Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Congressman Raskin accuses FBI Director Patel of directing $1m in unauthorized bonus payments to loyalist agents — Representative Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, alleged that FBI Director Kash Patel authorized over $1 million in taxpayer-funded bonus payments to a small circle of loyalist agents, including those on his security detail and "director's advisory team." Some agents received payments of nearly $8,000 every two weeks despite already earning at the federal salary ceiling. Raskin characterized the arrangement as a "personal slush fund" that may have violated federal law and demanded a full accounting by June 29.
• House Democrats launched investigation into FBI Director Kash Patel's alleged misuse of FBI funds — Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release announcing an investigation into FBI Director Kash Patel's alleged misuse of FBI funds. Representative Jamie Raskin, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee, stated they had received information that Patel directed more than $1 million in bonuses to agents close to himself. The Democrats wrote that these payments raise concerns that FBI funds are being used to reward political loyalty rather than merit and professionalism.
• FBI Director Kash Patel allegedly using agency budget as personal slush fund — According to a letter from Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin obtained by MS NOW, FBI Director Kash Patel may be using part of the agency's budget as a "personal slush fund" to provide more than $1 million in "unlawful 'bonus' payments" to special agents on his Director's Advisory Team and his security detail. Raskin noted that by issuing the payments, Patel's office "may be knowingly breaking federal law" and that the payments have been sent at such a frenzied rate that some have bounced from exhausted accounts.

Supporting reports

• D.C. Circuit Court denied Trump's emergency motion to stay Kennedy Center removal — Late on June 12, 2026, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump's emergency motion requesting a stay of Judge Cooper's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center. Despite the court's denial, the removal of signage took longer than anticipated due to the extensive scaffolding and labor required. The Department of Justice requested twelve additional hours to comply with the court order, stating the letters would come down "in the early hours of the morning of June 13," presumably to avoid the large audience watching the removal in person and on livestream.
• Judge Cooper denied DOJ stay request on Kennedy Center removal order — Judge Cooper rejected the Justice Department's request for a stay on his removal order, ruling that the government had not demonstrated it would prevail on the merits of its appeal. Cooper stated that staying the order "would not be in the public interest, which is rarely served by the 'perpetuation' of 'unlawful' governmental action."
• Justice Department filed notice of appeal of Kennedy Center removal order — Hours after the Kennedy Center board voted to launch a last-minute appeal to Judge Cooper's removal order, lawyers from the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal. They requested a stay on the judge's order, arguing that the board would be "forced to squander time and money" if the appeals court ruled in its favor and that it "would be incredibly confusing for the public" if Trump's name went back up after removal.
• Federal judge ordered Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — A federal judge gave Trump 14 days to remove his name from the Kennedy Center. The deadline hit at midnight on June 12, 2026. Trump's legal team filed a last-minute stay request, arguing the removal would be "wasteful" and "confusing to the public," and escalated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an emergency reprieve. Plaintiffs, including board member Joyce Beatty, responded that there is no real injury if the name is later restored, and documented real harm from the renaming: artists canceled performances, ticket sales dropped precipitously, and viewership of the Kennedy Center Honors broadcast fell. A judge upheld the ruling, and the Trump name was expected to come off the Kennedy Center around 6 p.m. ET on June 12.
• Judge denied Trump's emergency motion to reverse Kennedy Center name removal ruling — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. denied Trump's last-minute emergency petition seeking to reverse an earlier court order requiring removal of his name from the Kennedy Center. A work crew was deployed at the court-mandated deadline to remove the name, but work was halted due to rain. Trump subsequently filed an emergency stay petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming the Kennedy Center board would face bankruptcy if forced to return donations received during his tenure.
• Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center facade — Workers removed the lettering referencing President Donald Trump from the facade of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on June 12, 2026, following the federal judge's order. The removal occurred around 6 p.m. ET after the midnight deadline passed.
• Department of Justice requested extension to comply with Kennedy Center removal order — The Department of Justice requested twelve additional hours from the court to comply with Judge Cooper's order to remove Trump's name from the Kennedy Center, stating that the letters would be removed "in the early hours of the morning of June 13." The request came after the government missed the midnight June 12 deadline, with the DOJ implicitly acknowledging that the removal would occur when there would not be a large audience watching either in person or on livestream.

