Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Attorney General Blanche would not rule out challenging votes — Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to rule out the possibility of challenging some votes, leaving open the option of legal action to contest election results. The refusal to foreclose vote challenges raises questions about the DOJ's commitment to accepting electoral outcomes.

Supporting reports

• US Department of Justice sues California to block tabulation of ballots allegedly cast by noncitizens — The US Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California seeking a court order to prevent the state from tabulating certain ballots in the midterm elections. The suit followed a demand sent to Los Angeles County officials on Tuesday containing a thumb drive with purported names of over 20,000 noncitizens registered to vote, with a 48-hour deadline to verify citizenship. Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber both refused to act on the unverified list, citing lack of methodology and security concerns. The DOJ seeks an injunction requiring California to set aside and independently verify citizenship status of flagged voters before tabulation.
• Justice Department Sues State of California over Voter List — The Department of Justice announced this on 2026-10-15 through Office of the Attorney General. The recorded stage is a complaint filed. The allegations are unadjudicated; this documents the announcement, not the truth of any allegation. The department's own account of it reads: "The Justice Department, working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), today filed a complaint against the State of California over its voter list after determining that more than 20,000 people who are likely aliens are registered to vote in California. Under California law, every registered voter is mailed a ballot. It is unlawful for aliens to vote in federal elections."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court schedules Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota for December argument — The Supreme Court agreed to hear Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota in December 2026. The case, backed by the Trump Justice Department, challenges whether Arizona may cancel voter registrations of individuals deemed noncitizens during the 90-day quiet period before Election Day. The conservative justices noted in a footnote that they will consider the scope of the quiet period in this separate case and did not need to decide it in the earlier ruling.

Supporting reports

• DNC files lawsuit challenging Pentagon's FPCA modifications — The Democratic National Committee filed a federal lawsuit in Washington DC on October 2, 2026, seeking to overturn the Pentagon's August modifications to the Federal Post Card Application. The DNC argues the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing standard rulemaking procedures, failing to allow public comment, and implementing changes without proper deliberation. The lawsuit requests a judicial declaration that the government violated the APA and asks the court to set aside the form modifications before the 2026 midterm elections.
• Trump administration initially planned more restrictive mail-in voting requirements — ProPublica reported that Trump's mail-in voting restrictions were initially far more expansive than the final executive order. The administration had wanted to require all ballots be delivered through certified mail, which would have resulted in undelivered ballots if voters were not home to sign for them. Postal Service officials were excluded from important discussions as the Trump administration finalized its executive order on mail-in voting.
• Trump administration removed voter registration option for citizens born abroad — The Democratic National Committee sued the Trump administration after it changed a federal voter form to remove the option for U.S. citizens born abroad who have never lived in the U.S. to register to vote and request a mail ballot. The lawsuit also revealed that the Trump administration removed information from a federal voter assistance guide about which states allow "never resided" voters to register.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court schedules Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota for December argument — The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled the case Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota for argument in December. In that case, the Republican National Committee, backed by the Trump Justice Department, argues that Arizona may cancel the registrations of voters it deems noncitizens during the 90-day quiet period before Election Day. The Trump DOJ has already signaled it will argue that the quiet period does not apply to efforts by a state to remove noncitizens, and that "systematic checks within the 90-day window are the only way" for states to keep noncitizens off the rolls.

Supporting reports

• Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denies stay blocking Trump-backed Missouri redistricting map — On September 10, 2026, a federal appeals court panel (Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals) declined to block the temporary restraining order issued by Judge Stephen Clark, allowing Missouri to proceed with using the Trump-backed congressional map in November's midterm elections. The decision came after the conservative group People Not Politicians filed an emergency stay request. The ruling left state election officials without legal clarity and prompted an immediate appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court receives emergency appeal challenging Missouri redistricting map — On September 10, 2026, opponents of Missouri's Trump-backed congressional redistricting map filed an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court after the Eighth Circuit declined to block the map's use in November's midterm elections. The appeal follows a series of conflicting rulings across four courts, including a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision blocking the map and a federal judge's TRO ordering its use. The Supreme Court must act within weeks before the November elections.

