Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• ICE whistleblower testifies on unconstitutional training practices — During congressional testimony, ICE whistleblower Ryan Schwank, a former ICE lawyer at the training academy, revealed that the agency's 584-hour training program for new deportation officers had been cut by 240 hours and that he received "secretive orders" to teach recruits "to violate the Constitution by entering homes without a judicial warrant."
• Former ICE instructor testified about inadequate training for new officers — Ryan Schwank, a former ICE instructor and attorney who resigned from the agency less than two weeks prior, testified to Congress that the agency's efforts to rapidly scale up its ranks will place recruits on the streets without adequate training to lawfully carry out immigration enforcement. Schwank stated that new cadets are graduating from the Academy despite widespread concerns among training staff that they cannot demonstrate a solid grasp of the tactics or law required to perform their jobs. He testified that ICE has cut 240 hours of training from a 584-hour program, eliminating classes on the Constitution, the legal system, firearms, use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention, and the limits of officers' authority. Schwank characterized the ICE Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program as "deficient, defective, and broken" and stated that ICE is lying about the amount of training new recruits are receiving.
• Ryan Schwank resigned from ICE in protest — Ryan Schwank, an attorney and former career ICE employee, resigned from the agency less than two weeks prior to testifying before Congress. A spokesperson for Whistleblower Aid, the legal group representing Schwank, stated that he quit the agency in protest. His resignation represents one of the first instances of an ICE official who has served under the second Trump administration publicly rebuking the agency and the adequacy of its training.

Supporting reports

• Judge Aileen Cannon blocked release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's classified documents report — U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order permanently blocking the release of Volume Two of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on classified documents. Cannon ruled that releasing the report would be "unfair" to Trump and his co-defendants, citing her prior conclusion that the Special Counsel lacked lawful authority. The Department of Justice did not oppose the motion, allowing Cannon to write that "all parties agree" disclosure would violate the court's dismissal order. The decision shields the report from public scrutiny.
• Judge Cannon permanently blocks release of Jack Smith's classified documents report — US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, issued a permanent injunction barring the Department of Justice from releasing Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the classified documents case (Volume II). Cannon condemned Smith's compilation of the report after she had dismissed the underlying case in 2024 on grounds of unlawful appointment, calling it a "brazen stratagem" and a breach of her dismissal order. She ruled that release would expose grand jury material and cause irreparable harm to Trump, distinguishing the case from prior special counsel reports (Mueller) that were publicly released.
• Judge Aileen Cannon blocked release of Jack Smith's classified documents report — Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, blocked the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on his investigation of Trump's retention of classified documents after leaving office in 2021. It is standard procedure for a special counsel's report to be made public. Legal analyst Joyce White Vance noted that Cannon has consistently worked to suppress Smith's report and that Trump's fierce fight to keep it under wraps has led to speculation about surprising contents.
• Judge blocks release of Jack Smith’s report on Trump — Judge Aileen Cannon blocked the release of special counsel Jack Smith's report regarding Trump's retention of classified documents. This decision is notable as it deviates from the usual procedure of making such reports public, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rules Trump exceeded authority on tariff imposition — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that President Trump violated the Constitution by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on global imports without congressional approval. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that taxation is a core congressional power. The ruling invalidated most of the administration's tariffs. Democratic lawmakers celebrated the decision as a check on executive overreach, while Trump called it a "disgrace" and indicated he had a backup plan.
• Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs unconstitutional in 6-3 decision — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last Friday that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during peacetime. The court affirmed that Congress alone retains the power to levy taxes under the Constitution and that the IEEPA cannot supersede that authority absent genuine emergency conditions. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court overturned Trump policies in his second term and undercut his claims to sweeping executive trade authority.
• Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs unlawful, striking down invocation of International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump lacked authority to impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by two Trump-appointed justices (Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) and the three liberal-leaning justices. The court held that taxation powers are reserved exclusively to Congress. Trump responded with a vitriolic public attack on the justices, calling them "FOOLS" and "LAPDOGS," and immediately announced new tariffs under different legislative authority.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump's national emergency tariffs — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision invalidating Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that tariffs constitute taxation and fall under Congress's exclusive constitutional authority. The decision reduces the U.S. average trade-weighted tariff from 15.3% to 8.3%, with significant reductions on Chinese (36.8% to 21.2%), Brazilian (26.3% to 6.8%), and Japanese (14.9% to 9.9%) imports. Trump immediately announced a 10% blanket global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as an alternative.
• US Supreme Court declares Trump's IEEPA tariffs illegal — The US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot impose tariffs in peacetime using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring his tariffs enacted under that authority unlawful. The White House indicated it will replace the levies using alternative statutory tools, such as the 1974 Trade Act. International businesses and governments expressed uncertainty about future tariff regimes, as the ruling does not constrain Trump's other trade policy options. US business groups celebrated the decision as affirming rule of law and separation of powers.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs illegal under IEEPA, Trump announces new 10% global tariff under Section 122 — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Friday declaring that Donald Trump's tariffs lacked legal justification under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed for national emergencies. The court held that tariff authority belongs exclusively to Congress under the Constitution's taxing power. Trump responded by calling the justices "a disgrace to the nation" and immediately announced a new 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits 150-day tariffs, while initiating investigations into unfair trading practices for potential permanent tariffs.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's unilateral tariff authority under IEEPA — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing global tariffs without congressional approval under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision affirmed lower court findings that the tariffs—covering dozens of countries and announced on "liberation day" in April 2025—were illegal. Trump immediately vowed to continue tariffs using alternative authority under the Trade Act of 1974, announcing a new 10% global tariff and directing investigations into unfair trading practices.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs under IEEPA unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court found that tariffs Trump levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. The decision was announced on Friday, February 21, 2026. Following the ruling, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports on Friday and escalated to a 15% worldwide tariff on Saturday, claiming the court decision actually granted him broader powers than he previously possessed.
• Supreme Court ruling on tariffs declared unconstitutional — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional. Following this decision, Trump announced a 10% tariff on foreign imports, which he later raised to 15%. He claimed that the ruling inadvertently granted him more power and threatened higher tariffs on countries he accused of taking advantage of the U.S. This ruling has led to significant uncertainty among U.S. trading partners, prompting the European Parliament to pause trade deal approvals with the U.S.
• Trump claims he has unchecked power after Supreme Court ruling — Trump publicly stated that the Supreme Court's ruling has given him "far more powers and strength" than before, suggesting he could use tariffs in a more aggressive manner. His comments reflect a disregard for the Court's authority and the principles of checks and balances.
• Trump’s tariffs face public disapproval — A poll indicated that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of tariffs, with 82% believing he must obey Supreme Court rulings. This public sentiment reflects widespread dissatisfaction with his economic policies and governance.
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump "liberation day" tariffs — The US Supreme Court struck down Trump's sweeping "liberation day" tariffs that had been imposed the previous year. The decision represented a judicial check on the executive's tariff authority and prompted the administration to announce the alternative 10% global tariff as a replacement policy.
• Supreme Court struck down Trump's broad tariff authority under IEEPA — Days before the State of the Union address, the Supreme Court struck down the President's claimed authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in what CNBC and CNN reported as one of the most consequential executive power rulings in years. In response, Trump called the ruling "unfortunate" and vowed to pursue "alternative" legal authorities to continue imposing tariffs without congressional approval, signaling his intent to circumvent the Court's decision.

