Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. (D. Md.) — Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging Executive Order 14399 and a Department of Homeland Security implementation memorandum directing creation of "State Citizenship Lists" derived from federal citizenship, naturalization, Social Security, and other databases to be sent to state election officials. EPIC alleges the collection, disclosure, and consolidation of members' sensitive personal information—including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and citizenship status—without consent violates the Privacy Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional provisions including separation of powers and the Elections Clause. EPIC contends the data is unreliable and risks eligible voters being misidentified as non-citizens and purged from voter rolls. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, vacation of the lists, deletion of data, and injunctive relief against further disclosure or use.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — State of New York v. Administration for Children and Families (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-02726) — New York and 24 other states plus the District of Columbia filed a complaint challenging a System of Records Notice (SORN) issued by the Administration for Children and Families on June 23, 2026. The SORN authorizes disclosure of TANF recipients' Social Security numbers, immigration status, marital status, and other personal information to the Department of Homeland Security and other entities. Plaintiffs allege the SORN exceeds statutory authority, violates confidentiality protections, was adopted without required Privacy Act procedures, and imposes an unforeseeable condition on states' receipt of TANF funds. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and vacatur of the SORN.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce law requiring age verification and parental consent on apps — The Supreme Court has permitted Texas to enforce a new law that mandates age verification and parental consent for minors using certain applications. This decision allows the state to implement measures aimed at protecting children online, but it also raises concerns about privacy and access to digital platforms. The ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for other states considering similar legislation and impacts the balance between state regulation and individual rights in the digital age.

Supporting reports

• Section 702 FISA reauthorization deadline — Thursday, April 30 is the deadline for the short-term extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Trump signed a temporary extension through April 30 after longer renewal efforts collapsed, setting up another congressional fight over surveillance powers. Critics seek warrant requirements before authorities can access Americans' emails, calls, or texts. Advocacy groups including 5 Calls and the Brennan Center are mobilizing public contact to members of Congress opposing extension without warrant protections.
• House Votes to Reauthorize FISA Section 702 — The U.S. House of Representatives voted to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This section allows the government to conduct surveillance on foreign targets outside the United States. The reauthorization is a significant legislative action concerning national security and privacy rights.
• Became Law: FISA Amendments Act Extension (Public Law 119-87) — Congress enacted Public Law 119-87, amending the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend Title VII authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The law reauthorizes surveillance powers governing bulk collection and targeting of foreign intelligence subjects. The extension preserves existing legal frameworks for electronic surveillance without stated modifications to oversight or transparency mechanisms.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-01352) — Common Cause, the Common Cause Education Fund, and four individual registered voters in Texas and Nebraska filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Justice Department's policy of demanding unredacted statewide voter registration lists from nearly every state and the District of Columbia for compilation in a national voter registration system. The complaint alleges that the policy, issued pursuant to President Trump's March 25, 2025 Executive Order 14248, exceeds DOJ's statutory authority, violates the Elections Clause and Voter Qualifications Clause, and breaches the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, vacatur, injunctive relief halting DOJ's data compilation and disclosure, and an order requiring deletion of already-collected data.