Supporting reports

• Missouri federal judge issues temporary restraining order requiring use of Trump-backed congressional maps in November elections — US District Judge Stephen Clark issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on September 8, 2026, ordering Missouri to use newly drawn congressional districts favoring Republicans in the November general election, overriding the state supreme court's ruling that the maps must go to voters for approval. The TRO cited voter confusion and fairness concerns from using different maps in the primary versus general election. The order was immediately appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, creating conflicting legal directives days before the election.
• Missouri federal judge orders use of Trump-backed congressional map despite state supreme court block — On September 9, 2026, federal district judge Stephen Clark (Eastern District of Missouri) issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring Missouri to use newly drawn congressional districts favoring Republicans in the November midterm elections, overriding a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruling that had blocked the same maps. The TRO cited potential voter confusion if different maps were used for the general election versus the August primary. The decision triggered immediate appeals to the Eighth Circuit and US Supreme Court, leaving state election officials without legal clarity weeks before the election.

Supporting reports

• DOJ solicitor general appeals mail voting injunction to Supreme Court — John Sauer, the DOJ's solicitor general, filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on September 6 seeking to lift Judge Talwani's permanent injunction and permit Trump's USPS rules restricting mail voting to take effect. Sauer argued the freeze would cause "serious, irreparable harm" and claimed the order merely imposes "reasonable preparation requirements" rather than seizing control of state election administration, contradicting the judge's findings.
• Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to restrict mail-in voting ahead of midterms — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court on Sunday seeking to overturn a federal judge's injunction blocking enforcement of an executive order restricting mail-in voting. US District Judge Indira Talwani had extended the court order on Friday preventing the USPS from enforcing Trump's March executive order, which would limit ballot delivery to voters on a federal DHS-approved list. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that ballots already mailing in multiple states risked "confusion and chaos" if the injunction remained in place. This marks the third Supreme Court appeal on the matter.

Supporting reports

• Speaker Johnson cancels House votes for final two weeks of September — House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) canceled all votes scheduled for the final two weeks of September, leaving the House with only four additional days in Washington before the midterm elections. The cancellation shields Republicans from having to vote on or publicly address Trump's controversial statements, including claims of victory in Iran, threats against journalists, and assertions about the economy.