Supporting reports

• Fifth Circuit lifts injunction on Louisiana Ten Commandments classroom display law — The US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 12-6 to lift a preliminary injunction blocking Louisiana's law requiring poster-sized displays of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. The majority found it premature to decide constitutionality before implementation, citing insufficient facts about display prominence and classroom context. The law, passed in 2024, now proceeds to enforcement despite ongoing constitutional challenges from parents and civil rights groups arguing it violates First Amendment protections against government establishment of religion.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of Trade Act — Following the Supreme Court's ruling striking down his IEEPA-based tariffs, President Trump announced a new 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits tariffs for 150 days. Trump stated the administration would initiate investigations into unfair trading practices that could lead to permanent tariffs. Trump framed the court's decision as actually strengthening presidential tariff authority and vowed to enact "very powerful alternatives" to the struck-down tariffs.
• Trump announces 10% global tariff under Section 122 — Following the Supreme Court's invalidation of his national emergency tariffs, Trump announced a 10% blanket global tariff "over and above our normal tariffs already being charged" under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which permits temporary tariffs to address balance-of-payments deficits. This action circumvents the Court's ruling by invoking alternative statutory authority, though Section 122 requires congressional approval to extend beyond 150 days and prohibits country-specific discrimination.
• Trump announces new 10% global tariff under Trade Act of 1974 — Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, President Trump held a press conference announcing he would continue his tariff war using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 instead of the IEEPA. He announced a new 10% global tariff and directed his administration to conduct investigations into unfair trading practices under other sections of the 1974 Act. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated the new tariffs would result in "virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026" and acknowledged the process would be more complicated but ultimately achieve the same outcome.
• Trump announces new 10% global tariff, increases to 15% within 24 hours — After the Supreme Court ruled his tariffs unconstitutional, President Trump announced a new 10% global tariff using different statutory authority and increased it to 15% less than 24 hours later. Trump stated "The policy hasn't changed. The legal tools that implement that may change but the policy hasn't changed," signaling intent to circumvent the court's constitutional ruling through alternative legal mechanisms. Top trade negotiator Jamieson Greer defended the shift as providing US business "leverage" in world trade.
• Trump signals intent to reimpose tariffs via alternative legal authority — At a news conference on 21 February 2026, President Trump stated he would attempt to reintroduce 10 percent tariffs on all countries using a different legal mechanism after the Supreme Court struck down his IEEPA-based tariffs. Trump characterized the court's failure to address refunds as "crazy" and predicted years of litigation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent similarly suggested refunds could be delayed indefinitely.
• Trump announced 10% tariff on foreign imports following Supreme Court ruling — On Friday, February 21, 2026, immediately after the Supreme Court's decision striking down his IEEPA tariffs, Trump announced he was imposing a 10% tariff on foreign imports, directly contradicting the court's constitutional finding.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariff regime unlawful; Trump announced new tariffs under Section 122 of Trade Act — The Supreme Court struck down Trump's sweeping tariff regime as lacking statutory authority. Within hours, Trump announced a new 10 percent worldwide tariff, raising it to 15 percent by the following morning, claiming authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Legal analysis indicates Section 122 permits only temporary import surcharges of up to 15 percent for no more than 150 days, and only when the United States faces a serious international balance-of-payments crisis. The current U.S. balance-of-payments deficit is zero, and no such crisis exists. Trump's new tariff announcement appears to be an attempt to circumvent the Court's ruling through a different legal theory.
• Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal under emergency powers law — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Friday declaring that most of Trump's tariffs lacked legal justification under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court held that tariff authority belongs to Congress during peacetime, not the president. Trump responded by announcing a 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Trade chief Jamieson Greer stated the administration would persist with tariff policy despite the ruling and would not seek congressional authorization for the new tariffs.
• Trump signs global 10% tariff proclamation under Section 122 after Supreme Court blocks tariff authority — President Trump signed a proclamation on February 21, 2026, imposing a temporary 10% tariff on all countries effective February 24, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The action followed a Supreme Court ruling blocking his use of tariffs. Trump claimed authority under existing statutes without congressional approval. Canada, Mexico, certain food products, and critical minerals were exempted. Trump publicly attacked six justices as a "disgrace to the nation" while praising three dissenters.
• Trump increased proposed global tariff rate from 10% to 15% via social media post — Trump announced via Truth Social that he was raising worldwide tariffs from the initially announced 10% to 15%, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The announcement claimed the tariffs would take effect "effective immediately," though it remained unclear whether official documents had been signed. This followed Trump's earlier press conference announcement of 10% tariffs and came after the Supreme Court struck down his previous tariff actions as illegal on Friday.
• Trump imposed 10% global tariff under Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974, then raised it to 15% — On February 21, 2026, President Trump announced a 10% global tariff citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, then raised it to 15% the following day. Trump invoked this authority immediately after the Supreme Court struck down his previous tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to Popular Information's analysis, Trump's invocation of Section 122 is legally defective because the statute authorizes tariffs only in response to "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits, not trade deficits; the U.S. currently has a zero balance-of-payments deficit, making the tariff legally unsupported.
• Trump announces 15% global tariff under alternative legal framework — Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump announced a 15% global tariff on all foreign imports (increased from 10% announced Friday) under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, a different legal framework than the one struck down by the court. Trade chief Greer indicated the administration would not automatically seek congressional authorization for these tariffs, which are set to expire within five months without it.
• Trump escalated tariffs to 15% and claimed court ruling expanded his powers — On Saturday, February 22, 2026, Trump posted that he was raising tariffs from 10% to 15% worldwide, effective immediately. He claimed the Supreme Court's decision "accidentally and unwittingly" gave him "far more powers and strength" than before and that he could "do absolutely 'terrible' things to foreign countries" using tariffs the court had approved.
• Trump administration announced plans to scale back tariffs on steel and aluminum — The Trump administration announced it would review and scale back tariffs on steel and aluminum goods—which had been set at up to 50 percent the previous summer—and exempt some items while halting expansion of the tariff lists. The administration also planned to launch more targeted national security probes into specific goods instead of maintaining broad tariffs. This move was undertaken in response to an affordability crisis damaging Trump's approval ratings.
• Trump invoked Section 122 authority to impose 10% tariff on all imports — Following the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling, Trump immediately invoked Section 122 of the Tariff Act—an older statutory authority requiring no investigation but limited to 15 percent for 150 days—to impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries. This action circumvented the Court's restriction on unilateral IEEPA tariffs by relying on a different legal basis Congress had previously authorized.
• Trump raised Section 122 tariff from 10% to 15% — One day after imposing a 10 percent tariff under Section 122, Trump raised the rate to 15 percent—the statutory maximum under that authority. This escalation occurred within the same legal framework but pushed the temporary tariff to its ceiling.
• Trump imposed 15% tariff invoking Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974 — President Trump announced a 15% tariff by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his prior tariff regime as unconstitutional. The administration's trade representative Jamieson Greer defended the move on Sunday shows, claiming the legal tool might change but policy remains consistent. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to commit to refunding approximately $134 billion collected under the now-invalidated tariffs, stating only that the administration would follow the court's direction.
• Administration announces pipeline of tariff investigations to rebuild tariff wall — Treasury Secretary Bessent announced on Sunday that Section 122 tariffs could expire after five months as Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices and additional Section 232 national security tariffs are lined up to replace them. The administration is using procedural investigations as a mechanism to rebuild the same tariff structure that the Supreme Court struck down, using different legal authorities.
• Trade chief states tariff policy unchanged despite court ruling — On Sunday, U.S. trade negotiator Jamieson Greer told ABC News that the Trump administration would maintain its tariff policy and continue in the same direction, stating "the policy hasn't changed. The legal tools that implement that may change but the policy hasn't changed." Greer also confirmed the U.S. would not back out of bilateral tariff deals with the UK, EU, Japan, Switzerland, and others, despite the court ruling declaring those tariffs illegal.
• Trump delivered longest State of the Union address on record during partial DHS shutdown — President Trump delivered what multiple news outlets reported as the longest State of the Union address in U.S. history on February 24, 2026, while the Department of Homeland Security remained partially shut down since February 14. The address occurred during an active government funding lapse affecting federal workers' paychecks and DHS operations including TSA PreCheck, Global Entry, border security, airport screening, and the Coast Guard. Federal News Network reported it was the first SOTU ever delivered during an active partial government shutdown.
