Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Justice Department Finds UCLA Law School Discriminates Based on Race in Admissions — The Department of Justice announced this on 2026-10-01 through Civil Rights Division. The department's own account of it reads: "The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced today investigative findings that the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law (UCLA Law) discriminated against white and Asian students in granting admission to its 2023, 2024, and 2025 incoming classes."
• Department of Justice accuses UCLA Law School of illegal race-based admissions discrimination — The U.S. Department of Justice announced that UCLA Law School illegally considered race in admissions decisions for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 incoming classes, allegedly discriminating against white and Asian American applicants by favoring Black and Hispanic applicants. The DOJ cited lower mean LSAT scores for admitted Black applicants compared to admitted white applicants and stated that admissions staff instructed applicants on how to reveal their race in essays. UCLA denied the allegations and affirmed its commitment to merit-based, legally compliant admissions processes.
• Trump administration expands DOJ investigations into race-based admissions at multiple UC schools — The Trump administration has expanded its scrutiny beyond UCLA Law School to include accusations against UC Berkeley School of Law and the University of California, San Diego medical school of illegally discriminating against white and Asian applicants. This follows a similar accusation against UCLA's medical school and reflects a broader administration effort to investigate colleges' student selection processes for alleged race-conscious practices.

Supporting reports

• Department of Education investigates at least 60 universities under Title VI for alleged antisemitism violations — The U.S. Department of Education has opened Title VI investigations against at least 60 universities, including Columbia, CUNY, Harvard, and Barnard, for alleged violations related to antisemitism. These investigations, conducted under Trump administration pressure, have prompted universities to adopt antisemitism trainings that critics argue conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism and chill free speech on campus.

Supporting reports

• UCLA settles lawsuit with Jewish students over antisemitic discrimination during pro-Palestinian protests — UCLA agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Jewish students and a professor alleging the university allowed antisemitic discrimination during pro-Palestinian campus protests. The settlement includes $2.33 million to eight Jewish community support groups, $320,000 to an antisemitism initiative, and $50,000 to each plaintiff. The Department of Justice's civil rights division simultaneously announced findings that UCLA violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students.
• Department of Education investigates at least 60 universities under Title VI for alleged antisemitism violations — The U.S. Department of Education has opened Title VI investigations against at least 60 universities, including Columbia, CUNY, Harvard, and Barnard, for alleged violations related to antisemitism. These investigations, conducted under Trump administration pressure, have prompted universities to adopt antisemitism trainings that critics argue conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism and chill free speech on campus.

