Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Judge dismisses reflecting pool case against David Hearn with prejudice — Judge Todd Edelman of DC Superior Court dismissed charges against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn over alleged damage to the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, ruling the case could not be refiled. The US Attorney's office, led by Trump ally Jeanine Pirro, had already conceded the damage resulted from flawed installation, not Hearn's actions. Trump had publicly pressured for prosecution in August, calling Pirro's decision to drop charges a failure. The court found prosecutors lacked factual support and acted under political pressure.
• Judge dismisses DOJ vandalism case against David Hearn with prejudice — A judge dismissed with prejudice the Department of Justice's Reflecting Pool vandalism case against former Olympian David Hearn. The judge warned that leaving the door open could expose Hearn to a "meritless, politically motivated prosecution" and what would "objectively" be harassment.
• Judge dismisses case against David Hearn with prejudice — Judge Todd E. Edelman dismissed the government's case against Olympian David Hearn with prejudice, meaning it cannot be resurrected. The government had accused Hearn of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, although the contractors themselves acknowledged they were responsible for its torn lining. After the government acknowledged there was no merit in the prosecution, Trump continued to insist Hearn should be prosecuted. The judge stated the dismissal was necessary to protect Hearn from "what, objectively, would be harassment" from his own government and from the "extraordinary possibility that Mr. Hearn will nonetheless face a meritless, politically motivated prosecution."

Supporting reports

• Senate blocks Republican congressional stock-trading restriction bill — The US Senate voted 53–47 on Wednesday to block the Stop Insider Trading Act, a Republican bill that would have barred members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from buying individual stocks. Democrats opposed the measure, arguing it did not go far enough because lawmakers could retain existing holdings and reinvest dividends, and objected to bundled voter ID requirements they characterized as a "poison pill." The vote fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance debate.

Supporting reports

• Trump ally Joe diGenova resigns from DOJ investigation into alleged conspiracy against president — Joe diGenova, a longtime Trump ally appointed in April 2026 to lead a Department of Justice investigation into alleged conspiracy by former law enforcement and intelligence officials against Trump, resigned from the post after five months. DiGenova cited the time required to build solid cases. The investigation, based in Florida and targeting officials involved in Trump-related probes including the 2016 Russian interference assessment, had shown recent activity with grand jury subpoenas but produced no charges. His departure signals internal disagreement over the pace and viability of retribution cases.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice refuses to comply with court order to release unredacted Epstein files — Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a status conference in Phang v. Blanche on Thursday, August 14. The lawsuit, filed by independent journalist Katie Phang, seeks unredacted versions of Epstein investigation documents that the Department of Justice has withheld in violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress mandated be released by December 19, 2025. Sullivan had granted Phang's request in late June and ordered the DOJ to produce unredacted documents in July; the DOJ refused both times. When Sullivan asked if he would learn anything more from the government, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block answered affirmatively. Sullivan warned he had held prosecutors in contempt in the past and gave Phang's lawyers ten days to propose an order.

Supporting reports

• New Mexico sues DOJ for withholding Epstein investigation documents — New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed a lawsuit in US District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Justice and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, alleging the DOJ "stonewalled" the state's criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's activities at Zorro Ranch near Santa Fe. Torrez had set a July 31 deadline for the DOJ to provide unredacted investigative records; the deadline passed without compliance. The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that the DOJ acted illegally, demands compliance with the Epstein transparency law and Touhy regulations, and requests costs and further relief.
• Complaint filed: State of New Mexico v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) — New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed a complaint in federal district court against the Department of Justice and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, alleging that DOJ reneged on a 2019 agreement to share investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein's activity at Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. Torrez claims DOJ's rejection of a formal Touhy request for unredacted records—citing overbreadth, the Privacy Act, and protective orders—is pretextual and obstructs the state's ability to identify victims, witnesses, and potential unindicted co-conspirators. The complaint challenges the denial as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and seeks declaratory relief and an order compelling production of the requested records.
• Federal Judge Orders DOJ to Address Non-Compliance in Epstein Files Case — U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to address its non-compliance with previous court orders regarding the release of the Epstein files. The judge scheduled a status hearing for August 13, where the DOJ must explain its failure to provide documentation justifying redactions in the files. Sullivan criticized the DOJ for not substantiating claims that certain redacted names belong to victims and for not producing FBI interview notes as ordered. The DOJ's actions are under scrutiny as they have not met statutory requirements for transparency.
• New Mexico Attorney General Sues DOJ Over Epstein Investigation — The Attorney General of New Mexico has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, accusing it of stonewalling the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit seeks to compel the DOJ to release information and cooperate with state-level inquiries into Epstein's activities and connections.
• New Mexico Sues DOJ for Access to Epstein Records — The state of New Mexico has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking access to unredacted Jeffrey Epstein records. The complaint alleges that the DOJ is withholding documents crucial to the state's investigation into Epstein's alleged crimes at Zorro Ranch. The lawsuit accuses the DOJ of obstructing the investigation by not providing full access to the files, which could aid in holding Epstein's associates accountable.

