Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Trump announces DC golf course renovation despite federal judge's halt order — Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on October 18 that renovation work on the historic East Potomac Golf Links would begin November 15, directly contradicting a federal judge's order halting tree removal and requiring notice before substantive construction. Judge Ana Reyes had previously ruled the government must pause work over environmental and historic preservation concerns. The judge responded by ordering the Trump administration to clarify by 8pm Sunday whether its legal position had changed from a Friday filing claiming only "preliminary thought" had been given to the project.

Supporting reports

• US Department of Justice sues California to block tabulation of ballots allegedly cast by noncitizens — The US Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California seeking a court order to prevent the state from tabulating certain ballots in the midterm elections. The suit followed a demand sent to Los Angeles County officials on Tuesday containing a thumb drive with purported names of over 20,000 noncitizens registered to vote, with a 48-hour deadline to verify citizenship. Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber both refused to act on the unverified list, citing lack of methodology and security concerns. The DOJ seeks an injunction requiring California to set aside and independently verify citizenship status of flagged voters before tabulation.
• Justice Department Sues State of California over Voter List — The Department of Justice announced this on 2026-10-15 through Office of the Attorney General. The recorded stage is a complaint filed. The allegations are unadjudicated; this documents the announcement, not the truth of any allegation. The department's own account of it reads: "The Justice Department, working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), today filed a complaint against the State of California over its voter list after determining that more than 20,000 people who are likely aliens are registered to vote in California. Under California law, every registered voter is mailed a ballot. It is unlawful for aliens to vote in federal elections."

Supporting reports

• Trump states he could have prosecuted political opponents but chose restraint, then asserts presidential power is absolute — From the Oval Office on October 7, 2026, Trump told reporters he could have taken "very bad things" against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama but refrained out of respect for the presidency. He then stated "I can do whatever I want, if I want," asserting that despite two impeachments and actions by political opponents, he views the presidency as a "very sacred position" and retains unlimited executive authority.

Supporting reports

• Trump refuses to rule out declaring state of emergency before midterm elections — In a Time magazine interview, President Trump declined to rule out declaring a state of emergency before the November midterm elections, stating "I don't rule anything out or in. We'll see." He also said he "could use" the Insurrection Act to deploy military troops domestically, noting that "a lot of people think I should use it sometimes." Trump dismissed low approval ratings as "fake numbers" and blamed media for misrepresenting his earlier statements about the Iran war's duration.
• Trump expresses regret over Supreme Court appointments and discusses using Insurrection Act — In a 75-minute TIME magazine interview, Trump stated he regretted appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett because they ruled against him on tariffs, mail ballots, and birthright citizenship. He expressed unapologetic expectations of judicial loyalty, stating "I do like loyalty, yeah." When asked whether he would rule out declaring a state of emergency before the midterms unless there was widespread violence, Trump said "I don't rule anything out or in" and indicated he could use the Insurrection Act, saying "A lot of people think I should use it sometimes."
• Trump defies congressional authority in TIME magazine interview — The President of the United States openly defied Congress during a TIME magazine interview, according to the article. The specific nature of the defiance is not detailed in the text provided, but the article characterizes the President's statements as demonstrating "no grasp on reality at all" and notes the defiance as part of a pattern of constitutional violations occurring under the current administration.

Supporting reports

• Government Accountability Office found Trump's funding cancellation unconstitutional — The Government Accountability Office sent a letter to congressional leaders on September 29 stating that Trump's cancellation of $810 million in federal funding, primarily for Health and Human Services programs serving refugees and asylum seekers, violated the Constitution. Trump used the "pocket rescission" process to bypass Congress, ensuring the funds would go unspent before the end of the fiscal year.