• Trump vowed to continue imposing tariffs despite Supreme Court ruling — During the State of the Union address, President Trump responded to the Supreme Court's striking down of his tariff authority by calling the ruling "unfortunate" and vowing to pursue "alternative" legal authorities to continue imposing tariffs without congressional approval. He also repeated the claim that tariffs are paid by foreign countries, contrary to evidence showing costs are borne primarily by American importers and consumers.
• Trump claimed he does not need Congressional approval for tariffs — Fifteen minutes after his threat post, at 9:49 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted that "As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs. It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago!" He claimed tariffs were "reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision."
• Trump claims he has unchecked power after Supreme Court ruling — Trump publicly stated that the Supreme Court's ruling has given him "far more powers and strength" than before, suggesting he could use tariffs in a more aggressive manner. His comments reflect a disregard for the Court's authority and the principles of checks and balances.
• Trump posted that Supreme Court ruling granted him unchecked tariff power — At 7:06 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted on social media that the Supreme Court had "accidentally and unwittingly" given him "far more powers and strength" than he had before. He claimed he could use tariffs "in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty" and attacked the court with contemptuous language, writing "supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!)."
• Trump threatened higher tariffs against countries "playing games" — At 9:34 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted a threat that any country wanting to "play games" with the Supreme Court decision, especially those that have "ripped off" the U.S., would face "much higher Tariff, and worse" than recently agreed tariffs. The post ended with "BUYER BEWARE!!!"
• Trump threatens higher tariffs on foreign countries — Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump threatened that any country that "plays games" with the decision would face significantly higher tariffs. He asserted that he does not need Congressional approval for tariffs, claiming that previous approvals were sufficient. This statement reflects his intention to bypass legislative oversight in tariff implementation.
• Trump announced but did not sign 15 percent global tariff order — Trump announced plans to raise global tariffs to 15 percent under the 1974 Trade Act after his IEEPA tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court. However, he never actually signed the order, meaning the effective tariff rate remained at 10 percent. The announcement was made publicly or on social media but was not formalized through executive action.
• Trump proclaims 10% temporary import surcharge on most goods for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficit — President Trump issued Proclamation 11012 on February 20, 2026, imposing a temporary 10 percent ad valorem import surcharge effective February 24, 2026, for 150 days under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The proclamation cites large U.S. balance-of-payments deficits ($1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024, current account deficit of 4.0% of GDP, and negative net international-investment position of -90% of GDP) as justification. Broad exemptions apply to critical minerals, energy, agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, aerospace goods, and articles from Canada, Mexico, and Central American trade partners. The surcharge is in addition to existing tariffs and will be administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
• Trump administration imposes 10% global tariff after Supreme Court strikes down "liberation day" tariffs — Following a Supreme Court decision that struck down Trump's sweeping "liberation day" tariffs imposed the previous year, the Trump administration announced a 10% global tariff on imported articles from every country for 150 days, effective Tuesday. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated the rate would rise to 15% or higher for some countries. The move represents a recalibration of tariff policy in response to the court's rejection of the earlier tariff regime.
• Trump sought Supreme Court rehearing on tariff decision — Trump posted on social media requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider its recent tariff decision, arguing that the ruling "could allow for Hundreds of Billions of Dollars to be returned to Countries and Companies that have been 'ripping off' the USA for many years." Trump asked "Is a Rehearing or Readjudication of this case possible???" Legal experts confirmed that no such rehearing mechanism exists under Supreme Court rules.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans passed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act restricting voting — Republicans in the House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which dramatically restricts voting under the guise of election security. Trump promoted the legislation in Georgia, claiming it would ensure Republicans "never lose a race" for 50 years. The law addresses a nonexistent problem of voter fraud while substantially narrowing voting access and eligibility.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the statute contains no mention of tariffs or duties and that the Constitution assigns taxing power to Congress. The decision invoked the major questions doctrine, holding that powers of vast economic significance require clear statutory language. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined Roberts's lead opinion; Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the core holding, with Kagan writing separately on statutory interpretation grounds.
• Media Invitation Announced for United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. Pre-Trial Hearing — The Department of War published an advisory on 2026-02-20 through its advisories channel. The department's own account of it reads: "The War Department invites media to cover pretrial proceedings in the case of United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, scheduled for May 4 - 29, 2026."
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs; CBP ordered to process $166bn in refunds — The Supreme Court invalidated Trump's "liberation day" tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling he lacked legal authority. A federal judge ordered US Customs and Border Protection to process refunds to approximately 330,000 importers totaling an estimated $166 billion without requiring lawsuits. CBP filed notice it would establish a refund system within 45 days using existing liquidation procedures. The ruling resolved a core constitutional question about executive power but left implementation details to lower courts and agency discretion.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's "liberation day" tariffs as illegal — On 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed in April 2025 were illegal. The decision opened the door to an estimated $175 billion in refund claims from businesses across the country. Major companies including FedEx, L'Oreal, and Dyson have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds. The ruling has triggered a surge in demand for trade lawyers and created opportunities for hedge funds and AI firms to profit from the refund process.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs — The US Supreme Court ruled on 20 February 2026 that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing far-reaching global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found the tariffs unlawful but did not address whether the Trump administration must repay an estimated $133 billion in collected tariffs, leaving the refund question to lower courts. Trump immediately signaled intent to reintroduce tariffs via alternative legal authority.
• Former South Korean President Sentenced to Life in Prison — The Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison for leading an insurrection against the government. Yoon had declared martial law in December 2024, attempting to block the National Assembly and arrest opposition politicians. His actions were deemed unconstitutional, leading to his impeachment and removal from office. The court considered his age and lack of lethal force in its sentencing.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs unconstitutional — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court declared President Trump's tariffs unconstitutional. Following this ruling, Trump claimed the right to impose tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." Trump was the first president to invoke this provision, and his use of it has already been challenged in court.
• U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Trump's IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional in 6–3 decision — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed under emergency declarations citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), violated the Constitution. Trump had declared national emergencies regarding drug influx and trade deficits to justify sweeping tariff increases that upended post-World War II free trade principles. The Court found that Congress alone holds constitutional authority to tax Americans, and that Trump's tariff authority under IEEPA did not extend to the broad economic restructuring he imposed. The ruling invalidated tariffs that had cost American households an estimated $1,000–$1,700 in 2025 and slowed economic growth to 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under IEEPA — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. The majority (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor) rejected the government's tariff authority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation.
• Supreme Court ruled against Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorized tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff authority — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously read IEEPA to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented. The majority included Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff power — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff authority — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority supported the opposite reading.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff power — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority and that IEEPA clearly authorized the power. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariffs — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, with Kavanaugh arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump cannot use emergency powers to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Solicitor General granted amicus participation and divided argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation and commerce.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (24-1287) — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that "until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power." Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts; Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and no President had previously read it to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority; Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the statute grants sufficient authority for tariff imposition. The ruling represents the Court's most significant rebuke of the Trump administration since his return to office.