Supporting reports

• Appeal filed — American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02429 — Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case. That day, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit.
• Appeal filed — Boyle v. Trump (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-01628 — Defendants appealed Judge Maddox's summary judgment order to the Fourth Circuit.
• Case update — American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Goldstein (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-03072 — Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint .
• Case update — Carter v. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00744 — The court stayed the case pending the status of appeals in State of New York v. McMahon , Civil Action No. 25-10601 (D. Mass.) and Somerville Public Schools v. Trump , Civil Action No. 25-10677 (D. Mass.).
• Case update — City of Chicago v. United States Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-05462 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , adding Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle as plaintiffs. The amended filing described each city's reliance on the Securing the Cities program and the harms from DHS's freeze on 2025 reimbursements and failure to release approved 2024 funds, shifted emphasis from primarily APA claims to a stronger Appropriations Clause theory challenging DHS's withholding of congressionally allocated funds, and stressed the need to restore funding before major events requiring heightened security, including political conventions and national holidays.
• Case update — City of New York v. Trump et al. (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01510 — Plaintiff filed their second amended complaint (redline here ).
• Case update — J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00766 — Plaintiffs/Appellees filed their opposition in the D.C. Circuit to the Defendants'/Appellants' emergency motion seeking a stay of Judge Boasberg's June 4 order pending appeal.
• Case update — Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska) 3:25-cv-00038 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which added the Conservation Law Foundation as a plaintiff.
• Motion granted — Democracy Forward Foundation v. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00940 — DOE answered Plaintiff's complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief authorized under FOIA, and that Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the release of records properly withheld under FOIA exclusions or exemptions, among other defenses.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Schiff v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10595 — Defendants filed a motion to dismiss , arguing that Plaintiffs' claims are moot in light of Defendants' compliance with the preliminary injunction order issued on May 23.
• House Judiciary Report on Trump Pardons — Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee released a report estimating that Trump's pardons have cost taxpayers over $1.3 billion in fines and restitution. The report highlights the financial impact of presidential pardons.
• R Kelly's Lawyers File Court Documents Alleging Overdose in Prison — Lawyers for R Kelly have filed new court documents alleging that the singer, who is serving a prison sentence for sex trafficking, was rushed to the hospital after overdosing on medication provided by prison staff. The filing claims that Kelly was placed in solitary confinement on June 10 and given medication with instructions to take it, leading to an overdose on June 13. The documents also allege a plot by Bureau of Prisons officials to have Kelly killed by another inmate, prompting a request for his release to home detention, which federal prosecutors have opposed.
• Case update — Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00527 — Defendants filed an unopposed motion before Judge Boasberg seeking clarification or, alternatively, a stay of further proceedings. They argued that under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, no responsive pleading (return) is due in habeas proceedings until the court issues a writ or show-cause order, and that the preliminary-injunction briefing had already served that function. In the alternative, they requested that any requirement to file a return or dispositive motion be stayed until after the D.C. Circuit resolves the appeal of the June 4 order.
• Motion granted — Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska) 3:25-cv-00038 — Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or stay proceedings in the alternative.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Harris County Texas v. Robert F Kennedy Jr (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01275 — The court granted State of Alaska's motion to intervene . Judge Sharon Gleason ordered that the State of Alaska be admitted into the case as an intervenor-defendant.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00527 — Judge Christopher Cooper issued a memorandum opinion that granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Cooper granted relief to some of the grants held by four local-government plaintiffs (Harris County, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Davidson County and Nashville, Tennessee; and Kansas City, Missouri) and decided against granting relief to all terminated grants nationwide. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing or otherwise giving effect to the March 2025 terminations of grants issued directly or indirectly to these four plaintiffs under the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020, the CARES Act, and the CRRSAA.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11740 — Judge James E. Boasberg denied Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. In the supporting memorandum , Judge Boasberg noted Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — National Job Corps Association v. Department of Labor (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-04641 — The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the DOD from enforcing the Rate Cap Policy.
• Case update — Association for Education Finance and Policy Inc. v. McMahon (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00999 — Judge Carter extended the temporary restraining order through June 25.
• Case update — CREW v. DOGE (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00511 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint . In this amended complaint, plaintiffs removed their ultra vires and Impoundment Act claims. Plaintiffs also added counts specifying the IES terminations and their associated alleged APA violation.
• Case update — Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00684 — CREW filed a motion for summary disposition with the D.C. Circuit following the Supreme Court's Jun. 6 order.
• Complaint filed — EA T-B v. Bostock — Democracy Forward and the Department of the Treasury filed a joint status report to note the identification of 5,807 potentially responsive documents and the parties' efforts to further narrow Plaintiff's FOIA request to alleviate processing burdens and allow for a more expeditious processing of documents.
• Motion denied — Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01535 — Defendants/Appellants filed their reply in support of their emergency motion in the D.C. Circuit to stay Judge Boasberg's June 4 order pending appeal.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — San Francisco Unified School District v. AmeriCorps, a.k.a. the Corporation for National and Community Service (N.D. Cal.) 3:25 — A complaint was filed in the Western District of Washington under the case caption EA T-B v. Bostock, docket number 2:25-cv-01192. The case involves legal challenges related to actions taken by the Trump administration. Further details about the case are forthcoming.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — W.J.C.C. v. Trump (W.D. Pa.) 3:25-cv-00153 — DOJ, DHS, and State Department (Agency Defendants) answered Plaintiff's complaint. The Agency Defendants admitted they received the FOIA requests but denied improperly withholding records from Plaintiff under FOIA.
