Trump Action Archive

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 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

• DHS memo authorizes ICE detention of legal refugees for "rescreening" — The Department of Homeland Security issued a memo authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest and indefinitely detain legal refugees already admitted to the US who have not yet obtained permanent residence (green cards), subjecting them to intensive interviews and background checks while in custody. The policy reverses a 2010 Obama-era guidance and directly contradicts a federal judge's recent order blocking such arrests in Minnesota. The memo claims conditional admission and mandatory one-year review compel detention authority.

Supporting reports

• Stephen Miller disclosed Palantir stock holdings — News broke that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, widely believed to be responsible for the administration's draconian immigration policies, owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of stock in Palantir, the data and intelligence software company owned by Peter Thiel. Palantir has valuable contracts with ICE to track undocumented immigrants.
• Conflict-of-interest disclosures for new ACIP members not published in writing before meeting — The eight newly appointed ACIP members were asked to verbally disclose conflicts of interest at the meeting, but it is unclear whether written conflict-of-interest disclosures were published in advance. The new members did not appear on the Trump administration's conflict-of-interest tracker for ACIP members as of Wednesday morning. An HHS spokesperson stated ethics reviews had been conducted but did not clarify when or where disclosures would be published. One member dropped out Tuesday evening after a government financial review.
• Trump celebrates Supreme Court ruling as vindication of executive power expansion — President Trump declared the Supreme Court's decision a "giant win" and stated that the ruling would allow his administration to "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." Trump framed the decision as freeing the executive from judicial constraints, signaling intent to enforce previously blocked policies across all states without nationwide court protection.
• Supreme Court limits lower courts' power to block federal executive orders via nationwide injunctions — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa Inc ending the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders. The ruling prevents judges from halting or slowing presidential orders before their constitutionality is tested, including Trump's executive order attempting to remove birthright citizenship protections. Liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision undermines the rule of law and shifts the burden of defending constitutional rights onto individuals.
• Supreme Court restricts courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders — The Supreme Court issued a decision significantly limiting lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. The ruling fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach. Previously, courts had issued approximately 35 nationwide injunctions against Trump administration actions during the first six months of his second term. The decision leaves narrow exceptions, such as when a judge determines nationwide relief is necessary to protect plaintiffs from irreparable harm, as in the birthright citizenship case.
• US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, restricting federal judges' power to block Trump orders — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies; instead, court orders apply only to specific plaintiffs who sue. The decision arose from Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. While the ruling did not immediately implement the birthright citizenship ban, it fundamentally shifts judicial oversight by preventing courts from protecting all Americans from allegedly unconstitutional policies. The policy cannot take effect for 30 days. Immigration advocates are refiling lawsuits as class actions to seek broader protections.
• Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court decided Trump v. CASA, restricting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling was announced on June 27, 2025. President Trump immediately claimed the decision as a major victory that would enable him to end birthright citizenship by executive action, citing a fabricated historical narrative about the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil War.
• SCOTUS ruled on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship executive order — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that nationwide injunctions likely exceed congressional authority, narrowing the scope of injunctions that had blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The ruling left underlying injunctions in place for named plaintiffs but created uncertainty about nationwide relief. A class-action lawsuit was immediately filed after the ruling to seek broader protection.
• Supreme Court Grants Partial Stay in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, which was consolidated with Trump v. New Jersey and Trump v. Washington. The Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lower courts had issued universal injunctions blocking the enforcement of Executive Order 14160, which directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children of non-citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts likely exceeded their equitable authority by issuing nationwide injunctions and limited the injunctions to the named plaintiffs only. The ruling narrows the use of nationwide injunctions but did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order or the question of birthright citizenship.
• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 27, 2025, celebrating a Supreme Court decision that restricts the use of nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The document states that the ruling "restores the proper separation of powers" and claims that 35 of 40 nationwide injunctions filed against Trump's second-term executive actions originated from five jurisdictions (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and D.C.). The fact sheet lists pending policy actions it states can now proceed, including ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and other measures.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Docket number(s): 24A884.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court stays judicial order blocking third-country deportations — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority issued an unsigned order on Monday pausing a federal judge's ruling that required immigrants facing deportation to third countries to receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest removal. The stay allows the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to nations they are not citizens of, including conflict-ridden places like South Sudan. The decision overturned a May ruling by Boston-based Judge Brian Murphy, who had blocked the deportation of eight men to South Sudan after finding the administration violated due process rights.
• U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump administration authority to deport migrants to third countries — On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to deport migrants to countries other than their country of origin, including nations plagued by violence, without additional legal process beyond an initial removal hearing and without regard to conditions migrants may face in those countries. The court majority did not explain its reasoning. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented sharply. Legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted the ruling expands prior decisions that had already cleared the way for treating up to one million migrants as removable.
