Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal lawsuit alleges DHS agents labeled observers "domestic terrorists" — Legal nonprofit Protect Democracy filed a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that DHS agents are retaliating against people who lawfully observe and record federal immigration enforcement. The lawsuit references a viral video from Portland, Maine, in which an agent told an observer: "Cause we have a nice little database. And now you're considered a domestic terrorist." DHS denied the database exists but acknowledged it "monitors and investigates" threats. In Minnesota, dozens of people submitted sworn declarations to the ACLU stating federal agents told them filming enforcement operations was illegal or constituted interference.
• Federal judge documented immigration agents disregarding judicial directives — A Bush-appointed federal judge compiled nearly one hundred documented instances in which immigration agents disregarded judicial directives within a single month, noting the list was almost certainly incomplete. A separate judge stated publicly that the vast majority of people brought before his court had lawful status. A government attorney was held in civil contempt, and another described arriving with no training and no guidance. Hundreds of agents remain in operation, with on-the-ground observers reporting operations shifting toward communities with less visibility.
• Legal observers classified using language associated with violent extremism — A new federal lawsuit alleges that legal observers monitoring immigration enforcement operations are being classified using language associated with violent extremism. A former agency attorney testified that officer training was cut by over 40%, including constitutional law and use-of-force instruction.

Supporting reports

• U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez imposed restrictions on ICE's tactics in response to protesters' lawsuits, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly stayed her decision at the Trump administration's request. — U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez, overseeing lawsuits by protesters contesting illegal arrests and retaliation by ICE officers, imposed restrictions on ICE's ability to use pepper spray and other munitions against demonstrators. However, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly granted a Trump administration request to stay her decision, a move that led to public celebration from top DOJ and DHS officials. Attorneys for protesters subsequently urged the federal appeals court to reinstate the restrictions, arguing that expected further protests in response to Pretti's death create "an urgent need for intervention."
• Federal appeals court allows tear gas and pepper spray against Minnesota protesters — A federal appeals court decision paved the way for federal officers to continue using tear gas and pepper spray against peaceful protesters in Minnesota. Following the ruling, a senior U.S. Border Patrol official, Greg Bovino, used tear gas against protesters in Minneapolis.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Tincher v. Noem (D. Minn.) 0:25-cv-04669 — The Eighth Circuit stayed the lower court's preliminary injunction restricting ICE officers' actions during protests and denied Plaintiffs' emergency motion to lift the administrative stay, finding that the injunction was overbroad and vague. The panel granted Plaintiffs' request for expedited merits briefing.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge allows Texas National Guard deployment to Chicago to proceed while Illinois lawsuit pending — U.S. District Judge April Perry declined to immediately block the deployment of Texas National Guard troops to Chicago in response to a lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul against the Trump administration. The judge allowed the federal government to continue the deployment while it responds to Illinois's suit, setting a midnight Wednesday deadline for the government's reply. Texas Guard members departed Fort Bliss on Monday evening; Illinois Governor JB Pritzker stated the administration had not consulted him and called it "Trump's invasion."
• Federal judge declines to block National Guard deployment to Chicago — U.S. District Judge April Perry declined to immediately block Texas National Guard troops from entering Chicago on October 7, 2025, despite a pending lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the city of Chicago seeking to stop the deployment. The judge's refusal to grant an injunction allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mobilizing troops to the city.
• Federal judge holds hearing on legality of Chicago national guard deployment — U.S. District Judge April Perry held a hearing in downtown Chicago on the constitutionality of the national guard deployment after Illinois and Chicago officials filed to declare it illegal. State and city attorneys argued the deployment violates the Constitution and represents a "constitutional crisis," while a Department of Justice lawyer defended it as necessary due to "tragic lawlessness." The hearing drew heavy public turnout requiring an overflow room.
• Judge Ellis restricts federal agents' use of force in northern Illinois — US District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction restricting federal agents' use of force against protesters and journalists in northern Illinois who do not pose a serious threat. The order prohibits pepper balls, rubber bullets, and physical force such as pulling, shoving, or tackling. Ellis also required federal agents to wear visible identification such as badges, addressing concerns about masked plainclothes officers conducting immigration enforcement operations.
• Judge Perry temporarily blocks Trump's national guard deployment in Chicago — US District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from federalizing or deploying the national guard in Illinois. The order, effective Thursday and lasting two weeks, came after the state of Illinois sued over Trump's directive to send hundreds of troops to Chicago for immigration enforcement and crime reduction. Perry found no credible evidence of rebellion in Illinois and criticized the Department of Homeland Security's characterization of events as "simply unreliable." The White House stated it would appeal.
• U.S. District Judge April M. Perry blocks federal National Guard deployment in Chicago for two weeks — U.S. District Judge April M. Perry issued a temporary restraining order halting the federal deployment of 200 National Guard troops from Texas and 300 from Illinois in and around Chicago for two weeks. Perry stated: "I have found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois." She cited grand jury refusals to indict protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement and questioned the Department of Homeland Security's credibility and assessment of conditions in Chicago.
• Grand juries refuse to indict Chicago protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement — Grand juries in Chicago, including one on Tuesday night, refused to indict protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement. Judge Perry cited these refusals in her decision to block the federal National Guard deployment, stating they cast doubt on the Department of Homeland Security's credibility and assessment of conditions in Chicago. The grand jury refusals suggest local juries do not view the alleged assaults as warranting criminal charges.

