Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• House Speaker Johnson vows Congress will "act" against judges; judiciary subcommittee explores banning nationwide injunctions — On March 25, House Speaker Mike Johnson vowed that "desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act" regarding judges. A House judiciary subcommittee hearing on April 1 focused on banning nationwide injunctions issued by judges. A House bill to ban such injunctions is expected to pass in coming weeks. Senator Charles Grassley, who leads the Senate judiciary committee and received a donation from Musk, held a similar hearing and introduced a bill to end "universal injunctions," though Senate passage is deemed unlikely.
• House Speaker Mike Johnson floated eliminating federal courts — House Speaker Mike Johnson floated the possibility of eliminating some federal courts, telling reporters that Congress has the authority to "eliminate an entire district court." He later clarified it wasn't meant as a threat, but the statement signals consideration of dismantling the federal judiciary.
• Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as Trump faces judicial pressure — House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Congress could defund, restructure, or eliminate federal courts to counter judicial decisions blocking Trump administration policies. Speaking to reporters on March 25, Johnson stated Congress has "authority over federal courts" and could "eliminate an entire district court." While Johnson later clarified his remarks illustrated Congress's constitutional powers rather than a direct threat, the statement reflects mounting Republican pressure on judicial independence, particularly targeting judges who issued nationwide injunctions blocking immigration enforcement actions.
• House Republicans advance bill to restrict nationwide injunctions — California Republican Representative Darrell Issa is advancing a bill to be voted on the following week that would limit district court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. House Speaker Johnson described the measure as a "dramatic improvement" to the federal court system, arguing such injunctions violate separation of powers. The bill represents an alternative legislative approach to constraining judicial power in response to courts blocking Trump administration policies.
• House Republicans pursue impeachment of federal judges over injunctions — Multiple House Republicans have introduced or are pursuing articles of impeachment against federal judges, including US District Judge James Boasberg, who issued a nationwide injunction preventing deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment, and several House Republicans have taken up the call to impeach judges who issued similar nationwide injunctions blocking Trump administration actions. This represents an escalation in Republican efforts to pressure the judiciary over policy disagreements.
• House Speaker suggests Congress could eliminate federal courts — House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that Republicans in Congress possess the authority to eliminate federal district courts, stating: "We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things." The statement represents a direct challenge to judicial independence and the separation of powers.
• Trump administration challenges judges and undermines judicial credibility — The Trump administration has challenged judges who have ruled against Trump and worked to destroy public faith in the courts. The effort represents a systematic campaign to delegitimize judicial authority when it conflicts with administration preferences.

Supporting reports

• Social Security Administration appoints DOGE operative as CIO following federal court order blocking DOGE database access — The Trump administration appointed Scott Coulter, a DOGE operative previously assigned to the SSA, as the agency's new Chief Information Officer on March 25, 2025, one day after the SSA submitted a status report certifying compliance with a federal court order. On March 21, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the SSA from granting DOGE members access to systems containing personally identifiable information of millions of Americans. The appointment appears designed to circumvent the court order by reclassifying Coulter from a DOGE team member to a regular SSA employee, potentially allowing continued access to sensitive data and continuation of DOGE projects.

Supporting reports

• House Speaker Johnson vows Congress will "act" against judges; judiciary subcommittee explores banning nationwide injunctions — On March 25, House Speaker Mike Johnson vowed that "desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act" regarding judges. A House judiciary subcommittee hearing on April 1 focused on banning nationwide injunctions issued by judges. A House bill to ban such injunctions is expected to pass in coming weeks. Senator Charles Grassley, who leads the Senate judiciary committee and received a donation from Musk, held a similar hearing and introduced a bill to end "universal injunctions," though Senate passage is deemed unlikely.

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.

Supporting reports

• Republican congressman files impeachment resolution against federal judge — Wisconsin Republican congressman Derrick Van Orden filed an impeachment resolution against federal judge Paul Engelmayer, whose 8 February ruling blocked DOGE from accessing treasury records containing personal details of millions of Americans. The filing was made in support of Trump and Musk's attacks on the judge for ruling against the administration.

