Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• 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.
• 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.

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

• FBI arrests Wisconsin judge for alleged obstruction of immigration enforcement — In late April, the FBI arrested a Wisconsin judge and alleged she obstructed immigration authorities attempting to arrest a man in her courthouse. The arrest represents federal law enforcement action against a judicial officer for actions taken in her official capacity.

Supporting reports

• DOJ leader allegedly suggested defying court orders on deportations — Emil Bove, the Department of Justice's principal associate deputy attorney general and Trump nominee for the US Court of Appeals, reportedly told staff the department "would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'" regarding orders blocking deportations of undocumented people. Former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, in a whistleblower letter to Congress, alleged Bove made these comments in mid-March during discussions about invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Reuveni further claimed he witnessed DOJ officials systematically undermining court orders through lack of candor, deliberate delay, and disinformation, and that he was fired on April 11 after refusing to misrepresent facts in court filings.
• DOJ official Emil Bove stated DOJ would ignore court orders on deportations — DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni, who was subsequently fired, came forward as a whistleblower to Congress and the DOJ inspector general. Reuveni stated that senior DOJ official Emil Bove announced plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act for swift deportations and, when asked about potential judicial intervention, said the DOJ might have to tell courts "fuck you" and proceed with deportations regardless of legal injunctions. Reuveni reported that the statement was met with stunned silence among senior DOJ officials present.
• New York Times reported DOJ official Emil Bove told subordinates to ignore court orders — On June 24, the New York Times reported on a whistleblower complaint alleging that senior Justice Department official Emil Bove told his subordinates he would ignore court orders to further Trump's mass deportation efforts. Bove, who once served as Trump's criminal defense attorney and was recently nominated to serve as a federal appeals judge, later denied the comments during his confirmation hearing, saying "I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order."
• DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni filed complaint about defying court orders — On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice lawyer, filed an official whistleblower complaint alleging that DOJ leaders and the White House deliberately defied court orders and "engaged in unlawful activity, abused their authority, created substantial and specific threat to health and safety." Reuveni was fired after telling a court that the administration had made an error when it rendered Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia to CECOT despite a court order not to do so. In the complaint, Reuveni alleged that Emil Bove insisted planes carrying men to El Salvador must take off and said DOJ "would need to consider telling the courts 'f*ck you' and ignore any such court order."
• Bove fired DOJ prosecutors who investigated January 6 Capitol attack — Emil Bove issued a memo terminating dozens of DOJ prosecutors who had worked on cases related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, characterizing their prosecutions as a "grave national injustice." Bove justified the firings by claiming the prosecutors had been hired as temporary employees under the Biden administration and converted to permanent status, and that they were preventing a particular U.S. attorney from fully staffing his office. The terminations were carried out in furtherance of a Trump executive order.
• Whistleblower complaint filed alleging DOJ official directed defiance of court orders — Former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that Emil Bove, principal associate deputy attorney general, instructed prosecutors to disregard judicial rulings against Trump's immigration policies. The complaint surfaced hours before Bove's Senate confirmation hearing for a federal appeals court judgeship. Bove denied the allegations under oath, stating he has "never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order."
• Emil Bove denies whistleblower allegations of directing DOJ staff to defy court orders on immigration — Emil Bove, principal associate deputy attorney general and Trump's nominee for federal appeals court judge, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25, 2025, denying a whistleblower complaint filed by former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni. Reuveni alleged Bove instructed prosecutors to tell courts "fuck you" when ruling against Trump's immigration policies. Bove also denied Democratic allegations that he dropped corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams to secure his cooperation with immigration enforcement. Republicans signaled support for his nomination while Democrats characterized him as weaponizing the DOJ against Trump's political opponents.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration sued federal judges in Maryland over deportation order — On June 24, the Trump administration sued every federal judge in Maryland, challenging an order blocking them from immediately deporting any immigrant in the state who is challenging their removal through a habeas petition. The administration is arguing that the pause violates a Supreme Court ruling.
• Department of Justice files complaint against U.S. District Court of Maryland over automatic immigration injunctions — The Department of Justice announced filing a complaint against the U.S. District Court of Maryland, challenging a "Standing Order" that automatically issues injunctions against federal immigration enforcement actions. The court's order requires automatic injunctions for habeas petitions filed by detained aliens in Maryland. DOJ argues the order violates procedural requirements, congressional intent, and Supreme Court precedent. Attorney General Pamela Bondi characterized the order as judicial overreach undermining executive authority and the democratic process.
• Trump DOJ sues Maryland federal judiciary over deportation stay order — The Trump Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the entire bench of Maryland federal judges, challenging an order issued by Chief Judge George Russell that bars deportation of undocumented immigrants for at least one day after they file legal challenges to their detention. The DOJ characterized the judicial order as "unlawful" and an improper use of equitable powers. The lawsuit specifically names Judge Paula Xinis, who is overseeing a high-profile case involving Salvadoran national Kilmar Ábrego García and considering sanctions against government officials for refusing to facilitate his release.