Supporting reports

• Solicitor General Sauer petitions Supreme Court to enforce USPS ballot restrictions — Solicitor General John Sauer filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 3, asking the justices to immediately allow the Trump administration to enforce the new USPS restrictions on mail-in ballots. The DOJ argued the restrictions imposed only "modest requirements" on the postal system and did not regulate state election administration, contradicting Judge Talwani's finding that the requirements were significant and likely unconstitutional.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-11549 — Judge Talwani found that USPS Defendants violated the court's preliminary injunction related to “initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate” specific regulations outlined in Section 3 of EO 14399 by sending a corresponding Final Rule to the Federal Register on Aug. 22, 2026. However, the court declined to impose a remedy “other than identifying the violation,” finding that the relief requested by Plaintiffs would not remedy the past violation but noting that Plaintiffs could choose to file an amended complaint.
• Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed lawsuit challenging the USPS mail-in ballot rule — Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule that allows the Postal Service to police mail-in ballot eligibility. The AGs sought an emergency block on the rule, with the first mail-in ballots set to go out the following week.
• Federal judge lifted the last remaining block on Trump's plan to give the Postal Service a new role in policing mail-in ballots — Judge Talwani granted Defendants' motion to reconsider and vacated the court's Aug. 11 preliminary injunction blocking Section 3 of EO 14399 following the Supreme Court's intervening stay of a separate preliminary injunction to Sections 2 and 3 of the same EO in a different but related case, Trump v. California . The vacatur is without prejudice to Plaintiffs amending their complaint. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Complaint adding claims directly challenging the USPS Aug. 21, 2026 Final Rule implementing Section 3 of EO 14399 as a separation-of-powers violation and as unlawful agency action exceeding USPS statutory authority under Title 39. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the EO and Final Rules are unlawful and enjoinment of Defendants from continuing implementation of the Final Rule.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of California v. United States Postal Service (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-13917 — A U.S. district judge reluctantly lifted the final injunction blocking Trump's plan to reshape how mail-in ballots are handled. The judge stated the Supreme Court ruling earlier in the week left her little choice. The new Postal Service rules could result in ballots being rejected from voters who do not appear on newly compiled federal eligibility lists. Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule and seeking an emergency block before mail-in ballots begin going out the following week.
• USPS implements Trump executive order restricting mail-in ballot delivery — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff Organizations' members to be at risk of irreparable harm, facing a significant risk of disenfranchisement and interference with their rights under state laws. The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Twenty-four states and DC file lawsuit challenging Trump mail-voting executive order — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff States face irreparable harm as “compliance [with the Final Rule's requirements] is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections.” The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked mail-voting restrictions — The US Postal Service announced implementation of new rules requiring the post office to withhold ballots for mail-in voting to voters deemed ineligible by Department of Homeland Security and other federal records. The rules stem from a Trump executive order issued earlier in 2026 and apply immediately to November's midterm elections. The US Supreme Court lifted a lower court injunction on Monday; US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted a nationwide block on Wednesday. Twenty-four states and DC filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the order as usurping state and congressional authority over elections.
• US District Judge Talwani lifts nationwide block on USPS mail ballot rule — Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to block the Trump executive order restricting mail-in voting in the 2026 midterm elections. The states argue the USPS policy is part of a broader effort by the administration to "rewrite federal election law and usurp the authority of the states and Congress."
• — Late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing Trump's new mail-voting rule, one day after USPS announced the requirements took effect. The temporary block lasts 14 days while the court considers a longer preliminary injunction, with a hearing scheduled for September 3. The case could quickly return to the Supreme Court. As of Friday morning, Trump's new mail-ballot restrictions are currently blocked.
• — US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted her nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the USPS mail ballot delivery rule, citing the Supreme Court's decision to lift the lower court injunction. The ruling clears the way for the rule to take effect for November's midterm elections.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court lifts injunction, allows Trump mail-in voting crackdown to proceed — The US Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to lift a June injunction from a Massachusetts federal judge that had blocked Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in voting. The order directs the government to create a "state citizenship list" restricting mail-in ballot delivery and instructs the DOJ to prosecute state and local election officials deemed to have issued ballots to ineligible voters. Democratic-led states and voting rights groups challenged the order as unconstitutional; a second injunction remains in place. The ruling allows implementation to move forward while litigation continues ahead of November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court eased restrictions on Trump's mail-in ballot executive order — A divided Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions blocking Trump's March executive order restricting mail-in voting, ruling the states' challenge was premature rather than deciding the order's merits. The unsigned opinion held that agencies had not finalized implementation rules when the challenge was filed. The USPS published final rules Friday and plans to make them official Wednesday. Legal analysts note the ruling is narrow and technical, with additional litigation expected as lower courts may issue new injunctions against the finalized rules before the November elections.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. California (26A124) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. California. Docket number(s): 26A124.
• Supreme Court gave Trump procedural victory on mail-voting restrictions — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states challenging Trump's executive order restricting mail voting sued too early, granting the administration a procedural victory. The Court explicitly stated its decision did not mean the administration's implementation would be lawful. The Postal Service subsequently issued rules implementing parts of the order, including new voter-list and mail-ballot-processing requirements. New lawsuits followed, and on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing the new mail-voting rule for 14 days pending further court consideration.

Supporting reports

• U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss dismisses DOJ case seeking access to D.C. voter registration data — U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss dismissed the Department of Justice's case against Washington, D.C., ruling that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 does not authorize federal access to unredacted state voter registration lists. Moss held that the DOJ's legal theory contradicts the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, which vest voter-roll maintenance authority in state election officials. This marks the DOJ's 21st consecutive loss in voter-roll access litigation across federal courts.
• DOJ sues 30 states and D.C. for voter registration records — The Trump administration's Department of Justice has sued 30 noncompliant states and Washington, D.C. to force them to provide unredacted voter registration records, claiming it needs them to ensure states comply with federal laws requiring accurate rolls. However, 21 federal judges—including several appointed by Trump in his first term—have rejected all 22 DOJ lawsuits, with none ruling in DOJ's favor. The lawsuits appear aimed at enabling the administration to pressure states to purge specific voters.

