Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• DOJ opinion claims Presidential Records Act unconstitutional — Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser published an opinion stating that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional, arguing it infringes on presidential autonomy. This opinion could significantly impact the handling of presidential records and accountability.
• Office of Legal Counsel published opinion declaring Presidential Records Act unconstitutional — Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser of the Office of Legal Counsel published a legal opinion for the White House arguing that the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which requires presidents to keep records of official business and transfer them at the end of their term, is unconstitutional. The memo claims the PRA "unconstitutionally intrudes on the independence and autonomy of the President guaranteed by Article II" and states "the President need not further comply with its dictates."

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

• 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

• FBI Director Kash Patel launches investigation into Signal group chats used by protesters — FBI Director Kash Patel announced on January 26 that he launched an investigation into Signal group chats used by protesters in Minnesota to share information about federal immigration agents, including their locations and license plate numbers. The move targets legally obtained information and the act of recording law enforcement officials, both protected by the First Amendment.
• Justice Department appeals to Eighth Circuit after judge declines to issue arrest warrants for CNN anchor and protesters — Federal prosecutors sought Chief Judge Schiltz's assistance in arresting former CNN anchor Don Lemon and others linked to an anti-ICE church protest. After Schiltz declined to overturn a magistrate's denial of arrest warrants, the Justice Department appealed directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The circuit court rejected the government's request, prompting Schiltz to write letters criticizing the Justice Department's approach and highlighting the flood of "illegal" detention cases overwhelming Minnesota courts.
• FBI director announced investigation of Signal chats of Minneapolis observers — FBI Director Kash Patel told a right-wing podcaster that the FBI will investigate Signal chats of those organized in Minneapolis to observe and record federal agents, to determine if they endangered federal agents. Podcaster Benny Johnson suggested the chats were "coordinated infrastructure" and asked the FBI to "take a crack at trying to get rid of this infrastructure the way they approach the mob or cartels or other terrorist networks."
• TikTok suppresses anti-ICE videos following Oracle acquisition — Following TikTok's acquisition by an Oracle-led consortium in late January 2026, users reported inability to upload videos critical of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Law professor Stephen Vladeck reported his anti-ICE video remained "under review" for nine hours; comedian Megan Stalter and California State Sen. Scott Wiener also reported suppression. TikTok attributed the issue to a data center outage, but the timing coincided with Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison's known Trump loyalty, raising concerns about state influence over the platform's content moderation.
• Federal agents arrested journalist Don Lemon on FACE Act and civil rights conspiracy charges — More than two dozen federal agents arrested independent journalist Don Lemon late on January 29, charging him with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and conspiring to hurt the exercise of rights—a Reconstruction-era law originally used against the Ku Klux Klan. Lemon had filmed protesters disrupting a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 18 at a white nationalist church with ties to the Trump administration. A magistrate judge and federal judge had both refused to issue warrants; the administration then sought indictment via federal grand jury. Lemon stated he would plead not guilty and continue his journalism.
• Federal agents arrest Don Lemon and three journalists — On January 29, federal agents arrested Don Lemon and three other journalists in relation to their coverage of an anti-ICE protest inside a St. Paul, Minnesota church. Lemon has been charged with conspiring to deprive others of their civil rights and violating the FACE Act by allegedly obstructing access to a house of worship. The arrests come one week after a federal magistrate judge rejected the Justice Department's initial request to bring charges. Lemon's lawyer Abbe Lowell called the move an "unprecedented attack on the First Amendment" and a "transparent attempt to distract attention from the many crises facing this administration."
• Federal magistrate and district judge refused to issue arrest warrants for Don Lemon — A federal magistrate judge refused to issue a warrant for Don Lemon and his producer, stating prosecutors had not shown evidence justifying arrest. When the administration asked a federal judge to overturn that decision, the judge also refused, calling the request "unprecedented." The administration then escalated the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also refused to intervene.
• DOJ charges Don Lemon and three others with civil rights crimes related to Minnesota church protest — The Department of Justice charged former CNN anchor Don Lemon and three others with federal civil rights crimes, alleging they interfered with religious freedom at a church in Minnesota earlier in January. Lemon was arrested in Los Angeles on Thursday while covering the Grammy Awards and released Friday. The charges also invoked the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. A federal magistrate judge had previously declined to sign an arrest warrant for Lemon, but the DOJ proceeded with charges anyway. The White House celebrated the arrest on social media.
• Don Lemon arrested on charges connected to Minnesota church protest — Ex-CNN anchor Don Lemon, 59, was arrested on charges related to a Minnesota church protest. Lemon, who was terminated by CNN in 2023 following allegations of problematic behavior toward female colleagues and controversial on-air remarks, has since worked as an independent journalist on YouTube. The arrest marks a significant development in his career trajectory following his departure from mainstream media.
• Federal agents arrest journalist Georgia Fort for covering ICE protest at Minnesota church — Georgia Fort, an independent Minnesota journalist, was arrested at her home on January 30 after covering a January 18 protest at St. Paul's Cities church, where a pastor reportedly works for ICE. Fort was charged alongside Don Lemon under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) and conspiracy statutes—charges experts call unprecedented against journalists. The DOJ pursued the case aggressively after a federal judge and appeals court initially refused to charge the journalists; a grand jury eventually secured an indictment. Fort livestreamed her arrest and has since been unable to cover related stories due to legal and safety concerns.
• Federal agents conduct search of Fort's home and question her children — When federal agents arrested Georgia Fort at her home on January 30, approximately two dozen agents remained outside for hours after her arrest. As Fort's family attempted to leave, agents stopped them in the driveway and questioned her children about whether they possessed her laptop or cellphone. Fort's daughters, aged 17, 8, and 7, were terrified by the encounter. The youngest daughter now discusses ICE daily; the oldest has experienced nightmares. Fort stated agents could have waited until children left for school and questioned why so many agents were needed to arrest a journalist.
• Journalist Don Lemon arrested by Trump administration after covering anti-ICE protest — Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested on January 30, 2026, by federal agents at a Los Angeles hotel while covering the Grammy Awards. The Trump administration obtained a federal grand jury indictment against Lemon, independent journalist Georgia Fort, and others on charges of conspiracy and interfering with worshippers' constitutional rights during an anti-immigration enforcement protest at a Minnesota church on January 18. A federal magistrate judge had previously refused to sign an arrest warrant for Lemon. On February 8, Lemon spoke publicly about the arrest, characterizing it as an attack on press freedom and warning that democracy becomes "hollow" when the First Amendment is threatened.
• Federal agents arrested journalist Georgia Fort and two protest participants — Federal agents arrested independent journalist Georgia Fort of Minnesota, along with two protest participants, Trahern Jeen Crews and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the January 18 church protest in St. Paul. All four people arrested in the past 24 hours are Black.
• Don Lemon arrested on federal civil rights charges — Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested by federal authorities and charged with federal civil rights crimes in connection with a protest at a Minnesota church service earlier in January. The Department of Homeland Security stated Lemon was charged with conspiracy and interfering with the First Amendment rights of worshipers. His attorney Abbe Lowell stated Lemon's "constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done" and characterized the arrest as "an unprecedented attack on the first amendment." Career DOJ prosecutors in Minnesota and Louisiana refused to be involved in charging Lemon and other journalists who covered the Minneapolis church protests, believing the evidence does not support the charges.

