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

• 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

• White House blocks CNN and MS Now from state dinner coverage — Hours after CNN, MS Now, and Politico journalists were granted delayed entry to the White House on Thursday morning (after being initially denied entry), CNN's editorial team and an MS Now reporter were blocked from covering a state dinner commemorating Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit. This occurred after the federal court order mandating restoration of their White House access.
• White House blocks CNN from Air Force One travel — The Trump White House excluded CNN from traveling aboard Air Force One on Saturday, preventing the network from fulfilling its rotating TV press pool duties covering the president's trip to Tennessee for a college football game. This followed the administration's revocation of White House access for CNN, Politico, and MS Now a week earlier, citing unfavorable coverage. A federal judge had ordered restoration of access after the outlets sued on First Amendment grounds, but CNN and MS Now were later blocked from covering a state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping.
• White House excludes CNN from Air Force One press pool — The White House barred CNN from the presidential press pool covering Trump's travel to Tennessee for a college football game on September 26, despite CNN being a member of the five-major-network pool and scheduled to provide television footage. Trump posted on social media that outlets perpetrating "FAKE NEWS" should not be allowed in the White House, later telling reporters he supports a free press but opposes "fake news."
• White House reimposed ban on CNN from Air Force One pool coverage — On 27 September, despite the federal court's temporary restraining order, the White House barred CNN from joining the press pool traveling with the president on Air Force One. Attorney General Blanche claimed this was routine practice and not a denial of access. The action defied the judicial order and reignited the dispute after other outlets had briefly refused pool coverage in solidarity with the three banned outlets.

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

• Department of Justice refuses to comply with court order to release unredacted Epstein files — Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a status conference in Phang v. Blanche on Thursday, August 14. The lawsuit, filed by independent journalist Katie Phang, seeks unredacted versions of Epstein investigation documents that the Department of Justice has withheld in violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress mandated be released by December 19, 2025. Sullivan had granted Phang's request in late June and ordered the DOJ to produce unredacted documents in July; the DOJ refused both times. When Sullivan asked if he would learn anything more from the government, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block answered affirmatively. Sullivan warned he had held prosecutors in contempt in the past and gave Phang's lawyers ten days to propose an order.

Supporting reports

• White House renews effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — ABC News reported that the Trump administration is renewing its effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino sent Cook a letter on Wednesday giving her three weeks to respond to previous allegations of mortgage fraud that she has steadfastly denied. The latest push follows a Supreme Court ruling in June allowing her to continue in her position, which did not prevent Trump from attempting removal again.
• Trump informs Lisa Cook that he is “considering” her removal — Former President Donald Trump has informed Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, that he is considering her removal from her position. This announcement has raised concerns about the independence of the Federal Reserve and the potential implications for monetary policy and economic stability. The Federal Reserve is a critical institution in managing the U.S. economy, and any changes in its leadership can have significant impacts on economic governance.

Supporting reports

• Federal judges appoint Roger Rogoff as U.S. attorney in Seattle; Trump fires him within the hour — A panel of federal judges appointed by five presidents unanimously appointed Roger Rogoff, a former judge and longtime prosecutor, as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington to replace a Trump appointee whose 120-day interim term had ended in February. Rogoff took the oath of office at 8:00 a.m. Within one hour, he received an email informing him he was fired. Trump has attempted to circumvent the 120-day statutory limit on interim U.S. attorneys by relabeling appointees as assistant U.S. attorneys while leaving the top position vacant. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Trump's action on social media, stating that district court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. attorney but the president can fire them.

