Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Secretary Hegseth provides inconsistent testimony on Iran war objectives — During Senate Appropriations Committee testimony, Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) questioned Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about statements made early in the Iran conflict claiming core objectives were to "destroy the missile threat" and "obliterate Iran's missiles and drones." Hegseth had declared four months earlier that all objectives had been achieved. When pressed, Hegseth declined to confirm whether the missile threat had been defeated, instead redefining "combat ineffective" to mean Iran could not deploy missiles at scale against the United States. Ossoff noted that Hegseth had assured the American people of Iranian surrender on day nine of the war and asked whether his statement that Iran's military had been "destroyed and made combat ineffective" was truthful.
• Senator Murray challenged Hegseth's claim that Iran's missile program is "functionally destroyed." — Senator Patty Murray cited Hegseth's April 8 statement that Iran's missile program was "functionally destroyed" with "launchers, production facilities and existing stockpiles depleted and decimated." She noted that Iran has been firing missiles at U.S. military bases and ships for the past week, contradicting Hegseth's assessment. Hegseth responded only that "Iran is at the weakest point militarily it has ever been in in the past decade."
• Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Caine testified on $1.5 trillion DOD budget request. — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine testified before the Senate to defend a $1.5 trillion DOD budget request—nearly double the 2024 budget of $841 billion. Hegseth stated "not funding this department at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat our nation faces," while Caine acknowledged air power has limits in achieving military objectives.
• Senator Durbin questioned unobligated DOD funding and "woke priorities" pivot. — Senator Dick Durbin asked Hegseth about $75 billion in unobligated DOD funding from the prior year's reconciliation package. Hegseth acknowledged the figure and stated "There's plans and designs on that - move away from all the woke priorities of what the Biden admin was pursuing," indicating funds would be redirected away from diversity and inclusion initiatives.
• Senator Merkley pressed Caine on civilian infrastructure targeting in retaliation. — Senator Jeff Merkley questioned Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine on whether the U.S. would target civilian infrastructure in retaliatory strikes, noting that international law prohibits such targeting. Caine responded only that "we have a robust process," declining to provide explicit assurance that civilian infrastructure would be protected.
• Senator Murray questioned necessity of National Guard funding and Caribbean strikes for Iran war. — Senator Patty Murray asked Hegseth why "billions of dollars more for the National Guard and this administration's illegal strikes in the Caribbean" are urgently needed for the Iran war. Hegseth responded by blaming "gross negligence and neglect of the Biden admin" without addressing the substance of her question about the connection between Caribbean operations and Iran conflict.
• Senator Reed challenged Hegseth on war authorization and Strait of Hormuz contingencies. — Senator Jack Reed accused Hegseth of "gross negligence" for failing to fully inform Trump that the Strait of Hormuz could be effectively closed by Iranian action. Reed questioned whether Trump should be "praised for starting war without authority" and creating conditions where "the world economy is suffering tremendously," challenging the administration's failure to obtain congressional authorization.
• Senator Reed questioned whether airstrikes alone will defeat Iran; Caine declined to address ground troop escalation. — Senator Jack Reed asked Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine whether airstrikes alone would defeat Iran. Caine acknowledged that "air power has got limits" but declined to address whether ground combat escalation would follow, stating "I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypotheticals."