Supporting reports

• Representatives Khanna and Massie sought to bypass DOJ to release Epstein files — Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie announced they would bypass the Department of Justice to demand release of all Epstein files by asking the Southern District of New York to appoint a "special master" to ensure document release. The pair is also seeking to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt of Congress for DOJ's failure to release the files. The DOJ stated it would not finish reviewing remaining files until at least January 20.
• Congress considers inherent contempt proceedings against Attorney General Bondi — Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), who introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act, announced they are pursuing inherent contempt charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi for non-compliance with the law. Khanna stated the measure would likely give Bondi a 30-day grace period before daily fines commence. Inherent contempt, a rarely used congressional enforcement mechanism not employed since the 1930s, requires only a House majority vote and does not require Senate approval. The measure aims to compel release of all Epstein-related records.
• House representatives filed motion to compel DOJ to release Epstein files — On January 8, 2026, Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), the leading sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, filed a motion with U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer asking him to appoint "a Special Master and an Independent Monitor to compel" the DOJ to produce the Epstein files as required by law.
• Representatives asked judge to compel DOJ to release Epstein Files — Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), the leading sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, asked U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer to appoint a Special Master and an Independent Monitor to compel the DOJ to produce the Epstein files as the law requires. They wrote that "the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act" and that they do not believe the DOJ will produce the records required by law.
• Congressmen Khanna and Massie request special master to enforce Epstein Files disclosure — Democratic congressman Ro Khanna and Republican congressman Thomas Massie filed a letter with Manhattan federal court judge Paul Engelmayer requesting appointment of a special master and independent monitor to compel DOJ compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. They alleged DOJ violated the statute by missing the deadline, asserting impermissible privileges, applying excessive redactions, and failing to provide a required report on withheld records and redaction bases.
• House members request special master to compel DOJ release of Epstein files — Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) filed a letter with US District Judge Paul Engelmayer requesting appointment of a special master to force the Department of Justice to release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The congressmen alleged the DOJ violated mandatory disclosure obligations by missing a December 19, 2025 deadline and releasing less than 1% of documents while claiming 2 million more remain under review. They also noted the DOJ failed to submit required reports to Congress detailing redactions and withheld records.