Supporting reports

• Administration refuses to spend $810 million Congress appropriated — On September 26, the Trump administration announced it is refusing to spend $810 million that Congress appropriated on a bipartisan basis for research in Health and Human Services and programs serving immigrants and minority groups, characterizing the spending as "wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens." The Government Accountability Office has determined that such "pocket rescissions" are unconstitutional, as they violate the constitutional requirement that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and usurp Congress's power of the purse.
• Administration announced refusal to spend approximately one billion dollars Congress appropriated for programs helping Americans — On Friday, September 27, the Trump administration announced it was refusing to spend approximately one billion dollars that Congress had appropriated for programs designed to help the American people. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that this refusal to spend congressionally appropriated funds is illegal. The action came as the administration faced criticism over other spending decisions and policy implementations.
• Sen. Collins denounced $810 million in pocket rescissions — Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) posted on X that Congress received an $810 million package of pocket rescissions from the administration without warning or consultation. Collins stated this represents an attempt by OMB to undermine Congress's constitutional power of the purse, violating the Impoundment Control Act. She noted the OMB intentionally withheld funds for months to execute the unlawful cancellation of bipartisan appropriations. Collins pledged to work with colleagues to address the illegal actions.
• Government Accountability Office found Trump's funding cancellation unconstitutional — The Government Accountability Office sent a letter to congressional leaders on September 29 stating that Trump's cancellation of $810 million in federal funding, primarily for Health and Human Services programs serving refugees and asylum seekers, violated the Constitution. Trump used the "pocket rescission" process to bypass Congress, ensuring the funds would go unspent before the end of the fiscal year.
• Complaint filed: State of California et al. v. Trump (N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-11185) — Seven states (California, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon) filed a complaint in the Northern District of California challenging President Trump's Sept. 25, 2026 rescission of $810 million in federal appropriations, including $567 million for refugee and entrant assistance at HHS. The states allege the administration timed the rescissions to expire before Congress could act under the Impoundment Control Act and withheld additional funds as "quiet impoundments." They seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an order compelling the administration to obligate and spend the withheld funds, arguing the impoundments violate the separation of powers, the Presentment Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Complaint filed: State of New York v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development — The State of New York filed suit in federal district court challenging HUD's decision not to obligate $56.1 million in congressionally appropriated funds for the Housing Counseling program. Trump announced a "pocket rescission" of the funds on September 25, 2026, citing alleged failure to reduce delinquencies and claiming grantees pursued "DEI-centric discriminatory agendas." New York alleges HUD exceeded its statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and breached the mandatory obligation requirement in 12 U.S.C. § 1701x(a)(4)(A). The state seeks declaratory relief, vacatur of HUD's decisions, and an order compelling full obligation of the appropriation.
• Trump administration withheld $810 million in congressionally allocated funds — The Trump administration is refusing to spend $810 million in funds that Congress allocated. More than half of the withheld money—over $405 million—is designated for programs supporting refugees, asylees, and other non-citizens. The impoundment represents an assertion of executive power over congressionally mandated spending.