Supporting reports

• Blanche terminates Trump's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund — Todd Blanche, as acting attorney general, issued a formal order late Sunday terminating Trump's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" slush fund designed to compensate political allies who had been "targeted" by the justice department, including prosecutions of January 6 insurrectionists. The termination followed weeks of negotiations with Republican senators Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, who were blocking Blanche's nomination. Blanche had promised the Senate judiciary committee he would not pursue the payout fund.
• Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche releases documents claiming to rescind Trump's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche released two documents purporting to rescind Trump's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" and narrow a provision to retroactively protect only Trump, his two sons, and his company from tax audits. Legal experts questioned whether the documents are legally binding and expressed concern about loopholes that could allow the original orders to be reinstated. The move secured votes from holdout Republican senators for Blanche's confirmation as permanent attorney general.
• Acting Attorney General Rescinds Slush Fund Order — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche rescinded the May 18, 2026, order that established a $1.776 billion slush fund for individuals claiming persecution by the Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden. The fund was perceived as a means to compensate those convicted of crimes related to the 2020 election overturn efforts. Blanche's order did not alter the existing nonprosecution order for Trump and his associates regarding tax returns filed before May 19, 2026.
• House Judiciary Committee Member Calls for Action — Jamie Raskin, the top-ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a statement criticizing Blanche's actions and calling for six House Republicans to join Democrats in passing a discharge petition to stop the funding for convicted January 6 felons and Trump allies.

Supporting reports

• Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment and refuses to testify at Senate Covid hearing — Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to answer questions at a Senate committee hearing on Covid-19 origins called by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Fauci stated Paul's goal was to embarrass, intimidate, and land him "behind bars." Paul responded by threatening a contempt vote and removing one of Fauci's attorneys from the room. The hearing became contentious, with Republican senators demanding apologies and attacking Fauci's credibility while Democrats defended him as a victim of harassment.
• Rand Paul announces intent to pursue contempt of Congress vote against Fauci — Following Fauci's invocation of the Fifth Amendment during the Senate hearing, Senator Rand Paul told reporters he intends to call a vote for contempt of Congress the following week in the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. Paul stated there would be "repercussions" for Fauci's refusal to testify. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri joined in, asserting Fauci has no Fifth Amendment rights in this context and accused him of contempt for Congress and the American people.
• Rand Paul chairs Senate hearing on Covid origins; Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment and declines testimony — Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before a Republican-led Senate committee hearing chaired by Senator Rand Paul, ostensibly to investigate Covid-19 origins. Fauci, citing his attorneys' advice and invoking the Fifth Amendment, declined to answer questions throughout the hearing. Paul had asserted that Fauci could bear responsibility for the pandemic due to NIH funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci characterized Paul's investigation as an "unhinged obsession." Paul indicated he intends to call a vote for contempt of Congress the following week.
• Republican senators attack Fauci's pandemic record and scientific credibility — Multiple Republican senators used the hearing to criticize Fauci on various grounds. Senator Ron Johnson accused Fauci of covering up unfavorable vaccine information, calling vaccines "experimental gene therapy." Senator Bernie Moreno demanded Fauci apologize for military vaccine mandates, pandemic business closures, and a mask-enforcement arrest, calling him a "total and complete disgrace." Senator Joni Ernst criticized use of aborted fetal tissue in research. Democratic Senator Gary Peters warned the hearing was scapegoating one official for a crisis involving hundreds of officials across administrations.
• Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment during Senate testimony — Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right during a Senate hearing led by Senator Rand Paul, where he faced aggressive questioning regarding his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fauci stated that he believed the hearing was aimed at vindicating Paul's public claims for his imprisonment, and he refrained from answering questions over 100 times.
• Senator Rand Paul subpoenas Fauci to testify — Senator Rand Paul, now chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, subpoenaed Dr. Anthony Fauci to appear before the committee. Fauci's lawyers noted Paul's history of calling for Fauci's imprisonment, which influenced Fauci's decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during the testimony.
• Republicans continue to target Fauci amid political tensions — Republicans, including Senator Rand Paul, have intensified their attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci, accusing him of lying about the origins of COVID-19 and calling for his arrest. This campaign has been fueled by the release of Fauci's private diary, which Republicans have used to further their narrative against him, despite a lack of evidence of wrongdoing.