• Summary judgment ruling — Grundmann v. Trump et al . (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00425 — The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby enjoining Defendants from imposing and enforcing new conditions on Plaintiffs' AmeriCorps grants during the pendency of the lawsuit.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Dvortsin as Next Friend of Hayam El Gamal et al., Petitioner, v. Noem (W.D. Tex.) 5:25-cv-00664 — Judge Stephanie Haines restated her holding in A.S.R. v. Trump , No. 3:25-cv-00113, that the presidential proclamation is a valid exercise of the AEA. Judge Haines, however, granted a preliminary injunction in favor of W.J.C.C., rejecting the government's claim that it could apply shortened notice akin to expedited removal procedures. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to: “(1) twenty-one (21) days' notice and an "opportunity to be heard," (2) notice that clearly articulates the fact that he is subject to removal under the Proclamation and the AEA, (3) notice in English and Spanish, the language of the one sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters shall be provided for any necessary hearings, and (4) notice of all of the foregoing to his counsel.” The court denied the petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction that would have barred the government from transferring him out of the district.
• Federal Appeals Court Rejects DOJ Representation for Trump — The D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay of Judge Sparkle's March 12 order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment .
• Federal Judge Blocks Education Department Firings — Judge Orlando Garcia granted a motion to extend the previous temporary restraining order blocking the removal of the family from the district or the United States.
• Federal Judge Blocks EPA Grant Cancellations — A federal appeals court rejected President Trump's request to have Justice Department lawyers represent him in his appeal of E. Jean Carroll's defamation case. The decision maintains the separation between personal and official legal matters.
• Case update — ACLU v. United States Social Security Administration (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01217 — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from executing mass firings at the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The decision prevents potential disruptions to civil rights enforcement.
• Stay pending appeal decided — Newsom v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-04870 — A federal judge blocked the EPA's cancellation of $600 million in environmental justice grants issued during the Biden administration. The ruling protects funding for underserved communities.
• Federal Judge Blocks Transportation Grant Conditions — Defendant Agencies answered Plaintiff's complaint. These agencies admitted that they failed to respond to Plaintiff's FOIA request, but provided several defenses to Plaintiff's action, including alleging Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the production of records under FOIA, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's requests, and that they did not improperly withhold the records Plaintiff requested under FOIA.
• Appeal filed — Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce et al. (D.N.J.) 2:25-cv-01963 — The Ninth Circuit granted the federal government a stay pending appeal .
• Motion denied — Darwin Antonio Arevalo Millan v. Trump (C.D. Cal.) 5:25-cv-01207 — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from tying federal transportation grant funding to immigration enforcement cooperation. The ruling protects states' rights to manage their own policies.
• Motion granted — J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00766 — Judge Farbiarz ordered Mahmoud Khalil, who is currently detained by federal immigration authorities in Louisiana, be released from custody. On that same day, the government appealed Judge Farbiarz's June 11 order granting a preliminary injunction to the Third Circuit. Note: Mahmoud Khalil submitted a notice of claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking $20 million in damages from the administration for his detention. The notice alleges that Khalil's arrest and prolonged confinement were the result of discriminatory intent by Secretary Rubio, and that his treatment-including prolonged solitary confinement and denial of medical care-constituted multiple tortious acts by federal officers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01237 — Judge Holcomb denied petitioners' ex parte application for a writ of habeas corpus, noting petitioner's detention remains permissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because of the government's intention to appeal the grant of relief in petitioner's removal proceedings (since petitioners can remain in custody pending such appeals).
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01030 — Judge Boasberg granted the Defendants unopposed motion for clarification, confirming that the Defendants does not need to take further action in the district court until the D.C. Circuit issues its mandate in the appeal of his June 4 order.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Oversight v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00883 — In connection with the June 9 preliminary injunction order, Judge Cote ordered OPM to file a report within two weeks describing the procedures put in place since March 6, to ensure adherence to the requirements of the Privacy Act with respect to new grant of access permissions by OPM to records containing Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information (PII). Judge Cote also ordered OPM to file a report within four weeks concerning OPM's grant of access permissions to any records containing Plaintiffs' PII made to DOGE personnel.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Open Technology Fund v. Kari Lake (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00840 — The D.C. Circuit en banc stayed the preliminary injunction order pending appeal.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11472 — Judge Boasberg granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, granting a narrower relief by requiring that Defendants perform their mandatory notification and referral obligations, as explained in its accompanying memorandum opinion .
• Stay motion decided — State of New York v. United States Department of Education (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02990 — Judge Royce Lamberth granted Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, thereby enjoining Defendants from withholding congressionally appropriated funds under the grant agreement for Fiscal Year 2024 between USAGM and OTF.
• Summary judgment ruling — Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11231 — Judge Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction barring that administration from banning Harvard from participating in the State Department's Student and Visitor Exchange Program.
• Federal Judge Blocks Harvard Student Ban — The Second Circuit denied Defendants' motion to stay the district court's order, finding DOE's actions likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA-without any particularized assessment and insufficiently attentive to reliance interests-and concluding that a stay would substantially injure the plaintiff States.
• Federal Judge Orders Release of Mahmoud Khalil — The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Implementation of the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is vacated and declared invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The court further ordered that within 72 hours of entry of this order, Defendants provide written notice of the order to all funding recipients affected by the 15% Indirect Cost Rate.
• — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from prohibiting Harvard University from admitting international students. The ruling prevents the implementation of a plan to remove the school from the Student and Visitor Exchange Program.
• — A federal judge ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil from ICE detention on bail, citing concerns that his detention was used as punishment for his activism. Khalil is a Palestinian green card holder involved in student protests.