Supporting reports

• DOJ and Republican states petition Supreme Court to lift mail ballot block — The Department of Justice and a dozen Republican-led states filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court asking it to lift the federal judge's block on the USPS mail ballot restriction, arguing the lower court acted prematurely because USPS had not finalized the implementing rule. The Supreme Court has not yet responded.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses seditious conspiracy charges against Oath Keepers members — A federal judge granted the Trump Justice Department's request to dismiss seditious conspiracy charges against members of the far-right Oath Keepers for their involvement in the January 6 insurrection. The judge expressed regret about the outcome, stating he wished for "a different ending" and noting that the dismissal "diminishes the gravity of that day."

Supporting reports

• House approves $73bn budget for Iran war without Senate Democratic input — House Republicans approved a budget plan allocating $73 billion for the ongoing war with Iran on July 23, 2026, using reconciliation procedures to circumvent the Democratic filibuster in the Senate. The authorization falls short of the Pentagon's original $350 billion request needed to reach the administration's $1.5 trillion overall defense spending target for fiscal 2027. The move reflects Republican efforts to fund military operations without requiring bipartisan Senate approval.
• House passes $1.15tn defense bill with partisan voting and embedded voting restrictions — The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a 216-212 vote on July 23, 2026. The bill includes military pay raises, codifies renaming the Pentagon the "Department of War," and allocates funds for the ongoing war with Iran. Democrats largely opposed the measure, citing Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran without congressional authorization, the inclusion of the Save America Act (banning mail-in ballots and imposing voter ID restrictions), and provisions deepening US-Israel defense cooperation. The bill now proceeds to the Senate.
• House passed National Defense Authorization Act with Section 219 — The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which includes Section 219, a controversial provision requiring the U.S. military to share sensitive technology with Israel. Six Democrats voted for the bill: Reps. Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald Davis (NC), Jared Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA). Seven Republicans voted against it: Reps. Josh Brecheen (OK), Tim Burchett (TN), Elijah Crane (AZ), Harriet Hageman (WY), Anna Paulina Luna (FL), Thomas Massie (KY), and Chip Roy (TX).
• Rep. Lauren Boebert missed NDAA vote citing Section 219 concerns — Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) told TMZ she missed the NDAA vote because she was waiting for a call from Secretary Hegseth and the vote was closed before she could participate. She stated she opposed Section 219 because her constituents do not want the military technology swap with Israel and said she was trying to avoid reporters due to recent Botox injections.
• Rep. Thomas Massie opposes NDAA Section 219 — Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) stated that Section 219 of the NDAA "tragically merges our military technology and supply chains with Israel's" and called it "a betrayal of our sovereignty," expressing hope the provision would fail in the Senate.
• House Republicans merge NDAA with voting restrictions (Save America Act) — House Republicans, bowing to pressure from rightwing lawmakers and Trump, merged the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with the Save America Act, legislation that would ban mail-in ballots and impose new voter identification requirements at registration and ballot-casting. Democrats objected to the $1.15tn NDAA cost and halted advancement of the Senate version in protest of renewed Iran hostilities, complicating the defense budget's Senate passage.
• House Republicans pass $95bn Iran war spending and voting restrictions before summer recess — House Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, passed a $95bn budget blueprint for Iran war spending and a super-sized military budget (NDAA) merged with voting restrictions (the Save America Act) during their final week before summer recess. Four dissident Republicans joined Democrats to pass a symbolic war powers resolution mandating Trump withdraw troops from Iran. Senate Republican leader John Thune signaled he would place the budget on "hold" as leverage in funding negotiations, raising the likelihood the Iran spending question remains undecided until September.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans pass Save America Act linked to spending bill — On Wednesday, July 16, 2026, the House of Representatives passed a combined measure linking the Save America Act—which would ban mail-in ballots and impose voter identification requirements—to an unrelated State Department spending authorization bill. The vote was 217–209, largely along party lines. The bill faces certain opposition in the Senate, where Democrats control enough votes to filibuster. Trump administration officials framed the measure as necessary to prevent non-citizen voting; voting rights advocates warn it could disenfranchise eligible voters ahead of November midterm elections.