• — The Supreme Court granted the Solicitor General's motion to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and to conduct divided argument in the pending case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. (Docket 24-1238). This procedural grant permits the federal government to present oral argument alongside the parties and allows argument time to be divided among multiple speakers.
• — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Docket number(s): 24-1287.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: City of Fresno v. Noem (N.D. Cal.) — A coalition of eleven California and Oregon cities and counties filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging executive orders and departmental memoranda that condition federal grants on certifications that recipients do not operate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or "gender ideology" programs and will cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs allege the conditions are unauthorized, vague, and force an impossible choice between forfeiting millions in disaster mitigation and victim-services funding or accepting legal jeopardy. The complaint asserts violations of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, Spending Clause, Tenth Amendment, Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration held first meeting of Board of Peace at renamed U.S. Institute of Peace — President Trump held the inaugural meeting of his "Board of Peace" at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), which the Trump administration renamed the "Donald J. Trump U.S. Institute of Peace"—a change being legally challenged. Last year, Trump officials seized the USIP building, which housed an independent entity created by Congress in 1984, and fired nearly all employees. Twenty-seven countries participated; none have contributed the $1 billion needed for permanent status. Trump extended invitations to International Criminal Court-indicted leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin. Canada was withdrawn after Prime Minister Mark Carney criticized Trump's foreign policy at Davos. Fourteen countries rejected invitations, citing support for the UN, concerns about Russian influence, and Trump's unilateral decision-making authority over the board.
• Trump announced $10 billion commitment to Board of Peace without congressional appropriation — President Trump announced that the U.S. will commit $10 billion to the Board of Peace. However, under the U.S. constitutional system, only Congress possesses the power to appropriate funds. The mechanism by which Trump intends to fund this commitment remains unclear, raising questions about whether he is attempting to bypass congressional appropriation authority.
• Trump announces $10 billion transfer to "Board of Peace" without congressional approval — Donald Trump announced he will transfer $10 billion from the U.S. government to his "Board of Peace," a gathering that drew limited participation from major democratic allies. The transfer is characterized as requiring congressional approval but proceeding without it. Critics warn the fund operates as a slush fund under Trump's direct control. The Board of Peace event itself drew primarily authoritarian or illiberal regime leaders rather than democratic nations.
• Trump held first meeting of "Board of Peace" at Donald J. Trump Institute for Peace — Trump convened the inaugural meeting of his "Board of Peace" at the newly established Donald J. Trump Institute for Peace. The meeting lasted over three hours, with Trump speaking for more than an hour followed by attendees offering praise. Trump's remarks included rambling anecdotes about receiving a peace prize from FIFA, crediting Hamas for recovering hostages, making comments about foreign leaders' wealth and appearance, and references to his wife Melania's film success. Other speakers included the Kazakhstan dictator, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff. Trump fell asleep at the two-hour mark and concluded the meeting by striking a golden gavel as the Village People's "YMCA" played.
• Trump Announces Funding for Board of Peace — During the meeting of the Board of Peace, President Trump announced that the U.S. would contribute $10 billion to the initiative. However, this funding is legally questionable, as only Congress has the authority to appropriate federal funds. The announcement has raised concerns about the legality and transparency of the board's operations.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of Minnesota v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:26-cv-00190 — A magistrate judge denied Minnesota's motion for expedited discovery, holding that despite the “far-reaching and deeply traumatizing effects” of Operation Metro Surge, Plaintiffs had not shown good cause because they had not yet filed the contemplated preliminary injunction motion or narrowly targeted their request to support specific and necessary ends.
• Stay motion decided — Lesly Miot v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-02471 — A coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in opposition to the emergency motion to stay pending appeal.
• Case update — Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04424 — Defendant answered Plaintiff's complaint and included the defense that its actions did not violate FOIA or other statutory provisions.
• Case update — State of Washington v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12006 — Plaintiff States filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment.
• Motion to dismiss decided — State of New York v. Department of Education (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11116 — Judge Young granted parties' joint motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice after the administration withdrew its appeal in American Federation of Teachers v. Department of Education of a court order vacating the same challenged agency action.
• Ruling vacated — Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. (C.D. Cal.) 5:25-cv-01873 — Judge Sykes granted Plaintiffs' motion to enforce judgment, finding that the government violated her prior order by continuing to detain noncitizens without a bond hearing. Judge Sykes vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that conflicted with her order, finding that the administration's continued reliance on that decision “far crossed the boundaries of constitutional conduct.” Judge Sykes also ordered the government to provide notice to a nationwide class of detained noncitizens of their ability to seek bond hearings under her order.
• Stay motion decided — U.H.A. et al v. Bondi et al (D. Minn.) 0:26-cv-00417 — Judge Tunheim granted the motion to stay consideration of Plaintiffs' contempt motion for seven days.
• Case update — Center for Constitutional Rights v. United States Department of State (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-06879 — Defendants filed a status report which indicates that USAID had begun its production of priority documents to Plaintiff and that the parties would continue to confer on narrowing the scope of Defendants' searches in light of USAID initially locating over 17 million potentially responsive records and DOS initially locating over 900,000 pages of responsive records.
• Case update — Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate et al (D. Colo.) 1:25-cv-00881 — In a minute order , Judge Wang directed that the case be administratively closed.
• Complaint filed — Lemmon v. Trump (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-00544) — Private plaintiffs, including Vietnam War veterans, diplomats, and a historic preservation expert, filed a complaint in D.D.C. challenging President Trump's proposed 25-story "Independence Arch" on Memorial Circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. Plaintiffs allege the administration violated the Commemorative Works Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and National Environmental Policy Act by proceeding without required legislative approval and environmental review on an accelerated schedule ahead of July 4, 2026. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to bar construction and have filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
• Complaint filed: Williams v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration — Two scientists and an association of engineers and scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center filed suit in D.D.C. against NASA and the Archivist of the United States, challenging the September 2025 reversal of NASA's records-preservation framework and the closure of the Goddard Information and Collaboration Center and NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. Plaintiffs allege the decisions violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and seek vacatur, rescission, and an order requiring preservation of the database and records.
• Motion granted — Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior (D. Utah) 2:25-cv-00657 — Judge Barlow granted a motion allowing Peak Minerals, the owner of mineral leases at stake in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's lawsuit against the government, to intervene in the case.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Department Of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04426 — Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued an order which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion . The DOJ was ordered to expedite its processing of CREW's FOIA requests, however Judge Kollar-Kotelly declined to direct the DOJ to process its requests at a specific rate, instead opting to direct the parties to develop a proposal for the expedited processing and production of the most urgent records.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Tincher v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:25-cv-04669 — The Eight Circuit stayed the appeal proceedings pending an indicative ruling by the district court on a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, following the reported end of Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis.
• Appeal filed — State of Illinois v. Noem (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00495 — The government appealed Judge McElroy's Dec. 22, 2025 order granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs to the First Circuit (Case No. 26-1182 ).
• Case update — Jorge Lujan v. FMCSA (D.C. Cir.) 25-1215 — The court severed Lujan v. FMCSA , 26-1032 from Lujan v. FMCSA , 25-1215. The court ordered Lujan v. FMCSA , 25-1215 remain in abeyance pending further order of the court following the disposition of Lujan v. FMCSA , 26-1032.
• Case update — Jorge Lujan v. FMCSA (D.C. Cir.) 26-1032 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging they have exhausted administrative remedies under FOIA and are now entitled to an injunction.
• Case update — Protect Democracy Project v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04101 — The court consolidated American Public Health Association v. EPA , 26-1037 with Elena Venner v. EPA , 26-1038. These cases will proceed under American Public Health Association v. EPA .
• Cases consolidated — American Public Health Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir.) 26-1037