Supporting reports

• Senator Slotkin said she is under federal investigation — Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said in an interview that federal prosecutors are investigating her for participating in a video with other Democratic lawmakers calling on military members to refuse illegal orders.
• DOJ threatens Federal Reserve with criminal indictment over interest rate policy — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell publicly stated that the Department of Justice threatened criminal charges against the Fed related to a multi-year renovation project of Federal Reserve office buildings. Powell characterized the threat as retaliation for the Fed's decision to set interest rates based on economic conditions rather than presidential preference, stating the threat was "a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President."
• Federal investigation opened against Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin for video urging troops to refuse illegal orders — Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin announced she is under federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for her participation in a video released in 2025 in which she and five other Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds urged U.S. troops to refuse unlawful orders. The video's message aligns with established military law and constitutional principle. President Trump called the video "seditious behavior by traitors" punishable by death; the White House later clarified he did not seek execution but wanted them "held accountable." Slotkin characterized the investigation as weaponization of federal government to intimidate political opponents.
• Senator Elissa Slotkin faces federal criminal investigation for oath video — Senator Elissa Slotkin is now under federal criminal investigation for appearing in a video urging service members to remember their oath and refuse illegal orders. The investigation represents potential criminalization of speech encouraging military personnel to uphold constitutional obligations and refuse unlawful commands.
• Four additional Democratic lawmakers said they are under investigation — Four additional Democratic lawmakers said they are being investigated by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia over their participation in a viral video calling on military members to refuse illegal orders.
• Trump DOJ investigates Democratic lawmakers over military video on illegal orders — Three House Democrats—Jason Crow (Colorado), Maggie Goodlander (New Hampshire), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pennsylvania)—confirmed that the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C., led by Jeanine Pirro, requested interviews regarding their participation in a November video instructing troops they need not comply with illegal orders. The investigation expands to five lawmakers total; the Pentagon also formally censured Senator Mark Kelly and launched administrative proceedings. Trump called the video "seditious" and threatened capital punishment, later walking back but maintaining the lawmakers face "serious jeopardy."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's argument to deploy federalized National Guard in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's legal argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The decision limited Trump's authority to use military forces within the United States without explicit congressional authorization or state consent.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's National Guard deployment authority in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The 6-3 decision blocked the administration's attempt to militarize American cities without state consent.
• Supreme Court rejects Trump's National Guard deployment in Illinois as unlawful — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 preliminary ruling that President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in the Chicago area beginning in October violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The majority held that a president must first attempt to execute laws using regular U.S. military forces and may deploy the National Guard only if unable to do so with regular forces. The Court found the Government failed to identify statutory or constitutional authority permitting military enforcement of laws in Illinois.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump's National Guard deployment for immigration enforcement in Illinois — The Supreme Court rejected Trump's deployment of the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement in Illinois, ruling that federal law limits use of the National Guard to situations where regular military forces are insufficient. The majority found that the President does not have inherent authority to deploy the military to protect ICE property. Three justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) dissented.
• Supreme Court blocks Trump administration from deploying National Guard in Illinois — The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois as part of his mass immigration crackdown, ruling that the government "failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois." The decision represents a rare judicial check on executive power in the Trump administration.
• Supreme Court Denies Stay in Trump v. Illinois — On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Illinois. This decision upheld a lower court's order that barred the Trump administration from deploying the federalized National Guard in Illinois for immigration enforcement actions. The case arose after the Trump administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement in Chicago, which was challenged by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court's denial means the federal government cannot deploy the National Guard in Illinois pending further legal proceedings. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the decision.
• US Supreme Court blocks Trump national guard deployment to Chicago — The US Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower court order blocking the deployment of national guard troops to the Chicago area. In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that the government failed to meet the legal burden required to show it could not enforce immigration laws without federal military intervention. The decision upholds a ruling by US District Judge April Perry from October and signals potential impact on similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard members to Los Angeles and ordered that control over California's National Guard be returned to Governor Gavin Newsom. The Trump administration had claimed that protests against immigration enforcement constituted a rebellion, justifying seizure of control over the state's National Guard without Newsom's consent. The ruling reflects a pattern in which courts have found the administration exceeded its legal authority in federalizing state National Guard units.
• Judge blocks Trump administration's federalized national guard deployment in Los Angeles — US District Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, December 11, 2025, ordering the return of approximately 100 remaining California national guard troops to state control. The Trump administration had federalized the guard in June 2025, deploying roughly 4,000 troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration-related protests, over the objection of Governor Gavin Newsom. Breyer rejected the administration's claim that protests constituted a "rebellion" justifying federal takeover, finding the deployment illegal and the rationale no longer valid. The injunction takes effect Monday, December 15, 2025.