Supporting reports

• Trump campaign promises $5,000 dividend checks to every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans win midterm elections — At a Republican midterm convention in Dallas on September 9, Trump promised to distribute $5,000 checks to every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans win control of Congress, calling it the "Trump Dividend." The payout would cost approximately $1.2–1.3 trillion and would require congressional approval. Trump did not explain funding mechanisms. Multiple Republican lawmakers and observers noted the promise contradicts constitutional authority and echoes unfulfilled prior pledges (DOGE dividend, tariff rebates, stimulus checks).
• Trump suggests renaming geographic features after himself at convention speech — During the Dallas convention speech on September 9, Trump proposed renaming the Hormuz Strait the "Trump Strait," Lake Michigan "Lake America," and New Mexico "New America." He stated "I should get something out of it" regarding the strait naming and joked about personal financial benefit from geographic rebranding.
• VP Vance interviewed on Fox about $5,000 dividend promise — Fox host Bret Baier interviewed VP JD Vance after Trump's convention speech on September 9. When asked how a $1.3 trillion dividend payout would be funded without bankrupting the country, Vance claimed tariffs had generated substantial revenue and that the president was offering to share wealth created by his policies. A Community Note fact-check on X noted that annual tariff revenue (under $300 billion) cannot fund a $1.3 trillion payout and that previous cash dividend promises were never delivered.
• Trump claimed Iran war will end after midterm elections — Trump told reporters that Iran is prolonging the war to influence U.S. midterm elections and that he expects the conflict to end and gas prices to decline once the elections conclude. He stated, "They can't hold out any longer" and characterized Iran as "desperate to try and affect the election." However, Wall Street Journal reporting revealed that Trump's top advisors, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have warned him the Iran war could continue through the remainder of his term. Hegseth has already extended troop deployments in the Middle East and planned additional extensions.
• Trump promised $5,000 checks to all adults if Republicans win midterms — At the "Trumpapaloosa" midterm convention in Dallas, Trump promised that if Republicans win the midterm elections, his administration will distribute $5,000 checks to all adult Americans. Trump branded the proposal the "Trump Dividend" and attributed it to "our tremendous strength and success economically." The plan would cost more than a trillion dollars and would require congressional approval, which Trump did not acknowledge.
• Trump pledges $5,000 payment to voters if Republicans win midterms — At the Republican National Convention in Dallas on September 10, President Trump promised a $5,000 check to every U.S. adult citizen if Republicans win the midterm elections. The pledge is widely understood within Trump's own circle as non-credible; no similar payments have been distributed during his second term despite prior promises. The announcement occurred during a lengthy speech that included incoherent remarks and calls for audience loyalty pledges.
• Trump Dividend: America Is Winning — and Americans Should Win With It — The White House published this release on 2026-09-10 through its releases channel.
• FDA announces priority review voucher fee rate for fiscal year 2027 — The Food and Drug Administration published a notice establishing the fiscal year 2027 fee rate for using priority review vouchers at $1,798,596. This fee applies to applications for tropical disease, rare pediatric disease, or material threat medical countermeasure products submitted with a priority review voucher, in addition to standard Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees. The rate is effective October 1, 2026, through September 30, 2027, and was calculated based on the difference between average costs of priority and standard drug application reviews in fiscal year 2025, adjusted for cost increases.
• Trump gave cash gifts to executive assistant and staff — Trump gave his executive assistant Natalie Harp and two other young female employees gifts totaling $45,000 in cash last year, approximately one-third of their $150,000 annual salary. He also gave $20,000 to Walt Nauta, his co-defendant in the classified documents case. Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, stated the gifts appear to violate federal law prohibiting federal employees from receiving salary supplements from outside sources. Don Fox, acting director of the Office of Government Ethics under Obama, said the legality was unclear because such payments were not previously envisioned by OGE.
• Trump claimed he may not need congressional approval for $5,000 checks — During a backstage Fox News interview at the RNC convention, Trump was asked about the $5,000 dividend proposal. He responded that "there are a lot of people who think I don't even need congressional approval because we've made so much money," suggesting he might implement the policy unilaterally without legislative authorization.
• Trump claimed oil prices would drop after military conflict — Trump told reporters at the RNC convention that oil prices would drop "very rapidly" once the U.S. wins "the military conflict or war," and that he was "pretty sure" this would happen shortly after the election. The bulletin notes he has made similar claims for seven months while oil prices have continued to rise.
• Ron DeSantis criticized Trump's $5,000 check proposal — Florida Governor Ron DeSantis publicly denounced Trump's proposal to deliver $5,000 checks to Americans if Republicans hold their ground in the midterm elections. DeSantis warned that the infusion of cash would stir more inflation and expressed concern about borrowing an additional $1.5 trillion and flooding it into the economy.
• Trump claimed $5,000 checks would be funded by growth — During a press availability at the RNC convention in Dallas on September 11, Trump was asked how he would pay for proposed $5,000 checks to Americans. He responded that the checks would be funded by economic growth, and when asked about deficit impact, he said he was not worried about it. Economic data cited in the bulletin indicates GDP growth is weak.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump's second executive order restricting birthright citizenship — On September 3, 2026, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a temporary injunction blocking Trump's August 6 executive order that attempted to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats, international organization employees, "alien enemies," and parents engaged in "birth tourism." The order came after the Supreme Court ruled in June that Trump's first birthright citizenship restriction was unconstitutional. Judge Boardman ruled that no presidential order can override the Supreme Court's decision and that the new order risked rescinding citizenship from children already protected by that ruling.

Supporting reports

• Judge Talwani holds hearing on extending block of USPS mail ballot restrictions — U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts held a hearing on September 3 to determine whether to extend her temporary block of the USPS mail ballot restrictions beyond September 10. Talwani expressed concern that the new system could cause "major disenfranchisement" and questioned why states would want the USPS to stop batches of ballots from their own voters. She noted the rush to implement the system 70 days before the election and questioned why states could not implement such measures themselves if they desired them.

