsuit against Michigan seeking access to state voter rolls. This ruling continues a pattern in which courts have struck down Trump's attempts to obtain voter rolls in all nine cases on which there has been a ruling. The administration has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia to compel surrender of voter rolls.
• U.S. District Judge Denise Casper permanently blocks Trump's March 2025 election executive order — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently blocked much of Trump's March 2025 executive order attempting to gain power over elections. The ruling prevents implementation of provisions that would have centralized election authority in the executive branch.
• Federal judge permanently barred proof-of-citizenship registration order — On Wednesday, June 25, Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently barred the proof-of-citizenship registration order, writing that the Constitution gives the president no specific power over elections. The ruling struck down a key element of the administration's effort to federalize election administration.

Supporting reports

• US Postal Service proposes rule requiring states to surrender voter mail-ballot lists — The US Postal Service, under Postmaster General David Steiner, issued a proposed rule requiring states to hand over lists of voters who requested mail-in ballots and associated barcodes to the postal service. Steiner stated that the postal service would refuse to deliver mailed ballots in states that declined to comply. All 47 Democratic senators sent a letter warning the rule would disenfranchise millions of voters and risked abuse and inaccuracies that would prevent eligible voters from casting ballots.
• Postmaster General announces USPS will not deliver election mail in states refusing to surrender voter rolls — Postmaster General David Steiner testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that under a new Trump administration rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to surrender their voting lists to the federal government. Senator Gary Peters clarified that the proposed rule coerces states to comply with federal voting requirements or lose mail-in voting access.
• USPS proposes rule to withhold election mail — The Postmaster General testified that under a new proposed rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to provide their voting lists to the federal government. This rule is seen as a coercive measure to enforce compliance with federal demands.

Supporting reports

• Eight Prairieland detention center protesters sentenced to 30–100 years in prison on terrorism charges — U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor sentenced eight of nine protesters prosecuted following a July 4, 2025, protest against ICE at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, to sentences ranging from thirty to one hundred years in prison. The protesters, some of whom did not know each other and one of whom was not present at the protest, were charged as members of an antifa cell engaged in terrorism. All nine were convicted in March 2026 in what observers characterized as a test of the administration's power to use broad antiterrorism laws against protesters.
• Federal judges sentenced anti-ICE protesters to 30–100 years in prison — Federal judges sentenced a group of anti-ICE protesters convicted for their roles in a 2025 Texas demonstration to prison terms ranging from 30 to 100 years. One person received 30 years despite not being present at the protest. Another received 100 years after conviction for attempted murder and other charges following a police officer being shot and injured. The case marks the first to incorporate Trump's presidential declaration labeling "antifa" as a domestic terrorist organization.
• Anti-ICE Protesters Receive Harsh Sentences — Federal judges sentenced anti-ICE protesters in Texas to prison terms ranging from 30 to 100 years. The sentences are based on their involvement in a 2025 protest and are notably harsher than those given to Jan. 6 insurrectionists. The case is the first to apply Trump's declaration labeling "antifa" as a domestic terrorist organization.
• Eight Texas anti-ICE protesters sentenced to 50–100 years; ninth defendant to 30 years for possessing leftist materials — Eight activists who protested at the Prairieland ICE detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, on July 4, 2025, were sentenced on June 24, 2026, to between 50 and 100 years in prison on terrorism and other charges. A ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez-Estrada, received 30 years for moving boxes of leftist zines and materials after a phone call from his imprisoned wife. Federal judges Mark Pittman (Trump appointee) and George W. Bush appointee Reed O'Connor stacked sentences across multiple convictions. First Amendment advocates and legal experts have condemned the sentences as unusually punitive and a chilling attack on protest and ideological expression.
• Nine Texas anti-ICE protesters sentenced to 50–100 years for terrorism charges following Fourth of July 2025 detention center protest — Nine activists were convicted of terrorism charges and sentenced to 50–100 years in prison following a July 4, 2025 protest at the Prairieland immigrant detention center in Alvarado, Texas. The group arrived to conduct a noise demonstration with fireworks; some vandalized property and slashed tires. When police arrived, activist Benjamin Song fired an AR-15, wounding officer Lt. Thomas Gross in the shoulder. Song received 100 years; five others received 50 years; one received 70 years; one received 30 years. The sentences far exceed those given for January 6 Capitol attackers and were widely characterized as a test of the Trump administration's crackdown on dissent.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge in Maryland rules against DOJ in voter file access case — A federal judge in Maryland issued a ruling against the Department of Justice in a case seeking access to state voter files, marking the DOJ's ninth consecutive loss in a series of 31 cases filed to obtain such records. The court concluded that state voter files are not records that states must produce to the federal government. Five of the nine losses were decided by judges nominated by Trump, according to the article.
• Democratic Party and Marc Elias law firm file litigation against Trump executive orders on voting — The Democratic Party, represented by attorney Marc Elias and his law firm, filed lawsuits challenging Trump administration executive orders targeting voting rights. The article indicates this litigation is part of a broader defensive strategy across multiple cases, including the 31 voter file cases and anticipated litigation if the U.S. Postal Service adopts a proposed anti-voting rule.
• Supreme Court to decide mail-in voting case brought by Republican National Committee — The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide a case brought by the Republican National Committee concerning whether ballots mailed and postmarked by Election Day may be counted if they arrive after Election Day. The article notes the outcome could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and that Marc Elias's firm is defending against the lawsuit.