Supporting reports

• House Democrats demanded answers on Federal Bureau of Prisons policy change — House Democrats, led by Rep. Deborah Ross and joined by Jamie Raskin and Ro Khanna, demanded answers from the Federal Bureau of Prisons over a policy change that grants the Attorney General new authority to override prison placement decisions. The lawmakers noted this change appears to have been implemented after Ghislaine Maxwell was moved from a low-security Florida facility to a minimum-security camp in Texas—a placement that would normally be prohibited for sex offenders under BOP guidelines. Democrats believe the new policy may be a retroactive attempt to justify the transfer and demanded internal communications, legal analyses, and records explaining the change. The BOP was given until July 12 to respond.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces accelerated departure date for Gabbard — Trump announced on June 9 via Truth Social that Gabbard would leave office on June 19 (instead of June 30) and that Pulte would assume the acting DNI role that same day. This 10-day acceleration triggered further bipartisan Senate opposition, with senators from both parties threatening not to reauthorize key surveillance powers (FISA) set to expire June 12.
• Trump announces Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence — President Trump announced his decision to install Bill Pulte, a presidential loyalist with no national security experience, as acting director of national intelligence effective June 19, 2026, while Pulte remains head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Trump stated Pulte would "execute the immediate and needed downsizing" of the office. The appointment prompted immediate bipartisan concern and Democratic lawmakers warned it would derail a bipartisan agreement to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set to expire June 13. Trump requested Congress pass a short-term extension of FISA.
• Trump insisted on Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence — Trump insisted on making loyalist Bill Pulte acting director of national intelligence for the period spanning the 2026 midterms, despite Pulte lacking the national security experience required by law. Pulte has a track record of weaponizing government to attack Trump's political opponents. Republicans requested Trump nominate a permanent DNI instead, but Trump doubled down on the Pulte appointment.

Supporting reports

• White House sent nomination of Todd Blanche to Senate for Attorney General — The White House issued a nomination announcement on June 8, 2026, sending Todd Blanche of Florida to the Senate for confirmation as Attorney General. The document is a single-line nomination notice published on the White House presidential actions page under the Nominations & Appointments category. No additional detail, rationale, or biographical information is provided in the published text.
• Trump nominates Bill Pulte as acting DNI, triggering FISA section 702 reauthorization crisis — President Trump announced that Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency with no intelligence background, will become acting director of national intelligence on June 19, 2026, while retaining his housing finance role. The appointment immediately collapsed a three-year bipartisan FISA renewal deal and blocked section 702 reauthorization—a post-9/11 surveillance authority set to expire June 12. Senate Democrats and seven Republicans opposed the bill; neither long-term nor short-term patches secured the 60 votes needed. Republican leaders now seek a credible permanent nominee to break the impasse, though the FISA court's existing year-long certification allows collection to continue if the statute lapses.
• Trump nominates Todd Blanche as attorney general — Donald Trump nominated his former personal lawyer Todd Blanche to serve permanently as attorney general on June 9, 2026. Blanche had been serving in an acting capacity since April after Trump fired Pam Bondi. Blanche, a federal prosecutor who represented Trump in multiple criminal cases, now faces Senate confirmation. Under Blanche's leadership, the DOJ has pursued controversial actions including indicting former FBI director James Comey and removing press releases about Capitol riot prosecutions.
• — President Trump officially nominated acting attorney general Todd Blanche to become attorney general of the United States. Blanche previously served as Trump's personal attorney, leading his criminal defense in the falsifying records case and the two cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith regarding the 2020 election overturn attempt and classified documents retention. As acting attorney general, Blanche has secured indictments against perceived Trump enemies, backed a $1.776 billion slush fund for January 6 convicts, and negotiated an agreement to drop pending claims against Trump and the Trump Organization while promising not to audit Trump's tax returns.