Supporting reports

• House of Representatives voted 427–1 to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act. — After four months of delays and Speaker Johnson's early adjournment to prevent signatures, the House voted on legislation requiring the Department of Justice to release unclassified Epstein-related records. The vote passed 427–1, with only Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) voting no and five members not voting. The overwhelming bipartisan support reversed Trump's earlier opposition to the bill; Trump had called it a "hoax" and withdrawn endorsements from Republicans supporting it before reversing position on November 17.
• House passes Epstein Files Transparency Act 427–1 — The House of Representatives voted 427–1 to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, directing the Department of Justice to release all unclassified Epstein-related records within 30 days with victims' names redacted. Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana cast the sole opposing vote, arguing the bill abandoned criminal justice procedure protections. Five members did not vote. The Senate has already agreed via unanimous consent to pass the bill immediately upon receipt from the House.
• House votes on Epstein Files Transparency Act discharge petition — The House voted on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a discharge petition requiring Attorney General Pam Bondi to release sealed Justice Department investigative files within 30 days, including flight logs, travel records, witness transcripts, immunity deals, and records related to Epstein's death in federal custody. The vote followed four months of procedural delays by Speaker Johnson, including early adjournment and withholding the swearing-in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), whose signature provided the 218th required for the discharge petition. Trump initially opposed the bill, withdrew his endorsement from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene over her support, then reversed position on Sunday and said he would sign it if it reached his desk.
• House passes bill to release Epstein files; Massie and Khanna call for accountability — The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to force the complete release of Department of Justice files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) held a press conference with Epstein survivors outside the Capitol, calling for the same accountability faced by UK figures tied to Epstein, including Prince Andrew's loss of titles and Peter Mandelson's removal as ambassador. Khanna renewed calls for Prince Andrew to testify before the House oversight committee.
• House passes Epstein Files Transparency Act with overwhelming bipartisan support — The House of Representatives voted 427–1 on November 18, 2025, to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, requiring the Justice Department to release all unclassified materials related to Jeffrey Epstein. The Senate unanimously agreed to expedite passage. President Trump, who initially resisted the measure, reversed course on November 17 and called for release, declaring "we have nothing to hide." The bill now awaits Trump's signature at the White House.
• House prepares vote on legislation to compel release of Epstein-related government files — The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation requiring the release of US government files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Democrats and four dissident Republicans gathered sufficient signatures to force the vote over objections from Speaker Mike Johnson. Initially, Trump opposed the legislation, but reversed course on Sunday evening and called for its approval. The bill's passage in the Senate remains uncertain, with Subramanyam predicting Trump will pressure the Republican majority to block it.
• House passed bipartisan Epstein files disclosure resolution — The House passed a bipartisan resolution sponsored by Representatives Ro Khanna (D) and Thomas Massie (R) compelling the Department of Justice to release the entire contents of Epstein investigative files, with the exception of victim information. The vote was 427–1, with only Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) voting against. The resolution now advances to the Senate. The measure followed a discharge petition after Speaker Mike Johnson initially declined to bring it to a floor vote.
• Senate passed legislation to force DOJ to release Epstein files — The Senate passed legislation to force the Justice Department to release the Epstein Files within 30 days by unanimous consent after only one House lawmaker voted against it earlier in the day, moving the bill to Trump's desk. One administration official told Zeteo, "We lost this one badly."
• House passes bipartisan bill to force release of DOJ Epstein files — The House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill on Tuesday to compel the release of justice department records related to Jeffrey Epstein. The measure secured overwhelming support after Donald Trump reversed his five-month opposition and called on Republicans to back it. Epstein survivors, joined by Representatives Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, held a news conference outside the Capitol demanding accountability and transparency. The bill now moves to the Senate.
• House passes Epstein Files Transparency Act with near-unanimous vote — The U.S. House of Representatives voted 427-1 on November 18 to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation requiring the release of investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The Senate approved the bill by unanimous consent the following day. President Trump, who had initially opposed the measure, reversed course and indicated he would sign it. The sole dissenting vote came from Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins, who cited concerns about protecting witness identities.
• House passes Epstein Files Transparency Act — The House of Representatives voted 427–1 to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandates the release of all unclassified Epstein-related records within 30 days, with victims' names redacted. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to pass immediately under a unanimous-consent agreement. The bill will then be sent to President Trump, who has stated he will sign it. However, a recent directive from Trump to the Department of Justice to open a new investigation into Epstein's connections may allow the DOJ to withhold records under the bill's "ongoing investigations" exception.
• Senate agrees to pass Epstein Files bill via unanimous consent — Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced that the Senate has agreed via unanimous consent to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act the moment it arrives from the House, expected Wednesday morning. No senator objected to the unanimous-consent motion. The bill will proceed directly to the President's desk without amendments or delay.
• Senate passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by unanimous consent. — The Senate passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by unanimous consent without debate, moving the legislation to the president within hours of House passage. The rapid Senate action followed the House's 427–1 vote.
• Senate passes Epstein Files Transparency Act by unanimous consent — The Senate passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by unanimous consent after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer requested and obtained agreement for automatic passage upon the bill's arrival. Senate Majority Leader John Thune declined to delay or amend the measure, bypassing House Speaker Mike Johnson's expectation that the Senate would stall the bill with amendments.
• Became Law: Epstein Files Transparency Act — Congress enacted the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law 119-38), requiring the disclosure of sealed documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's criminal case. The law mandates the release of previously withheld records to the public, expanding access to judicial proceedings and evidence. This legislative action increases transparency in a high-profile criminal matter of significant public interest.