Supporting reports

• Federal court rejects Trump's authority to independently mobilize D.C. National Guard for policing — On November 20, a federal court rejected Trump's assertion that he had the right to independently mobilize the D.C. National Guard for routine police work. The judge found that the deployment of more than 2,000 Guard troops to Washington was unlawful and violated the District's right to govern itself, establishing a significant legal constraint on the president's domestic military deployment authority.
• Court ruled National Guard deployment in Washington D.C. illegal but stayed order pending government appeal — On November 20, 2025, a court ruled that the deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia was illegal but stayed the order ending the deployment until December 11 to permit the government to appeal the decision.
• Case update — District of Columbia v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03005 — Judge Cobb temporarily blocked the administration from using the D.C. National Guard for crime control in the District and from using out-of-state Guards. The order is slated to take effect on Dec. 11 in order to “permit orderly proceedings on appeal.”

Supporting reports

• Case update — Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12174 — The administration filed an emergency appeal of the district court's order to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for the order enjoining the deployment to be stayed and requesting an immediate administrative stay (Case No. 25A443 ). Describing the protests in Chicago as “prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance”, the administration argued that the lower court decision “improperly impinges on the president's authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.” The filing contends that only the President can determine whether the conditions for federalizing troops has been met and that the Seventh Circuit had placed itself “in the untenable position of controlling the military chain of command and judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President's Commander-in-Chief powers.” The Supreme Court instructed the State of Illinois and City of Chicago to file their responses by 5pm on Monday, Oct. 20.
• Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court for immediate deployment of National Guard in Chicago — On Friday, October 17, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting an immediate order to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago. The administration claimed a "pressing risk of violence" in the city and argued that preventing deployment "improperly impinges on the President's authority." Four judges—two appointed by Democrats and two by Republicans—had previously rejected the administration's arguments for military deployment. The DOJ sought a decision on the shadow docket, which would bypass hearings and explanation.

