Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Senator Mark Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for military censure in retaliation for protected speech — Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Defense Department, Navy Secretary John Phelan, and the Navy Department, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights, the Speech and Debate Clause, separation of powers, due process, federal law governing retired officer ranks (10 USC 1370), and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit challenges Hegseth's January 5 formal censure of Kelly, which followed Kelly's November 18 participation in a video with five other Democratic veterans in Congress warning military and intelligence personnel that they have a legal duty to refuse unlawful orders. The lawsuit seeks to declare the censure and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional, vacate them, and enjoin their enforcement.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Kelly v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00081 — Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Sen. Kelly sued Secretary Hegseth to block reduction of his Navy rank and retirement pay for protected speech — Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seeking an injunction to prevent unilateral reduction of Kelly's Navy rank and retirement pay in retaliation for a video urging service members not to follow unlawful orders. Kelly's complaint alleges First Amendment violation, retaliation for protected legislative speech, and an unprecedented executive attack on congressional independence and military oversight authority.
• Senator Kelly sued Defense Secretary Hegseth over military retaliation — Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon to block their efforts to punish him for a video he participated in last year with other Democratic lawmakers calling on military members to refuse illegal orders, asking a federal judge to find the move "unlawful and unconstitutional."
• Mark Kelly sues Hegseth over military rank reduction and pension censure — Democratic Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit in Washington DC federal court challenging Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's formal censure and threatened demotion/pension reduction. The censure targeted Kelly and five other military-veteran lawmakers for a November video urging service members to resist unlawful orders. Kelly argues the action violates free speech, legislative independence, and separation of powers. The lawsuit names Hegseth, the Department of Defense, the Navy, and Navy Secretary John Phelan as defendants and seeks to vacate the censure and all related actions.
• Senator Mark Kelly files lawsuit against Defense Secretary Hegseth over retaliation for protected speech — Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attempt to reduce his rank and pension as punishment for the video urging troops to refuse illegal orders. Kelly characterized Hegseth's actions as an "unconstitutional crusade" that sends a chilling message to retired military members that speaking against the administration will result in loss of rank and pay. Kelly argued that such retaliation violates constitutional protections and sets a dangerous precedent for suppressing military veterans' free speech.
• Pentagon censures Senator Mark Kelly and launches administrative proceedings — Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth formally censured Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, in January and initiated administrative proceedings that could result in rank reduction and pension cuts. Kelly participated in the same November video about military duty to illegal orders. Kelly has responded with litigation arguing the Pentagon's actions violate constitutional protections.

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

• Senate Democrats sent letter on Pentagon investigation of Senator Kelly — On December 9, Senate Democrats on the Armed Services Committee sent a letter to Navy Secretary John Phelan calling the Pentagon's investigation into Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) over a viral video where he and other Democratic lawmakers urged military members to refuse illegal orders "an outright, brazen abuse of power," and added that the review "amount[s] to a purely political exercise seeking to threaten legitimate and lawful actions…and politicize our military justice system."