Supporting reports

• DOJ established controlled in-person review system for congressional Epstein files access — The Department of Justice opened an in-person review facility in Washington on February 9, 2026, allowing members of Congress to search unredacted Epstein records under tight controls on access and note-taking. This was the sole mechanism established for congressional review of unredacted files following passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act in late 2025, which required DOJ to release unclassified Epstein-related records. The DOJ controlled all variables of the review process, including which files could be accessed, how searches were conducted, and what records were kept of congressional activity.
• DOJ tracked congressional searches in Epstein files review system — Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared at a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on February 11, 2026, carrying a printed document labeled "Jayapal Pramila Search History" that detailed Rep. Pramila Jayapal's searches within the DOJ's controlled, members-only review system for unredacted Epstein records. A Reuters photographer captured the document. The DOJ had established the in-person review system on February 9, 2026, as the sole mechanism for congressional access to unredacted Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The revelation suggests the DOJ monitored lawmakers' investigative activity and used that intelligence during the oversight hearing itself.
• DOJ surveilled House member's access to Epstein files — During Attorney General Bondi's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, a photograph captured by Reuters showed a page of Bondi's briefing book with a printout titled "Jayapal Pramila Search History," appearing to be files showing what Representative Pramila Jayapal accessed after the DOJ made some Epstein files available at DOJ offices. This represents executive branch surveillance of a legislative branch member's document access. Representative Jamie Raskin, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he will ask for an investigation of this "outrageous abuse of power."
• Ranking Member Raskin requested DOJ Inspector General investigation into congressional surveillance — House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin formally requested that the DOJ Inspector General investigate the DOJ's apparent surveillance of lawmakers' searches in the Epstein files review system. Raskin stated he had "reason to believe that it was happening to everyone," not just Rep. Jayapal. He also called for the DOJ to immediately stop tracking member searches, open Epstein file review to senior congressional staff, and publicly release all remaining files with only survivor information properly redacted.
• Rep. Jayapal organized formal congressional letter demanding investigation into surveillance — Rep. Pramila Jayapal organized a formal congressional letter demanding an investigation into what she characterized as improper surveillance of Congress by the DOJ. Jayapal also raised the question of whether the DOJ's decision to open the Epstein files to congressional review two days early was intended to allow the DOJ to surveil members' searches and anticipate their questions for the oversight hearing.
• DOJ tracked congressional members' Epstein files research and displayed search records at hearing — During a House oversight hearing on Wednesday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi displayed a document titled "Jayapal Pramila Search History" showing which Epstein files Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal had accessed. The DOJ confirmed it monitors all Epstein file searches by lawmakers on its systems. Congressional members, including Jamie Raskin and Jayapal, alleged the tracking violates separation of powers and constitutes surveillance designed to anticipate questions and gather intelligence on their investigative activities.
• DOJ surveilled Congress members' search history of Epstein files — Multiple members of Congress confirmed that the Department of Justice tracked and monitored which Epstein documents members of Congress searched, opened, and reviewed, including timestamps. Rep. Pramila Jayapal reported that AG Bondi presented her with a printed search history of her email searches. Rep. Nancy Mace confirmed the DOJ was tagging all documents searched by members and that timestamps were associated with the tracking. Speaker Mike Johnson stated he was investigating the allegations.
• DOJ monitored congressional search history in Epstein files review system — Attorney General Pam Bondi carried a printed document labeled "Jayapal Pramila Search History" into a House Judiciary oversight hearing, revealing that the Department of Justice had tracked which Epstein-related files Rep. Pramila Jayapal searched within DOJ's controlled, members-only review system. The executive branch collected intelligence on the legislative branch's investigation of the executive branch. Rep. Jamie Raskin called the practice Orwellian and requested a DOJ Inspector General investigation; Rep. Jayapal is organizing a congressional letter demanding answers.
• Racist video of Obamas posted on Trump's Truth Social account — A racist video depicting the Obamas as apes appeared on President Trump's official Truth Social account. The video was removed, but Trump refused to apologize and claimed a staffer posted it without review. The incident occurred on an official presidential account.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Just Futures Law v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Two non-profit organizations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against ICE and CBP, alleging unlawful withholding of records responsive to FOIA requests submitted July 16, 2025. The complaint concerns agency contracts with Israeli surveillance technology companies Cellebrite and Paragon for phone hacking and zero-click spyware capabilities. Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling prompt processing of the FOIA requests, release of the documents, and relief from alleged denials of expedited processing and fee waivers.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court ruled DOGE can access sensitive federal data — A federal appeals court ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can access sensitive data from federal agencies, including Social Security numbers and citizenship status of individuals.

Supporting reports

• Democrats introduce "My Body, My Data" bill to protect reproductive health data — On June 11, 2025, Democratic lawmakers Representative Sara Jacobs, Senator Mazie Hirono, and Senator Ron Wyden introduced the "My Body, My Data" bill in both the US House and Senate. The bill aims to restrict companies from collecting, using, retaining, or disclosing information related to reproductive health unless necessary for a requested service. This includes data on pregnancy, menstruation, abortion, and contraception. The bill is a response to concerns about data privacy in the post-Roe v Wade era, where law enforcement has used data trails to identify abortion seekers. Despite its introduction, the bill faces challenges in passing due to Republican control of Congress.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court Allows Doge Access to Social Security Data — The US Supreme Court lifted an injunction, allowing the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) to access sensitive records from the Social Security Administration during ongoing legal challenges. The decision, supported by the conservative majority, permits Doge, a team led by Elon Musk, to access data to target alleged waste and fraud. The ruling faced dissent from the court's liberal justices and opposition from labor unions and advocacy groups concerned about privacy violations. The case continues as opponents argue the access could lead to misuse of personal data.
• Motion granted — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00596 — The Supreme Court granted a stay while the case is on appeal.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — The Supreme Court granted a stay in the case of Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This decision allows the Social Security Administration to proceed with its actions that were previously challenged by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The stay was granted despite dissent from Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, indicating a division within the Court on this matter. The stay effectively pauses the lower court's ruling against the Social Security Administration, pending further litigation.

Supporting reports

• Lawsuits Filed Against Department of Government Efficiency for Privacy Violations — At least eleven lawsuits have been filed against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), claiming violations of the 1974 Privacy Act. These lawsuits allege that DOGE has improperly consolidated personal data about millions of U.S. citizens and residents, bypassing established protections and security clearances. The actions taken by DOGE have raised significant concerns regarding the privacy and security of American citizens' information.