Supporting reports

• Trump calls for impeachment of federal judge James Boasberg — Following the administration's defiance of his deportation order, Trump called for the impeachment of US District Judge James Boasberg, describing him as a "radical left lunatic." House Republicans subsequently introduced resolutions to impeach Boasberg and four other judges who have ruled against Trump. Elon Musk, Trump's top adviser, has repeatedly called for impeaching judges and is donating to Republicans in Congress who support such efforts.
• Trump calls for impeachment of federal judge over deportation ruling — President Trump publicly called for the impeachment of a top Washington DC federal judge who ruled to halt the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans. The judge's ruling blocked an administration action. Trump's call prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement opposing impeachment of judges for their rulings. The incident reflects Trump's broader campaign to delegitimize judges who rule against his executive orders.
• Trump attacked Judge Boasberg over case assignment — Trump posted a statement attacking Judge James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court, for being assigned to hear a lawsuit in the Signal case. Trump claimed it was "statistically impossible" for a Republican to win before Boasberg, accused the judge of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," and called for an "immediate investigation" of what he characterized as a "rigged system."
• Trump calls for impeachment of Judge Boasberg after El Salvador deportation ruling — President Trump called for the impeachment of US District Judge James Boasberg after Boasberg's ruling blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The ruling earned Trump a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. Boasberg had previously been targeted by Trump and was subsequently assigned to a lawsuit alleging Trump officials violated federal record-keeping laws by using Signal group chats to discuss military action against Yemen's Houthis.

Supporting reports

• Judge Blocks Deportation Flights to El Salvador — Judge Boasberg issued an order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from flying more migrants to a prison in El Salvador. The order comes amid reports of harsh conditions at the facility and concerns about the treatment of detainees. Despite the ruling, Trump's Deportation Czar, Tom Homan, stated that the administration would continue to arrest and deport individuals deemed public safety or national security threats.
• Trump administration defies court order in Venezuelan deportations — The Trump administration deported 137 Venezuelan migrants on Sunday despite a federal judge's verbal order to halt deportations. Administration officials, including border czar Tom Homan and Attorney General Pam Bondi, defended the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (a wartime law), claiming the migrants were gang members committing violent crimes. Homan stated he does not care what judges think regarding the case, signaling defiance of judicial authority and court orders.
• Tom Homan refused to comply with Judge Boasberg's temporary restraining order blocking deportations to El Salvador — Trump's Deportation Czar Tom Homan publicly stated he would disregard a federal judge's temporary restraining order blocking further deportation flights to El Salvador. When asked about Judge Boasberg's order, Homan declared: "I don't care what that judge thinks as far as this case. We're gonna continue to arrest public safety threats, national security threats. We're gonna continue to deport them." The statement represents an explicit refusal to comply with judicial authority.
• Tom Homan refused to acknowledge due process rights for migrants facing deportation — When asked on ABC News whether migrants would receive any due process before deportation, Deportation Czar Tom Homan responded by invoking Laken Riley (a victim of a crime allegedly committed by an undocumented immigrant) rather than addressing the question, implying that due process protections are not applicable. The response suggests a policy of deportation without legal proceedings.

Supporting reports

• Judge Boasberg opens inquiry into whether White House violated court order on deportations — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg opened an inquiry into whether the Trump administration violated his temporary restraining order halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration failed to recall two deportation flights, claiming the judge's verbal order lacked a written counterpart and therefore could be disregarded. Boasberg questioned this reasoning at a hearing, stating the administration's argument was "one heck of a stretch." The administration has insisted it did not violate the order but has adopted a combative stance toward the judge and is considering invoking the rarely used state secrets privilege to stonewall further inquiry.
• Trump administration defies court order in Venezuelan deportations — The Trump administration deported 137 Venezuelan migrants on Sunday despite a federal judge's verbal order to halt deportations. Administration officials, including border czar Tom Homan and Attorney General Pam Bondi, defended the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (a wartime law), claiming the migrants were gang members committing violent crimes. Homan stated he does not care what judges think regarding the case, signaling defiance of judicial authority and court orders.
• Trump administration ignores federal court order on deportation flights — The Trump administration defied a US district court order from Judge James Boasberg directing the administration to turn around planes carrying deportees. Thomas Homan, Trump's deportation enforcement official, stated "I don't care what the judges think" in a Fox News interview. Trump subsequently called for Boasberg's impeachment, labeling him a "radical left lunatic." The defiance prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public rebuke, stating that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial disagreement.
• Federal court blocks Trump administration's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants without hearings — Judge James Boasberg rejected the Trump administration's attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of gang ties without due process hearings. The administration had issued a proclamation on March 15 claiming Tren de Aragua gang activities constituted an "invasion" justifying wartime deportation powers. Boasberg ruled that individuals must receive hearings before removal and that plaintiffs disputing gang membership cannot be deported until courts decide the merits. The case proceeded to appeals court, where Judge Patricia Millett questioned whether Venezuelans received adequate opportunity to contest accusations before deportation.