Supporting reports

• DOJ claims full compliance with Epstein Transparency Act — Attorney General Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche issued a letter asserting that the Department of Justice has completely fulfilled its obligations under the Epstein Transparency Act, claiming release of all records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ's possession relating to Epstein. House Oversight ranking member Robert Garcia disputed this claim, stating that approximately 50% of Epstein files remain withheld.
• Rep. Massie alleges DOJ removed Epstein documents — Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) stated that the DOJ took down significant Epstein documents before Congress could review unredacted versions. Massie said the DOJ cannot keep documents down after already producing them, indicating potential destruction or concealment of evidence.
• Sen. Schumer accuses DOJ of Epstein file cover-up — Sen. Chuck Schumer stated that the Epstein Transparency Act required all files to be released by December 19, 2025. Schumer alleged that DOJ delayed release for 43 days, cherry-picked documents with heavy redactions, and admitted to releasing less than 1% of all documents until recently. Schumer accused Attorney General Bondi of attempting to deceive the American people.
• Trump administration declares Epstein files case closed despite evidence of undisclosed material — Reporting indicates the Epstein files are substantially larger than previously disclosed, with researchers estimating as much as 50 terabytes of material, with only a fraction produced publicly. The Trump administration has declared the case "closed" and insisted there is nothing more to see, despite evidence to the contrary. Millions of documents reportedly remain undisclosed.
• DOJ withholds approximately 3 million Epstein files despite congressional mandate — The Trump administration's Department of Justice continues to withhold approximately 3 million documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, despite Congress mandating their release in late 2025. Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, accused the DOJ of "slow-walking" the release and urged the administration to "get the files out." Periodic document dumps have occurred, but the vast majority remain unreleased.