Supporting reports

• Senate rejects amendment to permanently bar anti-weaponization fund — During a marathon Senate session on the immigration-enforcement bill, senators rejected an amendment from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to permanently bar the anti-weaponization fund. The amendment failed 49 to 50, with three Republicans—Susan Collins, Dan Sullivan, and Jon Husted—crossing to support it. A separate effort to redirect the fund toward Capitol officers injured on January 6 also failed, as did an amendment to block construction of the White House ballroom, though nearly half a dozen Republicans voted with Democrats on the ballroom question.
• Senate Republicans block Democratic amendment to bar Trump's $1.8bn "anti-weaponization" fund — Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, proposed an amendment to legislation funding ICE and CBP that would bar creation of a $1.8bn "anti-weaponization" fund intended to pay settlements to people connected to January 6. The amendment failed 49-50, with three Republican senators (Collins, Sullivan, Husted) breaking ranks to support it. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had stated the administration would not proceed with the fund, but Schumer insisted Congress pass a law blocking it permanently. A subsequent Republican amendment by Thom Tillis to redirect the money to DOJ fraud efforts also failed.
• Senate Republicans rejected amendments to limit DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund — During a Senate vote-a-rama on a reconciliation bill, Republicans defeated several amendments—including from some of their own members—that would have reined in or eliminated the DOJ's "Anti-Weaponization Fund." Republicans also rejected Democratic attempts to add provisions undermining Trump's ballroom project or targeting acting DNI Bill Pulte.

Supporting reports

• Acting Attorney General Blanche announces Justice Department will not move forward with anti-weaponization fund — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department would not move forward with its proposed anti-weaponization fund, a roughly $1.8 billion pool that grew out of the settlement of the president's lawsuit against the IRS. Critics in both parties had described it as a slush fund to compensate Trump allies, potentially including January 6 defendants. The reversal followed weeks of bipartisan backlash that had stalled unrelated immigration funding.
• Acting attorney general announces scrapping of $1.8bn Trump 'anti-weaponization' fund while maintaining IRS audit immunity agreement — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before the House Appropriations Committee that the Trump administration is abandoning a proposed $1.8bn secretive fund designed to compensate Trump's allies for alleged government "weaponization." However, Blanche confirmed the administration will maintain a separate agreement granting immunity from IRS audits to Trump, his family, and related entities. The fund had faced legal challenges, including a federal judge's block on implementation and a Florida judge's decision to reopen the underlying lawsuit.
• Acting attorney general tells lawmakers administration will not move forward with anti-weaponization fund — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers on June 2 that the administration was "not moving forward with the fund, period," appearing to signal an end to the nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund proposal. However, Trump continued to advocate for the fund during a subsequent NBC News interview on June 8, contradicting the official statement.
• Senator Thom Tillis called for codifying end to Trump's "weaponization fund" — Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Fox News that the Trump administration's "right hand and left hand" need to coordinate regarding the "weaponization fund"—a slush fund to pay criminals. Tillis noted that he heard the newly proposed Attorney General say the fund is "dead," and stated that if it is truly dead, Congress should "codify that and be done with it," suggesting uncertainty about whether the administration has genuinely ended the program.
• House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated intent to claw back weaponization fund — House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Meidas that he does not believe Trump's claim that the "weaponization fund"—a slush fund to pay criminals—is dead. Jeffries stated that Congress must act to "bury it into the ground and ensure it can never rise again" and indicated that Democrats are "prepared to claw back anything that has been done in January" related to the fund.
• Rep. Jamie Raskin introduces BLANCHE Act to block Trump's IRS immunity deal — Rep. Jamie Raskin introduced the BLANCHE Act (Block Lawless Agreements and Nullify Corrupt Handouts and Emoluments Act) to block Trump's IRS audit immunity deal and prevent presidents from ever entering into sweetheart settlements with their own administration. The act is named after Acting AG Todd Blanche, who championed the corrupt deal that handed Trump a $1.776 billion slush fund in exchange for immunity from IRS audit. The legislation would also require independent courts to review any presidential "super pardon" or immunity arrangement.
• DOJ halts progress on Trump's "anti-weaponization fund" — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche informed a House committee that the Department of Justice is not advancing President Trump's proposed $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization fund." Despite media reports suggesting the fund is "dead," Blanche's comments indicate that the fund has not been officially scrapped. President Trump continues to support the initiative. The fund was intended to address perceived weaponization of government agencies, but its status remains uncertain following the DOJ's decision not to move forward.