Supporting reports

• SSA commissioner threatens agency shutdown — Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Leland Dudek threatened to shut down the agency in response to a restraining order issued by Judge Hollander. Dudek claimed that the order could apply to all SSA employees and expressed concerns about the implications for the agency's operations and the distribution of benefits to millions of Americans.
• Leland Dudek revealed he secretly cooperated with DOGE to undermine SSA leadership — Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Leland Dudek, a mid-level staffer who won his position by secretly cooperating with DOGE's demands, publicly confessed on LinkedIn to his role in circumventing agency leadership. He wrote: "I confess. I bullied agency executives, shared executive contact information, and circumvented the chain of command to connect DOGE with the people who get stuff done." Dudek had worked to undermine SSA's former head, Michelle King, who had stood in the way of DOGE's access to sensitive records.
• Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander reprimanded Social Security Commissioner Lee Dudek for misrepresenting court orders — Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander reprimanded Social Security Administration Commissioner Lee Dudek for making false statements in media interviews about her court order denying DOGE employees access to Social Security data. Dudek falsely claimed the order applied to "almost all SSA employees" when it expressly applied only to SSA employees working on the DOGE agenda. Judge Hollander stated Dudek's claims were "inaccurate" and "patently incorrect" and noted she may have been misled by government counsel. Dudek subsequently issued a statement admitting his media claims were wrong but blamed the judge for being unclear.

Supporting reports

• Judge issues restraining order against DOGE — U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a temporary restraining order against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), prohibiting the Social Security Administration from sharing personally identifiable information with DOGE. The judge criticized DOGE for lacking justification for its access to SSA records, highlighting concerns about privacy and government overreach.
• DOGE conducted unauthorized searches of Social Security data after court restraining order — According to the Department of Justice court filing, DOGE team members conducted searches of personally identifiable information on March 24, 2025, even after the Social Security Administration believed it had revoked all such access in compliance with a federal court's temporary restraining order issued March 20, 2025. The final search occurred at approximately 9:30 a.m., with full access terminated by noon that day. DOGE members had also been granted access to systems beyond what the agency previously reported to the court, including employee records and personnel access information.
• Federal judge blocked DOGE access to federal agency data — A federal judge temporarily blocked Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the private data of individuals at several federal agencies. The block prevents DOGE from obtaining sensitive personal information held by the government.
• DOGE staffer signed agreement to share Social Security data with election denial group — In March 2025, a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer embedded at the Social Security Administration signed a "Voter Data Agreement" with a political advocacy group seeking to overturn election results in certain states. According to a court filing by government lawyers, the DOGE employee sent the executed agreement on March 24, 2025. Emails suggest DOGE team members could have been asked to assist the group by accessing SSA data to match voter rolls. The SSA referred the involved employees to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for possible Hatch Act violations.
• Federal judge blocks DOGE access to federal employee personal databases — On February 3, Popular Information reported that DOGE staff at the Office of Personnel Management received unprecedented access to databases containing sensitive personal information for millions of federal employees. A week later, a coalition of labor unions representing federal workers sued OPM citing Popular Information's report seven times. On March 24, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking DOGE's access to the databases.