Supporting reports

• Trump Administration Orders Social Media Screening for Harvard Visitors — The Trump administration has mandated that US consulates worldwide conduct mandatory social media screenings for all visa applicants intending to visit Harvard University. This directive, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, requires enhanced vetting of students, faculty, staff, and other visitors to Harvard, viewing private social media accounts as potential signs of evasiveness. The policy, part of a pilot program, is linked to concerns about antisemitism on campus and aims to identify applicants with histories of antisemitic behavior. The directive is part of broader actions against elite universities, including stripping Harvard of research funding.

Supporting reports

• Trump Administration Revokes Harvard's Privilege to Enroll Foreign Students — The Trump administration informed Harvard University that it had lost the privilege to enroll foreign students due to the university's failure to provide information on foreign students' protest activities and coursework. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem stated this decision aimed to enforce the law against anti-Americanism and antisemitism. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit claiming the action violated the First Amendment and due process rights, leading to a temporary restraining order from Judge Allison Burroughs to prevent the policy from taking effect.

Supporting reports

• Harvard University refused to comply with Trump administration demands; government froze $2.3 billion in funding — After Harvard University said it would not comply with a list of demands from the Trump administration, the government announced it was freezing $2.3 billion in federal funding to the school. The funding freeze represents retaliation for the university's refusal to comply with the administration's directives.
• Trump administration retaliates against Harvard by freezing $2.2bn in federal grants and $60m contract — Within hours of Harvard University's rejection of the administration's demand letter, the Trump administration froze $2.2bn in federal grants and a $60m contract to the university. The action was characterized as retaliation for Harvard's refusal to comply with the administration's conditions regarding faculty diversity, DEI programs, and antisemitism policy.
• Education Department freezes $2.3 billion in federal funds to Harvard University — The U.S. Education Department announced a freeze of approximately $2.3 billion in federal funds to Harvard University after the university rejected Trump administration demands to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, restrict student protests, and implement "merit-based" admissions policies. Harvard President Alan Garber characterized the demands as a political ploy and stated the university would not comply. The freeze prompted legal challenges and protests from the academic community.
• Trump administration freezes $2.2 billion in Harvard grant funding — The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in grant money to Harvard University as part of a broader effort to take over and reshape elite American universities. The administration also canceled a research contract worth over $100 million, threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, and demanded records on foreign students.