Supporting reports

• Case update — Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00952 — Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order modifying the consolidation order to allow the League Plaintiffs and LULAC Plaintiffs to brief the issues in this case separately from the Democratic Party Plaintiffs.
• Case update — League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00946 — Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order modifying the consolidation order to allow the plaintiffs to rule separately.
• Case update — League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00955 — The court sealed the case due to logistical and technical difficulties.
• Case update — Moe v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00653 — Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for summary judgement .
• Case update — U.S. Institute of Peace v. Jackson (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00804 — Judge Mary McElroy granted Plaintiff's request for a TRO against Defendants, which required Defendants to immediately cease the withholding of funds and implementing or enforcing the funding terminations.
• Motion granted — State of Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00121 — Defendants appealed the April 4 order granting the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case No. 25-5105 ).
• Appeal filed — Aviel v. Gor et al (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00778 — Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil filed a reply in support of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Khalil argues the government is mistaken in its claim that the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits judicial review of his challenge to his detention and the policy decisions that led to his detention. Khalil also seeks to rebut the government's arguments that his claims are unlikely to succeed, he has not established irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities leans in favor of the government.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce et al. (D.N.J.) 2:25-cv-01963 — The Defendants appealed the order, and on the morning of April 7, the Fourth Circuit denied the Defendants' request for a stay. The Defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the district court order and an immediate administrative stay. Chief Justice Roberts issued a temporary stay and ordered the Plaintiff to submit a reply by 5pm ET the following day. The Plaintiff, however, submitted their reply shortly afterwards on the same day.
• Appeal filed — Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00951 — Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the TRO, alleging that Defendants have not complied with the court's order.
• Case update — Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-02847 — Judge Richard Mark Gergel narrowed Plaintiffs' expedited discovery requests to a single request and ordered the five defendant agencies named in Plaintiffs' motion to produce all documents from Jan. 20, 2025 to present relating to the freeze, pause, and/or termination of any of the grants identified by Plaintiffs in their motion for expedited discovery.
• Case update — Sustainability Institute v. Trump (D.S.C.) 2:25-cv-02152 — The First Circuit denied the stay on jurisdictional grounds involving the temporary status of the district court's order. The appeals court stated that the government's issuance of intervening Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals “made a moving target of their removal policy” that “only reinforces the temporary nature of the relief at issue.”
• Motion denied — D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10676 — Defendants filed a motion to dissolve the emergency TRO following the Supreme Court's grant of emergency relief in Department of Education v. California , 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025) (per curiam), in which the Court found the government defendants were likely to succeed in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants also argued in their memorandum that the district court should stay proceedings. On April 11, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion to dissolve and stay proceedings, however Judge Stearns granted Defendants' motion on April 14. The court stated that it “was “merely deferring (as it must) to the Supreme Court's unmistakable directive that, for jurisdictional purposes, the proper forum for this case is the Court of Federal Claims.”
• Motion granted — Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Mass.) 3:25-cv-30041 — Defendants Donald Trump and Pamela Bondi filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss, reiterating their allegations that Plaintiffs' claims lack standing and alleging failure to state a claim for relief.
• Motion to dismiss decided — Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00587 — The FEC filed a reply to Plaintiffs' response to the FEC's motion to dismiss, reiterating their allegations that Plaintiffs' claims lack standing.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00596 — Defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and/or stay, challenging the validity of the plaintiff's standing as well as their allegations of violations of the Privacy Act or the Internal Revenue Code, ultimately refuting plaintiff's allegations of irreparable harm.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00677 — Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack the jurisdictional requirements to bring a suit and that DHS can legally request tax return information relating to individuals under criminal investigation.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-02005 — Plaintiff filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction in which it requested a nationwide preliminary injunction covering all federal agencies. In the alternative, the Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction against the defendant agencies.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00952 — Nonpartisan plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the EO. In an accompanying memorandum , plaintiffs reassert that the EO violates Constitutional protections for federalism and the separation of powers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00946 — Democratic Party plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the EO. In an accompanying memorandum , plaintiffs reassert that the EO violates Constitutional protections for federalism and the separation of powers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00955 — Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin DOE from implementing the Certification Requirement it announced on April 3 while awaiting the court's decision on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. DOE objected to the emergency motion on April 8.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education (D.N.H.) 1:25-cv-00091 — Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01529 — Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction. They argue that the Plaintiff lacks standing, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, is unlikely to succeed on the merits as they raise no permissible FRA or PRA claim, and fail to establish that DOGE is an agency. They also contend that the court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the President.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00527 — Defendants filed oppositions to Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction and to provisionally certify the classes . With regard to the opposition to the preliminary injunction, Defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims or to enter class-wide injunctions. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs' allegations are mooted because the Border Patrol office responsible for Eastern California issued policy and guidance on April 4, 2025 regarding the need for reasonable suspicion for detentions and probable cause for warrantless arrests, and it plans to conduct training sessions in the near future.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — United Farm Workers v. Noem (E.D. Cal.) 1:25-cv-00246 — Judge Fernando Rodriguez granted a preliminary injunction and set an evidentiary hearing for May 5 on whether the petitioner is a member of TdA.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Zacarias Matos v. Venegas (S.D. Tex.) 1:25-cv-00057 — Plaintiffs filed a formal motion for summary judgment (and memorandum in support), following the court's decision to convert their Feb. 19 preliminary-injunction motion into a summary-judgment motion. They also submitted a proposed order requesting a permanent injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing Proclamation 10888
• Summary judgment ruling — Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00306 — Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause . The TRO sought would enjoin the implementation of the EO.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03070 — Immediately after filing its complaint on April 7, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to temporarily block Defendants from terminating, freezing, or otherwise interfering with Maine's access to federal funds allocated to Maine based on Maine's alleged violation of Title IX. Plaintiff amended its complaint the next day, but did not add any additional claims against Defendants.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Maine v. US Department of Agriculture (D. Me.) 1:25-cv-00131 — In a win for the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a federal appeals court blocked a lower court decision that prevented the agency from accessing people's private data at three federal agencies.