Supporting reports

• Don Lemon arraigned on federal civil rights charges related to Minnesota church protest coverage — Former CNN host and independent journalist Don Lemon pleaded not guilty in federal court in St. Paul, Minnesota, to charges of conspiracy and interfering with congregants' constitutional rights to freely exercise religion. Lemon was arrested while covering a January 18 anti-ICE protest at a Southern Baptist church. His attorney raised First Amendment issues and requested return of Lemon's phone, seized during arrest. Four other defendants, including civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, also pleaded not guilty. Nine people total have been charged under the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Supporting reports

• Federal agents arrested protesters and journalists; White House mocked arrested protester with digitally altered photo — During the Minnesota ICE surge, federal agents arrested protesters and journalists documenting the operations. Following at least one arrest, the White House created and circulated a digitally altered photograph mocking the arrested protester. The action represents use of government resources to ridicule and intimidate dissent.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces intent to change voting laws by executive action — Trump's social media account announced that he intends to change the nation's voting laws unilaterally, stating he will present "an irrefutable" legal argument for voter ID and citizenship requirements and that "There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!" He also called for an end to mail-in ballots except for military, disability, illness, or travel.

Supporting reports

• Trump signals potential executive order on voting and voter ID requirements — On February 13, 2026, Trump posted on social media that he would present "irrefutable" legal arguments for an executive order on voting, stating "There will be voter I.D. for the midterm elections whether approved by Congress or not." This statement indicates Trump's willingness to impose voting changes unilaterally, bypassing congressional authority. However, in late February, Trump appeared to cool on the specific draft order Ticktin has been promoting, instead focusing on pressuring the Senate to pass the Save America Act, which mandates proof of citizenship and restricts mail-in voting and machine use.
• Trump threatened executive order to take over elections from states — Trump issued a post threatening to take over elections from the states by executive order if the SAVE Act is not passed by Congress. He stated: "We cannot let the Democrats get away with no voter ID any longer" and "If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly., in the form of an Executive Order."

Supporting reports

• Senator Kelly files lawsuit against Defense Secretary Hegseth — Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth challenging the censure and attempted rank reduction as unconstitutional retaliation for protected free speech. Kelly argued that the video he and other Democrats made was constitutionally protected and that Hegseth had undertaken an "unconstitutional crusade" against him.
• Defense Secretary Hegseth censures and attempts to demote Senator Kelly over video — Pete Hegseth, Defense Secretary, formally censured Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and sitting U.S. Senator, and attempted to reduce his rank and pension in retaliation for Kelly's participation in a video urging troops to refuse illegal orders. Kelly filed a lawsuit against Hegseth arguing the video was protected free speech and that Hegseth undertook an "unconstitutional crusade" against him.
• Defense Secretary Hegseth censures Senator Kelly and attempts rank reduction — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth formally censured Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and NASA astronaut, over his participation in the video urging troops to resist unlawful orders. Hegseth attempted to reduce Kelly's rank and pension. Kelly subsequently filed a lawsuit against Hegseth, arguing the video constituted protected free speech and that the secretary had undertaken an "unconstitutional crusade" against him.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Kelly v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00081 — Judge Leon granted Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the administration from censuring Senator Mark Kelly or initiating proceedings to reduce his retirement rank and pay, finding that such actions likely violated the Senator's First Amendment rights by retaliating against him in response to a video message in which he warned U.S troops not to follow illegal orders.
• Federal judge blocks Pentagon retaliation against Senator Mark Kelly — Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth cannot penalize Senator Mark Kelly over a video in which Kelly reminded service members of their oath to the Constitution and duty to refuse illegal orders. The judge blocked the Pentagon from pursuing disciplinary action against Kelly, finding that an effort to cut his retirement benefits was likely unconstitutional.
• Judge Richard Leon blocked Hegseth disciplinary proceedings against Sen. Mark Kelly — Bush appointee Judge Richard Leon issued an order blocking Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from proceeding with disciplinary action against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a retired naval officer, for voicing opinions on military actions and policy. The judge ruled that retired servicemembers serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military are not subject to reduced First Amendment protections, and that Hegseth had trampled on Kelly's First Amendment freedoms.
• Judge Leon blocks Pentagon's attempt to reduce Mark Kelly's military rank and pension — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a censure letter on January 5, 2026, seeking to reduce Senator Mark Kelly's retired military rank and pension after Kelly appeared in a November video urging service members to reject unlawful orders. Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction on February 13, blocking the Pentagon's action and ruling that Hegseth had violated Kelly's First Amendment rights and threatened the constitutional liberties of military retirees. The ruling rebuked the Trump administration's attempt to criminalize dissent.

Supporting reports

• Grand Jury Unanimously Rejects DOJ Indictment of Six Democratic Lawmakers — A federal grand jury unanimously rejected the Trump administration's effort to indict six Democratic lawmakers over their involvement in a viral video urging military members to refuse illegal orders. According to NBC News, not a single grand juror found that the Justice Department met the probable cause threshold. The rejection represents a rare judicial check on the administration's use of law enforcement to target political opponents, though Senator Mark Kelly characterized the attempt itself as a "master alarm flashing for our democracy."
• Grand jury refuses to indict six Democratic members of Congress for military loyalty video — A Washington, D.C. grand jury refused to indict six Democratic members of Congress—Senators Mark Kelly (AZ), Elissa Slotkin (MI), and Representatives Jason Crow (CO), Chris Deluzio (PA), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (PA)—all military veterans or former intelligence officials, for violating a federal statute criminalizing interference with military loyalty, morale, or discipline. The members had recorded a video in November reminding service members they must refuse illegal orders. Trump characterized the conduct as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" The New York Times called the grand jury's refusal "a remarkable rebuke" of the administration's attempts to harass perceived opponents.
• Grand jury declined to indict Democratic senators for military refusal statement — On 11 February 2026, a grand jury failed to indict Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and five other Democrats for releasing a video statement encouraging military members to "refuse illegal orders." The DOJ's prosecution attempt was abandoned after the grand jury declined to indict, despite Trump labeling the Democrats' message "seditious behavior punishable by death."
• Grand jury declines to indict six Democratic lawmakers over military dissent video — A Washington DC grand jury declined to indict six Democratic lawmakers—Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan—who created a video urging troops to refuse illegal orders. Federal prosecutors, acting at Trump's direction, had sought indictment. Trump called the video "seditious" and "punishable by death." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth censured Kelly and attempted to reduce his rank and pension. Kelly filed a lawsuit against Hegseth claiming the video was protected speech.
• Grand jury declines to indict six Democratic lawmakers over military video — A federal grand jury in Washington DC declined to indict six Democratic members of Congress—Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and House members Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Chris Deluzio—who posted a video urging service members to resist unlawful orders. The Trump administration, through U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, had sought indictment on charges the lawmakers characterized as politically motivated. Kelly and Slotkin held a press conference condemning the prosecution attempt as weaponization of the Justice Department and an authoritarian tactic to silence dissent.
• Federal grand jury refuses to indict Democratic lawmakers for speech — A federal grand jury refused to indict Senator Mark Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers for their speech regarding constitutional obligations and illegal orders. Senator Elissa Slotkin warned that the DOJ may attempt to indict them again.
• DOJ attempted to indict six Democratic lawmakers; grand jury rejected indictment — The Department of Justice attempted to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers over a military video urging members of the military and intelligence communities to uphold their oaths. A federal grand jury unanimously rejected the prosecution's case, finding the government had not met the threshold of probable cause. The DOJ lawyers who brought the case were political appointees without prior federal prosecution experience. Former federal prosecutors noted this outcome was extraordinarily rare.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration officials embrace Great Replacement theory in immigration policy — The article traces the historical lineage of conspiracy theories used to consolidate political power, from Senator Joe McCarthy's 1950 anticommunist accusations through the modern Great Replacement theory. It documents how Trump and his team—including Vice President J.D. Vance, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—have adopted rhetoric defining non-white Americans as a threat and are making the purging of Brown and Black people central to federal policy. The piece notes Trump's September address to the UN General Assembly warning European nations that immigration is "destroying your heritage" and his 2024 campaign's false claims about migrant crime and Venezuelan gangs.