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

• 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.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court clears way for asylum seekers to be physically blocked at U.S.-Mexico border — On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling clearing the way for the Trump administration to turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border by physically blocking them from setting foot on U.S. soil. The decision permits implementation of a "metering" policy instructing border officials to stand at the border line and deny entry to migrants seeking asylum, effectively circumventing statutory asylum protections.
• SCOTUS upheld asylum-seeker turnback policy at U.S.-Mexico border — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that the federal government's "metering" policy—systematically turning back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border before they can enter—does not violate federal asylum law. CBP officials implement the policy by standing at the border and refusing entry to noncitizens without valid travel documents, including asylum applicants.
• Supreme Court restored asylum-denial authority at southern border — On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court restored the administration's authority to turn away asylum seekers at overburdened crossings on the southern border, handing the administration a second immigration win in a single day.
• Supreme Court upholds Trump asylum turn-back policy at US-Mexico border — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration may revive its "metering" or turn-back policy, allowing federal agents to prevent asylum seekers from physically entering US soil and claiming asylum protections. The majority, led by Justice Alito, interpreted "arrive in" narrowly to exclude migrants stopped at the border threshold. Justice Sotomayor's 35-page dissent warned the ruling would allow the government to circumvent international and domestic asylum law, potentially exposing vulnerable people to persecution or death.
• US Supreme Court upholds Trump administration asylum metering policy at US-Mexico border — On the same day, the Supreme Court issued a second 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Alito, upholding the Trump administration's authority to turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border when officials deem crossings too overburdened. The decision supports the administration's revival of the "metering" policy, which had been discontinued under President Biden, allowing the government to deny asylum claims based on border capacity determinations.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary order blocking "anti-weaponization" fund — A federal judge issued a temporary order preventing the Trump administration from establishing the nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund while a lawsuit seeking to stop it is considered. The fund, which originated from a settlement after Trump sued the IRS over disclosure of his tax returns, had been proposed to compensate individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack.
• Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's $1.8bn Anti-Weaponization Fund — US District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order on Friday barring the Trump administration from transferring money into or taking further action on a $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund." The fund was created to settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons over leaked tax returns, without the government mounting a legal defense. The order preserves the status quo pending legal arguments in a challenge brought by Democracy Forward and other plaintiffs, preventing irreversible disbursement of taxpayer funds.
• Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary order halting the Department of Justice from creating, operating, or distributing funds from the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion slush fund established by the Trump administration to compensate those convicted of crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The order prohibits the administration from transferring money to the fund, considering claims for payment, or paying out any funds. Brinkema scheduled a hearing on the case for June 12. The plaintiffs challenging the fund are people and entities prosecuted or threatened by the Trump administration who argue they are not being treated equally with Trump loyalists in compensation claims.
• Motion granted — Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) 1:26-cv-01399 — Judge Brinkema enjoined Defendants from taking any action related to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, including transferring money to the Fund, considering submitted claims, or disbursing any funds. Judge Brinkema also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited briefing and granted the Defendants' request for additional time.
• Federal Judge Brinkema temporarily blocked Trump's $1.776 billion fund for fraudsters and insurrectionists — Federal Judge Brinkema issued a temporary block on any further action involving Trump's $1.776 billion fund, preserving the status quo while litigation moves forward. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 12, 2026. The fund was characterized as being for "fraudsters and insurrectionists."
• Federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Justice from taking further action on the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded initiative. The order blocks the transfer of money to the fund, consideration of claims, and disbursement of funds while plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is pending. Judge Brinkema scheduled a hearing for June 12 to hear further arguments on the case.
• Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's $1.776 Billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from creating or operating a planned $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to compensate individuals who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the government, potentially including those Trump pardoned for Jan. 6 involvement. The order prohibits consideration of submitted claims and disbursement of funds pending a June 12 hearing.

Supporting reports

• U.S. District Judge Richard Leon halted above-ground construction of White House ballroom — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, issued an order halting above-ground construction of a proposed White House ballroom but permitting construction of the below-ground bunker to continue. The decision prompted President Trump to post four lengthy social media screeds attacking the judge as "Trump Hating" and claiming the ballroom is essential to national security, containing bomb shelters, military installations, and protective infrastructure. Trump characterized the judicial order as "illegal overreach" and "a mockery to our Court System."
• Federal judge limits Trump's White House ballroom project — Federal Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that construction on Trump's planned White House ballroom project can proceed only on an underground portion deemed necessary for national security, not on the 90,000-square-foot aboveground addition Trump wanted for entertaining VIP guests. Judge Leon wrote that "national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity." Trump had argued the entire project counted as a security project because of bulletproof glass and bomb shelters.
• Trump attacks federal judge blocking White House ballroom construction — Trump attacked a federal judge on Truth Social who blocked the administration's above-ground construction of a White House ballroom, calling the judge "Trump Hating" and "highly political" and baselessly accusing him of "illegal overreach." The judge had authorized below-ground construction, citing protection of national security facilities. Trump claimed the below-ground portion will include bomb shelters and medical facilities.
• President Trump attacked federal judge Richard Leon in social media posts over ballroom ruling — President Trump posted four lengthy social media screeds attacking U.S. District Judge Richard Leon for halting above-ground construction of a proposed White House ballroom. Trump characterized the judge as "Trump Hating," accused him of "illegal overreach," and claimed the judicial order is "a mockery to our Court System." Trump asserted that the ballroom is essential to national security and that no judge can be allowed to stop the project, framing judicial review as an attack on presidential authority and national defense.
• Stay pending appeal decided — National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04316 — The D.C. Circuit granted Defendants' emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of Judge Leon's April 16, 2026 order and set an expedited briefing schedule, noting: “The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”