Supporting reports

• House Democrats released report alleging Trump diverted America250 donations to Freedom 250 — Democrats on the House Committee on Natural Resources released a report on Thursday accusing Trump of defrauding donors and the American public by diverting donations intended for the nonpartisan America250 program to his own Freedom 250 organization. After failing to take over America250 entirely, Trump officials created Freedom 250 within the National Park Foundation to operate outside transparency and accountability rules Congress required for America250. The report alleges Trump officials provided donors with routing and account numbers for Freedom 250 instead of America250, and routed most congressional appropriations to favored contractors, including the firm that organized Trump's January 6 rally at the Ellipse.
• Trump's Freedom 250 routed congressional appropriations to favored contractors including January 6 rally organizer — According to the House Democrats' report, Trump officials routed most of the money Congress appropriated for the America250 project to favored contractors, including the firm that helped organize Trump's rally at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, before attendees stormed the U.S. Capitol. A Department of the Interior spokesperson stated in June that the administration would not "light taxpayer money on fire" on "frivolous, poorly attended events and D.C. consultants," yet the administration proceeded to direct funds to these contractors.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge in Maryland rules against DOJ in voter file access case — A federal judge in Maryland issued a ruling against the Department of Justice in a case seeking access to state voter files, marking the DOJ's ninth consecutive loss in a series of 31 cases filed to obtain such records. The court concluded that state voter files are not records that states must produce to the federal government. Five of the nine losses were decided by judges nominated by Trump, according to the article.
• Democratic Party and Marc Elias law firm file litigation against Trump executive orders on voting — The Democratic Party, represented by attorney Marc Elias and his law firm, filed lawsuits challenging Trump administration executive orders targeting voting rights. The article indicates this litigation is part of a broader defensive strategy across multiple cases, including the 31 voter file cases and anticipated litigation if the U.S. Postal Service adopts a proposed anti-voting rule.
• Supreme Court to decide mail-in voting case brought by Republican National Committee — The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide a case brought by the Republican National Committee concerning whether ballots mailed and postmarked by Election Day may be counted if they arrive after Election Day. The article notes the outcome could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and that Marc Elias's firm is defending against the lawsuit.

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

• 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

• United States Postal Service proposed mail-in ballot restriction — The United States Postal Service proposed a rule that would send mail-in ballots only to voters registered with the federal government. The proposal would represent a massive expansion of federal control over voting without congressional authorization. The proposal reflects the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to gain control over state voter lists and election administration, efforts that have been repeatedly rejected by courts on the grounds that the Constitution establishes that states run elections.
• Federal judge in Massachusetts blocks USPS mail ballot restriction — A federal judge in Massachusetts issued an order in June 2026 blocking the Trump administration's directive to the USPS to restrict mail ballot delivery to voters on federal pre-approved lists. The block applies to the 23 blue states and Washington, D.C. that challenged the order.
• Trump orders DOJ to investigate California elections — Trump ordered the Department of Justice to investigate California elections after his preferred candidate trailed in the state's June gubernatorial primary. The order relied on conspiracy theories to justify the investigation.

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

• Supreme Court decision impacts Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court issued a decision that significantly impacts the Voting Rights Act, altering the legal framework that has protected voting rights for decades. This ruling has broad implications for how elections are conducted and how voting rights are enforced across the United States. The decision reflects a shift in the judicial interpretation of voting rights protections, potentially affecting voter access and election fairness.
• Freedom House and V-DEM release 2026 reports documenting global democratic decline — Freedom House released its 2026 report subtitled "The Growing Shadow of Autocracy," finding that freedom continues to decline across the globe. Simultaneously, V-DEM released its 2026 report subtitled "Unraveling the Democratic Era?," delivering the same message. Both organizations documented rapid deterioration in freedom under Donald Trump's second administration, including attacks on free and fair elections, persecution of critics in the press, and the rise of a violent and unaccountable security state.