Trump Action Archive

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

• Stay pending appeal decided — Beatty v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04480 — The D.C. Circuit denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal, finding that they had failed to show irreparable harm from compliance with the district court's order requiring removal of President Trump's name from the Kennedy Center's facade, website title, and trademark applications.
• Federal appeals court ruled Trump name must remain on Kennedy Center — A federal appeals court ruled that Trump's name must remain on the Kennedy Center while his administration appeals the order that forced its removal. The three-judge panel found the administration offered no specific facts or evidence for its claim that losing the Trump name would harm the center's finances.
• Federal appeals court rejects Trump administration request to pause Kennedy Center name removal — A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected the Trump administration's emergency request to pause a lower court order requiring removal of Trump's name from the Kennedy Center's facade. The administration had argued the removal would harm fundraising and the institution's finances. The court found the administration provided no specific facts or evidence to support its claims and barred assertions that a newly created Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Foundation would need to return money if the name remained removed.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules TPS determinations largely exempt from judicial review — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision holding that the Department of Homeland Security Secretary's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) determinations and processes are generally not subject to judicial review, except for constitutional claims. The ruling affects approximately 1.3 million immigrants, with immediate consequences for over 300,000 Haitian and several thousand Syrian TPS holders who are expected to lose protections and work authorization. Justice Kagan's dissent warned the decision enables arbitrary termination without evaluation of country conditions.

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

• Trump-appointed Kennedy Center board voted to fight order removing Trump's name — A federal judge previously ruled that Congress named the Kennedy Center and only Congress can rename it, ordered Trump's name removed by June 13, and blocked a planned two-year closure of the building. This week, with the deadline looming, the Trump-appointed board voted to fight the order. The judge refused to pause the order, writing that the public is rarely served by letting the government keep breaking the law.
• Appeals court rejects emergency stay of Trump name removal from Kennedy Center — An appeals court in Washington DC rejected an emergency appeal filed by Justice Department lawyers and Trump's hand-picked Kennedy Center board seeking to pause a federal judge's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had ruled in May that Trump's name was illegally added to the iconic performing arts venue and ordered its removal within two weeks. Workers began removal efforts on June 12, 2026, despite the emergency appeal filed hours before the deadline.
• Federal judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center facade; workers comply after emergency appeal denied — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that Trump's name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center's facade and ordered its removal by Friday, June 13, 2026. Trump's board had renamed the venue in December 2026 after seizing control in February. After Trump's legal team filed emergency appeals on Friday afternoon, both were denied. Workers removed the signage early Saturday morning behind tarps. The judge found that only Congress, which designated the venue as a Kennedy memorial in 1964, could authorize a name change.
• Federal judge permits UFC event at White House despite legal challenge — Attorneys from the Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit to block a UFC fight scheduled for the White House lawn on Trump's 80th birthday (billed as a 250th anniversary celebration). On Friday, a federal judge ruled the event could proceed. The lawsuit challenged the appropriateness and use of taxpayer funds for the mixed martial arts event, which Dana White said was Trump's idea. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized the venue but expressed hope the event would be successful.
• Kennedy Center removes Trump signage following court order — Charles M. Floca, Trump-appointed head of the Kennedy Center, certified compliance with a court order requiring removal of all signage renaming the center after Trump. The center removed physical signs from the building and grounds, updated its website, removed Trump references from letterhead and promotional materials, and withdrew trademark applications. Workers installed scaffolding and tarps overnight to conceal the portico wall where Trump's name had been placed, with removal work occurring after 3:00 AM. The facade remained covered throughout the day while the center evaluated further legal options.
• Representative Beatty sued to block Kennedy Center renaming — Representative Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who as an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board had been sidelined, filed suit to stop the renaming. She won the case, and Judge Cooper ordered Trump's name removed from the building, all signage, stationery, merchandise, and related materials before midnight on June 12, 2026.