• Federal appeals court blocked lower court decision on DOGE data access — Defendants appealed the final judgment and permanent injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Appeal filed — Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10340 — NIH appealed the final judgment and permanent injunction issued by Judge Kelley on April 4 to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Appeal filed — Association of American Universities, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10346 — Judge Chutkan ordered the extension of the March 18 TRO for another 7 days.
• Appeal filed — Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10338 — Judge Lamberth extended the TRO for an additional 14 days pending the presentation of a new grant agreement to RFE/RL and a status update on said grant agreement.
• Case update — Climate United Fund v. Citibank (D.D.C.) 1:24-cv-00698 — Petitioner filed an amended habeas petition .
• Case update — RFE/RL, Inc. v. Lake (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00799 — Defendants moved to dissolve the TRO in light of the Supreme Court's decision to stay a TRO in Dep't of Education v. California.
• Case update — Suri v. Trump (E.D. Va.) 1:25-cv-00480 — The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay on the basis of standing. The Court wrote: “The District Court's injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing. This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court's preliminary injunction.”
• Case update — Widakuswara v. Kari Lake (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01015 — the Plaintiffs filed a reply in the district court in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that they are likely to succeed on the merits and that they face irreparable harm if deported to a third country without documented notice or an opportunity to present their claims before an immigration judge.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Charles Ezell (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-017 — Judge Lydia Griggsby denied Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction for most plaintiffs, but held the motion in abeyance for the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. In the related opinion issued on April 14, Judge Griggsby found Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims due to a lack of jurisdiction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10676 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs added an additional claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (alleging Defendant's public health funding decision is contrary to law) as well as claims for the violation of the Separation of Powers, Spending Clause, and an allegation that Defendants' actions are ultra vires violations. On that same day, Plaintiff States filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block Defendants from enforcing or implementing the decision to terminate funding for Plaintiff States and their local health jurisdictions.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Solutions In Hometown Connections v. Noem (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00885 — The court granted a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00121 — USDS filed an opposition to CREW's motion for expedited discovery and requested for CREW's motion to be denied or at least limited in scope. CREW replied on April 10, reiterating that it is entitled to expedited discovery in order to meaningfully respond to USDS's motion for partial summary judgment.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — The Associated Press v. Budowich (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00532 — Jenner filed its motion for summary judgment on all claims, requesting a permanent injunction against the implementation of the EO. On the same day, the Department of Justice filed its motion to dismiss.
• Summary judgment ruling — CREW v. DOGE (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00511 — Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.
• Summary judgment ruling — Jenner & Block v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00916 — The Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
• Summary judgment ruling — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00917 — The Supreme Court granted an administrative stay on an order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which had required the federal government to stop firing probationary employees en masse and to rehire those already terminated. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had been accused of infringing on Congress' authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act by ordering these firings. The Supreme Court's decision allows the federal government to continue its actions pending further litigation, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — American Federation of Teachers v. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00802 — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for an emergency TRO. Plaintiffs replied to Defendant's opposition on April 10.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees — DOE and Plaintiffs negotiated an agreement that prevents DOE from initiating enforcement action with respect to the Dear Colleague Letter and subsequent actions until after April 24. Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a TRO was declared moot the following day.
• Case update — Maine v. US Department of Agriculture (D. Me.) 1:25-cv-00131 — Plaintiff filed a motion for a further TRO “to immediately disburse to RFE/RL the amount of RFE/RL's congressionally appropriate funds” for April 2025. In a memorandum supporting the motion, Plaintiff asserts that new grant conditions by Defendants are unlawful.
• Case update — National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education (D.N.H.) 1:25-cv-00091 — Judge Fernando Rodriguez granted petitioners' TRO on an ex parte basis and blocked Respondents from transferring, relocating, or removing petitioners "or any other person that Respondents claim are subject to removal under the Proclamation, from the El Valle Detention Center; and Respondents are enjoined from transporting such persons outside of Willacy County or Cameron County, Texas, without an Order from the Court." Absent further action, the TRO will be in place through April 23, 2025.
• Motion granted — J.A.V. v. Trump (S.D. Tex.) 1:25-cv-00072 — The Court denied the administration's motion to reconsider and stay an expedited discovery order. The court granted the motion to strike discovery from DOGE.
• Motion granted — Sustainability Institute v. Trump (D.S.C.) 2:25-cv-02152 — Plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited preliminary injunction and stay of agency action, after ED sent state and local education agencies a Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard (the “Certification”) on April 3.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00628 — The Fourth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, issued a stay of Judge Bredar's April 1 preliminary injunction. The majority held that the Government is likely to succeed in showing Plaintiffs lacked standing, and noted, “[t]he Supreme Court has stayed a similar preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (referring to American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell ).”
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Maryland et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture et al. (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00748 — MBN filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The next day, the parties agreed to brief this case alongside Radio Free Asia v. United States .
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Middle East Broadcasting Networks v. United States (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00966 — The court granted Plaintiffs' request to withdraw their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of California v. U.S. Department of Education (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10548 — Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly filed a stipulation converting Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO to a motion for a preliminary injunction and setting a timeline for further responses to the motion.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of Rhode Island v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00128 — Defendants filed a reply in further support of their cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that Brehm cannot succeed on the merits of his case.
• Summary judgment ruling — Brehm v. Marocco (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00660 — On the evening of April 10 the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion without any dissent, upheld the district court order in large part. The Court wrote: “The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term ‘effectuate' in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority.” Within hours, the district court issued an order “to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.” The order also required the government to provide a declaration with information of Abrego Garcia's current location and steps taken to facilitate his return.
• Case update — Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00951 — Following a hearing, the court ordered the Defendants to provide supplemental declarations to address “specific clarifications” missing from the first round of declarations.
• Case update — American Oversight v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00883 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which did not include any new allegations or requests for relief but did include additional plaintiffs and facts.
• Case update — Carter v. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00744 — Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite discovery . Defendants filed their opposition in response to this motion on April 24, challenging the court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and asserting Plaintiff cannot meet the standard for expedited discovery because there is no emergency or preliminary relief pending or scheduled.