Supporting reports

• Trump issues executive orders targeting Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling law firms — Trump issued executive orders targeting the law firms Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling, similar in structure to the Paul Weiss order. Perkins Coie was targeted over its ties to a lawyer who worked with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign; Covington and Burling was targeted for representing former special counsel Jack Smith in litigation against the administration.
• Trump issues executive orders penalizing law firms Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie — President Trump issued executive orders targeting three major law firms—Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—barring them from federal buildings, restricting agency interaction, and revoking security clearances from some lawyers. The orders were widely characterized as punitive retaliation against firms whose clients included former special counsel Jack Smith and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked enforcement against Perkins Coie on 12 March, citing First Amendment violations. Paul Weiss reversed the order on 19 March after agreeing to $40 million in pro bono services.
• Trump warned law firms to "behave themselves" — After the settlement with Paul Weiss, Trump warned that "law firms have to behave themselves." The warning signals that the administration will use executive power to target firms that do not comply with its preferences.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14246 suspending security clearances of Jenner & Block employees, restricting federal contracts, and limiting government access to the law firm. — President Trump issued Executive Order 14246 on March 25, 2025, targeting Jenner & Block LLP. The order directs the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to suspend active security clearances held by firm employees pending review. It requires federal agencies to cease provision of government goods, property, and services to the firm. Agencies must review all contracts with Jenner & Block, terminate contracts where the firm provides services, require contractors to disclose business relationships with the firm, and restrict official access and engagement between federal employees and firm staff, including attorney Andrew Weissmann.
• Trump signs executive orders targeting law firms challenging his administration — President Trump signed multiple executive orders targeting major law firms (Jenner & Block, Covington and Burling, Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss) that have represented his political opponents or employed prosecutors involved in investigations into Trump. The orders threaten to revoke security clearances, deny access to government buildings, and require government clients to disclose representation by these firms. Trump also directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate lawyers blocking administration priorities. Paul Weiss capitulated and accepted Trump's demands; Perkins Coie obtained a temporary restraining order blocking its order.
• Trump issued executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, suspending security clearances and restricting federal contracts. — President Trump issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Jenner & Block LLP employees, cease provision of government goods and services to the firm, and review all federal contracts involving the firm for termination. The order alleges the firm engaged in "partisan lawfare," pro bono work undermining administration priorities, and employment discrimination. It specifically names attorney Andrew Weissmann and restricts federal employee engagement with firm staff.
• White House signed executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, directing suspension of security clearances and termination of federal contracts. — The White House issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Jenner & Block LLP employees, cease provision of government services and facilities to the firm, terminate federal contracts with the firm, and restrict official access and hiring of its employees. The order characterizes the firm as engaging in "partisan lawfare," pro bono activities deemed harmful to U.S. interests, and alleged racial discrimination. The order specifically names attorney Andrew Weissmann and directs agencies to submit compliance assessments within 30 days.
• Trump signed order targeting law firm with Mueller connection — Trump signed another executive order targeting a law firm that once employed Andrew Weissman, the former deputy to Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order suspends security clearances of the firm's employees, terminates government contracts, and orders a review of the firm's compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias.
• Trump administration stripped security clearances from law firms and barred attorneys from federal buildings — The Trump administration issued executive orders stripping security clearances from Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss law firms and barring their attorneys from entering federal buildings, including courthouses. The chair of Paul, Weiss stated the move "could easily have destroyed our firm." The orders targeted firms representing Trump's opponents in litigation.
• Trump signed executive order encouraging disciplinary action against attorneys filing litigation against the administration — President Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to refer attorneys for disciplinary action if they file "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation" against the administration. Critics argue the order will have a chilling effect on litigation challenging government actions, and law firms have begun refusing to represent Trump's opponents out of fear of retaliation.