Supporting reports

• Judge orders removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center; blocks summer closure — US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts cannot be renamed without an act of Congress, ordering the Trump administration to remove all signage bearing Trump's name within 14 days. Cooper also temporarily blocked the center's proposed two-year closure for renovations, finding the board's decision "ill-informed and seemingly preordained." Trump responded by instructing the Department of Commerce to arrange a full transfer of the institution to Congress.
• Federal judge orders Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — A federal judge blocked Trump's effort to shut down the Kennedy Center and ordered his name removed from the building. Trump responded with a multi-thousand-word statement on Truth Social blaming the judge, the judge's wife, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Lisa Page, Russia investigations, E. Jean Carroll, tariffs, birthright citizenship, and the broader court system. Trump declared the Kennedy Center will "probably never open again" and stated he wants to relinquish control of the center entirely.
• Trump posted social media screed attacking Kennedy Center ruling — President Trump responded to Judge Cooper's order to remove his name from the Kennedy Center with a lengthy social media post in which he claimed he alone was "saving a dying Performing Arts Center" and stated he would "transfer this failing Institution back to" Congress. Trump also complained that the New York Times was criticizing the "magnificent restoration of the Reflecting Pool" and asserted that no president had been treated as unfairly by the courts as he had been.
• Trump threatened federal judge over Kennedy Center drone port project — Trump attacked a federal judge who blocked his planned Kennedy Center renovations, which included a drone port to be built in the White House ballroom. The President's threats against the judge occurred as he simultaneously expressed desire to cancel the "Freedom 250" anniversary celebration and replace it with a MAGA rally after several artists declined to participate.
• Kennedy Center begins removing president's name from signage and materials — The Kennedy Center's general counsel directed staff to remove the president's name from signage, letterhead, and materials by June 12, after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on May 29 that the board lacked authority to rename the institution and also blocked its planned two-year closure. The center said it is evaluating its legal options. The ruling restored the principle that public institutions are governed by rules that do not bend to a single person.
• Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — Lawyers for the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts instructed staff to immediately begin switching the facility's name back to its original title, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The instructions, laid out in a memo sent by the center's general counsel, represent the first official signal that the national arts hub is complying with a federal court order to drop Trump's name and reconsider plans to close for two years of renovations. Changes to interior and exterior signage and furniture carrying Trump's name must be switched back by the following Friday.

Supporting reports

• Virginia Supreme Court strikes down voter-approved congressional redistricting maps — Virginia's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on May 8 that the state cannot use new congressional maps approved by voters in an April referendum. The court found that the Democratic-controlled state legislature violated the state constitution by passing the amendment creating the maps before early voting began in the 2025 general election, rather than following the required two-session approval process. The maps would have helped Democrats gain up to four House seats. The ruling nullifies the referendum result and restores the previous maps, benefiting Republicans ahead of November's midterm elections.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down redistricting referendum — The Virginia Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision invalidating a voter-approved redistricting referendum that had taken place on April 21, 2026. The court ruled that the legislature had not satisfied the constitutional requirement of passing the amendment through two consecutive legislative sessions with an election in between, finding that the first passage occurred while early voting was already underway in the 2025 statewide elections. The decision overturned the will of approximately 3 million Virginians who voted in the referendum.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down new congressional maps — The Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state's new congressional maps, which had been narrowly approved by voters in an April referendum, ruling that the constitutional amendment was submitted by the legislature "in an unprecedented manner." The new map would have paved the way for Democrats to win as many as four additional House seats in the midterm elections. The court's decision blocked a voter-approved redistricting reform.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down voter-approved redistricting referendum — The Virginia state supreme court, voting 4–3 along partisan lines, struck down a referendum approved by Virginia voters on April 21, 2026, that would have created a temporary new congressional district map to gain four additional seats for Democrats and counter Republican gerrymandering. Voters had approved the measure in response to gerrymandering imposed by Republican legislators in Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida, which is expected to gain Republicans an additional 14 seats nationally. The court ruled that the process of passing the referendum violated the state constitution. The decision occurred in the context of Trump's low job approval ratings (low 30s), public anger over rising prices, frustration with the Iran war, and dislike of the administration's attacks on immigrants. Trump posted on social media celebrating the decision as a "huge win for the Republican Party."