• Case update — Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00612 — The court extended the TRO until April 30.
• Case update — LeBlanc & Felten v. United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00542 — State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Defendants.
• Cases consolidated — Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01413 — The court unsealed the case again with both parties agreeing that this case need not remain under seal, but rather, can proceed under the same protections as in other like cases.
• Notice of appeal filed — New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump (D.N.H.) 1:25-cv-00038 — Defendants filed a motion to dissolve the TRO, asserting that no party had requested the court's extension and that new grant terms had rendered the TRO moot.
• Notice of appeal filed — The Associated Press v. Budowich (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00532 — NYCDOT filed a Complaint-in-Intervention , claiming that the termination of the congestion pricing plan violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and ultra vires as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the National Environmental Policy Act. On April 18, this was consolidated into the Consolidated First Amended Complaint , on behalf of Plaintiffs MTA and TBTA and Intervenor-Plaintiffs NYSDOT and NYCDOT. The Consolidated First Amended Complaint included additional facts related to Secretary Duffy's alleged legal rationale for terminating the congestion pricing plan and posts on social media about ending federal funding.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Library Association v. Sonderling et al. (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01050 — Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Case No. 25-1348 ).
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Chung v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02412 — Defendants submitted a notice of appeal to DC Circuit (Case No. 25-5109 ).
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00943 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to cease actions taken to dissolve the IMLS while the court considers the case. Plaintiffs also filed a memorandum in support of their motion reasserting their arguments that the administration's actions toward IMLS violate the Constitution and the APA.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Radio Free Asia v. United States (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00907 — Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, noting that Defendants' opposition motion supports Plaintiffs' position that ICE seeks taxpayer data to locate and deport immigrants from the U.S.
• Stay motion decided — American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. Carter (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00702 — Chung filed a motion to expedite discovery to support her preliminary injunction motion which, if granted, would prevent her detention and transfer.
• Appeal filed — Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-02847 — The district court denied the motion for a stay and preliminary injunction on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing. The court ruled that Plaintiffs lacked both organisational and associational standing.
• Case update — American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10685 — The parties agreed to convert RFA's motion for a TRO into a motion for a preliminary injunction and to brief this case alongside Middle East Broadcast Networks v. United States .
• Case update — Gunaydin v. Trump (D. Minn.) 0:25-cv-01151 — The Fourth Circuit granted the government's motion to stay the preliminary injunction upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the Supreme Court's recent order granting a stay pending appeal in Department of Education, et al. v. California, et al.
• Case update — J.A.V. v. Trump (S.D. Tex.) 1:25-cv-00072 — Defendants appealed the court's decision to grant and then extend the TRO to the Ninth Circuit.
• Case update — Jenner & Block v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00916 — State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs.
• Case update — New York Immigration Coalition v. Donald J. Trump et al. (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01309 — Günaydin filed an amended habeas petition. The government responded to this amended petition on April 14.
• Case update — Susan Webber et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al (D. Mont.) 4:25-cv-00026 — The TRO was extended through April 25, 2025.
• Motion granted — Maine v. US Department of Agriculture (D. Me.) 1:25-cv-00131 — Defendants filed a motion and a memorandum of law , seeking to stay the case because the EO at issue is subject to three nationwide injunctions.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell Vought (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00381 — Plaintiff filed a motion opposing Defendants' motion to dissolve the TRO, both on the merits and because of Plaintiff's motion for a new TRO.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — San Francisco AIDS Foundation et al v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-01824 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , adding Plaintiffs David and Rhonda Mountain Chief.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10677 — Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgement and to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement. Defendants argue that because USIP does not exercise legislative or judicial functions, it necessarily must be considered to exercise executive functions, thereby making it part of the Executive Branch and making its officers removable by the President. Defendants also argue that, in any case, Plaintiffs requested relief, reinstatement, is improper and beyond the equitable authority of the courts as it would put the Judicial Branch directly at odds with the President in his exercise of his duties.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. McMahon (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10601 — Judge John Woodcock, Jr. granted Plaintiff's motion for an emergency TRO through April 25, 2025. This order requires Defendants to immediately unfreeze and release federal funding to Maine that has been withheld due to the alleged violation of Title IX and was later extended through May 9, 2025.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. United States Department of Education (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02990 — Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Plaintiffs' claims are nonjusticiable and that Defendants' actions are valid exercises of agency discretion.
• Summary judgment ruling — Slaughter and Bedoya v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00909 — Defendants filed a combined opposition to MBN and Radio Free Asia's (RFA) preliminary injunction motions, contending that the court lacks jurisdiction over RFA and MBN's claims following the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Education v. California , 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025).
• Temporary restraining order ruling — American Association of University Professors - Harvard Faculty Chapter v. Department of Justice (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10910 — DOE filed its objection to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. DOE claimed Plaintiffs lack standing and that their APA claims will fail because the Dear Colleague Letter is not a final agency action. On April 15, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — G.F.F. v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02886 — Following oral argument, the D.C. Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, granted the stay in part . The Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction “insofar as it prohibits defendants from terminating or issuing a notice of reduction in force to employees whom defendants have determined, after a particularized assessment, to be unnecessary to the performance of defendants' statutory duties.” The Circuit set the next oral argument for May 16, 2025.
• — Defendants filed a combined opposition to RFA and Middle East Broadcasting Network's (MBN) preliminary injunction motions, contending that the court lacks jurisdiction over RFA and MBN's claims following the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Education v. California , 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025).
• — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits and that any injunctive relief should be limited to the Plaintiffs and agency defendants.
• — Defendants filed a memorandum opposing Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Plaintiffs' claims lack justiciability and that Defendants' actions are valid exercises of agency discretion.
• — Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants argue that the court should deny relief because the programs identified by Plaintiffs are within the discretion of the Secretary of the ED instead of being statutorily mandated and that Plaintiffs have failed to identify how the reduction in workforce is tied to the ED's inability to perform its statutory duties.
• — Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
• — Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because there is no dispute about the facts and the governing law is clear, there is no barrier to proceeding straight to summary judgment.
• — State Attorneys General submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
• — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to enjoin any further review and/or termination of Harvard's federal funding by the administration.
• — The court certified the class and granted a temporary restraining order preventing their removal from the district or the United States.