Supporting reports

• Solicitor General Sauer petitions Supreme Court to enforce USPS ballot restrictions — Solicitor General John Sauer filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 3, asking the justices to immediately allow the Trump administration to enforce the new USPS restrictions on mail-in ballots. The DOJ argued the restrictions imposed only "modest requirements" on the postal system and did not regulate state election administration, contradicting Judge Talwani's finding that the requirements were significant and likely unconstitutional.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court permits Trump White House ballroom construction to continue — The US Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling permitting the Trump administration to block a lower court order that had halted above-ground construction of a controversial $400 million White House ballroom. The conservative majority found that the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked standing to challenge the project, sidestepping the question of whether Congress had authorized the demolition of the historic East Wing. Chief Justice Roberts and three liberal justices dissented, arguing the project likely violated separation of powers and congressional authority over federal property.
• Supreme Court allows Trump White House ballroom construction to proceed — By a 5–4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked legal standing to challenge Trump's construction of a ballroom at the White House. The majority cited national security considerations as favoring construction. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, writing that the project is "likely unlawful" and that the White House's iconic status requires adherence to legal procedures for alterations. The ruling permits construction to advance before the legality question is resolved.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04316 — The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 per curiam ruling, granted the government's application for a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction pending disposition of the government's forthcoming petition for certiorari, holding that the government was likely to show the National Trust lacked Article III standing to challenge the East Wing construction project and the government would likely suffer irreparable harm without a stay, with the balance of equities tipping in its favor. The Court noted it did “not pass upon the legality of the government's East Wing project.” Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented , arguing the National Trust has adequate standing and the construction likely violates 40 U. S. C. §8106's requirement of express congressional authorization for building new structures on federal park land in D.C., which Congress has not necessarily provided.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (26A203) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Docket number(s): 26A203.

Supporting reports

• DHS deployed 19 USC 1509 administrative summonses to obtain records on journalists, non-profits, and unions without judicial oversight — The Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security has systematically used an obscure customs law (19 USC 1509) to issue administrative summonses demanding records from social media companies and telecommunications providers targeting journalists (Georgia Fort, Don Lemon, Megyn Kelly, Brendan Gutenschwager, Democracy Now), unions (SEIU, Communications Workers of America), and left-leaning non-profits (Sunrise Movement, Voices for Racial Justice). The summonses bypass judicial review required for search warrants and include secrecy directives. Fort's six-month phone records from T-Mobile and YouTube account information were obtained after a federal judge had twice rejected similar warrant requests in February 2026, citing lack of probable cause.
• Trump administration uses customs law to obtain journalist records without judicial oversight — The Trump administration deployed an obscure legal maneuver to obtain private information on journalists, non-profits, and unions without judicial oversight. The Department of Homeland Security served Google with an administrative summons citing 19 USC 1509, a customs statute, to obtain YouTube account information for journalist Georgia Fort and Don Lemon. The summons bypassed judicial review required for search warrants, which a judge had twice rejected for lacking probable cause. DHS officials used the customs provision—designed to investigate import duties and taxes—to investigate a domestic protest at a Minneapolis church that the journalists were covering.