Supporting reports

• Motion granted — Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12174 — The Seventh Circuit denied the request for an administrative stay as to the deployment of the federalized National Guard to Chicago. However, the appeals court granted an administrative stay for the part of the lower court order blocking the federalization of the Guard. “Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so,” the appellate court said in its brief order.
• Federal appeals court temporarily paused part of lower court order on National Guard federalization in Chicago — A federal appeals court temporarily paused part of a lower judge's order prohibiting the Trump administration from federalizing National Guard troops in Chicago, but left in place a block on their active deployment in the city. The court wrote that troops "do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so," allowing a partial continuation of the federalization process while maintaining restrictions on active deployment.
• A federal appeals court blocked deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago. — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday blocked the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area in response to protests at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. The court upheld a ruling from U.S. District Judge April Perry earlier in the week denying the White House's request to deploy National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago. The Trump administration had vowed to crack down on the protests, but the court found the deployment request lacked legal justification.
• Federal appeals court halts national guard deployment in Illinois while allowing troops to remain — An appeals court ruled Saturday that national guard troops sent by Trump to Illinois may remain in the state under federal control but cannot be deployed, pausing the case pending further arguments. This followed federal judge April Perry's Thursday ruling temporarily blocking the deployment for two weeks, finding no evidence of "danger of rebellion" in Illinois. The decision upholds constitutional protections against military involvement in domestic policing and state sovereignty under the 10th and 14th Amendments.
• Federal court blocks National Guard deployment to Illinois — A federal court ruling this week prevented the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard troops to Chicago, despite the administration's push to use military forces for immigration enforcement. The deployment was opposed by Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, who argued it violated state sovereignty and was unnecessary.
• Case update — Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12174 — The Seventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion denying the administration's request to stay a district court order that blocked deployment of the Illinois National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The court agreed with the lower court that the President's Oct. 4 federalization order , issued to suppress protests against “Operation Midway Blitz,” lacked statutory justification finding that the demonstrations at an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, did not constitute a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” nor did they show the President was “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” The panel rejected the claim of unreviewable presidential discretion and found the administration unlikely to prevail under § 12406 or the Tenth Amendment. While allowing Guard troops to remain temporarily under federal control, the court kept in force the injunction barring their deployment in Illinois pending appeal.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocked National Guard deployment to Portland — The White House justified a proposed National Guard deployment to Portland by characterizing the city as "war-ravaged." The Portland police chief publicly contradicted this characterization, stating "I would not say Portland's war-ravaged." A federal judge blocked the deployment, finding the justification insufficient. The article notes that Portland residents responded by appearing in the city in costume and character, treating the "war zone" designation as unfounded.
• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's National Guard deployment to Illinois — U.S. District Judge April Perry, appointed by President Biden, issued a temporary injunction on October 9 blocking the Trump administration's order to deploy 300 federalized Illinois National Guard members to the state. The judge raised doubts about the administration's justification for the deployment, questioning its explanation in light of local conditions. Illinois and Chicago had jointly sued to stop the deployment. A federal appeals court later upheld Perry's decision on Thursday, October 17, keeping the deployment blocked while legal challenges proceed.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge allows Texas National Guard deployment to Chicago to proceed while Illinois lawsuit pending — U.S. District Judge April Perry declined to immediately block the deployment of Texas National Guard troops to Chicago in response to a lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul against the Trump administration. The judge allowed the federal government to continue the deployment while it responds to Illinois's suit, setting a midnight Wednesday deadline for the government's reply. Texas Guard members departed Fort Bliss on Monday evening; Illinois Governor JB Pritzker stated the administration had not consulted him and called it "Trump's invasion."
• Federal judge declines to block National Guard deployment to Chicago — U.S. District Judge April Perry declined to immediately block Texas National Guard troops from entering Chicago on October 7, 2025, despite a pending lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the city of Chicago seeking to stop the deployment. The judge's refusal to grant an injunction allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mobilizing troops to the city.
• Federal judge holds hearing on legality of Chicago national guard deployment — U.S. District Judge April Perry held a hearing in downtown Chicago on the constitutionality of the national guard deployment after Illinois and Chicago officials filed to declare it illegal. State and city attorneys argued the deployment violates the Constitution and represents a "constitutional crisis," while a Department of Justice lawyer defended it as necessary due to "tragic lawlessness." The hearing drew heavy public turnout requiring an overflow room.
• Judge Ellis restricts federal agents' use of force in northern Illinois — US District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction restricting federal agents' use of force against protesters and journalists in northern Illinois who do not pose a serious threat. The order prohibits pepper balls, rubber bullets, and physical force such as pulling, shoving, or tackling. Ellis also required federal agents to wear visible identification such as badges, addressing concerns about masked plainclothes officers conducting immigration enforcement operations.
• Judge Perry temporarily blocks Trump's national guard deployment in Chicago — US District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from federalizing or deploying the national guard in Illinois. The order, effective Thursday and lasting two weeks, came after the state of Illinois sued over Trump's directive to send hundreds of troops to Chicago for immigration enforcement and crime reduction. Perry found no credible evidence of rebellion in Illinois and criticized the Department of Homeland Security's characterization of events as "simply unreliable." The White House stated it would appeal.
• U.S. District Judge April M. Perry blocks federal National Guard deployment in Chicago for two weeks — U.S. District Judge April M. Perry issued a temporary restraining order halting the federal deployment of 200 National Guard troops from Texas and 300 from Illinois in and around Chicago for two weeks. Perry stated: "I have found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois." She cited grand jury refusals to indict protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement and questioned the Department of Homeland Security's credibility and assessment of conditions in Chicago.
• Grand juries refuse to indict Chicago protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement — Grand juries in Chicago, including one on Tuesday night, refused to indict protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement. Judge Perry cited these refusals in her decision to block the federal National Guard deployment, stating they cast doubt on the Department of Homeland Security's credibility and assessment of conditions in Chicago. The grand jury refusals suggest local juries do not view the alleged assaults as warranting criminal charges.