Supporting reports

• Trump attacked New York Times and objected to First Amendment — Trump reacted with fury to a New York Times story reporting that analysts did not believe the Iran war had accomplished much. Trump called the paper's reporters "corrupt and unethical cowards" and appeared to object to the First Amendment, writing that the Times' coverage was "TREASONOUS" and announcing he would add their reporting to a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against them, calling them "Criminals."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court allows Trump administration to end TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Thursday allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for over a decade. Justice Alito's majority opinion rejected claims that the policy was racially motivated, despite Trump's documented statements calling Haiti a "shithole country" and asserting Haitians were "poisoning the blood" of America. The decision strips legal status from approximately 350,000 Haitians and 4,000 Syrians.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump administration to end TPS for 350,000 people — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed the Trump administration to terminate temporary protected status (TPS) for more than 350,000 people from Syria and Haiti who had fled wars and violence. The six right-wing justices cited procedural reasons, though Trump loyalists interpreted the ruling as endorsement of white nationalist immigration policy.
• SCOTUS barred judicial review of TPS terminations for Haiti and Syria — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that federal law creating the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program bars courts from reviewing determinations by then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to end TPS designations for Haiti and Syria. The decision removed judicial oversight of executive decisions to strip protected status from foreign nationals.
• Supreme Court Ruling in Mullin v. Doe — On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the consolidated cases of Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, reversing lower court decisions and allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting. The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, stated that the law governing TPS does not permit judicial review of decisions regarding the termination of TPS designations.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians — The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, requiring them to leave the country or face arrest and deportation once a termination date is set. Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the TPS law authorizes Trump to end the program without court intervention. Justice Kagan dissented, arguing the majority failed to acknowledge Trump's bigoted statements and endorsed racism.
• Supreme Court cleared way to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians — In a 6–3 ideological ruling on Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court held that the law governing Temporary Protected Status bars judicial review of the Homeland Security secretary's decision to end it. The ruling permits the administration to strip protection from more than 350,000 Haitians and several thousand Syrians who have lived and worked legally in the country for up to a decade. Justice Kagan's dissent noted the president's "repellent and racially inflected" statements about Haitians. Advocates warned the reasoning endangers roughly 1.3 million people covered by TPS designations across more than a dozen countries.
• Supreme Court strips TPS from Haitians and Syrians; allows asylum turnaround policy — The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 6-3 rulings on June 26, 2026, allowing the Trump administration to strip temporary protected status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians and to implement a policy permitting border officials to turn back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border without processing claims. The decisions affect over 350,000 TPS holders and countless asylum seekers. Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates condemned the rulings as "disastrous" and a violation of international law and federal refugee protections.
• US Supreme Court allows Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status from Haitians and Syrians — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on June 26, 2026, upholding the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that courts cannot review executive decisions on TPS revocation. The ruling overturned lower court injunctions and leaves hundreds of thousands of legally resident immigrants vulnerable to deportation despite their home countries being designated unsafe by the State Department.
• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court TPS termination ruling and listing 60 immigration enforcement actions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 26, 2026, announcing that the Supreme Court had upheld the Trump Administration's authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian migrants. The document frames this as a victory for "American sovereignty" and lists 60 actions taken as part of what it characterizes as the "largest and most aggressive immigration enforcement effort in American history," including expanded ICE workforce, accelerated deportations, border wall construction, visa restrictions, and denaturalization efforts.