Supporting reports

• Trump appealed to Supreme Court to override lower courts' rulings on ballroom construction authority — Trump appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to override lower courts' rulings that he lacks the authority to build a ballroom structure without congressional permission. The ballroom project has become a point of controversy, with Trump spending significant time and resources on Washington, D.C. renovation and beautification projects while the administration faces other pressing issues.
• Supreme Court deadline set for Trump ballroom construction intervention — Tomorrow (August 21, 2026) is the deadline for the Supreme Court to intervene on Trump's ballroom construction project. If the Court chooses not to take the case, construction must be halted based on a prior court order.
• Supreme Court temporarily halts lower court order blocking White House ballroom construction — Chief Justice John Roberts signed a temporary order on Friday permitting construction of Trump's controversial White House ballroom to continue while the Supreme Court considers an emergency appeal from the administration. An appeals court had ordered work to stop pending legal review, concluding the project likely requires congressional approval. The administration argued the 90,000-square-foot ballroom and underground military facility are critical to presidential security. Democrats criticized the decision as "rubber stamping Trump's vanity-driven, gilded corruption." The project, already 65% complete after 10 months, is expected to cost over $400 million.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to override congressional authority over White House construction — The Trump administration, through U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court on August 14, 2026, seeking to allow continued construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing of the White House. Trump demolished the East Wing without congressional approval and began construction of the ballroom, initially claiming no taxpayer cost but with estimates now reaching $900 million, primarily funded by taxpayers. Lower courts and an appeals court ruled the project requires congressional approval; the administration claims the ballroom is 65% complete and critical for national security.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to halt appeals court order blocking White House ballroom construction — The Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the US Supreme Court requesting a stay of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals' decision halting construction of a $400 million White House ballroom. The appeals court had ruled the project lacked required Congressional approval. Solicitor General D John Sauer argued the ballroom is part of an integrated military security complex essential to national security. Chief Justice Roberts set a Tuesday deadline for plaintiffs to respond. The lower court had blocked aboveground work but permitted underground security construction to continue.
• Trump asked Supreme Court to allow White House ballroom construction to continue — Trump asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for his White House ballroom to continue construction before an appeals court ruling halting above-ground work goes into effect on August 21. The Trump administration argues the injunction "threatens the security and safety" of the president.

Supporting reports

• Trump signs Executive Order 14418 restricting birthright citizenship based on parental status and commercial surrogacy. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14418 on August 6, 2026, implementing restrictions on birthright citizenship following the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 decision in Trump v. Barbara. The order directs federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children born in the U.S. when neither parent is a citizen and one or more conditions apply: a parent is designated a terrorist or foreign government employee, parents engaged in commercial surrogacy or citizenship-purchase transactions, or the child was born in U.S. territories where federal statute does not confer citizenship. The Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Commissioner of Social Security must ensure agency compliance within 30 days.
• Trump signs executive order restricting birth tourism and citizenship acquisition via childbirth on U.S. soil — President Trump signed Executive Order 14419 on August 6, 2026, establishing policy to prevent "birth tourism"—entry of foreign nationals on nonimmigrant visas for the purpose of giving birth in the United States. The order delegates authority to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to deny visas, revoke travel authorization, bar entry, and remove aliens engaged in or facilitating birth tourism. The order defines birth tourism as entry via nonimmigrant visa for childbirth purposes or efforts to facilitate such entry. Secretaries may grant exemptions on humanitarian grounds or national interest.
• Trump issues executive order restricting birth tourism via nonimmigrant visas — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on August 6, 2026, directing the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to prevent foreign nationals from entering the United States on nonimmigrant visas for the purpose of giving birth. The order authorizes visa denial, revocation, permanent entry bars, and removal of individuals engaged in birth tourism, and permits sanctions against entities facilitating such schemes. The order defines birth tourism as entry via nonimmigrant visa to give birth or efforts to facilitate such entry, and allows exemptions on humanitarian or national-interest grounds.
• Trump issues executive order restricting birthright citizenship based on Supreme Court ruling — President Trump issued an executive order on August 6, 2026, implementing restrictions on birthright citizenship following the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 decision in Trump v. Barbara. The order directs federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children born in the U.S. whose parents fall into specified categories: designated foreign terrorists, foreign government employees, those engaged in commercial transactions to obtain birthright citizenship, or those born in U.S. territories where citizenship is not conferred by statute. The order requires State Department, DOJ, DHS, and Social Security Administration to enforce compliance within 30 days.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14418 restricting birthright citizenship based on parental status — President Trump signed Executive Order 14418 on August 6, 2026, directing federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children born in the United States whose parents do not include a U.S. citizen, in four specified categories: when either parent is designated a terrorist or foreign government employee; when parents engaged in commercial transactions to secure birthright citizenship; or when birth occurs in U.S. territories where citizenship is not conferred by statute. The order cites the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision in Trump v. Barbara as legal foundation and directs State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Social Security to issue implementation guidance within 30 days.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14419 restricting entry and visa authorization for foreign nationals engaging in birth tourism — President Trump signed Executive Order 14419 on August 6, 2026, directing the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to prevent entry, deny visas, revoke travel authorization, and permanently bar foreign nationals who enter or attempt to enter the United States for the purpose of giving birth. The order defines birth tourism as entry via nonimmigrant visa for childbirth purposes and authorizes removal of those who previously engaged in or plan to engage in such activity. The order states it aims to protect immigration system integrity and prevent exploitation of nonimmigrant visa categories.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive orders restricting birthright citizenship and birth tourism — The White House published a fact sheet on August 6, 2026, announcing that President Trump signed two executive orders. The first identifies categories of children of aliens ineligible for birthright citizenship consistent with the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 decision in Trump v. Barbara. The second delegates authority to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security to halt birth tourism. The fact sheet claims the administration has deported over 3 million individuals, filed denaturalization claims against 88 people, and purged tens of thousands of individuals from voter rolls.
• Trump signs executive orders further restricting birthright citizenship — Trump signed two executive orders designed to further restrict eligibility for birthright citizenship and to prevent people from entering the U.S. to give birth. The orders target four groups of children and are likely to face legal challenges. They come just over a month after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship as constitutionally protected.
• Trump signed two new executive orders targeting birthright citizenship — Trump signed two executive orders targeting birthright citizenship 37 days after the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. Barbara that his first-day 2025 order was unlawful and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. One new order expands categories of people deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship; the other targets "birth tourism." Trump called the Supreme Court decision "very unfortunate" and stated the administration is "making adjustments."
• Trump signs executive orders targeting birthright citizenship after Supreme Court rejection — On Thursday, August 7, 2026, President Trump signed two executive orders seeking to restrict birthright citizenship protections under the 14th Amendment. The first order expands categories of children ineligible for automatic US citizenship to include children of members of "foreign terrorist organizations" and certain foreign government employees, and denies citizenship to children whose parents engaged in fraudulent activity. The second order targets "birth tourism" by directing federal agencies to prosecute operators arranging such travel. Both orders face expected legal challenges, coming weeks after the Supreme Court rejected Trump's initial, broader attempt to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.
• Trump signs new birthright citizenship order — Former President Donald Trump signed a new executive order aimed at altering the interpretation of birthright citizenship in the United States. This order challenges the current understanding of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. The order is expected to face legal challenges and could potentially reach the Supreme Court for a final decision on its constitutionality.