Supporting reports

• Social Security Administration appoints DOGE operative as CIO following federal court order blocking DOGE database access — The Trump administration appointed Scott Coulter, a DOGE operative previously assigned to the SSA, as the agency's new Chief Information Officer on March 25, 2025, one day after the SSA submitted a status report certifying compliance with a federal court order. On March 21, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the SSA from granting DOGE members access to systems containing personally identifiable information of millions of Americans. The appointment appears designed to circumvent the court order by reclassifying Coulter from a DOGE team member to a regular SSA employee, potentially allowing continued access to sensitive data and continuation of DOGE projects.

Supporting reports

• Judge blocks Doge from accessing social security records — A federal judge has blocked Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) from accessing social security records. The judge described the effort as a "fishing expedition" in its search for fraud and waste. This ruling represents a judicial check on the Trump administration's attempts to scrutinize social security data.
• Federal judge blocked DOGE access to Social Security systems — A federal judge temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing Social Security systems, calling their efforts a "fishing expedition" and ordered the so-called agency to delete any personally identifiable data they may have.
• Judge blocks access to Social Security data — District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing data at the Social Security Administration and ordered the destruction of any personal information already accessed. The judge criticized the department's actions as a fishing expedition without concrete evidence of fraud.
• Judge blocks Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Social Security data — District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a ruling blocking the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing data at the Social Security Administration and ordered the destruction of any personal information they had already accessed. The judge criticized the department's actions as a fishing expedition without concrete evidence of fraud.
• U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued temporary restraining order against Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration records — U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Social Security Administration officials from sharing personally identifiable information (PII) with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Hollander found that DOGE was "essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion" and had "never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA's entire record systems." The order restricted DOGE's access to sensitive records while protecting the privacy of nearly 70 million Social Security beneficiaries.
• Federal court issues Temporary Restraining Order blocking DOGE access to Social Security Administration databases — On March 21, 2025, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander granted a Temporary Restraining Order in a lawsuit filed by labor unions (AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and AFT) on February 21. The order prohibited the SSA, Acting Commissioner Dudek, and then-CIO Russo from granting DOGE members or "any person assigned to SSA to fulfill the DOGE agenda" access to SSA systems containing personally identifiable information of millions of Americans. The lawsuit alleged that DOGE officials were accessing sensitive personal data in violation of the Privacy Act and federal law.