• Case update — D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10676 — The Supreme Court stopped a lower court's order which has prevented the administration from removing immigrants to third countries without an opportunity to present their claims of potential torture first. The Supreme Court's order is now in place while the litigation proceeds. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. — The Supreme Court granted the Department of Homeland Security's emergency application for a stay in the case of Department of Homeland Security, Applicants v. D.V.D., et al. This decision allows the federal government to proceed with its actions that were previously blocked by a lower court order. The case involved immigration enforcement actions challenged by the respondents, and the stay permits the continuation of these actions pending further litigation. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.
• Supreme Court allowed Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries — On June 23, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to allow the Trump administration to move forward with sending migrants to countries other than their own, temporarily overturning a lower court ruling that prevented the deportations until migrants could challenge them in court. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin posted on Twitter, "Fire up the deportation planes."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Allows Revocation of Temporary Protected Status for Migrants — On May 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary protected status (TPS) of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian, and Nicaraguan migrants. This decision reverses a previous order by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, which had halted the administration's move to end humanitarian parole protections. The ruling potentially exposes many migrants to expedited removal from the U.S. while the case continues in lower courts. The decision was met with dissent from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, who highlighted the severe consequences for affected migrants.
• Motion granted — Svitlana Doe v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10495 — The Supreme Court allowed the administration to temporarily end the humanitarian parole program that granted provisional legal status to over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), enabling them to live and work in the U.S. while their immigration cases were pending. This decision overrules the Massachusetts district court's order that had previously blocked the administration's effort.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. Doe — On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Noem v. Doe. This decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with terminating several special parole programs that permitted approximately 500,000 individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to remain legally in the United States. The stay was granted in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. The case originated from a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security's policy changes filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
• Supreme Court Grants Trump Administration Request on Immigration Program — The Supreme Court granted a Trump administration request for emergency relief, allowing the termination of a program that permitted over 500,000 Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Venezuelans to temporarily live and work in the U.S. while a legal challenge continues.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Allows Revocation of Temporary Protected Status for Migrants — On May 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary protected status (TPS) of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian, and Nicaraguan migrants. This decision reverses a previous order by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, which had halted the administration's move to end humanitarian parole protections. The ruling potentially exposes many migrants to expedited removal from the U.S. while the case continues in lower courts. The decision was met with dissent from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, who highlighted the severe consequences for affected migrants.
• Motion granted — Svitlana Doe v. Noem (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10495 — The Supreme Court allowed the administration to temporarily end the humanitarian parole program that granted provisional legal status to over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), enabling them to live and work in the U.S. while their immigration cases were pending. This decision overrules the Massachusetts district court's order that had previously blocked the administration's effort.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. Doe — On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Noem v. Doe. This decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with terminating several special parole programs that permitted approximately 500,000 individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to remain legally in the United States. The stay was granted in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. The case originated from a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security's policy changes filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
• Supreme Court Grants Trump Administration Request on Immigration Program — The Supreme Court granted a Trump administration request for emergency relief, allowing the termination of a program that permitted over 500,000 Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Venezuelans to temporarily live and work in the U.S. while a legal challenge continues.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke protected status for Venezuelans — The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration's request to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. This decision allows the administration to proceed with plans to end legal protections that shield these individuals from deportation, despite an ongoing appeal in a lower court. The ruling follows a previous decision by a federal judge in California to temporarily block the administration's efforts, citing concerns of racism. The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Motion granted — National TPS Alliance et al. v. Noem (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-01766 — The Supreme Court granted the stay for the government.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. National TPS Alliance — The Supreme Court granted an emergency application from the federal government to stay a lower court's order in the case of Noem v. National TPS Alliance. This decision temporarily halts the enforcement of a ruling by Judge Edward Chen, which had paused the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for individuals from Venezuela and Haiti. The stay allows the Department of Homeland Security, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, to proceed with ending the TPS designation while the case is under appeal. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.
• Supreme Court Approves Termination of TPS for Venezuelans — The Supreme Court approved an emergency appeal from the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans, paving the way for their potential deportation. This decision affects the legal status and future of many immigrants.
• Supreme Court grants stay in Noem v. Nat. TPS Alliance — The Supreme Court granted a stay on the March 31, 2025 order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Noem, Sec., DHS, et al. v. Nat. TPS Alliance, et al. This stay is pending the outcome of an appeal in the Ninth Circuit and any potential petition for a writ of certiorari. If certiorari is denied, the stay will automatically terminate. If granted, the stay will end upon the Supreme Court's judgment. The order does not affect challenges to Secretary Noem's February 3, 2025 vacatur notice regarding certain immigration documents.
• Venezuelan immigrants express betrayal over TPS revocation — Venezuelan immigrants who previously supported Trump expressed feelings of betrayal after the revocation of their Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which now subjects them to potential deportation.