Supporting reports

• House Judiciary Chair Jordan Urges Prosecution of Former Special Counsel Jack Smith — House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan sent a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche urging the Trump Justice Department to prosecute former special counsel Jack Smith, alleging he made false statements during closed-door testimony. Smith's lawyers countered that the referral reflects "a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant." The allegation centers on Smith's testimony regarding how his office obtained congressional text messages, with Republicans claiming he knowingly lied by not mentioning a NARA subpoena.
• House Judiciary Committee refers Jack Smith for criminal investigation — House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the acting attorney general for alleged perjury, claiming Smith made false statements to Congress about access to lawmakers' phone records during testimony in December 2025 and January 2026. Jordan asserted that DOJ documents revealed Smith's team had access to text messages of 44 members of Congress, contradicting Smith's prior testimony that they only had "toll records." Smith's attorneys denied the allegations, characterizing the referral as weaponization of the justice system and retaliation for investigating Trump.

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

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

Supporting reports

• House Oversight Chair James Comer refused to subpoena Todd Blanche — During a House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Mike Garcia formally requested that House Oversight Chair James Comer subpoena Todd Blanche, Trump's attorney, to testify regarding the Epstein matter. Comer dismissed the request. Rep. Yassamin Ansari responded by stating that Comer was "happily enabling" what she called "the most egregious cover up in American history."

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• California Department of Insurance files enforcement action against State Farm for mishandling wildfire claims — The California Department of Insurance (CDI) filed an enforcement action against State Farm General Insurance Company following an expedited investigation into claims handling for survivors of the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. CDI examiners reviewed 220 claims and found violations in more than half (114 claims), including slow investigations, underpayment, multiple reassignments of adjusters, lack of standards for prompt processing, and delayed communication. CDI is seeking authority to suspend State Farm's license in California for up to one year, preventing new policy issuance. State Farm faces potential penalties of $2 million or more.
• California Department of Insurance enforces against State Farm for wildfire claims mishandling — The California Department of Insurance announced a major enforcement action against State Farm General Insurance Company following an expedited investigation that uncovered significant mishandling of insurance claims filed by survivors of the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. The action represents regulatory intervention in response to the company's failure to properly process claims for disaster victims.

Supporting reports

• Democrats file civil contempt resolution against Pam Bondi for subpoena defiance — House Democrats on the Oversight Committee filed a civil contempt resolution against former Attorney General Pam Bondi after she failed to appear for a scheduled deposition in mid-April. Representative Robert Garcia stated that Bondi had "illegally defied" the committee and refused to cooperate. The DOJ had claimed the subpoena no longer applied because Bondi was no longer serving as attorney general, though Democrats argued her testimony remained essential to understanding the Trump administration's handling of Epstein files.
• DOJ argues subpoena no longer applies to Bondi after removal from office — The Department of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis, argued in a letter to Representative James Comer that Pam Bondi's subpoena no longer obligated her to appear because she was subpoenaed in her official capacity as attorney general and no longer holds that office. The DOJ claimed the subpoena therefore became void after Trump removed Bondi from her position, preventing her scheduled April 14 deposition.
• House Oversight Committee schedules Pam Bondi testimony after contempt resolution filed — The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced that former Attorney General Pam Bondi will appear on May 29 to answer questions about the DOJ's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and release of Epstein files. This followed Democrats filing a civil contempt resolution against Bondi for failing to appear at a scheduled deposition earlier in April. The DOJ had previously argued the subpoena no longer applied after Trump removed Bondi from office, but Democrats insisted her testimony was necessary regardless of her current job title.
• Contempt Charges Filed Against Pam Bondi — Democrats in Congress filed contempt charges against Pam Bondi. Shortly after the charges were filed, Republicans arranged a date for her testimony. This development highlights the ongoing partisan tensions and the procedural maneuvers in congressional investigations.