Supporting reports

• Capitol officers sued to block $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund — Officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, who defended the Capitol on January 6, filed suit to block the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," a $1.776 billion settlement fund created as part of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The officers argue the fund is positioned to reward rioters who attacked them, including members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Their complaint invokes the 14th Amendment, which bars paying debts "incurred in aid of insurrection," and argues Trump was functionally on both sides of the case creating the fund. A judge has paused the fund until at least June 12, and no claims have been accepted.
• Complaint filed — Gordon v. Blanche (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-01907) — Two former federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia who conducted January 6 Capitol riot prosecutions filed suit challenging the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," a $1.776 billion settlement fund created by DOJ agreement with President Trump to issue payments and apologies to individuals claiming harm from alleged "lawfare and weaponization" by federal officials and employees. Plaintiffs allege the Fund brands their prosecutions as politically motivated, causing reputational and professional harm, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional grounds.

Supporting reports

• Judge reopens Trump's IRS lawsuit; orders investigation into $1.8bn settlement — Federal Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami reopened Donald Trump's $10 billion IRS lawsuit after Trump had dropped it the previous week. The reopening followed a motion from 35 former federal judges alleging the settlement—which included a "forever" bar on auditing Trump family tax returns and a controversial $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund—was "a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court." Williams ordered Trump's attorneys to respond by June 12 on whether collusion occurred and whether the case should remain reopened, and indicated DOJ officials, including acting attorney general Todd Blanche, may be compelled to testify.
• Judge Kathleen Williams ordered Trump response to judges' filing — U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered Trump's lawyers to respond to the filing by thirty-five federal judges by June 12 and to address the judges' claims that the Trumps and the Internal Revenue Service were not actually adversaries in the case. The order requires Trump's legal team to defend the legitimacy of the lawsuit that the Trump administration used to justify the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
• Federal judge orders Trump legal team to respond to IRS lawsuit filing — A federal judge ordered Trump's legal team to respond by June 12, 2026, to a Florida court filing from Judge Kathleen Williams questioning whether fraud or collusion played a role in the dismissal of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS.

Supporting reports

• Pam Bondi testifies before House committee on Epstein files handling and admits to redaction errors — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared for a transcribed deposition before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 29, 2026, to answer questions about the Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein files under her leadership. Bondi admitted to "redaction errors" in the released files but defended the department's overall compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. She stated she delegated oversight to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche rather than leading the effort herself. Democratic lawmakers reported that Bondi refused to answer questions about Donald Trump's involvement in the release or direction of redactions.
• Pam Bondi testifies before House oversight committee on DOJ's handling of Epstein files — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Oversight and Reform Committee to answer questions about the Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein case files during her tenure. Bondi testified that Todd Blanche, her deputy and Trump's nominee to replace her as attorney general, was "in charge" of the entire release of Epstein files. She acknowledged redaction errors but defended the department's commitment to transparency. Bondi also stated she had no involvement in Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer and declined to discuss conversations with Trump.
• DOJ attorney intervened to block congressional questions about Trump's role in Epstein file handling — During Bondi's appearance before the House Oversight Committee, a Department of Justice attorney sat beside the former Attorney General and personally intervened to shut down questioning whenever Democrats asked about Donald Trump's role or knowledge regarding the Epstein files. Congresswoman Stansbury (D-NM) stated that "The United States Department of Justice is intervening on behalf of Pam Bondi to stop her from answering questions about what happened in the cover-up of this case and her conversations with Donald Trump." Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) reported asking Bondi five separate times about her conversations with Trump; she refused to answer all five times due to DOJ intervention.
• Pam Bondi refused oath, filming, and questions about Trump at House Oversight Committee deposition on Epstein files — Former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 29, 2026, for a hearing on the Justice Department's handling of Jeffrey Epstein files. Bondi refused to be sworn in, refused to be filmed, and refused to answer questions about her conversations with Donald Trump regarding the Epstein investigation. A DOJ attorney sat beside her and intervened to block questions about the president. Democrats objected strenuously; Chairman James Comer (R-KY) blocked requests for oath and video recording.
• Bondi blamed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for Epstein file mishandling — During her testimony, Bondi deflected responsibility for the Justice Department's handling of Epstein files by attributing all critical decisions and failures to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. When questioned about redaction failures that exposed survivors' names while protecting Epstein's co-conspirators, and about Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer to a less secure prison facility, Bondi referred questions to Blanche and the Bureau of Prisons. The Democrats' Oversight account noted that under Bondi's tenure, one survivor's name appeared over 500 times in released documents while co-conspirators remained redacted.
• Attorney General Bondi testified on Epstein Files release compliance — Attorney General Pam Bondi testified behind closed doors before members of the House Oversight Committee regarding the Department of Justice's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi acknowledged "redaction errors" but stated the department had been "committed to accountability and transparency" since the process began. House Oversight Chair James Comer downgraded her appearance from a formal deposition to a transcribed interview, meaning she would not answer questions under oath and proceedings would not be videotaped. Bondi deflected responsibility to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in her opening statement.