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks national guard deployment to Portland — US District Judge Karin Immergut issued a restraining order on Saturday blocking the Trump administration from deploying federalized national guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The judge, nominated by Trump, agreed with Oregon's assertion that deploying national guard troops would likely inflame rather than calm protests, similar to effects observed in 2020.
• Judge Immergut blocks Oregon National Guard deployment — U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a ruling blocking the deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. She declared that "the President's determination" that law enforcement could not execute the laws of the United States "was simply untethered to the facts." Immergut wrote that the nation is "a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law" and warned that the administration's arguments "risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation."
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut granted a temporary restraining order blocking the Sept. 28 memorandum ordering the federalization and deployment of Oregon National Guard service members to Portland. In granting the TRO, the court found that the administration likely exceeded its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the Tenth Amendment. On Oct. 5, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the State of California and moved for a second temporary restraining order after the administration ordered the deployment of the California National Guard to Oregon under the same authority, seeking to circumvent the initial order. Judge Immergut quickly granted the second TRO, extending her order to prohibit the deployment of any federalized members of the National Guard in Oregon, regardless of their state origin. The administration has announced it intends to appeal both decisions.
• Federal judge temporarily blocked National Guard deployment to Oregon — Federal Judge Karin Immergut temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Oregon, writing that the president and his officials "have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation." In response, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller tweeted that the decision amounted to "legal insurrection" and claimed that the refusal of Portland and Oregon law enforcement to cooperate with ICE officials is "an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers."
• Federal judge blocks Trump administration national guard deployment to Portland — US District Judge Karin Immergut issued a restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying 200 federalized Oregon National Guard members to Portland. Trump had announced the deployment on September 27, citing unrest at an ICE office. Oregon's attorney general filed suit, arguing the deployment would violate the Constitution and federal law prohibiting military enforcement of domestic law. The judge agreed the deployment would likely inflame rather than calm protests, contradicting the administration's characterization of Portland as a war zone when recent protests had been "sedate" with fewer than a dozen participants.
• Judge Immergut issues emergency order blocking federalized National Guard deployment — Both California and Oregon requested that Judge Immergut stop the Trump administration from circumventing her initial ruling by deploying California National Guard troops to Oregon. On Sunday evening, Judge Immergut held an emergency hearing on the deployment and issued an order forbidding the deployment of any federalized National Guard troops from any state to Oregon for 14 days.
• Federal judge blocked military deployment to Portland — U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that the Trump administration failed to satisfy legal requirements to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon. The judge wrote that the order was necessary to preserve America's "longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs." The judge found the President's determination "simply untethered to the facts" and "not conceived in good faith," noting the administration risked blurring the line between civil and military federal power.
• Judge Immergut broadened order blocking National Guard deployments nationwide — Judge Immergut broadened her order to block the Trump administration from sending National Guard troops from any state or DC to Oregon, and told Justice Department lawyers that Trump's effort to do so was "in direct contravention" of her decision. The ruling came after Trump tried to send hundreds of California National Guard troops to Oregon, and another 400 members of the Texas National Guard to cities including Portland and Chicago.
• Federal judge blocks Trump administration deployment of national guard to Oregon — US District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying federalized California national guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The order, effective until at least October 19, came hours after California Governor Gavin Newsom announced he would sue President Trump over the planned deployment. The judge found no evidence that recent protests necessitated the deployment and questioned how federalizing out-of-state guard units would not violate her prior day's order blocking Oregon's own guard deployment to Portland.
• — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut's Oct. 4 Temporary Restraining Order blocking the Sept. 28 memorandum authorizing the federalization of the Oregon National Guard. Because the Oregon National Guard had already been federalized, the court said, the “administrative stay will best preserve the status quo” while the appeal is pending. Today's order does not address the underlying merits or Judge Immergut's further Oct. 5 order , which prevents the deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops to Oregon.

Supporting reports

• California governor files preliminary injunction to block extended national guard deployment — Following Judge Breyer's ruling, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a preliminary injunction on September 2 seeking to block the Trump administration's extension of national guard troops' deployment in Los Angeles through the November election. Newsom argued there was no justification for continued military presence against communities. Approximately 300 troops remained deployed at the time, down from thousands sent in June.
• Federal judge rules Trump administration illegally deployed national guard in Los Angeles — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court ruled that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) by deploying thousands of national guard troops to accompany federal immigration agents on raids in Los Angeles in June 2025. The ruling, effective September 12, barred troops from conducting arrests, searches, crowd control, and other law-enforcement functions. California Governor Gavin Newsom had filed suit in June, arguing the deployment constituted militarization of domestic streets. The Trump administration vowed to appeal.
• Judge Breyer ruled Trump administration's use of military in Los Angeles violated Posse Comitatus Act — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally when they deployed the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles. The judge found that armed soldiers set up protective perimeters, traffic blockages, and engaged in crowd control, directly violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. military to execute domestic law. The judge noted that 300 troops remain in Los Angeles and warned that Trump and Hegseth have stated their intention to deploy National Guard troops in other cities, "thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief." Breyer prohibited the defendants from deploying or using military or National Guard troops to execute laws and stayed the order until noon September 12 to allow appeal.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's LA military deployment violated Posse Comitatus Act — A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment of the military to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the army from performing domestic law enforcement actions without authorization from Congress. While the judge noted that it's legal to deploy the officials to protect federal property, he said that Trump is using the military as a "national police force with the President as its chief."
• Judge Blocks Military Deployment for Law Enforcement in Los Angeles — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer issued a ruling that prohibited the Trump administration from using military troops for law enforcement in Los Angeles, citing violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge's order prevents the deployment of National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement activities, emphasizing the need to uphold legal boundaries between military and civilian roles.
• Judge Rules Against Trump's Use of Military for Domestic Law Enforcement — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally by deploying the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles to enforce domestic law, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge prohibited the use of military troops for law enforcement activities and warned against creating a national police force under presidential control.
• Judge rules Trump violated federal law in Los Angeles national guard deployment — A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that President Trump violated federal law when he deployed thousands of national guard troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer during protests against ICE operations. The ruling represents a legal challenge to Trump's authority to unilaterally deploy military forces domestically without proper statutory authorization or state consent.
• Federal judge rules Trump's military deployment to Los Angeles unlawful — A federal judge found that Trump illegally deployed thousands of military troops to Los Angeles in June and barred the Pentagon from using National Guard and Marines for police functions such as arrests and crowd control. The order takes effect September 12. The ruling upheld California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit challenging the deployment as a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military use in domestic law enforcement.