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

• Federal judge reverses Trump's freeze on Gateway Project rail funding — US District Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York issued a temporary ruling on Friday reversing a Trump administration freeze on $16 billion in federal funds for the Gateway Project, a critical rail infrastructure initiative connecting New York and New Jersey. The freeze, imposed on 30 September pending a compliance review, had halted work on a new Hudson River tunnel and repairs to a century-old tunnel serving 200,000+ daily travelers. Vargas found the states likely to succeed in claims that the freeze was arbitrary and violated legal procedures. Reports indicate Trump demanded renaming Washington Dulles airport and Penn Station after himself in exchange for unfreezing funds.
• Trump administration appealed court order requiring release of Hudson Tunnel funding — The Trump administration appealed a court order requiring it to release federal funding for the Hudson Tunnel project. Prior reporting indicated Trump had offered to unfreeze funds if Democrats agreed to rename major transit hubs after him. The dispute centers on whether infrastructure funds are administered through law and oversight or through personal glorification demands, raising questions about the distinction between state administration and personal brand leverage.
• Motion granted — New Jersey v. Department of Transportation (S.D.N.Y.) 1:26-cv-00939 — Judge Vargas denied Defendants' motion for a stay of the court's TRO pending appeal but granted sua sponte a short administrative stay to allow Defendants to seek a stay from the Second Circuit.
• Trump administration appealed court order on Hudson Tunnel funding conditions — The Trump administration appealed a court order requiring the release of Hudson Tunnel funding after reports surfaced that the funds were offered conditionally contingent on renaming transit hubs after Trump. The appeal contests judicial oversight of the administration's use of federal infrastructure funds.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary restraining order on riot control weapons in Chicago — On an unspecified date before 13 October, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a temporary restraining order restricting federal agents from using riot control weapons (tear gas, rubber bullets, etc.) against journalists, protesters, and religious practitioners in Chicago unless there is probable cause that individuals have committed a crime. The order responds to documented use of such weapons against veterans and other demonstrators during ICE protests.
• Federal judge ordered ICE to wear body cameras in Chicago — A federal judge ordered immigration officers to wear body cameras while conducting operations in the Chicago area, saying she was a "little startled" by footage of agents using tear gas and other tactics as part of Trump's immigration crackdown in the city and had concerns about her previous order preventing agents from using certain riot control techniques against journalists and protesters.
• Federal court orders ICE agents in Illinois to wear body cameras during immigration operations — A federal court issued an order on October 17 requiring federal ICE agents operating in Illinois to wear body cameras during immigration enforcement operations. The ruling followed multiple documented incidents in which federal agents deployed pepper balls, smoke grenades, and teargas against protesters and local police outside the Broadview detention center. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker praised the decision, stating that federal agents had "clearly lied" about their conduct and that the body camera requirement was a proper judicial response to unjustified use of chemical agents against protesters.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Chicago Headline Club v. Noem (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12173 — Judge Ellis issued a modification to her previous Temporary Restraining Order, further enjoining federal agents' use of force in immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois. The modification adds a requirement that all such federal agents wear active body cameras while engaged in enforcement activity, unless exempt under CBP, ICE, or DHS policy. The modified TRO came a day after Ellis reportedly expressed during a hearing that she was “startled” by “images in the paper” showing federal agents deploying tear gas against protestors without warning and had “serious concerns that my order is being followed.”
• Federal judge orders ICE to wear body cameras in Chicago area after tear gas violations — US District Judge Sara Ellis ordered federal immigration officers in the Chicago area to wear body cameras after they repeatedly deployed pepper balls, smoke grenades, and tear gas against protesters and local police in apparent violation of her prior ruling banning riot-control techniques without warning. The order follows escalating enforcement actions by ICE and other federal agencies as part of the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign, with documented incidents including tear gas deployed near schoolchildren, an attorney shoved to the ground, and a 19-year-old citizen pinned without clear cause.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court judges stay closure order for Florida's "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — Two Trump-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Miami District Judge Kathleen Williams's preliminary injunction ordering closure of "Alligator Alcatraz," a 3,000-capacity immigration detention camp in the Florida Everglades. Williams had ruled the facility's hasty construction breached federal environmental laws. The appeals panel found 2-1 that because Florida initially funded construction with state money, no environmental impact study was required. The stay allowed the facility to resume operations and rapidly refill with detainees after a brief shutdown period in late August.
• Appeals court judge stays closure of "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — Barbara Lagoa, a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, authored a 2-1 majority ruling in September 2025 that stayed (paused) a Miami district judge's order to close "Alligator Alcatraz," a state-run detention camp for undocumented migrants in the Florida Everglades. The ruling reversed the lower court's finding that the DeSantis administration must comply with federal environmental regulations. The facility, criticized for harsh conditions, remains operational. Lagoa's husband, Paul Huck, is a senior attorney at a law firm that has received over $10 million in state contracts from the DeSantis administration, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.
• Eleventh Circuit stays federal judge's order to close "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention facility — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit voted 2–1 on September 4, 2025, to stay (suspend) a federal district judge's order requiring closure of the "Alligator Alcatraz" immigration detention center in Florida's Everglades within 60 days. The stay allows construction and operation to continue while Florida's appeal proceeds. The facility, built by Florida at a cost of approximately $250 million and operated on behalf of ICE, has faced criticism for harsh conditions, abuse allegations, denial of due process, and environmental damage.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Maryland judges over deportation orders — US District Judge Thomas Cullen (Virginia Western District, Trump-nominated) dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against all 15 judges of Maryland's federal district court. The administration had challenged an order by Maryland's chief judge temporarily barring deportations for two business days if immigrants filed detention challenges. Cullen ruled the judges were "absolutely immune" from such suits and that the administration should have appealed through proper legal channels instead. Cullen also criticized the administration's public attacks on federal judges nationwide as "unprecedented and unfortunate."