Supporting reports

• Bipartisan group of ex-federal judges files lawsuit challenging Trump's $1.8bn anti-weaponization fund — Thirty-five former federal judges, including conservative J. Michael Luttig and former district judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida on May 29 seeking to reopen Trump's IRS case. They argue the $1.776bn settlement fund is "a product of collusion and a fraud on the Court," claiming Judge Kathleen Williams may have been deceived before approving it on May 18. The judges contend the fund was created to distribute taxpayer dollars to Trump's political allies, including those convicted in the January 6 Capitol riot.
• Thirty-five federal judges requested Trump lawsuit reopening — Thirty-five federal judges filed a request that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopen a legal case that Trump, his oldest sons, and the Trump Organization had brought against the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Trumps had dropped the suit, the Department of Justice used it as justification for establishing the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to compensate those claiming the legal system had been "weaponized" against them for crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The judges' filing challenges the legitimacy of the fund by questioning whether the Trumps and the IRS were actually adversaries in the case.
• Thirty-five former federal judges challenge Trump IRS settlement as fraud on the court — A group of thirty-five former federal judges, appointed by members of both political parties, filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the legal case Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The judges alleged that Trump and his organization dropped the lawsuit and announced a "settlement agreement" with the Department of Justice as a pretext to justify a $1.776 billion slush fund for paying off those convicted in connection with Trump's schemes to overturn the 2020 election results. The judges characterized the lawsuit and settlement as "fraud on the Court," noting that Trump was simultaneously the plaintiff and the person in charge of the IRS, and that the settlement lacked constitutional or congressional authority.
• Florida court ordered Trump to respond to retired federal judges' filing on slush fund — A federal court in Florida ordered President Trump to respond to a filing by 35 retired federal judges who are requesting an investigation into the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the dismissal of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS. The retired judges' filing alleges possible "collusion" in the case. This represents an early procedural victory for the judges in their challenge to the fund.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary order blocking "anti-weaponization" fund — A federal judge issued a temporary order preventing the Trump administration from establishing the nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund while a lawsuit seeking to stop it is considered. The fund, which originated from a settlement after Trump sued the IRS over disclosure of his tax returns, had been proposed to compensate individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack.
• Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's $1.8bn Anti-Weaponization Fund — US District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order on Friday barring the Trump administration from transferring money into or taking further action on a $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund." The fund was created to settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons over leaked tax returns, without the government mounting a legal defense. The order preserves the status quo pending legal arguments in a challenge brought by Democracy Forward and other plaintiffs, preventing irreversible disbursement of taxpayer funds.
• Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary order halting the Department of Justice from creating, operating, or distributing funds from the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion slush fund established by the Trump administration to compensate those convicted of crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The order prohibits the administration from transferring money to the fund, considering claims for payment, or paying out any funds. Brinkema scheduled a hearing on the case for June 12. The plaintiffs challenging the fund are people and entities prosecuted or threatened by the Trump administration who argue they are not being treated equally with Trump loyalists in compensation claims.
• Motion granted — Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) 1:26-cv-01399 — Judge Brinkema enjoined Defendants from taking any action related to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, including transferring money to the Fund, considering submitted claims, or disbursing any funds. Judge Brinkema also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited briefing and granted the Defendants' request for additional time.