Supporting reports

• Trump claimed he does not need Congressional approval for tariffs — Fifteen minutes after his threat post, at 9:49 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted that "As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs. It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago!" He claimed tariffs were "reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision."
• Trump posted that Supreme Court ruling granted him unchecked tariff power — At 7:06 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted on social media that the Supreme Court had "accidentally and unwittingly" given him "far more powers and strength" than he had before. He claimed he could use tariffs "in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty" and attacked the court with contemptuous language, writing "supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!)."
• Trump threatened higher tariffs against countries "playing games" — At 9:34 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted a threat that any country wanting to "play games" with the Supreme Court decision, especially those that have "ripped off" the U.S., would face "much higher Tariff, and worse" than recently agreed tariffs. The post ended with "BUYER BEWARE!!!"
• House Speaker Johnson acknowledged Congress lacks appetite for Trump's tariffs — House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told reporters on February 24, 2026, that Congress has no appetite for levying the tariffs Trump and his MAGA supporters want. Johnson stated: "It's going to be, I think, a challenge to find consensus on any path forward on the tariffs, on the legislative side. And so that is why, I think, you see so much of the attention on the executive side, the executive branch, and what they're doing and how they're reacting to the ruling."

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Trump attacks Supreme Court justices by name and threatens future retaliation — During a White House press briefing on February 21, 2026, Trump publicly denounced six Supreme Court justices who voted against his tariff authority, calling them a "disgrace to the nation" and "unpatriotic." He praised the three dissenters (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito) and attacked two of his own appointees, Barrett and Gorsuch, describing them as "an embarrassment to their families" and suggesting they would be excluded from the State of the Union. Trump alleged without evidence that the court had been "swayed by foreign interests."

Supporting reports

• President attacks justices and invokes Section 122 tariff authority — Within hours of the Supreme Court's ruling, the President issued a proclamation under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 imposing a 10% temporary import surcharge on virtually all imports, effective February 24, then raised it to 15% by Saturday. The President publicly attacked the justices who ruled against him, calling them "fools and lapdogs," praised the three dissenters by name, and alleged foreign influence over the Court. Treasury Secretary Bessent announced the goal is to achieve the same tariff posture through different legal channels with revenue "virtually unchanged."
• Trump responds to tariff ruling with public criticism of justices and announces new tariff order — After learning of the Supreme Court's tariff decision, Trump publicly attacked the justices in the majority, including two he appointed, calling them "fools," "lapdogs," and "unpatriotic." He claimed the Court had been "swayed by foreign interests" and that "obnoxious, ignorant and loud" people had frightened the justices. Trump then announced he would sign an order imposing a 10% global tariff under a different law permitting such action for 150 days, stating he had "the right to do tariffs" and did not need to work with Congress. That evening, he posted on social media confirming he had signed the order, effective "almost immediately."
• Trump held emergency press conference attacking Supreme Court justices — Trump held an unhinged emergency press conference after learning of the tariff ruling during a breakfast meeting with governors. He called the decision a "disgrace," attacked Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett as "fools and lapdogs for the RINOs," and claimed they were "disloyal to our Constitution." Trump alleged without evidence that foreign interests had "undue influence" over the Supreme Court and suggested Democrats should pack the court with 21 justices. He refused to commit to honoring potential refunds of $175 billion in tariffs already collected and claimed he had authority to "destroy the country" through trade actions.
• Trump's angry outburst after tariff ruling — After learning of the Supreme Court's tariff decision during a meeting with governors, Trump abruptly cleared the press from the room and engaged in an angry outburst. Witnesses reported him repeatedly attacking the courts and screaming profanities. Later, in a press conference, Trump called the justices "a disgrace to our nation," "fools," "lapdogs," and "very unpatriotic," with his remarks becoming increasingly unhinged.
• Trump attacked Supreme Court justices and announced plan to circumvent tariff ruling — Following the Supreme Court's decision blocking his emergency tariff authority, President Trump called the justices who ruled against him "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution," suggested without evidence that they are being swayed by "foreign interests," and announced he will impose a 10% "global tariff" under a different statute—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—which limits tariffs to 150 days unless authorized by Congress.
• Trump attacked Supreme Court Justices over IEEPA tariff ruling — After learning of the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling, Trump publicly attacked the three conservative Justices who voted against him, calling them "fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats" and accusing them of being "unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." He also claimed the Court had been "swayed by foreign interests." These statements constituted a direct assault on the judicial branch's independence and legitimacy.
• President attacks Supreme Court justices by name — The President publicly denounced the six justices who voted to strike down the IEEPA tariffs, calling them "fools and lapdogs," alleged that foreign interests had undue influence over the Court, and praised the three dissenters by name. This public attack on the judiciary followed immediately after the ruling.