• Trump issues Executive Order 14250 suspending security clearances and restricting federal contracts with WilmerHale law firm — President Trump signed Executive Order 14250 directing the suspension of security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending national-interest review, cessation of federal goods and services to the firm, termination of government contracts with WilmerHale, restrictions on federal building access for firm employees, and guidance against hiring WilmerHale staff. The order cites the firm's pro bono work, representation of immigration and voting-rights cases, and employment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller as grounds for the action.
• Trump issued executive order targeting WilmerHale law firm with security clearance suspensions and federal contracting restrictions. — President Trump issued an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by WilmerHale employees, cease provision of government goods and services to the firm, require federal contractors to disclose business relationships with WilmerHale, review and terminate relevant contracts, restrict WilmerHale employee access to federal buildings, and limit hiring of WilmerHale staff. The order cites the firm's pro bono work, representation of immigration and election-related cases, and employment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller as grounds for the action.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14250 targeting WilmerHale law firm with security clearance suspensions, contract terminations, and personnel restrictions. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14250 on March 27, 2025, directing the suspension of security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending review, cessation of government provision of materials and services to the firm, termination of federal contracts with WilmerHale, restrictions on federal employee access to WilmerHale staff, and limitations on hiring WilmerHale employees into government. The order characterizes the firm's pro bono work and representation of clients as threats to national security and American interests, and specifically names former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and colleagues as examples of "weaponization of government."
• Trump signed executive order suspending security clearances for WilmerHale employees and terminating federal contracts with the firm — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, suspending security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending review, halting federal material and services to the firm, restricting employee access to government buildings, terminating WilmerHale contracts, and barring federal agencies from hiring the firm's employees without authorization. The fact sheet characterizes WilmerHale as engaging in partisan activities, racial discrimination, and obstruction of immigration enforcement.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14253 directing removal of exhibits and narratives from federal museums and historical sites deemed ideologically divisive, with authority delegated to the Vice President over the Smithsonian Institution. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14253 on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to remove exhibits, programs, and historical narratives from museums and monuments that the order characterizes as "divisive" or promoting "ideology" rather than "objective facts." The order specifically targets the Smithsonian Institution, directing the Vice President to work through his role on the Smithsonian Board of Regents to remove what the order calls "improper ideology." It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to audit and reinstate pre-2020 monuments and ensure all federal historical sites focus on "greatness" and "achievements" rather than narratives the order deems disparaging. Future appropriations are to be conditioned on prohibiting exhibits that "divide Americans based on race" or are "inconsistent with Federal law and policy."
• Trump issues executive order directing federal agencies to remove "ideological" content from Smithsonian Institution and federal historical sites — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing the Vice President, OMB Director, and Secretary of the Interior to remove what the order characterizes as "divisive, race-centered ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution, Independence National Historical Park, and other federal historical sites. The order mandates restoration of pre-2020 monuments and memorials, prohibits future federal funding for exhibits deemed to "degrade shared American values" or "divide Americans based on race," and requires the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to exclude recognition of transgender athletes. The order frames this as restoring "truth" and "sanity" to American history.
• Trump administration issues executive orders targeting law firms; two firms sue to block — The Trump administration issued executive orders halting business with five law firms (Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie) and revoking security clearances of their attorneys, citing retaliation for the firms' representation of political opponents or employment of Trump critics. On Friday, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed federal lawsuits in Washington DC seeking to block the orders as unconstitutional. Perkins Coie had already successfully convinced a judge to block its order. Paul Weiss and Skadden reached settlements with the administration to avoid or withdraw orders.