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

• Supreme Court Allows Transgender Military Ban — The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order permitting the enforcement of President Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. This decision allows the ban to take effect while ongoing litigation and appeals are resolved. The ruling has significant implications for transgender rights and military policy, as it reverses previous policies that allowed transgender individuals to serve openly.
• US Supreme Court Allows Trump Trans Military Ban to Take Effect — The US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can enforce a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military while legal challenges continue. This decision could lead to the discharge of thousands of transgender military members. The court's order was unsigned and did not provide an explanation, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The ban, which was implemented by the Department of Defense, reverses a previous executive order allowing transgender service. Lower courts had previously blocked the ban, but the Supreme Court's decision allows it to proceed.
• Case update — Shilling v. Trump (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00241 — The Supreme Court issued a stay (with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting).
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in United States v. Shilling — On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of United States v. Shilling. This decision temporarily halts a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of a Department of Defense policy banning individuals with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria from military service. The policy, issued under an executive order by President Donald Trump, was challenged by transgender military members and advocacy groups as discriminatory. The stay allows the policy to be enforced while further litigation proceeds.
• Supreme Court grants stay in United States v. Shilling — The Supreme Court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in the case United States, et al. v. Shilling, Commander, et al. This stay will remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and any subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari. If certiorari is denied, the stay will automatically terminate. If certiorari is granted, the stay will terminate upon the issuance of the Supreme Court's judgment. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented from the decision to grant the stay.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Trump administration invokes Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants — The Trump administration issued a proclamation on March 15 invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law permitting deportation of foreign nationals during wars or "invasions," to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of membership in Tren de Aragua gang. The administration claimed gang activities constitute an invasion justifying use of the 225-year-old war powers statute. Hundreds of Venezuelan men, including individuals with no apparent gang affiliations, were deported to El Salvador without immigration hearings, with at least one 23-year-old gay makeup artist shipped to a notorious prison based on misinterpreted tattoos.
• Trump administration deported alleged gang members to El Salvador — On March 15, 2025, President Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador without due process. Approximately 200 individuals were flown from Texas to San Salvador, despite a federal judge's order to halt the flights. The deportees were sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Reports indicate that many of those deported may not be gang members, with tattoos being used as the primary evidence of gang affiliation. The legality of the deportation under the Alien Enemies Act is disputed.
• Deportation of 230+ Venezuelan men to El Salvador without hearing using Alien Enemies Act — The US deported more than 230 Venezuelan men to a mega-prison in El Salvador in mid-March without a hearing, despite a federal judge attempting to halt the flights. Donald Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a law meant only for wartime, to avoid due process requirements. This prompted court challenges led by the ACLU. Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked the president when he threatened the judge. The Supreme Court majority did not stop Trump from using the AEA but unanimously reaffirmed the right to due process and habeas corpus challenges. Most of the men are reportedly not violent criminals or gang members, according to a New York Times investigation. Many were accused of gang membership based on tattoos.
• Trump administration files emergency appeals on birthright citizenship — The Trump administration filed a series of emergency appeals asking the Supreme Court to allow the president to proceed with plans to end birthright citizenship. This legal maneuver seeks to challenge the constitutional guarantee of citizenship by birth.
• Trump invoked Alien Enemies Act to arrest and deport noncitizens without due process — Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, claiming to target Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua but with implications for countless noncitizens lacking ties to the gang. US District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting deportations under the act and ordering planes to turn around. The Trump administration defied the order; three planes landed in El Salvador, and more than 135 of 300 migrants were deported using the act.
• Trump administration invokes Alien Enemies Act for deportations — The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deportations without due process, circumventing immigration courts. This act has historically been used only during wartime. Critics argue this move undermines legal protections for migrants and asylum seekers, raising concerns about executive overreach and the erosion of due process rights.
• Trump administration plans to invoke Alien Enemies Act — The Trump administration is planning to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime authority, to arrest and deport certain noncitizens without due process. This act was historically used to justify Japanese internment during World War II.