Supporting reports

• White House considered invoking Insurrection Act against protest — According to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Vice President J.D. Vance pushed the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act to put down protests by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. They did so even after federal agents had shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota. Vance argued that using troops to suppress Americans in the streets would be painful short-term but would send a message that protesters would never again disrupt ICE operations. While the act was not invoked at the time, the reporters note it "would remain a loaded weapon in a West Wing eager to test the limits of presidential power."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration released $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and granted access to $300 billion more — As part of the Iran agreement, the Trump administration released $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Vice President J.D. Vance told CBS that in addition to that $24 billion, Iran will also have access to $300 billion in funds for reconstruction. Trump claimed "no money will exchange hands," but the actual terms involve substantial financial transfers to Iran.
• New Air Force One jet from Qatar enters service — The new Air Force One aircraft, donated by Qatar, became operational. Trump previously stated he wanted to fly on it for the first time en route to Mt. Rushmore on July 3, but the timeline was accelerated. White House Communications Director Steve Cheung announced that Trump flew on the former Air Force One jet for the final time returning from the G7 summit.
• Trump announces use of Qatari government jet as Air Force One replacement — Trump gave a speech in front of a new Qatar Force One jet, which he announced he will use going forward and keep after leaving the White House. Trump stated he asked the Emir if he could use the brand new 747 that Qatar obtained, noting "a normal president wouldn't do that but our country has to be represented properly." He described redesigning the planes in the fleet with red, white, and blue colors to his taste and announced plans for a military flyover featuring F-22s, F-35s, and other aircraft. The bulletin notes this represents Trump's use of a foreign government's aircraft as a personal presidential conveyance.

Supporting reports

• Trump considered suspending habeas corpus to accelerate mass deportations — The New York Times reported that Trump actively considered suspending habeas corpus—the constitutional right for people to challenge their detention in court—in an effort to accelerate his mass deportation campaign early in his second term, after the Supreme Court ruled that migrants expelled under the Alien Enemies Act were entitled to challenge their deportations in court before being removed. The consideration of suspending a fundamental constitutional protection represents an extraordinary assertion of executive power.
• White House considered suspending habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants — According to reporting by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in the New York Times, the Trump administration came much closer to suspending the writ of habeas corpus than previously known. Last spring, after the Supreme Court said undocumented immigrants had the right to challenge their deportations, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller proposed simply suspending habeas corpus and deporting them without legal process. The Constitution permits suspension only "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion."
• Trump administration changed immigration detention policy to circumvent habeas corpus rights — After being warned away from suspending habeas corpus, the Trump administration found an alternative: it changed longstanding policy concerning immigrants who had been in the U.S. for a long time. Previously, those caught on the border could be detained without a hearing, while those who had been here for years could request bond. The administration now treats long-term residents as if they had just arrived, throwing them into detention without a bond hearing. Judges have ruled against this new interpretation, but the administration is ignoring the rulings.