Supporting reports

• Trump strips security clearances and bars Paul Weiss lawyers from federal buildings — Trump issued an executive order revoking security clearances and barring employees of the law firm Paul Weiss from entering federal government buildings, citing his complaint about former partner Mark Pomerantz, who pursued a criminal case against Trump in New York. The order was later withdrawn on March 20 after the firm's chair Brad Karp offered concessions including criticism of Pomerantz and a commitment to provide $40 million in legal services to causes championed by Trump.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court to hear latest GOP bid to gut the VRA — The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new case brought by GOP interests that challenges key provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This case could potentially alter the enforcement of voting rights protections that have been in place for decades. The decision to hear the case signals the Court's willingness to reconsider the scope and application of the VRA, which has been a cornerstone of voting rights in the United States. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of voting rights and election laws across the country.

Supporting reports

• MAGA supporters threaten judges — Supporters of Trump, including Elon Musk and Laura Loomer, have targeted Judge Boasberg's family with threats and harassment, including bomb threats against judges who oppose Trump’s actions. This reflects a broader pattern of intimidation against the judiciary.

Supporting reports

• Trump orders Attorney General to refer partisan lawsuits to White House and recommend sanctions against law firms — President Trump issued a sweeping memo directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify what she determines to be partisan lawsuits filed against the federal government, refer them to the White House, and recommend punitive actions including sanctions or disciplinary measures against the firms and lawyers involved. The memo also directed Bondi to conduct a retroactive review of lawyer and law firm conduct in litigation against the federal government dating back to 2017. Trump simultaneously deployed executive orders stripping security clearances and barring employees of targeted firms (Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Covington and Burling) from federal buildings, citing their representation in cases against his administration.
• White House issues fact sheet promoting presidential memorandum on attorney accountability — The White House issued a fact sheet on March 21, 2025, promoting a presidential memorandum signed by President Trump directing the Attorney General to prioritize sanctions against attorneys and law firms for frivolous litigation against the federal government, enforce attorney conduct regulations, refer attorneys for disciplinary action, and review attorney conduct over the preceding eight years. The fact sheet characterizes the memorandum as addressing "weaponization" of the legal system and cites examples including Marc Elias and immigration attorneys.

Supporting reports

• Musk donated to judges' impeachment supporters — The New York Times reported that Musk made donations to Republican members of Congress who have supported impeaching federal judges challenging Trump administration actions, funding efforts to remove judges.
• Musk announced donations to Republicans supporting judge impeachment — Elon Musk announced that he made donations to Republican lawmakers who co-sponsored a resolution to impeach judges that ruled against former President Trump. The donations are part of Musk's broader support for efforts to challenge judicial decisions perceived as unfavorable to Trump and his allies. This action raises concerns about the influence of money in politics and the independence of the judiciary.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Gill introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg — Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas tweeted that he introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg, baselessly saying he is "guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office."
• Articles of impeachment filed against Judge Boasberg — Republican Congressman Brandon Gill from Texas filed articles of impeachment against Chief US District Judge James Boasberg. This action follows Boasberg's issuance of a temporary restraining order halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The impeachment articles were filed after former President Donald Trump called for Boasberg's removal, labeling him a "Radical Left Lunatic" and a "troublemaker." This move is seen as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and retaliate against a judge for his legal decisions.

Supporting reports

• Brown University professor deported despite judge’s order — Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University professor, was deported to Lebanon despite a US district court judge's order blocking her removal. The deportation occurred after federal prosecutors alleged she had "sympathetic photos and videos" related to Hezbollah figures. The deportation defied Judge Leo Sorokin's order, which required 48 hours' notice before her removal. The US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proceeded with the deportation, leading to a legal response demand from the judge. The incident is part of a broader escalation of immigration policies under the Trump administration.

Supporting reports

• Trump called federal judge's ruling dangerous — Asked about a federal judge's ruling to rehire terminated federal workers, Trump called it "a very dangerous decision for our country," attacking judicial authority to protect civil service rights.

Supporting reports

• Chief Justice Roberts responds to Trump — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement in response to Trump's call for Judge Boasberg's impeachment, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions. Roberts highlighted the appellate review process as the proper channel for addressing disagreements with court rulings.
• Trump calls for Judge Boasberg's impeachment — Former President Trump called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg after a ruling against him on migrant flights. Trump criticized the judge as a "Radical Left Lunatic" and questioned his legitimacy, despite Boasberg's confirmation by the Senate with a unanimous vote.
• Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump on judicial rhetoric — After Trump referred to Judge Boasberg as a "radical left lunatic" and called for his impeachment, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke, stating: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."
• Trump calls for impeachment of Judge Boasberg — President Donald Trump publicly called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a "Radical Left Lunatic" and suggested that judges who disagree with him should be impeached. This statement drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial disagreement.
• Chief Justice Roberts Responds to Trump's Call for Judicial Impeachment — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement rebuking President Trump's suggestion that judges who disagree with him should be impeached. Roberts emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions and reaffirmed the importance of the appellate review process. This response came after Trump labeled Judge Boasberg a "Radical Left Lunatic" and called for his impeachment.
• Trump calls for impeachment of Judge James Boasberg — Former President Donald Trump has called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, a federal judge who issued a temporary restraining order to halt deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Trump labeled Boasberg a "radical left lunatic" and criticized his decision, which was meant to stop deportations that the administration argued were necessary. The call for impeachment has been met with criticism from various legal experts and Republican senators, who argue that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions.
• Chief Justice Roberts criticizes Trump's impeachment call — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement criticizing President Trump's call for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial disagreements and that the appellate review process exists for such matters.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed to dissolve injunctions in deportation case — The Trump administration filed a late-night 35-page motion on Monday to dissolve the injunctions and dismiss the case related to the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting Venezuelan nationals. The administration is challenging two injunctions: one preventing the deportation of five Venezuelans and another expanding the order to cover all removals under the Act. The administration argues that the deportation flights were outside the judge's jurisdiction once they left U.S. airspace.
• Trump administration sought removal of Judge Boasberg — The Trump administration sent a letter to an appeals court calling for Judge Boasberg to be removed from hearing the deportation case associated with the Alien Enemies Act, escalating efforts to disqualify the judge.
• DOJ argued judge's order was not enforceable — In a court filing, the Department of Justice argued that Judge Boasberg's verbal order was "not enforceable as an injunction," challenging the judge's authority to issue the restraining order blocking Alien Enemies Act deportations.