Supporting reports

• Trump Justice Department argues Epstein Files Transparency Act cannot be enforced by courts — The Trump Justice Department filed arguments in federal court asserting that the Epstein Files Transparency Act cannot be enforced by any judge because the law does not explicitly provide a private right of action. According to the administration's legal position, courts are powerless to compel the release of the Epstein files. The administration is effectively asserting that no court can force it to comply with the law, placing itself beyond judicial oversight.

Supporting reports

• Trump declares national emergency, shields Venezuelan oil revenue from U.S. court attachment — President Trump signed Executive Order 14373 on January 9, 2026, declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and National Emergencies Act to protect Venezuelan government oil-revenue deposits held in U.S. Treasury accounts from judicial attachment or garnishment. The order invokes foreign policy and national security rationales—border control, narcotics interdiction, and regional stability—and directs the Treasury Secretary to hold these funds in custodial status, immune from private creditor claims, pending State Department disposition.
• Trump issued executive order declaring national emergency to shield Venezuelan government oil revenue deposits from U.S. judicial attachment — President Trump signed an executive order on January 9, 2026, declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and National Emergencies Act to protect Venezuelan government oil revenue deposits held in U.S. Treasury accounts from judicial attachment or garnishment. The order prohibits courts from issuing liens, judgments, or other judicial process against these "Foreign Government Deposit Funds" derived from Venezuelan natural resource sales. The order asserts these funds are sovereign Venezuelan property held in custodial capacity and invokes national security and foreign policy interests, citing efforts to combat illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking, and malign actors like Iran and Hezbollah.
• Trump signed executive order shielding Venezuelan government oil revenue from U.S. judicial attachment — President Trump signed Executive Order 14373 on January 9, 2026, declaring a national emergency and prohibiting judicial attachment, liens, garnishment, or other legal process against Venezuelan government oil revenue held in U.S. Treasury accounts. The order asserts that such attachments would harm U.S. national security and foreign policy, specifically efforts to stabilize Venezuela, reduce immigration and narcotics trafficking, and counter Iranian influence. The order directs the Treasury Secretary to hold the funds in custodial status and comply with State Department instructions on their disposition.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order protecting Venezuelan oil revenue in U.S. Treasury accounts — The White House published a fact sheet on January 9, 2026, describing an executive order signed by President Trump declaring a national emergency to shield Venezuelan oil revenues held in U.S. Treasury accounts from judicial attachment or process. The order blocks garnishment, liens, judgments, and other legal claims against these Foreign Government Deposit Funds, affirming them as sovereign Venezuelan property held for diplomatic purposes. The fact sheet states the order advances U.S. foreign policy objectives, including countering narcotics trafficking and illegal immigration, and prevents seizure that could "empower malign actors like Iran and Hezbollah."