Supporting reports

• Trump announced Iran deal and removal of naval blockade — Shortly before attending the UFC event on his birthday, Trump posted on social media announcing that "The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete" and that he was "fully authorizing the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz" and "the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade." An hour later he posted that the deal would bring "Peace and Security to the whole Region." The agreement is scheduled to be signed in Geneva on Friday and appears to be a memorandum of understanding for a 60-day ceasefire, not a final agreement.
• Trump thanked Russia and China for help with Iran deal — In his remarks about the Iran memorandum of understanding, Trump publicly thanked Russia's President Vladimir Putin and China's leader Xi Jinping for their help in negotiating the agreement. This public acknowledgment of foreign involvement in a major U.S. military and diplomatic outcome raised questions about the terms and U.S. interests in the deal.
• Trump signed Iran memorandum of understanding at Palace of Versailles — After initially suggesting Vice President J.D. Vance would sign the Iran MOU to allow Trump to claim credit if successful or blame Vance if it failed, Trump signed the memorandum himself at a dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles on the evening of June 17, 2026. The signing reversed Trump's earlier public positioning that he would not attend a signing ceremony, stating the MOU was "not the kind of document that I should be signing."
• Trump administration read Iran memorandum of understanding text to reporters — A senior U.S. official read the text of a fourteen-point memorandum of understanding with Iran to reporters on June 17, 2026. The MOU calls the U.S.-Iran conflict "the current war," commits both nations to halt military operations on all fronts including Lebanon, requires the U.S. to terminate all sanctions against Iran and lift its blockade of Iranian ports, thaw frozen Iranian assets, and develop a $300 billion reconstruction plan. In exchange, Iran reaffirms it will not develop nuclear weapons—language identical to the 2015 JCPOA that Trump had withdrawn from in 2018. The agreement contains no verification mechanism; Trump stated fear of renewed bombing would ensure compliance. The war has cost thirteen U.S. service members' lives, injured 400 more, and cost at least $132 billion in immediate expenses and economic damage.
• Trump signed memorandum of understanding with Iran on Strait of Hormuz — On June 17, 2026, Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran that formalized Iran's power over the Strait of Hormuz. Former U.S. analysts and officials stated the agreement was dangerously vague and that Iran has interpreted its provision regarding "safe passage of commercial vessels" as granting Iran control of the waterway. Iran subsequently attacked ships attempting passage and declared closure of the strait "until the end of U.S. interference in the region."
• Trump administration releases interim Iran nuclear deal with significant concessions — On Wednesday, June 18, the Trump administration released the text of an interim memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran to end a 110-day conflict. The 14-point accord includes significant political and financial concessions to Iran, including sanctions relief and a $300 billion fund, in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and preventing economic collapse. The deal includes Iran's commitment to destroy its enriched uranium stockpile through down-blending. Both presidents signed the MOU, which gives the parties 60 days to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement.
• Trump signed memorandum of understanding with Iran at Palace of Versailles — President Donald J. Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran on June 18, 2026, at the Palace of Versailles. Vice President J.D. Vance claimed Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed and that benefits flow only upon behavioral change by Iranian leaders. However, the published agreement contains no such stipulation, and benefits including oil sales on international markets and sanctions lifting begin immediately. Trump posted in all caps on social media claiming the deal is a triumph.
• Trump administration signs preliminary US-Iran agreement to end war and reopen Strait of Hormuz — The Trump administration announced a preliminary agreement with Iran to end the ongoing war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Following this announcement, US gasoline prices fell below $4 per gallon for the first time since March, with the national average reaching $3.999. US Central Command lifted its blockade on maritime traffic in the strait. However, prices remain approximately $1 per gallon higher than before the February US-Israel attack on Iran, and experts warn that supply chain disruptions and elevated costs will persist for months.
• White House issues fact sheet promoting Iran Memorandum of Understanding — The White House published a fact sheet on June 19, 2026, announcing that President Trump and Vice President Vance have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran. The document states the agreement ensures Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon, reopens the Strait of Hormuz to free navigation, and follows military operations described as "Operation Midnight Hammer" and "Operation Epic Fury." The fact sheet compiles statements from Republican lawmakers, former officials, commentators, and international leaders endorsing the agreement.