Supporting reports

• SAVE Act Threatens Voter Disenfranchisement — The SAVE Act, currently under consideration, would require all voters to prove their citizenship, potentially disenfranchising women who have changed their names due to marriage, transgender individuals, and others. While the act may face challenges in the Senate, its passage could lead to significant barriers to voting for many citizens. Advocacy groups are urging the public to contact elected officials to oppose this legislation.
• Congressional Republicans advance restrictive voter eligibility bill — Congressional Republicans have fast-tracked the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a restrictive anti-voting bill based on Trump's baseless claims of widespread voter fraud by noncitizens. The bill would instantly disenfranchise millions of eligible voters by imposing citizenship verification requirements that exceed constitutional and statutory protections.
• Republicans advancing Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — Republicans are advancing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and to vote. Only five states—Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington—have "enhanced" driver's licenses meeting the requirement; in all other states, voters would need either a passport or a birth certificate. Approximately half of Americans lack a passport, others lack birth certificates, and the names of married women who took their husband's last name and transgender Americans would not match their birth certificates. The Brennan Center for Justice found that if the measure passes, approximately 21 million Americans could lose their votes. The bill also calls for state officials to purge voter rolls.
• Republicans propose voter suppression legislation — The Republican Party is advancing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register and vote. This legislation could disenfranchise approximately 21 million Americans who lack the necessary documentation.
• White House issued fact sheet promoting the SAVE America Act and voter ID requirements — The White House issued a fact sheet asserting that voter ID requirements are "overwhelmingly popular" across all demographics and calling on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which the document states requires photo ID and implements "critical measures to protect federal elections from fraud and abuse." The fact sheet cites polling data from Pew Research Center (83% support), Gallup (84% support), and quotes from CNN and NBC anchors, and characterizes Democratic opposition as "placing partisan politics above the clear will of the American people."
• SAVE America Act passed House with narrow margin — The SAVE America Act passed the House of Representatives on February 11, 2026, by a vote of 218 to 213. The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and would affect not only first-time registration but also routine voter registration updates. Evidence from Kansas, which implemented a similar proof-of-citizenship law, showed that the documentary requirement prevented approximately 31,000 eligible citizens (12 percent of all applicants) from registering to vote, blocking far more citizens than noncitizens. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and documented to be exceedingly rare.
• House Passes Restrictive Election Bill — The Republican-controlled House passed the SAVE America Act, which imposes strict voter ID requirements and mandates frequent voter roll purges. Critics argue it disenfranchises millions, particularly women and minorities, by requiring proof of citizenship that many lack. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it faces opposition.
• House Passes SAVE Act Requiring Citizenship Proof for Voting — The Republican-controlled House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation requiring proof of citizenship—such as passports or birth certificates—for voters to cast ballots. The Center for American Progress notes that approximately half of Americans lack a valid passport, and 69 million women cannot use birth certificates to prove citizenship due to name changes upon marriage. The bill also eliminates mail-only registration, mandates photo ID in all states, and requires states to conduct voter roll purges every 30 days. The measure now moves to the Senate.
• House passes SAVE America Act — The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act passed the House on Wednesday. The measure would require voters to show either a passport or birth certificate with matching names to register and would require states to purge their voting rolls every month. The bill must overcome a filibuster to pass the Senate.
• House passes SAVE America Act restricting voting for Americans abroad — The House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, which imposes in-person citizenship verification, proof of state residency, and repeated photo ID and citizenship document submission requirements at registration, ballot request, and voting stages. The bill would effectively prevent millions of eligible Americans living abroad—including military service members, diplomats, and expatriates—from voting. The measure centralizes voter eligibility authority in the federal executive, departing from two centuries of state election administration.
• House passes Save America Act, restricting voting access nationwide — The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Save America Act on February 12, 2026, by a vote of 218–213, with one Democratic defection. The bill requires proof of citizenship at voter registration, imposes a strict nationwide photo ID requirement (excluding student IDs), and significantly curtails mail-in voting. Implementation would be immediate, forcing states to rapidly realign voting systems. The bill faces a difficult path in the Senate and is expected to face federal court challenges.
• House passed SAVE America Act requiring use of flawed voter-verification system — The House passed the GOP's SAVE America Act this week, which would require states to use a federal voter-verification tool that ProPublica documented as consistently misidentifying U.S. citizens as noncitizens. The tool has a documented error rate that results in approximately 775 legal voters being disenfranchised for every 1 ineligible voter prevented from registering.