Supporting reports

• US appeals court halts White House ballroom construction, upholds preliminary injunction — The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling upholding a preliminary injunction that halts construction of Trump's $400 million White House ballroom project. The court found that the President lacks unilateral authority to demolish and rebuild the White House without Congressional authorization, stating each President is a "temporary tenant, not the owner." The ruling was placed on hold for two weeks to allow the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump's White House Ballroom Project — A federal appeals court panel ruled against former President Trump's attempt to demolish parts of the White House to construct a massive ballroom, stating that such a project requires congressional approval. The decision halts the unprecedented project, emphasizing the need for legislative oversight in significant alterations to historic government properties.
• National Trust for Historic Preservation lawsuit against White House ballroom construction upheld by lower courts — The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction of the White House ballroom, and lower courts ruled in favor of the organization, determining that the ballroom requires congressional approval. An appeals court on August 7, 2026, stated it was aware of no precedent in American history in which a president unilaterally demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized and taxpayers funded. Despite the court rulings, construction has continued with a 250-person crew working 20 hours daily, seven days a week.
• Federal appeals court blocks Trump's White House ballroom project — A federal appeals court has issued a ruling blocking former President Donald Trump's project to construct a ballroom at the White House. This decision represents a significant setback for Trump, who had been pursuing the project as part of his post-presidency initiatives. The court's ruling halts any further development on the ballroom, pending further legal proceedings or appeals.