Supporting reports

• Trump-appointed Kennedy Center board voted to fight order removing Trump's name — A federal judge previously ruled that Congress named the Kennedy Center and only Congress can rename it, ordered Trump's name removed by June 13, and blocked a planned two-year closure of the building. This week, with the deadline looming, the Trump-appointed board voted to fight the order. The judge refused to pause the order, writing that the public is rarely served by letting the government keep breaking the law.
• Appeals court rejects emergency stay of Trump name removal from Kennedy Center — An appeals court in Washington DC rejected an emergency appeal filed by Justice Department lawyers and Trump's hand-picked Kennedy Center board seeking to pause a federal judge's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had ruled in May that Trump's name was illegally added to the iconic performing arts venue and ordered its removal within two weeks. Workers began removal efforts on June 12, 2026, despite the emergency appeal filed hours before the deadline.
• Federal judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center facade; workers comply after emergency appeal denied — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that Trump's name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center's facade and ordered its removal by Friday, June 13, 2026. Trump's board had renamed the venue in December 2026 after seizing control in February. After Trump's legal team filed emergency appeals on Friday afternoon, both were denied. Workers removed the signage early Saturday morning behind tarps. The judge found that only Congress, which designated the venue as a Kennedy memorial in 1964, could authorize a name change.
• Federal judge permits UFC event at White House despite legal challenge — Attorneys from the Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit to block a UFC fight scheduled for the White House lawn on Trump's 80th birthday (billed as a 250th anniversary celebration). On Friday, a federal judge ruled the event could proceed. The lawsuit challenged the appropriateness and use of taxpayer funds for the mixed martial arts event, which Dana White said was Trump's idea. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized the venue but expressed hope the event would be successful.
• Kennedy Center removes Trump signage following court order — Charles M. Floca, Trump-appointed head of the Kennedy Center, certified compliance with a court order requiring removal of all signage renaming the center after Trump. The center removed physical signs from the building and grounds, updated its website, removed Trump references from letterhead and promotional materials, and withdrew trademark applications. Workers installed scaffolding and tarps overnight to conceal the portico wall where Trump's name had been placed, with removal work occurring after 3:00 AM. The facade remained covered throughout the day while the center evaluated further legal options.
• Representative Beatty sued to block Kennedy Center renaming — Representative Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who as an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board had been sidelined, filed suit to stop the renaming. She won the case, and Judge Cooper ordered Trump's name removed from the building, all signage, stationery, merchandise, and related materials before midnight on June 12, 2026.

Supporting reports

• Trump requests congressional resolution to symbolically expunge his two impeachments — President Trump is pressing Congress to pass a resolution that would symbolically nullify his two impeachments from his first term—one in 2019 over abuse of power regarding Ukraine, the second in 2021 following the January 6 Capitol attack. Constitutional scholars note the Constitution contains no mechanism to reverse an impeachment, making any resolution largely a political statement. Democrats argue the effort will only resurrect the original allegations during the midterm election cycle.
• Trump seeks to expunge impeachments — The Wall Street Journal reported on June 11 that Trump and his allies have discussed urging Republican lawmakers to pass a resolution "expunging" Trump's two first-term impeachments. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the move a "priority," though it would be purely symbolic with no legal weight. A measure is unlikely to be considered until after the midterm elections.