Supporting reports

• DOJ announces it will not release additional Epstein files despite campaign promises — Over the summer, the Trump administration's justice department announced it would not release any additional files related to Jeffrey Epstein, despite Trump's campaign promises to do so. The decision sparked bipartisan outrage and accusations of a "cover-up" from both sides of the political aisle. The announcement contradicted Trump's pre-election commitments on transparency regarding the Epstein case.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration backtracks on Epstein document release promises — During his 2024 campaign, Donald Trump pledged to release documents from the FBI's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Since returning to office in 2025, the administration has released few documents and retreated from those commitments. Meanwhile, multiple legal cases—including a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Radar Online and journalist James Robertson, and civil litigation stemming from Virginia Giuffre Roberts's defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell—continue to press for disclosure of sealed records despite DOJ resistance.

Supporting reports

• American Oversight filed lawsuit against Defense Secretary Hegseth and other officials for Federal Records Act violations — American Oversight, a nonprofit organization focusing on government transparency, filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the National Archives. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Federal Records Act for using the Signal messaging app to discuss military operations without preserving the communications as required by law. The suit also suggests the administration has made other attempts to circumvent federal records preservation requirements.
• American Oversight files lawsuit to compel preservation of Signal chat messages — The watchdog group American Oversight filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and others, alleging violations of federal records retention laws. The 18-page suit seeks to compel the Trump administration to preserve Signal chat messages that use auto-deletion functions. The case was assigned to Chief US District Judge James Boasberg in Washington DC, who is also presiding over a separate national security case involving the administration's deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act.
• Government watchdog sued Hegseth over Signal records violation — A government watchdog group sued Hegseth and other Trump administration officials, arguing that using Signal to discuss military plans violated federal records laws. The lawsuit seeks to enforce compliance with the Federal Records Act.
• Federal judge orders preservation of Signal chat messages from Yemen military operation — Chief US District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order requiring Trump administration officials—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard—to preserve all Signal messages exchanged between 11–15 March. The order followed disclosure that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz had inadvertently added Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a chat discussing a military strike on Houthi targets in Yemen, including operational details and intelligence sourced from Israeli assets. The lawsuit, brought by transparency group American Oversight, alleges violation of the Federal Records Act, which requires preservation of government communications.
• Case update — American Oversight v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00883 — After a hearing, Chief Judge James Boasberg issued an order , “as agreed by the parties,” for “Defendants shall promptly make best efforts to preserve all Signal communications from March 11-15, 2025.” The court also ordered defendants to file a status report by March 31 “setting forth the steps that they have taken to implement such preservation.”
• American Oversight filed a lawsuit against Trump administration officials — American Oversight, a nonprofit organization focused on government transparency, filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and others for violating the Federal Records Act. The lawsuit claims that these officials failed to preserve federal records related to military planning discussions conducted on the unsecure messaging app Signal. This legal action aims to hold the administration accountable for its handling of sensitive information.