Supporting reports

• Executive Order on State and Local Preparedness — President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14239, titled "Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness," on March 18, 2025. The order empowers state and local governments to enhance national resilience and preparedness, emphasizing infrastructure prioritization and strategic investments. It mandates the development of a National Resilience Strategy and a National Risk Register, and calls for reviews of existing policies to streamline federal preparedness operations.
• White House issued Executive Order 14239 on state and local preparedness and federal resilience policy — The White House signed Executive Order 14239 directing a comprehensive review and restructuring of federal preparedness, resilience, and continuity policies. The order mandates the National Security Advisor coordinate development of a National Resilience Strategy (90 days), review critical infrastructure policies (180 days), national continuity policies (180 days), and preparedness and response policies (240 days), and establish a National Risk Register (240 days). The order states it aims to shift federal policy from an "all-hazards approach" to "risk-informed" decision-making and to empower state and local governments in infrastructure and preparedness decisions.
• White House issued fact sheet on executive order for state and local disaster preparedness — The White House published a fact sheet on March 18, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump that day. The order directs a shift in federal disaster preparedness policy from an "all-hazards" to a "risk-informed" approach, establishes a National Resilience Strategy and National Risk Register, and calls for review and modernization of federal infrastructure, continuity, and preparedness policies. The fact sheet states the order aims to reduce federal complexity and empower state and local governments in emergency response.
• Trump issues executive order on state and local preparedness — President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled "Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness" on March 19, 2025. The order aims to enhance national security and resilience by empowering state and local governments to take a more active role in infrastructure preparedness. It mandates the development of a National Resilience Strategy and a National Risk Register, and calls for the review and revision of existing federal policies related to critical infrastructure and national continuity. The order emphasizes reducing federal complexity and increasing efficiency in preparedness operations.
• Executive Order on Eliminating Information Silos — President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14243 to eliminate information silos within federal agencies. The order mandates agency heads to ensure full access to unclassified records for detecting waste, fraud, and abuse. It requires rescinding or modifying guidance that hinders data sharing and mandates a review of classified information policies. The order aims to enhance inter-agency data sharing and improve government efficiency.
• Executive Order on Procurement Consolidation — President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14240 to consolidate federal procurement under the General Services Administration (GSA). This order aims to eliminate waste and duplication by centralizing procurement of common goods and services, allowing agencies to focus on their core missions. The order mandates agency heads to submit proposals for GSA-led procurement and designates the GSA Administrator as the executive agent for government-wide acquisition contracts for information technology.
• Executive Order to Eliminate Information Silos — President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 20, 2025, aimed at eliminating information silos within federal agencies to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. The order mandates agency heads to ensure federal officials have full access to unclassified agency records and data, promoting inter-agency data sharing. It requires the rescission or modification of agency guidance that hinders data sharing and mandates a review of classified information policies. The order also grants the Secretary of Labor access to unemployment data and supersedes prior orders that obstruct information sharing.
• Trump issues executive order to boost U.S. mineral production — President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 20, 2025, aimed at increasing American mineral production. The order directs federal agencies to expedite permits and approvals for mineral production projects, prioritize mineral production on federal lands, and facilitate private and public capital investment in domestic mineral production. The order also involves the National Energy Dominance Council and the Department of Defense in identifying and developing mineral production sites. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on foreign minerals and enhance national security.
• Trump issues executive order to consolidate federal procurement — President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 20, 2025, aimed at consolidating federal procurement processes to eliminate waste and save taxpayer dollars. The order directs the General Services Administration (GSA) to centralize procurement of common goods and services across federal agencies, reducing duplication and inefficiencies. Agencies are required to submit proposals for GSA to handle their procurement within 60 days, and the GSA must present a comprehensive plan to the Office of Management and Budget within 90 days. This move is intended to streamline procurement and focus agencies on their core missions.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14241 to accelerate domestic mineral production through expedited permitting, federal land prioritization, and delegated Defense Production Act authority. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14241 on March 20, 2025, directing federal agencies to expedite permitting for mineral production projects, prioritize mineral extraction on federal lands, and delegate Defense Production Act authority to the Secretary of Defense and CEO of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. The order waives certain DPA procedural requirements, instructs agencies to identify priority projects for immediate approval within 10 days, and mandates the Secretary of Interior to prioritize mineral production as a primary land use on federal lands holding mineral deposits. The order also directs the Secretary of Defense to facilitate private capital investment in domestic mineral projects and authorizes extended-use leases on federal lands for commercial mineral production enterprises.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order directing agency data sharing to combat waste and fraud — The White House issued a fact sheet on March 20, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump that directs agency heads to grant federal officials full access to unclassified agency records, data, and systems to identify waste, fraud, and abuse. The order authorizes intra- and inter-agency sharing of data, requires access to state program data receiving federal funding, and grants the Secretary of Labor access to unemployment data. The fact sheet states the order aims to eliminate duplicated efforts and undetected overpayments, citing figures of $236 billion in improper payments in fiscal 2023 and $2.7 trillion over 20 years.
• White House issues fact sheet on federal procurement consolidation executive order — The White House issued a fact sheet on March 20, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump that directs consolidation of federal procurement for common goods and services within the General Services Administration (GSA). The order directs agency heads to submit consolidation proposals to GSA, instructs GSA and OMB to develop a comprehensive consolidation plan, and designates GSA as executive agent for government-wide acquisition contracts. The fact sheet claims the initiative could save approximately $50 billion annually through reduced spending and cites examples of past GSA savings on software licenses, band saw blades, televisions, and computers.
• White House signed Executive Order 14240 consolidating federal procurement in the General Services Administration — The White House issued Executive Order 14240 on March 20, 2025, directing the consolidation of domestic federal procurement functions into the General Services Administration (GSA). The order requires agency heads to submit proposals within 60 days for GSA to conduct procurement of common goods and services; the GSA Administrator must submit a comprehensive plan within 90 days; and the Director of OMB must designate the GSA Administrator as executive agent for government-wide information technology acquisition contracts within 30 days. The order states this consolidation will "eliminate waste and duplication" and allow agencies to focus on core missions.
• White House signed Executive Order 14243 directing federal agencies to eliminate information barriers and share unclassified data to identify waste, fraud, and abuse. — The White House issued Executive Order 14243 on March 20, 2025, directing all federal agency heads to remove barriers to inter- and intra-agency sharing of unclassified records, data, and IT systems. The order mandates that designated federal officials receive "full and prompt access" to agency data for purposes of identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. Within 30 days, agencies must rescind or modify guidance blocking data sharing and submit reports on regulations governing unclassified data access. The order also directs immediate access to unemployment data and state program data funded by the federal government, and requires a 45-day review of classified information policies.