Supporting reports

• Elon Musk called for impeachment of Judge Boasberg — On Twitter, Elon Musk said the impeachment of Judge Boasberg was "necessary," joining calls to remove the federal judge for issuing orders blocking the administration's deportation actions.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration deported alleged gang members to El Salvador — On March 15, 2025, President Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador without due process. Approximately 200 individuals were flown from Texas to San Salvador, despite a federal judge's order to halt the flights. The deportees were sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Reports indicate that many of those deported may not be gang members, with tattoos being used as the primary evidence of gang affiliation. The legality of the deportation under the Alien Enemies Act is disputed.
• Deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador without due process and defiance of Supreme Court order — Kilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadoran man with protected status against deportation to El Salvador, was removed to El Salvador by mistake without a hearing. The Trump administration admitted the error but is defying a US Supreme Court order to facilitate his return to his home and family in Maryland. He was flown to a brutal mega-prison in El Salvador, then transferred to another facility. The administration accused him of being a violent gangster and abandoned him, infuriating a federal judge and prompting warnings of a constitutional crisis. In June, the US flew him back but kept him in custody and charged him with migrant smuggling conspiracy. His lawyer stated the administration was "playing games with the court all along."
• U.S. District Judge blocks deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an order temporarily blocking the Trump administration's deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. The ruling was based on the lack of hearings for the individuals to present evidence against their alleged gang affiliation. The administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the deportations without due process.
• Trump administration deports Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador — The Trump administration deported over 200 Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, including individuals accused of being part of the Tren de Aragua gang. The deportees, some of whom appeared in a video by El Salvador's president, face at least a year in a Salvadorian jail. A lawyer for one deportee, an LGBTQ+ artist, claims the accusations are baseless and part of a psychological warfare campaign against asylum seekers. The deportations are seen as an effort to deter asylum claims in the U.S.