Supporting reports

• Trump and DOJ execute maneuver to restore Habba as interim U.S. attorney — After Attorney General Bondi fired Desiree Leigh Grace, Trump and the DOJ executed a multistep maneuver to restore Alina Habba to the U.S. attorney position. Habba resigned as interim U.S. attorney, Trump withdrew her nomination before the Senate, Bondi appointed Habba to Grace's former first assistant position and designated her a "special attorney to the attorney general." The DOJ then claimed that Habba would automatically fill the vacant U.S. attorney role for a 210-day term under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, circumventing the judges' selection of Grace and the statutory appointment process.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court grants stay on Education Department layoff order — The Supreme Court's right-wing majority granted a stay on a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from gutting the Department of Education while litigation proceeds. Federal Judge Myong Joun had ordered reinstatement of 1,378 fired workers after nineteen states and D.C. sued to stop the layoffs. The stay permits the layoffs to continue. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the majority enabled executive defiance of law and violated separation of powers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10677 — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to grant a stay of a preliminary injunction that had blocked the administration's plans to dismantle the Department of Education and fire thousands of department employees. The majority did not provide any reasoning. In dissent , Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned that the Court's order enables the executive branch to functionally “abolish” an entire department “by executive fiat.”
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. McMahon (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10601 — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of McMahon v. New York. This decision temporarily allows the Department of Education to proceed with a reduction in force that impacts nearly 50% of its workforce, approximately 1,378 employees. The stay was granted in a 6-3 decision, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The case was initially brought by twenty states and the District of Columbia, challenging the reduction in force as unlawful.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in McMahon v. New York — The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, allowing it to move forward with gutting the Department of Education by firing nearly half of the agency's workforce. The decision bypassed lower-court review and normal appellate procedures.
• Supreme Court grants emergency appeal allowing Department of Education workforce cuts