Supporting reports

• Trump Proposes "Federalizing" Elections in 15 States — Former President Trump has proposed "federalizing" elections in 15 states, a move that is considered unconstitutional and illegal. This proposal has sparked concerns about federal overreach and the potential undermining of state-controlled election processes. Advocacy groups are mobilizing to resist this effort and protect state election autonomy.
• FBI sent email to state election administrators inviting them to federal coordination meeting, triggering concerns about federal election interference — The FBI's Election Executive Kellie Hardiman sent a routine-appearing email to state election administrators inviting them to a call to discuss election cycle preparations. Multiple secretaries of state, both Democratic and Republican, interpreted the outreach as threatening given recent federal actions: the FBI's seizure of 2020 election materials in Georgia and Trump's stated desire to "nationalize" elections, a power reserved to states under the Constitution. Election officials reported destroyed trust in federal election authorities and expressed concern that federal officials may be attempting to rig elections themselves. Several officials indicated they may not attend the scheduled February 25 meeting out of fear their information could be weaponized against them.
• Trump announced desire to "nationalize" elections and created standing White House working group to investigate past elections and reform future processes — Trump has stated his intention to "nationalize" elections, a power constitutionally reserved to states. Inside the White House, he established a standing working group that meets regularly to coordinate federal efforts to investigate past elections and reform future election processes. Trump has also called for greater use of voter identification, a ban on mail voting, and prohibition on certain voting equipment types. He has stated he will accept election results only "if the elections are honest" and mused that "we shouldn't even have an election" given typical midterm losses for the sitting president's party.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Luna threatened to block appropriations bills without SAVE Act attachment — Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) announced that House GOP leadership would no longer move appropriations bills under suspension of rules, requiring instead a formal rule vote to which the SAVE Act could be added. Luna claimed to have sufficient votes to tank the Senate-passed bill unless Johnson attached the SAVE Act—a measure described as a poison pill unlikely to clear the Senate filibuster. Luna stated "Voter ID and the SAVE Act are NOT negotiable."
• Rep. Anna Paulina Luna claimed Thune agreed to standing filibuster for SAVE Act — Rep. Anna Paulina Luna posted that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, "in embracing the Standing Filibuster, will go down in history as one of the greatest majority leaders once he uses this mechanism to puts voter ID (via the Save America act) on the Senate floor." Luna claimed Thune agreed to use a standing filibuster procedure to force a vote on legislation that would nationalize election rules.
• Republican House members passed 5 of 6 appropriations bills after holdout — After Republican holdouts initially resisted, the House passed 5 of the 6 appropriations bills. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), the leader of the holdouts, claimed they did not capitulate but instead secured a commitment from Senate Majority Leader John Thune to use a "standing filibuster" to bring the SAVE Act (which would nationalize election rules) to a Senate vote.
• Senate Majority Leader Thune denied commitment to standing filibuster for SAVE Act — Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated he has not made any commitments to require a "standing" filibuster to pass the SAVE Act and said "the votes aren't there" to eliminate the filibuster. Thune said some Senate Republicans have expressed interest in the standing filibuster option "so we're going to have a conversation about it," but made no binding commitment.
• Speaker Mike Johnson stated no promises were made on SAVE Act — Speaker Mike Johnson stated: "No promises were made" regarding Senate commitments to advance the SAVE Act, contradicting Rep. Luna's claims that Thune had agreed to use a standing filibuster procedure.

Supporting reports

• Trump urges Republicans to "take over" voting nationwide — In a radio interview on "The Dan Bongino Show" on February 2, President Trump urged Republicans to "take over" voting across the country and called for the "nationalization" of elections. While advancing the Great Replacement Theory, Trump claimed immigrants were "brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally" and specifically called for Republicans to seize control of voting in "at least many, 15 places."
• Rep. Gimenez warned GOP of Latino voter defection over mass deportations — Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) stated that Latino voters are fleeing the Republican Party because of mass deportation enforcement. Gimenez said the administration had been warned about the enforcement approach and that there should have been a course correction long ago. He criticized the focus on "grandmothers" rather than "criminals and gang members," calling it "a mistake" that is "coming back to haunt us right now."
• Rep. Sessions attributed Republican election losses to weather — Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) told CNN that Republican voters did not show up for recent special elections because of a severe snow and ice storm in north Texas and central Texas, rather than attributing losses to other factors. The bulletin notes that Democratic turnout in the same weather was very strong and that results in Texas track with election patterns across the country over the past year.
• Trump made false claims about Minnesota election integrity on podcast — On February 2, 2026, President Trump appeared on the Dan Bongino Show and claimed he won Minnesota three times, that the state is "rigged" with "Somalians," and that Republicans should "nationalize" voting. Trump has repeatedly claimed the 2020 election was stolen—claims exhaustively debunked by courts and election officials. He suggested federal control over elections, contradicting the Constitution's assignment of election administration to states.
• Trump encouraged Republicans to "nationalize" elections in 15 states he lost — During an interview on former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino's podcast, Trump encouraged Republicans to "nationalize" elections and "take over" voting in at least 15 "places" that he falsely claims to have won but did not. Trump stated that "states are an agent of the federal government in elections" and referred without evidence to "horrible corruption" in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, arguing that "the federal government should get involved" and "take over."

Supporting reports

• Trump's calls for "nationalizing" elections — In a February podcast following the FBI raid on Fulton County, Trump called for Republicans to "nationalize" elections. Shortly after, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that "the federal government should get involved" in elections, citing a list of cities where he claimed without evidence there was voter fraud in 2020.

Supporting reports

• Federal magistrate judge previously rejected arrest warrant for Don Lemon — A federal magistrate judge took the unusual step of declining to sign off on an arrest warrant for Don Lemon, finding there was "no evidence" of criminal behavior in his journalistic work at the Minnesota church protest. The decision reportedly enraged Attorney General Pam Bondi. Despite this judicial rejection, the DOJ proceeded to arrest and charge Lemon anyway.
• Don Lemon Arrested for Violating FACE Act — Federal agents arrested independent journalist Don Lemon in Minneapolis, charging him with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and conspiring to hurt the exercise of rights. The charges stem from Lemon's filming of a protest at a church service. Previous attempts by federal prosecutors to charge him were blocked by a magistrate judge and a federal judge. The administration's actions are seen as an attempt to intimidate independent journalists and suppress coverage of federal authority.
• Don Lemon arrested; Trump had made 10 posts attacking him — Don Lemon was arrested. Deputy AG Todd Blanche claimed the president had "never even thought of Don Lemon" when asked if the arrest was intended to make an example of someone the president had sparred with. However, a search of Trump's Truth Social account revealed Trump made 10 nasty posts about Lemon over the past three years, with several recent posts calling him a "sleazebag."

Supporting reports

• Georgia Fort Arrested Alongside Don Lemon — Federal agents also arrested independent journalist Georgia Fort and two protest participants, Trahern Jeen Crews and Jamael Lydell Lundy, during the same incident in Minneapolis. The arrests are part of a broader crackdown on independent journalism and dissent against the Trump administration's policies, particularly regarding ICE and federal authority.