Supporting reports

• US Court of Appeals orders Trump administration to return wrongfully deported man to US — The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the Trump administration to return Jordin Melgar-Salmeron to the United States after he was deported to El Salvador on May 7, less than 30 minutes after the court had expressly barred his removal. The court also required the government to provide a declaration of his current whereabouts and custodial status within one week, and to explain compliance steps. The ruling was designed to address a pattern of apparent government defiance of judicial orders.
• Case update — Melgar-Salmeron v. Bondi (2d Cir.) 23-7792 — The Second Circuit ruled that the government must facilitate the Petitioner's return from El Salvador as soon as possible. The court explained that the Government acknowledged that they had transferred the Petitioner, an alleged MS-13 member, to El Slavador on May 7, 2025 in defiance of a court order and despite assurances given to the court due to a “a confluence of administrative errors" in the Government's words. The court also directed the administration to report back within one week on Melgar-Salmeron's current location and status and plans about his return.
• Federal appeals court ordered return of deported man — On June 24, a federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration must seek the return of another man deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order "as soon as possible."
• Daniel Lozano-Camargo deported in violation of settlement agreement — Daniel Lozano-Camargo, a 20-year-old Venezuelan, was deported along with approximately 240 other men from Venezuela to El Salvador's Cecot facility after US authorities declared them members of Tren de Aragua. A Maryland court later ruled that he had been improperly removed in violation of an earlier settlement forbidding his removal while his immigration case was pending.
• Guatemalan immigrant deported to Mexico in violation of asylum protections — A Guatemalan immigrant identified only as "OCG" was deported to Mexico despite claiming to have been raped and kidnapped in that country. The deportation appears to violate protections against returning individuals to places where they face persecution or danger.

Supporting reports

• Homeland Security Secretary Noem threatened to revoke Harvard's international student program — On June 23, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem penned an op-ed in the Washington Post stating she remains "prepared to revoke Harvard University's Student and Exchange Visitor Program [SEVP] certification," which would prohibit the school from enrolling international students. Noem claimed Harvard has not complied with "lawful oversight duties," has "fostered antisemitic extremism," and "used taxpayer money to collaborate with an American adversary." She also attacked the federal judge who blocked the administration's earlier attempt to revoke the certification.

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

• 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.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge chastised Trump administration for Voice of America non-compliance — On June 23, a federal judge chastised the Trump administration for failing to comply with a preliminary injunction related to mass firings of Voice of America employees. The judge required the administration to provide information about its compliance with statutory obligations for running the news organization and the US Agency for Global Media, asking "What would be the point of Voice of America if there is no voice?" and questioning whether a contempt trial should be launched.

Supporting reports

• Liberty Justice Center files lawsuit challenging tariff emergency on behalf of small businesses — The Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit at the U.S. Court of International Trade on behalf of several small businesses challenging Trump's tariff emergency declaration. The lawsuit, involving law professor Ilya Somin, contested the administration's invocation of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional authorization or genuine crisis justification.
• Two courts reject Trump's tariff emergency declaration — Two federal courts rejected Trump's April 2025 claim that foreign trade practices constituted a national emergency justifying unilateral tariff imposition. An appeals court subsequently issued a temporary stay of the more expansive ruling, allowing the tariff regime to remain partially in effect pending further litigation.
• Fifteen Democratic state attorneys general sue to halt Trump's energy emergency declaration — In June 2025, fifteen Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Trump to halt his national "energy emergency" declaration from January 2025. The states argued the declaration was unlawful, designed to bypass normal environmental permitting procedures for hundreds of oil and gas projects, and would cause enormous damage to historic and natural resources while undermining drinking water standards.
• Stephen Miller attacks court ruling on tariffs as "judicial coup" — Following a court of international trade ruling against the Trump administration's tariff emergency in late May 2025, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller attacked the ruling on social media as a "judicial coup." A day later, Miller escalated rhetoric, claiming "we are living under a judicial tyranny," despite two of the three judges being Republican appointees, including one Trump had appointed.