Supporting reports

• Trump imposed tariffs under Section 301 of Trade Act of 1974 — When the 150-day deadline for Section 122 tariffs expired on Friday, July 25, 2026, Trump announced he was imposing tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the president to impose tariffs on countries using forced labor. A senior administration official stated the tariffs address forced labor, a focus Trump has maintained for years. Law professor Barry Appleton noted that Section 301 allows permanent tariffs without congressional approval, suggesting the administration is seeking to bypass Congress entirely.
• Trump imposed tariffs under Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974 — After the Supreme Court invalidated the IEEPA-based tariffs, the Trump administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs in the case of an international financial emergency. These tariffs were limited to 150 days.
• Trump imposes new tariffs under emergency powers — President Trump announced the imposition of new tariffs on products from over 60 countries, claiming authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs in cases of forced labor. This follows a previous Supreme Court ruling that struck down earlier tariffs as unconstitutional. The administration's approach is seen as an attempt to bypass Congress's authority to raise revenue, which is constitutionally reserved for the legislative branch.
• Supreme Court struck down Trump tariffs as unconstitutional — The Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unconstitutional. Following the ruling, Trump announced he would find alternative legal mechanisms to reimpose tariffs, stating "We have alternatives. Great alternatives."

Supporting reports

• Secretary Hegseth provides inconsistent testimony on Iran war objectives — During Senate Appropriations Committee testimony, Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) questioned Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about statements made early in the Iran conflict claiming core objectives were to "destroy the missile threat" and "obliterate Iran's missiles and drones." Hegseth had declared four months earlier that all objectives had been achieved. When pressed, Hegseth declined to confirm whether the missile threat had been defeated, instead redefining "combat ineffective" to mean Iran could not deploy missiles at scale against the United States. Ossoff noted that Hegseth had assured the American people of Iranian surrender on day nine of the war and asked whether his statement that Iran's military had been "destroyed and made combat ineffective" was truthful.
• Senator Murray challenged Hegseth's claim that Iran's missile program is "functionally destroyed." — Senator Patty Murray cited Hegseth's April 8 statement that Iran's missile program was "functionally destroyed" with "launchers, production facilities and existing stockpiles depleted and decimated." She noted that Iran has been firing missiles at U.S. military bases and ships for the past week, contradicting Hegseth's assessment. Hegseth responded only that "Iran is at the weakest point militarily it has ever been in in the past decade."
• Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Caine testified on $1.5 trillion DOD budget request. — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine testified before the Senate to defend a $1.5 trillion DOD budget request—nearly double the 2024 budget of $841 billion. Hegseth stated "not funding this department at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat our nation faces," while Caine acknowledged air power has limits in achieving military objectives.
• Senator Durbin questioned unobligated DOD funding and "woke priorities" pivot. — Senator Dick Durbin asked Hegseth about $75 billion in unobligated DOD funding from the prior year's reconciliation package. Hegseth acknowledged the figure and stated "There's plans and designs on that - move away from all the woke priorities of what the Biden admin was pursuing," indicating funds would be redirected away from diversity and inclusion initiatives.
• Senator Merkley pressed Caine on civilian infrastructure targeting in retaliation. — Senator Jeff Merkley questioned Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine on whether the U.S. would target civilian infrastructure in retaliatory strikes, noting that international law prohibits such targeting. Caine responded only that "we have a robust process," declining to provide explicit assurance that civilian infrastructure would be protected.
• Senator Murray questioned necessity of National Guard funding and Caribbean strikes for Iran war. — Senator Patty Murray asked Hegseth why "billions of dollars more for the National Guard and this administration's illegal strikes in the Caribbean" are urgently needed for the Iran war. Hegseth responded by blaming "gross negligence and neglect of the Biden admin" without addressing the substance of her question about the connection between Caribbean operations and Iran conflict.
• Senator Reed challenged Hegseth on war authorization and Strait of Hormuz contingencies. — Senator Jack Reed accused Hegseth of "gross negligence" for failing to fully inform Trump that the Strait of Hormuz could be effectively closed by Iranian action. Reed questioned whether Trump should be "praised for starting war without authority" and creating conditions where "the world economy is suffering tremendously," challenging the administration's failure to obtain congressional authorization.
• Senator Reed questioned whether airstrikes alone will defeat Iran; Caine declined to address ground troop escalation. — Senator Jack Reed asked Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine whether airstrikes alone would defeat Iran. Caine acknowledged that "air power has got limits" but declined to address whether ground combat escalation would follow, stating "I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypotheticals."