Supporting reports

• Trump issues executive orders targeting Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling law firms — Trump issued executive orders targeting the law firms Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling, similar in structure to the Paul Weiss order. Perkins Coie was targeted over its ties to a lawyer who worked with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign; Covington and Burling was targeted for representing former special counsel Jack Smith in litigation against the administration.
• Trump issues executive orders penalizing law firms Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie — President Trump issued executive orders targeting three major law firms—Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—barring them from federal buildings, restricting agency interaction, and revoking security clearances from some lawyers. The orders were widely characterized as punitive retaliation against firms whose clients included former special counsel Jack Smith and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked enforcement against Perkins Coie on 12 March, citing First Amendment violations. Paul Weiss reversed the order on 19 March after agreeing to $40 million in pro bono services.
• Trump warned law firms to "behave themselves" — After the settlement with Paul Weiss, Trump warned that "law firms have to behave themselves." The warning signals that the administration will use executive power to target firms that do not comply with its preferences.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14246 suspending security clearances of Jenner & Block employees, restricting federal contracts, and limiting government access to the law firm. — President Trump issued Executive Order 14246 on March 25, 2025, targeting Jenner & Block LLP. The order directs the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to suspend active security clearances held by firm employees pending review. It requires federal agencies to cease provision of government goods, property, and services to the firm. Agencies must review all contracts with Jenner & Block, terminate contracts where the firm provides services, require contractors to disclose business relationships with the firm, and restrict official access and engagement between federal employees and firm staff, including attorney Andrew Weissmann.
• Trump signs executive orders targeting law firms challenging his administration — President Trump signed multiple executive orders targeting major law firms (Jenner & Block, Covington and Burling, Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss) that have represented his political opponents or employed prosecutors involved in investigations into Trump. The orders threaten to revoke security clearances, deny access to government buildings, and require government clients to disclose representation by these firms. Trump also directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate lawyers blocking administration priorities. Paul Weiss capitulated and accepted Trump's demands; Perkins Coie obtained a temporary restraining order blocking its order.
• Trump issued executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, suspending security clearances and restricting federal contracts. — President Trump issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Jenner & Block LLP employees, cease provision of government goods and services to the firm, and review all federal contracts involving the firm for termination. The order alleges the firm engaged in "partisan lawfare," pro bono work undermining administration priorities, and employment discrimination. It specifically names attorney Andrew Weissmann and restricts federal employee engagement with firm staff.
• White House signed executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, directing suspension of security clearances and termination of federal contracts. — The White House issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Jenner & Block LLP employees, cease provision of government services and facilities to the firm, terminate federal contracts with the firm, and restrict official access and hiring of its employees. The order characterizes the firm as engaging in "partisan lawfare," pro bono activities deemed harmful to U.S. interests, and alleged racial discrimination. The order specifically names attorney Andrew Weissmann and directs agencies to submit compliance assessments within 30 days.
• Trump signed order targeting law firm with Mueller connection — Trump signed another executive order targeting a law firm that once employed Andrew Weissman, the former deputy to Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order suspends security clearances of the firm's employees, terminates government contracts, and orders a review of the firm's compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias.
• Trump administration stripped security clearances from law firms and barred attorneys from federal buildings — The Trump administration issued executive orders stripping security clearances from Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss law firms and barring their attorneys from entering federal buildings, including courthouses. The chair of Paul, Weiss stated the move "could easily have destroyed our firm." The orders targeted firms representing Trump's opponents in litigation.
• Trump signed executive order encouraging disciplinary action against attorneys filing litigation against the administration — President Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to refer attorneys for disciplinary action if they file "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation" against the administration. Critics argue the order will have a chilling effect on litigation challenging government actions, and law firms have begun refusing to represent Trump's opponents out of fear of retaliation.
• Trump issues Executive Order 14250 suspending security clearances and restricting federal contracts with WilmerHale law firm — President Trump signed Executive Order 14250 directing the suspension of security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending national-interest review, cessation of federal goods and services to the firm, termination of government contracts with WilmerHale, restrictions on federal building access for firm employees, and guidance against hiring WilmerHale staff. The order cites the firm's pro bono work, representation of immigration and voting-rights cases, and employment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller as grounds for the action.
• Trump issued executive order targeting WilmerHale law firm with security clearance suspensions and federal contracting restrictions. — President Trump issued an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by WilmerHale employees, cease provision of government goods and services to the firm, require federal contractors to disclose business relationships with WilmerHale, review and terminate relevant contracts, restrict WilmerHale employee access to federal buildings, and limit hiring of WilmerHale staff. The order cites the firm's pro bono work, representation of immigration and election-related cases, and employment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller as grounds for the action.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14250 targeting WilmerHale law firm with security clearance suspensions, contract terminations, and personnel restrictions. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14250 on March 27, 2025, directing the suspension of security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending review, cessation of government provision of materials and services to the firm, termination of federal contracts with WilmerHale, restrictions on federal employee access to WilmerHale staff, and limitations on hiring WilmerHale employees into government. The order characterizes the firm's pro bono work and representation of clients as threats to national security and American interests, and specifically names former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and colleagues as examples of "weaponization of government."
• Trump signed executive order suspending security clearances for WilmerHale employees and terminating federal contracts with the firm — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, suspending security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending review, halting federal material and services to the firm, restricting employee access to government buildings, terminating WilmerHale contracts, and barring federal agencies from hiring the firm's employees without authorization. The fact sheet characterizes WilmerHale as engaging in partisan activities, racial discrimination, and obstruction of immigration enforcement.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14253 directing removal of exhibits and narratives from federal museums and historical sites deemed ideologically divisive, with authority delegated to the Vice President over the Smithsonian Institution. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14253 on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to remove exhibits, programs, and historical narratives from museums and monuments that the order characterizes as "divisive" or promoting "ideology" rather than "objective facts." The order specifically targets the Smithsonian Institution, directing the Vice President to work through his role on the Smithsonian Board of Regents to remove what the order calls "improper ideology." It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to audit and reinstate pre-2020 monuments and ensure all federal historical sites focus on "greatness" and "achievements" rather than narratives the order deems disparaging. Future appropriations are to be conditioned on prohibiting exhibits that "divide Americans based on race" or are "inconsistent with Federal law and policy."
• Trump issues executive order directing federal agencies to remove "ideological" content from Smithsonian Institution and federal historical sites — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing the Vice President, OMB Director, and Secretary of the Interior to remove what the order characterizes as "divisive, race-centered ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution, Independence National Historical Park, and other federal historical sites. The order mandates restoration of pre-2020 monuments and memorials, prohibits future federal funding for exhibits deemed to "degrade shared American values" or "divide Americans based on race," and requires the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to exclude recognition of transgender athletes. The order frames this as restoring "truth" and "sanity" to American history.
• Trump administration issues executive orders targeting law firms; two firms sue to block — The Trump administration issued executive orders halting business with five law firms (Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie) and revoking security clearances of their attorneys, citing retaliation for the firms' representation of political opponents or employment of Trump critics. On Friday, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed federal lawsuits in Washington DC seeking to block the orders as unconstitutional. Perkins Coie had already successfully convinced a judge to block its order. Paul Weiss and Skadden reached settlements with the administration to avoid or withdraw orders.