Supporting reports

• Senate budget proposal includes public land sale mandate and cuts to social programs — The North Carolina Senate released a budget proposal that extends tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts SNAP food assistance, drastically reduces Medicaid, limits court power to challenge Trump administration policies, rolls back clean energy incentives, and mandates the sale of 40 percent of all public land. The article notes that cracks were forming among Republicans over the scope of Medicaid cuts within hours of the bill's release, but warns that backroom deals and reward-punishment structures will influence votes.
• Senate Republicans bypass filibuster to pass Trump tax cut extension via budget reconciliation manipulation — Senate Republicans voted 53–47 on June 24 to approve Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham's decision to manipulate the Congressional Budget Office's budget baseline calculation, allowing Trump's 2017 individual tax cuts to be included in a budget reconciliation bill without triggering the filibuster. Graham directed the CBO to assume the tax cuts would continue indefinitely even if the megabill did not pass, a fictional baseline that violates standard budget reconciliation rules. The Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough was not consulted, and Republicans avoided her formal determination that the provision would increase the deficit beyond the 10-year window and thus be ineligible for reconciliation.
• Senate parliamentarian ruled budget reconciliation provisions ineligible — Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled on June 26, 2025, that many provisions Republicans had included in their budget reconciliation bill do not qualify for inclusion under Senate rules. Specifically, MacDonough determined that major Medicaid cuts that Republicans had counted on to save $250 billion do not fit within budget reconciliation parameters. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) announced the Senate would not override the parliamentarian but would instead seek to revise the measure to comply with Senate rules.
• Republican senators called for firing the Senate parliamentarian — Several Republican senators, including Dan Crenshaw and Tommy Tuberville, called for Senate Majority Leader Thune to fire Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough following her ruling that removed provisions from the reconciliation bill. Crenshaw claimed she had "failed to apply the rules of reconciliation accurately on multiple occasions." Tuberville attacked her as "woke" and appointed by Harry Reid. However, Senators Lisa Murkowski, Bill Cassidy, and Susan Collins declined to support firing or overruling the parliamentarian, with Murkowski stating the parliamentarian was "doing her job."
• Senate Majority Leader Thune declined to fire or overrule parliamentarian — Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated he would not fire the Senate Parliamentarian or call for a vote to overrule her decisions, saying "that would not be a good option for getting a bill done." Thune's position aligned with moderate Republicans who defended the parliamentarian's independence, suggesting the majority would proceed with removing the ruled-out provisions rather than attempting to override the parliamentarian.
• Senate parliamentarian ruled provisions improperly added to reconciliation bill — The Senate parliamentarian ruled that many provisions Republicans added to the budget reconciliation package were improperly included and must be removed. The ruled-out provisions included Medicaid provider tax cuts, ACA limits, a ban on transgender care in Medicaid, denial of Medicaid to green card holders, penalties for states providing care to undocumented immigrants, citizenship proof requirements, student loan repayment limits, expanded Pell Grants, and restrictions on cost-sharing for abortion-covering insurance. These provisions would not survive a filibuster as standalone bills.
• Republican lawmakers called for firing of Senate Parliamentarian — On June 26, Republican lawmakers called for the firing of Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough after she declared that several measures in the GOP's tax and spending bill couldn't be passed via the reconciliation process, meaning they would need 60 votes to pass. The provisions include several restrictions on Medicaid, student aid, and other assistance for many immigrants who aren't US citizens, as well as a block on funding for gender-affirming care through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
• Senate Parliamentarian removed provision restricting court injunctions against federal government — On June 23, the Senate Parliamentarian removed a provision from the GOP's tax and spending bill that would have restricted the power of courts to issue injunctions or restraining orders against the federal government. The provision would have required plaintiffs seeking an injunction to pay a fee equal to "the costs and damages sustained by the federal government," a move legal experts said would deter people from filing lawsuits. The removal was based on a challenge by Democratic senators, finding it did not comply with the "Byrd rule."