• Federal Judge Brinkema temporarily blocked Trump's $1.776 billion fund for fraudsters and insurrectionists — Federal Judge Brinkema issued a temporary block on any further action involving Trump's $1.776 billion fund, preserving the status quo while litigation moves forward. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 12, 2026. The fund was characterized as being for "fraudsters and insurrectionists."
• Federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Justice from taking further action on the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded initiative. The order blocks the transfer of money to the fund, consideration of claims, and disbursement of funds while plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is pending. Judge Brinkema scheduled a hearing for June 12 to hear further arguments on the case.
• Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's $1.776 Billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from creating or operating a planned $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to compensate individuals who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the government, potentially including those Trump pardoned for Jan. 6 involvement. The order prohibits consideration of submitted claims and disbursement of funds pending a June 12 hearing.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses charges against Chicago protest defendants due to prosecutorial misconduct — U.S. District Judge April Perry dismissed charges against six people, including a Democratic congressional candidate, who were indicted for interfering with a federal agent and conspiring to interfere with a federal agent at a protest at a detention facility. Judge Perry discovered that prosecutors had conducted ex parte communications with individual grand jurors, removed jurors who refused to indict, overstated evidence strength, and then redacted transcripts to hide these actions. Perry stated she had never witnessed such prosecutorial behavior in hundreds of grand jury transcripts.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice argued for unlimited presidential firing power — Karen Lesperance, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, told Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the government's position is that the President has the power to fire anyone, even if doing so for political reasons. The statement was made in the case of Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. When Judge Furman asked whether there were any limits to presidential firing power—such as whether the President could fire people to create an "all-white executive branch" or "all-Black" executive branch—Lesperance avoided answering the question. Comey's lawyer characterized the Justice Department's position as a "novel and breathtaking theory about the scope of" presidential power.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Gill v. United States Department of Justice — Allison M. Gill, a former Department of Veterans Affairs employee, filed a complaint in the Southern District of California challenging the DOJ's establishment of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," created by settlement of Trump v. IRS on May 18, 2026. The Fund, authorized to distribute $1.776 billion from the Judgment Fund to individuals claiming harm from "Lawfare" or "Weaponization," was established without notice-and-comment rulemaking. Gill alleges the Fund Establishment Order and DOJ Notice violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to publish notice in the Federal Register or afford interested parties an opportunity to comment. She seeks declaration of APA violation, vacatur of the orders, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring implementation pending APA-compliant rulemaking, and temporary relief to prevent depletion of the Fund's corpus.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses criminal indictment against Kilmar Ábrego García, finding presumptive vindictiveness — US District Judge Waverly David Crenshaw Jr. dismissed a criminal indictment against Kilmar Ábrego García on May 23, 2026, finding that the Trump administration would not have prosecuted him had he not challenged his deportation to El Salvador. The judge determined there was sufficient evidence of "presumptive vindictiveness" based on the timing of the indictment, statements by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, and sustained DOJ oversight. Ábrego had been deported to a Salvadoran anti-terrorism prison in March 2025 despite a prior court order, then brought back to the US only after being charged with human smuggling related to a 2022 traffic stop.