Supporting reports

• DHS rescinded guidance limiting immigration enforcement in schools and protected areas — On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced rescission of prior guidance that had designated schools as "protected areas" where certain immigration enforcement actions were restricted. The rescission did not explicitly authorize agents to enter schools but communicated that schools were no longer treated as uniquely buffered spaces under federal guidance, altering the legal and practical environment for immigration enforcement near educational facilities.
• Trump administration overturns sensitive areas policy — The Trump administration has overturned longstanding policies that restricted immigration enforcement in "sensitive areas" such as schools, churches, and hospitals. This change allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection to arrest migrants in these locations. The Department of Homeland Security announced the policy shift, emphasizing a crackdown on immigration. This move is part of a broader set of executive actions aimed at increasing deportations and cooperation between ICE and local governments.
• Department of Homeland Security removes guidance limiting immigration enforcement near sensitive locations — The Department of Homeland Security removed previous guidance that had limited enforcement actions near churches, schools, and hospitals. Immigration enforcement operations now occur at houses of worship and other sensitive locations. Over 620,000 deportations have occurred since January 2025 under this enforcement posture.
• DHS scraps guidance limiting immigration arrests near sensitive locations — The Department of Homeland Security removed previous guidance that limited immigration enforcement actions near sensitive locations such as churches, schools, and hospitals. This policy change has led to increased deportations and raised concerns about the impact on vulnerable communities and the sanctity of sensitive locations.
• ICE enforcement surge in Lake Worth Beach following Trump's January 2025 inauguration — Following Trump's January 2025 inauguration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intensified operations in Lake Worth Beach, Florida, a city of 45,000 located 10 miles from Mar-a-Lago. ICE agents began patrolling streets, raiding grocery stores, churches, and schools, and coordinating with local police for arrests. According to the Guatemalan-Maya Center director, approximately 70% of center users attending immigration check-ins or court dates have been deported, detained, or given ankle bracelets with 90-day self-deportation orders. The crackdown has created widespread fear, isolation, and documented mental-health crises within the migrant community.
• Trump issues immigration executive orders — On his first day in office, Donald Trump issued several executive orders targeting immigration. These include a national emergency declaration to deploy the military to the US-Mexico border, an attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the rescission of a taskforce aimed at reuniting families separated at the border. The orders have been described as chaotic and difficult to enforce, with many expected to face legal challenges. The actions have incited panic and confusion among immigrants and their advocates.
• DoJ orders prosecution of officials resisting immigration crackdown — The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, has issued a directive to federal prosecutors to target state and local officials who resist the administration's mass deportation campaign. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove instructed prosecutors to investigate and potentially bring criminal charges against officials in "sanctuary" jurisdictions for harboring undocumented immigrants or withholding immigration information. This directive is part of a broader immigration crackdown, including executive orders to mobilize federal agencies for enforcement and challenge local laws blocking Trump's immigration agenda.