Supporting reports

• Republicans attempt to pass significant budget bill — Republicans in Congress attempted to advance a budget measure dubbed “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” which aimed to extend Trump’s tax cuts at a projected cost of $4.6 trillion over ten years while raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill faced opposition and ultimately failed to advance out of the House Budget Committee.
• House Budget Committee passes bill in late-night session — The House Budget Committee passed a budget bill after a late-night session, with some members who previously voted 'No' changing their votes to 'Present.' The bill is set to face further scrutiny in the Rules Committee.
• Republicans criticized for scheduling votes at odd hours — Several Democratic representatives criticized Republicans for scheduling votes on significant legislation during late-night hours, suggesting a lack of transparency and public engagement in the legislative process.
• House Committee Advances Trump’s Tax Cut Bill — On May 18, 2025, a key House committee passed a tax cut and border security package, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, after reaching an agreement with far-right Republicans who had previously stalled its progress. The bill, which aims to extend tax breaks from Trump's first term and increase spending on border security, faces challenges in the full House due to potential opposition from moderates concerned about cuts to climate incentives and healthcare programs. The bill's passage is crucial for Republicans, who need to unite their party to pass it before the Memorial Day deadline.
• House Budget Committee Passes Controversial Bill — The House Budget Committee passed a bill referred to as the “Big, Beautiful Bill” on a party-line vote, with 17 Republicans in favor and 16 Democrats against. The bill includes cuts to Medicaid and extends tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will significantly increase the federal deficit. House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated minor modifications would be made, while critics argue the bill is being rushed through Congress without adequate scrutiny.
• House Republicans schedule procedural vote on Trump's bill — House Republicans have scheduled a procedural vote for 1am on Wednesday to advance President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which aims to enact his taxation and immigration priorities. The bill includes making permanent or extending tax cuts, ending taxation of tips and overtime, funding a border wall, and mass deportations. It proposes slashing federal safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP to offset costs, which has caused division among Republicans. The bill's passage is crucial for Trump, but it faces opposition from some lawmakers concerned about its impact on Medicaid and the SALT deduction.
• House Rules Committee to Consider Omnibus Bill — The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on May 21, 2025, to discuss a 1,116-page omnibus bill proposed by Republicans that aims to implement significant parts of former President Trump's agenda, including cuts to Medicaid and increased logging on public lands. The bill is being advanced through a budget reconciliation process, which allows it to pass with only Republican votes in the Senate. However, there is notable division among Republicans regarding the proposed Medicaid cuts, which are unpopular among constituents.
• House passes Budget Reconciliation Bill — The House of Representatives passed the Budget Reconciliation Bill by a narrow margin of 215-214, with two Republicans voting against it and one voting present. The bill's passage is significant as it will now move to the Senate, where Republican opposition is anticipated.
• Congressional Republicans pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — Congressional Republicans narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a 215-214 vote. The bill aims to permanently extend tax cuts from Trump's first term and introduce new deductions for working-class families, but these benefits will expire in 2028. The bill also includes cuts to social safety net programs, potentially affecting millions of poor and disabled Americans. The legislation is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. It now moves to the US Senate for further consideration under the budget reconciliation procedure, which limits Democratic influence.
• House Passes Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act — The House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" act, which enacts President Donald Trump's taxation and spending priorities. The bill includes making permanent the tax cuts from Trump's first term, increasing the standard deduction, and introducing new tax write-offs. It also allocates significant funds for mass deportations and border wall construction, imposes new fees on immigrants seeking asylum, and restricts federal courts from enforcing certain contempt citations. Additionally, it cuts funding for Medicaid and SNAP, phases out green energy incentives, and raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate.
• House Passes Trump's Tax Bill — On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax bill championed by Donald Trump, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This legislation aims to make permanent the tax cuts established in 2017, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans and corporations. The bill also includes cuts to government assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP, and ends clean energy tax credits. The bill is expected to cost the federal government $4.6 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade, while saving $1 trillion through reduced spending on assistance programs.