Supporting reports

• Judge blocks Musk agency access to personal data — U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a temporary restraining order preventing Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) from accessing sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The ruling stops the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management from sharing federal employees' and student borrowers' data with Doge, citing potential violations of federal privacy laws. This decision follows a lawsuit by federal employee unions, student loan recipients, and veterans, and represents a significant judicial check on Doge's activities since its establishment by a January executive order.
• Federal court issues injunction against DOGE — On February 24, 2025, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), preventing it from disclosing personally identifiable information of federal employees to the DOGE team. This decision followed a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, which cited a report by Popular Information and Musk Watch. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that OPM's actions violated the Privacy Act. The TRO is set to expire on March 10, 2025, pending further court determination.
• Judge blocks data sharing with Musk's department — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Department of Education and Office of Personnel Management from sharing sensitive data with Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. This decision addresses concerns about data privacy and security.
• Federal judge blocks Doge from accessing personal data — A federal judge temporarily blocked Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) from accessing sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. This decision challenges the Trump administration's efforts to downsize the federal government by limiting Doge's access to data maintained by the US education department and the US office of personnel management.

Supporting reports

• Federal court issues injunction against DOGE — On February 24, 2025, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), preventing it from disclosing personally identifiable information of federal employees to the DOGE team. This decision followed a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, which cited a report by Popular Information and Musk Watch. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that OPM's actions violated the Privacy Act. The TRO is set to expire on March 10, 2025, pending further court determination.

Supporting reports

• Missouri lawmaker proposes registry of pregnant women ‘at risk’ for abortions — A Republican lawmaker in Missouri has introduced the "Save MO Babies Act," a bill proposing the creation of a registry for pregnant women deemed "at risk" of having an abortion. The bill aims to connect these women with prospective adoptive parents through a state-managed database. The proposal has sparked controversy due to concerns about privacy and government tracking of pregnant women. The bill's author, Gerard Harms, claims the registry is voluntary and intended to facilitate adoptions, not to mine data. The bill is part of a broader set of anti-abortion measures in Missouri.

Supporting reports

• Democracy Forward files lawsuit against DOGE for Labor data access — Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit to block the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing Department of Labor data. The lawsuit, representing a coalition of federal unions, argues that DOGE's actions threaten employee privacy and agency integrity. An agreement was reached to block DOGE's access until a court ruling is made.
• Public Citizen files lawsuit against DOGE for Education data access — Public Citizen filed a lawsuit to prevent the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Department of Education data. The lawsuit claims that DOGE's access to student loans and financial aid data violates federal laws, including the Administrative Procedures Act and the Privacy Act. The lawsuit highlights the potential privacy breach affecting millions of individuals.
• Public Citizen files lawsuit to block DOGE's Treasury data access — Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on behalf of federal unions and a nonprofit organization to prevent the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Treasury data. The lawsuit claims that DOGE's actions violate privacy rights and federal law. The Department of Justice agreed to restrict DOGE's access to the data, except for two special employees with limited access.

Supporting reports

• Federal judges block DOGE from accessing Treasury data — At least two federal judges have blocked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive data from the Department of the Treasury. This action follows a lawsuit filed by Public Citizen on behalf of federal unions and a nonprofit organization, which argued that DOGE's access to such information would violate privacy rights. The Department of Justice agreed to restrict DOGE's access to Treasury data, except for two special employees who were granted limited access. One of these employees resigned after past racist social media posts were discovered.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — New York et al v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01144 — Judge Vargas granted a limited preliminary injunction, enjoining the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE-affiliated individuals to any payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees. The court noted that “a real possibility exists that sensitive information has already been shared outside of the Treasury Department, in potential violation of federal law.” The court ordered the Treasury Department to submit a report by March 24 including several forms of information and certifications including “the vetting and security clearances processes that members of the Treasury DOGE Team have undergone;” ”setting forth the legal authority pursuant to which each DOGE Team member was employed by or detailed to the Treasury Department;” and “explaining the reporting chains that govern the relationship between the DOGE Team members, USDS/DOGE, and Treasury leadership.”

Supporting reports

• IRS reportedly preparing to give Musk’s Doge agency access to taxpayer data — The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is reportedly reviewing a request to grant access to its classified systems, which contain sensitive taxpayer data, to a member of Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge). This request would allow Doge officials, including software engineer Gavin Kliger, broad access to IRS systems and datasets, including tax returns. The move has sparked controversy and legal challenges, with 19 state attorneys general suing to block similar access to Treasury Department data. The IRS is also preparing to lay off workers hired by the previous administration.

Supporting reports

• Hakeem Jeffries introduces legislation to protect taxpayer data — Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, introduced legislation aimed at protecting taxpayers' personal data from Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge). This move comes in response to revelations that Doge accessed sensitive taxpayer data. Jeffries denounced Musk as an "unelected, unaccountable, out-of-control billionaire puppet master" and vowed to use Democrats' leverage in the narrowly divided chamber to protect federal programs targeted by Trump.

Supporting reports

• Federal employee unions file lawsuit against Trump administration — Three federal employee unions have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) was granted unprecedented access to sensitive government records. The lawsuit claims that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent violated federal privacy laws by allowing Musk's team full access to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's confidential payment systems. The unions argue that this access puts millions of Americans' personal data at risk. The lawsuit was filed in federal court on Monday.
• Case update — Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott Bessent et al (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00313 — The parties in the suit mutually proposed an order that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly adopted. It limits access to Treasury Department payment records and systems to two (Musk-affiliated) Special Government Employees in the Department (“read-only” access), other employees who need to access the record to perform their duties, or individuals who are already entitled to access the records under statute.