Supporting reports

• US military conducts lethal strikes on boats in Eastern Pacific — The US Southern Command announced that, at the direction of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the US military conducted lethal strikes on three boats in the Eastern Pacific, killing a total of eight people.
• U.S. military strikes three boats in eastern Pacific, killing eight people — U.S. Southern Command announced that the military conducted strikes on three small boats in the eastern Pacific at the direction of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, killing eight people. The command claimed intelligence confirmed the vessels were engaged in narco-trafficking. This brings the total death toll from U.S. strikes to at least 95. Legal experts dispute the administration's claim of an "armed conflict" against drug cartels and say the U.S. has no legal basis for the strikes.
• Sen. Rand Paul warned against regime change wars in South America — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) warned on NBC that if the Trump administration continues toppling regimes in South America, there is "no amount of money that could be printed to pay for that" and lives should not be lost without a congressional vote. Paul's statement was made in response to Trump's warning to Colombia that it "could be next" after the administration's military escalation against Venezuela.
• Rep. Mike Turner expressed grave concern about boat strikes in Venezuela — Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) stated on ABC that there is "very grave concern in Congress" about boat strikes occurring in Venezuela. Turner noted that the individuals conducting the strikes are not being subject to criminal prosecution, and if they were, there would be no capital punishment available. Turner's statement indicates congressional concern about the legality and accountability of military operations against Venezuela.
• Sen. Jack Reed warned about consequences of violating laws of war — Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) stated on Fox that the U.S. must follow the law of war and can expect other countries to do the same. He warned that if the U.S. does not follow the law of war, it cannot expect other countries to protect American service members in distress, refrain from shooting wounded personnel in the water, or avoid leaving wounded soldiers to die. Reed's statement was made in response to the administration's military operations against Venezuela.
• Pentagon lawyers proposed sending boat strike survivors to El Salvador megaprison — The New York Times reported on December 9 that Pentagon lawyers raised the prospect of sending survivors of a mid-October boat strike in the Caribbean to El Salvador's megaprison in an effort to ensure they don't end up in the US court system, where the Trump administration could be forced to present evidence justifying their strikes in the region. The proposal represents an attempt to evade judicial accountability.
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced mounting Republican criticism over a potentially illegal order to kill survivors of a Caribbean boat strike. — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth received criticism from Republican lawmakers regarding an order that allegedly directed the killing of survivors from a Caribbean boat strike. The order was characterized as potentially illegal. This incident contributed to broader concerns about dysfunction within the Trump administration and raised questions about the legality and ethics of military directives under the current leadership.
• Pentagon conducts military strikes on Venezuelan vessels; at least 95 killed since September — The Pentagon conducted strikes on three boats accused of drug trafficking in the Pacific near Venezuela, killing eight people. This action is part of an escalating campaign that has included more than 20 strikes since September 2, resulting in at least 95 deaths. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has refused to release video footage of a September 2 attack, citing national security and "longstanding Department of War policy." The administration defends the strikes as preventing drugs from reaching U.S. shores, though Trump's chief of staff Susie Wiles confirmed in a Vanity Fair interview that the campaign aims to oust Maduro.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders release of Kilmar Ábrego García from ICE custody; DHS vows appeal — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered the release of Kilmar Ábrego García from an immigration detention facility in Pennsylvania on Thursday, December 11, 2025, finding that the federal government lacked lawful authority to detain him without a final deportation order. Ábrego, a Salvadoran national and construction worker, was freed shortly before 5pm ET. The Department of Homeland Security immediately condemned the ruling as "naked judicial activism" and announced plans to appeal. Ábrego plans to return to Maryland, where he has lived with his U.S. citizen wife and child.
• Judge Xinis ruled ICE could not hold Ábrego García without final deportation order — On Thursday, December 12, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that ICE could not hold Kilmar Ábrego García because there was no final deportation order for him, noting that the judge had not ordered one in the original 2019 decision protecting him from deportation.

Supporting reports

• Vought suspends majority of CFPB operations — Russell Vought, White House Office of Management and Budget director, suspended most of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's work while the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to take the case. A lower court order previously blocked the firings of approximately 90% of the agency's staff, but Vought proceeded with operational suspension pending appellate review.

Supporting reports

• Trump claimed government lacks funds to refund tariff revenue if Supreme Court rules against tariff authority — Trump stated in public remarks that the federal government cannot afford to repay tariff revenue collected if the Supreme Court rules against his tariff authority, claiming repayment would exceed $3 trillion and constitute a "National Security Event." Trump also accused justices opposed to his position of "giving low Numbers" to make the case appear easy to resolve. The administration lost twice in lower courts on the tariff issue and made no fiscal preparations for a potential loss.
• Trump claimed tariff ruling would cost $2–3 trillion and constitute national security catastrophe — President Trump stated on Monday that if the Supreme Court ruled his tariffs unconstitutional, the U.S. would owe "in excess of $2 Trillion Dollars," later increasing the figure to $3 trillion, and characterized this as a "National Security catastrophe." He blamed "Anarchists and Thugs" for challenging his tariffs. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the actual figure at approximately $195 billion. The Supreme Court had heard arguments on tariff constitutionality on November 5.