• House passes Trump's tax-and-spend bill — On May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax-and-spend bill, which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and makes significant spending reductions, particularly in Medicaid and food assistance programs. The bill passed without any Democratic support and has been criticized for potentially increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis indicates that the bill would leave 10.9 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. The bill now moves to the Senate, where modifications are expected.
• House passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill — The House of Representatives passed a major tax-cut bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aligns with Donald Trump's tax and spending priorities. The bill, passed by a narrow margin of 215-214, includes provisions for tax cuts for individuals and corporations, funding for a border wall, and new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP. It is expected to add $2.3 trillion to the deficit. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans aim to pass it by July 4th.
• House Committee Advances Bill with Steeper Medicaid Cuts — After extensive debate, the House Rules Committee agreed to advance The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes steeper cuts to Medicaid to gain support from far-right Republicans. These cuts are expected to leave at least 9 million people without healthcare coverage, reflecting a significant shift in healthcare policy.
• House of Representatives passes Republicans' megabill — The House of Representatives passed a significant bill by a vote of 215 to 214, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. The bill includes substantial cuts to healthcare and nutrition assistance, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that it will result in over 2.7 million households losing benefits. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
• House Rules Committee Begins Hearing on The One Big, Beautiful Bill — The House Rules Committee commenced a hearing on a budget bill dubbed The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes significant restrictions on federal courts' authority to hold government officials in contempt for violating court orders. This bill also proposes a $3.8 trillion extension of tax cuts from 2017, primarily benefiting the wealthy and corporations, while cutting federal healthcare and food assistance programs, potentially leaving millions without coverage. The committee moved the bill forward after 22 hours of debate, aiming for a swift vote in the House.
• House Republicans Pass Bill Cutting Medicaid and Medicare — In a late-night session, House Republicans passed a bill that could remove 8 million people from Medicaid, cut Medicare spending, and add $4 trillion to the national debt. The bill also includes tax cuts for the wealthy and funds for the border wall.
• Congressional Budget Office Reports on Impact of Proposed Bill — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the proposed budget bill will add $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years and will trigger cuts to Medicare due to the Pay-As-You-Go law. These cuts, limited by law to 4%, are expected to total approximately $490 billion from 2027 through 2034. The CBO's findings highlight the bill's potential negative impact on low-income Americans and the healthcare system.
• Proposed Cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — The proposed budget bill includes cuts of about 30% to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which would be the largest cut in the program's history. This reduction is projected to cut approximately $300 billion from the program through 2034, affecting over 40 million people, including children and seniors.
• House passes Trump’s budget bill with significant cuts — The House of Representatives passed a budget bill that extends tax cuts for individuals and corporations while implementing funding cuts and new work requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These changes are expected to bar millions from receiving essential benefits, raising concerns among affected workers and advocates. The bill also includes funding for a border wall and facilities for mass deportations.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court allows Trump administration to freeze $65m in teacher-training grants — The US Supreme Court issued a 5-4 emergency order allowing the Trump administration to temporarily freeze $65 million in teacher-training grants supporting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The decision overturned a federal judge's temporary restraining order that had blocked the cuts. Eight Democratic-led states challenged the freeze, arguing it violated federal law requiring clear explanation for cancellations. The programs affected serve over 100 teacher preparation initiatives, particularly in math, science, and special education. Schools have already begun laying off staff and canceling programs due to the funding loss.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Department of Education v. California — The Supreme Court granted a stay of a lower court order in the case of Department of Education v. California. The case involved the Department of Education's termination of grants related to the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) programs. Eight states, led by California, challenged the terminations, arguing they violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The lower court had ordered the restoration of the grants, but the Supreme Court's decision allows the terminations to proceed pending appeal. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Department of Education v. California (24A910) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Department of Education v. California. Docket number(s): 24A910.

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 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.