Supporting reports

• US District Judge Kathleen Williams voided DOJ's $1.776 billion settlement with Trump — US District Judge Kathleen Williams voided the Department of Justice's $1.776 billion settlement with Trump, finding the litigation constitutionally defective under Article III because Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, controlled both the plaintiff and defendant agencies (Treasury and IRS), making them never genuinely adverse. The judge found no actual case or controversy occurred, no meaningful litigation preceded the settlement, and government lawyers never filed a response or defended the agencies. Williams imposed Rule 11 sanctions and referred one of Trump's attorneys for possible professional discipline.
• Federal Judge Voids Trump's $1.8 Billion IRS Settlement — A federal judge voided Trump's $1.8 billion settlement with the IRS that included an "anti-weaponization fund" and immunity from tax audits, ruling that the president's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS was filed "to manipulate the judicial process." The judge sanctioned two of Trump's personal attorneys, banning one from practicing in the Southern District of Florida for at least one year, and suggested that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and associate Attorney General Stan Woodward could face state bar investigations.
• Federal judge nullifies Trump tax-return settlement and sanctions president's lawyers — US District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida voided a settlement agreement between the Trump administration and the president over a $10 billion lawsuit regarding leaked tax returns. The judge found the lawsuit was filed in bad faith and the settlement was collusive, designed to confer immunity on Trump and his family and create an $1.8 billion slush fund. Williams sanctioned Trump's lawyers, referred two to bar disciplinary proceedings, and blocked one from practicing in the district for one year.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement was improper and manufactured — U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams for the Southern District of Florida ruled that Trump, his lawyers, and Department of Justice lawyers had manufactured a fraudulent settlement of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Williams found the lawsuit was brought "for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact." The settlement was designed to establish a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump loyalists and to grant Trump, his family, businesses, and associates immunity from prosecution for any tax crimes revealed by audits of tax returns filed before May 19, 2026.
• Federal judge rules against Trump's IRS lawsuit — On July 13, 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that Trump and his legal team improperly manufactured a settlement in his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, which aimed to create a slush fund for Trump loyalists and grant immunity from prosecution for tax crimes. The judge found the lawsuit lacked a legitimate basis and recommended sanctions against some lawyers involved.
• Judge Williams recommended sanctions against lawyers involved in fraudulent settlement — Judge Kathleen Williams recommended legal sanctions against some of the lawyers involved in the fraudulent IRS settlement and expressed that she was "extremely troubled" by the testimony of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, which she characterized as "at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous."
• E. Jean Carroll Receives Payment from Trump — E. Jean Carroll has received a $5.6 million payment from Donald Trump, confirmed by a court filing. This payment is part of a legal settlement related to a defamation case brought by Carroll against Trump.

Supporting reports

• Trump formally notified Congress of resumed strikes on Iran — Trump formally notified Congress that the U.S. has resumed strikes on Iran, claiming the Pentagon has another 60 days to conduct strikes before the timeline specified by the War Powers Act expires. This notification follows Trump's earlier claim that hostilities had ended on April 7 with a ceasefire declaration, despite continued military operations and the maintenance of a blockade on Iranian ports.
• Trump notifies Congress of resumed strikes on Iran — On July 13, 2026, President Trump formally notified Congress that the U.S. has resumed military strikes against Iran, claiming that the Pentagon has another 60 days to conduct operations before needing congressional approval under the War Powers Act. This notification follows a pattern of circumventing congressional authority regarding military engagements.

Supporting reports

• Trump demands Supreme Court rehear birthright citizenship case — One week after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionally protected right of birthright citizenship, President Trump announced on July 8, 2026, that he would "IMMEDIATELY" ask the Supreme Court to rehear the case, calling the ruling "wrong" and an "absolutely insane decision." The last Supreme Court rehearing occurred more than 50 years ago and requires a majority of the court to approve. Trump's demand to relitigate a recently decided constitutional question signals intent to overturn established citizenship protections.
• Trump requests Supreme Court rehearing on birthright citizenship ruling — President Trump announced he would petition the US Supreme Court to reconsider its recent ruling upholding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Trump cited as evidence a Texas hospital's marketing of maternity services to expectant mothers in Mexico, claiming widespread "birth tourism" promotion. The Supreme Court had rejected Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship last month. Trump's request comes after a Fox News report on two billboards placed by Mission Regional Medical Center in Texas and Mexico advertising delivery packages starting at $4,000.

Supporting reports

• 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

• 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 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.