Supporting reports

• Trump signs Executive Order 14339 establishing specialized federal law enforcement and National Guard units for District of Columbia crime emergency response. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14339 on August 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to deploy additional resources to address crime in Washington, D.C. The order mandates hiring of U.S. Park Police and federal prosecutors, establishes an online recruitment portal for law enforcement applicants, creates specialized federal and D.C. National Guard units for public safety enforcement, directs HUD to investigate housing authority compliance with safety requirements, and instructs the Attorney General to review and recommend changes to Metropolitan Police Department General Orders. The order references prior emergency declarations and authorizes potential deployment of state National Guard units nationwide.
• Trump executive order on National Guard civil disturbance response — On August 25, President Trump signed an executive order directing the secretary of defense to ensure that each state's Army National Guard and Air National Guard are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring public safety and order. The order also mandates establishment of a standing National Guard quick reaction force resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment.
• Trump issued executive order directing federal law enforcement expansion and National Guard mobilization in Washington, D.C. — President Trump signed an executive order on August 25, 2025, directing the National Park Service to hire additional U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. to hire prosecutors focused on violent and property crimes, and the Department of Defense to create and train a specialized National Guard unit in D.C. dedicated to public safety. The order also directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure all state National Guard units are resourced and available for rapid deployment to assist law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances nationwide, and instructs HUD to investigate housing authority non-compliance with safety requirements.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14339 directing federal law enforcement expansion and National Guard mobilization in Washington, D.C. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14339 on August 25, 2025, directing the National Park Service to hire additional U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. to hire prosecutors focused on violent crime, and the Department of Defense to create and train a specialized D.C. National Guard unit under Title 32 activation. The order also directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure all state National Guard units are resourced and available for rapid nationwide deployment to quell civil disturbances, establishes a standing National Guard quick reaction force, and instructs HUD to investigate housing authority compliance with crime-prevention requirements. The order references a prior crime emergency declaration (Executive Order 14333 of August 11, 2025).
• Trump expands law enforcement takeover in DC — Trump signed a fourth executive order expanding his takeover of law enforcement in DC, directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "ensure the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment."
• Trump signs executive order priming National Guard for rapid mobilization — President Trump signed an executive order on an unspecified date that primes the National Guard "for rapid mobilization" across the country. The order follows Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and signals potential deployment to Chicago. Trump justified the moves by claiming he has authority to act when he believes the country is in danger, stating "I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the President of the United States of America."

Supporting reports

• Federal court ruling against military deployment in Los Angeles — A federal judge ruled that control of national guard troops and US marines deployed to Los Angeles should return to California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. This ruling was in response to California's lawsuit against the Trump administration's deployment of troops to the city. However, an appeals court has stayed the ruling, allowing the troops to remain under federal control for the time being. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested he might not comply with the court's decision, indicating a potential constitutional crisis.
• Appeals court rules in favor of Trump on National Guard deployment — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of President Trump, allowing him to maintain control over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. This decision overturned a temporary restraining order by US District Judge Charles Breyer, who had previously ruled that Trump acted illegally by deploying the troops without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom. The appellate court found that the Trump administration provided sufficient evidence of violent acts by protesters to justify federalizing the troops. The ruling allows the federal control of the California National Guard to continue as the lawsuit proceeds.
• Federal Appeals Court Rules on National Guard Control — A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump can temporarily maintain control over California's National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The decision affects state-federal military relations.

Supporting reports

• US Department of Justice drops corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams — US District Judge Dale Ho dismissed the Department of Justice's corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams on April 2, 2025, with prejudice (meaning charges cannot be refiled). The dismissal followed weeks of controversy over the Trump administration pressuring prosecutors to drop charges in apparent exchange for Adams' cooperation on immigration enforcement. Judge Ho noted the arrangement "smacks of a bargain" and violated prosecutorial independence norms. Senior prosecutors had resigned rather than comply with orders to dismiss the case.
• DOJ dismisses corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams — At the request of Trump's Justice Department, a federal judge on April 2 dismissed the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be brought against him again. The judge wrote that "everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions."
• Federal agents arrest Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan — In April 2025, federal agents arrested Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, alleging she "intentionally misdirected" federal agents away from a Mexican immigrant appearing in state court. FBI Director Kash Patel personally announced Dugan's arrest before an affidavit had been filed. After the arrest, Attorney General Pam Bondi stated the Trump administration was "sending a very strong message" to judges who "think they are beyond and above the law."