Supporting reports

• House Democrats delegation visits El Salvador to challenge Trump administration's refusal to facilitate return of deported immigrant — Four House Democrats (Ansari, Dexter, Frost, Garcia) traveled to El Salvador to advocate for the release of Kilmar Ábrego García, a man with protected legal status who was wrongly deported on March 15 following an "administrative error." The Trump administration has refused to comply with a Supreme Court order directing it to facilitate Ábrego García's return to the US, despite acknowledging the deportation was unlawful. The delegation met with US embassy officials and demanded proof of life and access to counsel.
• ICE deports Maryland man with protected legal status to El Salvador, blames administrative error — Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Kilmer Armado Ábrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national residing in Maryland with his wife and five-year-old child, to El Salvador on 15 March 2025, despite his having been granted "withholding of removal" status by an immigration judge in October 2019—a protected status preventing return to his home country. ICE acknowledged the deportation as an "administrative error" in court documents filed Monday, stating Garcia was placed on a deportation flight as an alternate when other detainees were removed. The Trump administration claimed it lacks jurisdiction to return him now that he is in Salvadoran custody. Garcia is currently detained at Cecot, El Salvador's notorious mega-prison.
• ICE detains and deports Kilmar Ábrego García without hearing despite withholding of removal order — On March 12, 2025, ICE officers detained Kilmar Ábrego García and informed him his immigration status had changed. Three days later, on March 15, 2025, he was deported to El Salvador without a hearing and sent to a maximum-security prison, despite holding a "withholding of removal" order granted by an immigration judge in 2019 that explicitly prevented deportation to El Salvador due to credible fear of persecution.
• Kilmar Ábrego García removed to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center without due process; returned and charged with human trafficking — Kilmar Ábrego García, 29, was removed from the United States on March 15, 2025, and transported to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a facility known for severe human rights abuses. He was returned to the United States on June 6, 2025, and now faces human trafficking charges. His attorneys maintain that García is innocent and characterize the charges as an "abuse of power." García's case is one of over 200 people removed to CECOT without due process.
• Trump administration admits then reverses course on unlawful deportation of Ábrego García — Shortly after deporting Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador in March 2025, the Trump administration admitted in a court filing that the deportation resulted from an "administrative error." Subsequently, administration officials reversed course and insisted that Ábrego García was not wrongly deported, despite a 2019 court order explicitly prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador and his prior grant of "withholding of removal" status.
• Government rendered legal U.S. resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite court order — On March 15, the government rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident, to prison in El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting his deportation to that country, where his life was in danger. The government later admitted the arrest and rendition occurred because of "administrative error" but now claims without evidence that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang and that his return would threaten public safety. Abrego Garcia denies gang membership and has never been charged with a crime.
• ICE arrests and renders Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador prison — On March 12, 2025, ICE agents pulled over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's car, told his wife to retrieve their disabled son, and incarcerated him. On March 15, the government rendered Abrego Garcia to CECOT prison in El Salvador, a facility alleged to be the site of human rights abuses, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Abrego Garcia had been living lawfully in Maryland with his wife and three children, working as a sheet metal apprentice with a union, and had never been charged with any crime. He had checked in annually with ICE as directed. The U.S. government pays El Salvador $6 million annually to incarcerate individuals it sends there.
• Trump administration rendered U.S. citizen to El Salvador prison without due process — On March 15, 2025, the Trump administration rendered Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to CECOT, a notorious terrorist prison in El Salvador, initially claiming it was an "administrative error." When Abrego Garcia's family filed a lawsuit for his return, lawyers at the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security quietly worked to secure his safety and return. However, White House officials treated the case as an opportunity to challenge judicial restraint on presidential power. The administration publicly insisted, without evidence, that Abrego Garcia was a gang member, drug dealer, terrorist, and human trafficker, and despite court orders up to the Supreme Court mandating his return, White House officials have publicly stated he will never return to the United States.
• Trump administration rendition of men to CECOT prison in El Salvador without due process — Beginning March 15, 2025, the Trump administration transported more than 250 men from the United States to CECOT, a notorious terrorist prison in El Salvador, claiming they were dangerous gang members without providing names or evidence. Subsequent investigations by Bloomberg and other outlets found that approximately 90% of the men had no U.S. criminal record. The administration provided false information about the men's criminal status to justify the renditions, violating due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Trump administration deported Salvadoran national despite valid legal protection from removal — Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen with a valid 2019 immigration court order granting "withholding of removal" to El Salvador (based on credible evidence of gang persecution), was arrested by ICE on March 12, 2025, and deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, despite the Trump administration's own legal filing acknowledging the deportation occurred "because of an administrative error" while ICE was aware of his protection. The administration later defended the deportation and made false public claims about Garcia's criminal history.
• Deportation of Venezuelan Migrants to El Salvador Raises Concerns — Reports emerged detailing the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, where families are concerned for their safety. Despite no criminal records, these individuals were deported under claims of gang affiliation. Family members have launched a WhatsApp helpline to seek information about their loved ones.

Supporting reports

• House Democrats delegation visits El Salvador to challenge Trump administration's refusal to facilitate return of deported immigrant — Four House Democrats (Ansari, Dexter, Frost, Garcia) traveled to El Salvador to advocate for the release of Kilmar Ábrego García, a man with protected legal status who was wrongly deported on March 15 following an "administrative error." The Trump administration has refused to comply with a Supreme Court order directing it to facilitate Ábrego García's return to the US, despite acknowledging the deportation was unlawful. The delegation met with US embassy officials and demanded proof of life and access to counsel.