Supporting reports

• Trump signs executive order directing prosecution of flag burning as incitement or fighting words — President Trump signed Executive Order 14341 on August 25, 2025, directing the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement of federal, state, and local criminal laws against flag desecration, framing such acts as potential incitement to violence or fighting words. The order instructs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to deny or revoke immigration benefits for foreign nationals engaged in flag desecration. The order acknowledges Supreme Court precedent (Texas v. Johnson) protecting flag burning as speech but asserts the administration will prosecute flag desecration under content-neutral laws and pursue litigation to clarify First Amendment exceptions.
• Trump ordered DOJ to prosecute flag burning — Trump ordered the Department of Justice to prosecute anyone who burns an American flag, claiming such individuals would automatically face one year in prison. This order contradicts the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which established flag burning as protected First Amendment speech.
• Trump announced executive order directing DOJ to prosecute flag burning — Trump held a press event in the Oval Office and announced an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute instances of flag burning. Trump claimed burning a flag would result in one year in jail and a criminal record. White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf clarified that the order directs DOJ to prosecute flag burning only where it constitutes criminal activity (such as burning someone else's property) and does not violate First Amendment protections, since the Supreme Court previously ruled flag burning as political speech is constitutionally protected.
• Trump issues executive order directing prosecution of flag burning — President Trump issued an executive order on August 25, 2025, directing the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement of federal, state, and local laws against flag desecration. The order instructs the DOJ to prosecute flag burning as a crime where it violates content-neutral laws (disorderly conduct, open burning, property destruction) and authorizes the State Department, Attorney General, and DHS to deny or revoke visas, residence permits, and immigration benefits for foreign nationals engaged in flag desecration. The order acknowledges Supreme Court precedent in Texas v. Johnson but asserts authority to prosecute flag burning that incites imminent lawless action or constitutes "fighting words."
• White House signed executive order directing prosecution of flag desecration — The White House signed Executive Order 14341 on August 25, 2025, directing the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement of criminal and civil laws against flag desecration, including violent crimes, hate crimes, and property crimes. The order instructs the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Secretary of Homeland Security to deny or revoke visas, residence permits, and immigration benefits for foreign nationals engaged in flag desecration. The order acknowledges Supreme Court precedent in Texas v. Johnson but asserts authority to prosecute flag burning that incites imminent lawless action or constitutes "fighting words."
• Trump signs flag-burning criminalization order — Trump signed an executive order to criminalize the burning of a US flag, an action the Supreme Court ruled was protected under the First Amendment in 1989. The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to prioritize prosecuting flag desecration cases and allows officials to deny or revoke visas and residence permits for immigrants who burn flags.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order prosecuting flag desecration — The White House published a fact sheet on August 25, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump directing the Attorney General to prosecute flag desecration "to the fullest extent permissible" and to "pursue litigation to clarify the scope of First Amendment in this area." The order also directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Attorney General to deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits for foreign nationals determined to have desecrated the flag, or to seek their removal from the United States.
• Trump signs executive order directing prosecution of flag burning as protest — On Monday, August 26, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue criminal charges against individuals who burn American flags during protests. The order directs prosecutors to explore alternative charges such as disturbing the peace or environmental violations. This action attempts to circumvent the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which established that flag burning constitutes protected political speech under the First Amendment.
• Trump signed executive order banning flag burning — Trump issued an executive order criminalizing flag burning. The order drew immediate criticism from conservative legal scholars and right-wing media figures who noted that the Supreme Court had settled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning constitutes protected free speech under the First Amendment. Multiple conservative commentators, including Justice Antonin Scalia's son, cited the constitutional prohibition on such restrictions.
• Trump issued executive order criminalizing flag burning — President Trump issued an executive order directing arrest and prosecution of Americans for burning the American flag, despite a standing Supreme Court ruling protecting flag-burning as free speech under the First Amendment. Although Trump's order acknowledged the SCOTUS ruling, the Secret Service arrested one man who burned a flag near the White House in protest of the order.

Supporting reports

• Appeals court reverses district judge ruling on military deployment — An appeals panel reversed a district court ruling that had found President Trump exceeded his authority in deploying national guard and marines to Los Angeles and had ordered the return of control of the state national guard to California. The reversal allowed the military deployment to continue, undermining the initial judicial check on executive power and leaving the deployment in place indefinitely.