Supporting reports

• Stanley Woodward Jr. signs settlement agreement on behalf of the United States — Stanley E. Woodward Jr., a defense attorney who has represented Trump associates including FBI Director Kash Patel, Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro, Walt Nauta, and numerous January 6 defendants, signed the settlement agreement on behalf of the United States rather than Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Woodward's representation of Trump's orbit creates a conflict of interest in negotiating an agreement purportedly on behalf of the government.
• Treasury Department's top lawyer Brian Morrissey resigns — Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department's top lawyer, resigned following the announcement of the Trump administration's agreement with the IRS regarding the $1.776 billion fund.
• Treasury Department general counsel resigned amid Trump settlement announcement — Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department's general counsel and a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, resigned as the government announced a controversial settlement with Trump. Morrissey, who joined the Trump administration last year as the president's pick for the position after previously serving at the agency and DOJ during Trump's first term, did not respond to requests for comment. The Treasury Department holds responsibility for approving use of the government's judgment fund, an uncapped pot of money used to settle lawsuits.

Supporting reports

• Senate Democrats request DOJ preserve documents on settlement agreement — Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats Adam Schiff (CA), Dick Durbin (IL), and Richard Blumenthal (CT) sent a memo to the Department of Justice requesting preservation of all documents and communications related to the January 6 settlement agreement and acting attorney general Todd Blanche's addendum to the original agreement.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department filed complaint against D.C. Bar disciplinary authorities challenging bar discipline of federal attorneys — The Department of Justice filed a complaint against D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility, alleging improper use of bar discipline to regulate official actions of federal government attorneys. The complaint specifically seeks to nullify bar discipline against former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark related to internal deliberations on the 2020 Presidential Election. The filing is framed as advancing President Trump's Executive Order on Weaponization of the Federal Government.
• Trump DOJ sues DC Bar Association over discipline of presidential allies — Trump's Justice Department sued the DC Bar Association for its efforts to discipline two key presidential allies: former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, who attempted to help overturn the 2020 election, and pardon attorney Ed Martin. The lawsuit claims the DC Bar is "weaponizing state bar discipline against Executive Branch attorneys" and chilling candid legal advice. The action represents retaliation against bar discipline of administration officials.

Supporting reports

• DOJ investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Powell characterized as political pressure — A federal judge blocked a DOJ criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, calling it a "mere pretext" to pressure the Federal Reserve on interest rates. The investigation reportedly focused on headquarters renovation cost overruns. The DOJ dropped the probe only after Sen. Thom Tillis refused to advance Kevin Warsh's Fed nomination until the investigation ended. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, who ended the investigation, stated she would restart a criminal investigation "should the facts warrant doing so."
• Senate scheduled to vote on Kevin Warsh's Federal Reserve Board nomination — The Senate is scheduled to vote on May 12, 2026, on Kevin Warsh's nomination to a 14-year term on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, following a 49-44 procedural vote on May 11. The nomination has drawn criticism over concerns about Fed independence, including a DOJ criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell that a federal judge called a "pretext" to pressure the Fed on interest rates. The investigation was dropped only after Sen. Thom Tillis refused to advance Warsh until it ended. The Senate Banking Committee advanced Warsh on a party-line vote, 13-11, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren calling it the first fully partisan committee vote on a Fed Chair nominee in the committee's history.

Supporting reports

• Fired judges file suit challenging terminations; Merit Systems Protection Board denies jurisdiction — A group of fired immigration judges filed suit against the Department of Justice challenging the administration's authority to terminate immigration judges without cause or explanation. The Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent federal agency created to protect federal employees from political termination, ruled it had no jurisdiction to review the removals. The fired judges are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing the decision departs from more than a century of civil service precedent protecting judges from at-will removal.

Supporting reports

• Fired judges file suit challenging terminations; Merit Systems Protection Board denies jurisdiction — A group of fired immigration judges filed suit against the Department of Justice challenging the administration's authority to terminate immigration judges without cause or explanation. The Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent federal agency created to protect federal employees from political termination, ruled it had no jurisdiction to review the removals. The fired judges are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing the decision departs from more than a century of civil service precedent protecting judges from at-will removal.

Supporting reports

• National Trust for Historic Preservation accused DOJ of lying to court — The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is seeking to halt construction of Trump's ballroom, filed a scathing rebuke to a DOJ motion accusing the government of making false statements to the court. The National Trust specifically refuted three claims: that it had been shown detailed non-public plans (it had not), that the military had requested it not file the suit due to classified nature (the military made no such request), and that the lawsuit endangered presidential security (calling the claim "utterly unprofessional" and "reckless"). The filing noted that construction has continued unabated with no pause despite the pending injunction.

Supporting reports

• Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche asked Supreme Court to intervene in E. Jean Carroll case — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Department of Justice would ask the Supreme Court to permit the DOJ to intervene in the defamation case brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll, who won an $83.3 million jury verdict against Trump for defamation after he falsely denied sexually assaulting her. If the Supreme Court allows the DOJ to substitute itself for Trump as defendant, the case would be dismissed because plaintiffs cannot sue the federal government for defamation. Appeals court judges had already refused to permit such a substitution.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Poe v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-01552) — A transgender woman incarcerated in a men's facility filed suit in D.D.C. challenging a December 2, 2025 memorandum by DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance that suspended Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) regulations protecting transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming incarcerated people. The plaintiff alleges she has been sexually assaulted, subjected to unwanted sexual contact, and strip-searched by male officers following removal of those protections. She contends the memorandum violates the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing a substantive rule change without notice-and-comment rulemaking and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to restore the suspended regulations.