Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Pentagon launches investigation into Senator Mark Kelly — The Pentagon launched an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) for "serious allegations of misconduct" in response to a viral video in which Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers urged military members to refuse illegal orders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the video "despicable, reckless and false." Kelly responded that intimidation would not silence him.
• FBI Counterterrorism Division opened investigation into six lawmakers — By November 25, 2025, the FBI's Counterterrorism Division notified Congress it was opening an inquiry into the six veteran lawmakers and requested interviews with all six members. The investigation was triggered by their one-minute video reminding service members of their legal obligation to refuse illegal orders—a principle codified in U.S. military law since 1950 and rooted in post-World War II Nuremberg principles. Legal experts confirmed the lawmakers were simply restating existing law and that their statement does not constitute sedition.
• Pentagon announced investigation of Senator Kelly and signaled possible recall to active duty — The Pentagon announced it is investigating Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, and signaled it could recall him to active duty for possible court-martial over his participation in the video reminding troops of their legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. The threatened recall and court-martial of a sitting U.S. senator for restating military law represents an extraordinary use of military authority against a member of Congress.
• FBI contacts House and Senate regarding Democratic lawmakers' anti-Trump military video — The FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requesting interviews with several Democratic members of Congress—Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan, plus Sen. Elissa Slotkin—after they filmed a video urging military troops not to follow illegal orders. The lawmakers characterized the FBI outreach as intimidation and harassment, with Sen. Slotkin stating that the President is "weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies."
• FBI counterterrorism division investigates Democratic lawmakers — The FBI's counterterrorism division launched an investigation into six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a viral video calling on military members to refuse illegal orders. Four House members stated that the FBI contacted the House and Senate sergeant at arms to set up interviews. They accused Trump of "using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress."
• Far-right figures call for investigation and deportation of Arab-Americans — In the days following the November 18 rally, far-right figures including Tommy Robinson, Wall Street Apes, and Sidney Powell used the Dearborn incident to call on the Department of Justice to investigate and deport Arab-Americans. These calls amplified the rally's narrative of victimhood and framed an entire ethnic group as a threat requiring federal action.
• FBI contacts Capitol Police to schedule interviews with six Democratic senators — Fox News reported that the FBI contacted US Capitol Police to schedule interviews with the six Democratic senators who released the video advising military personnel to refuse illegal orders. The interviews appear to be part of the broader investigation into the lawmakers' statements.
• Pentagon launches investigation into Senator Mark Kelly for video advising troops to refuse illegal orders — The Pentagon announced an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers after they released a video advising military service members that they can refuse illegal orders and warning of "threats to our constitution" from within the administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the video "despicable, reckless, and false." Trump characterized the senators' statement as "seditious behaviour" punishable by death. The Pentagon warned it could recall Kelly to active duty for court-martial under a federal law prohibiting military retirees from interfering with military discipline.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice files complaint challenging California in-state tuition and scholarship laws for undocumented immigrants — The Department of Justice announced a civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging state laws that provide in-state tuition rates, scholarships, and subsidized loans to undocumented immigrants. The complaint names California, Governor Newsom, the state attorney general, and university system boards as defendants. The DOJ alleges the laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens and create incentives for illegal immigration, and seeks an injunction to prevent enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi characterized the action as the third lawsuit against California in one week.
• DOJ sues California over in-state tuition for undocumented students — The Trump administration's Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the state's policy allowing undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition at public universities. The complaint alleges the policy violates federal law and discriminates against US citizens and out-of-state residents. The lawsuit also challenges California's extension of scholarship and subsidized loan eligibility to undocumented students. Defendants include the state, California officials, and the University of California and California State University systems. The suit marks the third Trump administration lawsuit against California filed within one week.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Texas attorney general sues New York county clerk to enforce abortion-related fine — Ken Paxton, Texas attorney general, filed a petition in New York state supreme court seeking to compel Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck to enforce a $100,000+ fine against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, a New York physician accused of mailing abortion pills to a Texas woman. Bruck twice rejected the enforcement request, citing New York's "shield law" that blocks state officials from complying with out-of-state abortion prosecutions. The case is expected to escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court and represents a major state-versus-state conflict over abortion access and interstate commerce.