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

• Federal judge invalidates Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as unlawful tax — US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued a 42-page ruling invalidating Donald Trump's $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, which Trump had imposed via presidential proclamation in September 2025. Sorokin found the fee constituted an unlawful tax that violated federal administrative law and the Constitution, reasoning that only Congress possesses the power to levy taxes. The ruling vacated the fee, which represented a 20-to-50 fold increase over existing rates. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
• Summary judgment ruling — State of California v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13829 — Judge Sorokin granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the $100,000 payment requirement imposed on H-1B petitions under Proclamation 10973 is an unlawful tax exceeding the President's authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and that the agency actions implementing it violated the APA by bypassing notice-and-comment, exceeding statutory authority, and being arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, Judge Sorokin found the Government's rationale for the payment requirement was “cursory,” lacked “reasoned explanation,” and failed to address the reliance interests of employers. The court vacated the implementing policy in its entirety and entered declaratory judgment that it is unlawful, declining to issue a separate permanent injunction. In the same order, Judge Sorokin denied Defendants' motion to dismiss except as to Plaintiffs' claims against the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor, which Plaintiffs had agreed to voluntarily dismiss and which the court dismissed without prejudice.
• Federal judge strikes down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee — U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled that Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee is an unauthorized tax on businesses and must be vacated. The judge found the fee constitutes a tax rather than a penalty, meaning it cannot be imposed without congressional authorization. The precedent cited was the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling in Sebelius.
• U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin struck down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee as an illegal tax requiring congressional approval. — In California v. Markwaple Mullin, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that Proclamation 10973, signed by Trump on September 19, 2025, imposing a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement on H-1B visa petitions, constitutes an illegal tax that must be enacted by Congress. The court found the fee would impede hiring of educators, harm public college staffing and academic research, and worsen medical worker shortages. The court struck down the policy.

Supporting reports

• Public Integrity Project files lawsuit to block UFC event at White House — The watchdog group Public Integrity Project filed a federal lawsuit in DC District Court on Saturday, seeking an emergency injunction to halt the UFC Freedom 250 event scheduled for June 14 at the White House. The complaint names the National Park Service and Department of the Interior as defendants, arguing the Trump administration violated multiple federal laws by using a temporary rule meant for government-planned bicentennial events to accommodate what it characterizes as a private, for-profit sporting event. The suit also alleges the 92-foot steel structure erected on the South Lawn lacked required congressional authorization and environmental review, and notes Trump holds up to $50,000 in stock in the UFC's parent company.
• Federal lawsuit filed to stop UFC cage fights at White House — Susan Douglas and Paul Romano, represented by the Public Integrity Project, filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to stop Ultimate Fighting Championship cage fights scheduled for the White House on Trump's 80th birthday, one week from the article date. The lawsuit alleges that UFC chief executive Dana White, a close friend and ally of the president, is receiving unprecedented access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to stage a private, for-profit sports event. Trump purchased between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in TKO Holding Group, UFC's parent company. The lawsuit notes that federal law tightly restricts private use of national capital monuments and that the event is being tied to Trump's birthday rather than the nation's 250th anniversary.
• Federal lawsuit filed to halt UFC event at White House — A Virginia political organizer and military veteran filed a federal lawsuit seeking a court order to halt a UFC fight scheduled at the White House. The lawsuit alleges the event violates federal law restricting private use of national parklands, that the UFC is erecting a 92-foot-tall, 600-ton steel structure called "the Claw" adjacent to the Executive Residence and destroying much of the South Lawn, and that Trump suggested the structure may never be removed. The lawsuit characterizes the event as a private, for-profit venture using the nation's most sacred spaces.

Supporting reports

• DOJ argues courts lack authority to block White House ballroom construction — The Trump administration asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court decision blocking construction of a $400 million ballroom and underground bunker at the White House's demolished East Wing. A DOJ lawyer argued that only Congress, not courts, has authority to halt the project, citing national security imperatives. The National Trust for Historic Preservation had sued after Trump ordered demolition without completing required environmental and historic preservation reviews. The Senate had removed $1 billion in Secret Service funding for the project from a spending bill.
• Trump's DOJ argues government can demolish Statue of Liberty without legal recourse — In an appeals court argument over White House ballroom construction, Trump's Department of Justice argued that the federal government has the right to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty and that once demolition is complete, no court would have standing to stop it or provide remedy. When Judge Millett asked if people could obtain an injunction before destruction, the DOJ answered affirmatively that nothing could be done. The DOJ also argued courts cannot stop the ballroom construction even if the administration violated the law, claiming only Congress can intervene.