Supporting reports

• RFK Jr testifies before House Ways and Means Committee on health budget amid vaccine and public health criticism — Robert F Kennedy Jr, health secretary, testified before the US House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday regarding the administration's health budget and policies. Lawmakers from both parties challenged Kennedy over sweeping changes to vaccination recommendations, promotion of vaccine misinformation during a measles outbreak affecting nearly 2,300 cases, cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, and previous racist comments about Black children. Kennedy defended his positions while promoting disputed claims about vaccine safety and hepatitis B transmission risk, and the hearing became contentious with multiple heated exchanges.
• Gov. Andy Beshear defended Pope's biblical interpretation on war — Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear responded to claims by Speaker Johnson and Vice President Vance that the Pope was misinterpreting the Bible regarding war. Beshear stated that there is no point in the New Testament where Jesus discusses just war, and that the Pope is simply speaking about Christ who could have brought down fire on the Roman Empire but chose not to. Beshear emphasized that Jesus, "the most powerful person who's ever walked the face of the Earth," could have justified violence but instead chose to be "the Prince of Peace" rather than "the Prince of Power."
• Rep. Linda Sanchez questioned RFK Jr. on public health messaging priorities — During House testimony, Rep. Linda Sanchez questioned RFK Jr. about suspending a pro-vaccine campaign while spending taxpayer dollars on a campaign featuring him drinking milk shirtless in a hot tub with Kid Rock, asking how this constituted a better public health message. RFK Jr. responded by citing global measles epidemic prevention, to which Sanchez countered that no country has seen a bigger percentage increase in measles than the United States.
• Rep. Melanie Stansbury criticized illegal war and administration's actions — Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) stated that millions of people have been displaced and American bases bombed, questioning the justification for the war. She characterized the conflict as illegal, led by a president attacking the Pope, threatening war crimes, and implicated in Epstein files, while being unable to explain the war's purpose or post-war plans.
• Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove criticized war costs and health care priorities — Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) criticized the administration's spending priorities, stating that the costs of the war are visible in rising gas prices and fertilizer costs, and that the administration wants to spend $2 billion daily on military operations rather than help Americans access health care. She used colorful language to express frustration with the spending priorities.
• Rep. Terri Sewell questioned RFK Jr. on statements about Black children and ADHD medication — Rep. Terri Sewell asked RFK Jr. whether he had ever parented a Black child, referencing a 2024 podcast interview in which he allegedly suggested Black children on ADHD medication should be "re-parented." RFK Jr. denied making the statement. The Ways & Means Committee Democrats subsequently posted a video clip of RFK Jr. from 2024 stating: "Every Black kid is now just standard put on Adderall, SSRIs, benzos, which are known to induce violence, and those kids are going to have a chance to go somewhere and get re-parented."
• RFK Jr. testified before House on health care fraud investigation — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., leading a Trump administration initiative to investigate alleged health care fraudsters, testified before the House. During questioning, Rep. Lloyd Doggett presented a case involving Paul Walczak, who retained $10 million in wages and purchased a $2 million yacht after his mother contributed to the Trump campaign, and was no longer required to pay $4.4 million or serve prison time. Doggett asked whether RFK Jr. recommended pardons for health care fraudsters or if campaign contributions influenced the decisions. RFK Jr. denied the account as not credible.
• RFK Jr. testified before House committee on HHS spending and policy — RFK Jr. testified before a House committee hearing. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici questioned HHS spending on a video of RFK Jr. drinking milk in a hot tub with Kid Rock. Rep. Greg Casar asked about 1.4 million people who lost health insurance from Obamacare; RFK Jr. responded they were "almost all illegal immigrants." Rep. Adelita Grijalva referenced RFK Jr.'s history of performing his own medical research, including cutting the penis off a dead raccoon. Rep. Summer Lee raised concerns that RFK Jr.'s agency instructed programs to remove 200 words from funding applications including the word "Black."

Supporting reports

• House Judiciary Committee launches investigation into Kushner conflict of interest — Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, launched an investigation into Kushner's dual roles as government diplomat and private equity fund manager receiving Saudi payments. In an April 16 letter, Raskin argues the arrangement creates "a glaring and incurable conflict of interest" and that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's financial interest in prolonging the Iran war creates pressure on Kushner to do the same. The investigation seeks communications between Kushner and Saudi officials, the White House, and Trump campaign regarding his government role. Raskin indicates the investigation aims to inform reforms to bribery laws and conflict-of-interest statutes.
• House Democrats investigate Jared Kushner over Middle East conflicts of interest — House Democrats launched a probe into Jared Kushner regarding potential conflicts of interest in his Middle East dealings. The investigation examines whether Kushner's private business interests conflicted with his official role or subsequent activities.

Supporting reports

• Congressional subpoena issued to Pam Bondi for Epstein files testimony — Congress issued a subpoena requiring former Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify on 14 April regarding her handling of the Epstein investigative files. The subpoena was issued after Bondi's Justice Department repeatedly missed disclosure deadlines mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) and faced accusations of withholding documents. The subpoena remains in effect despite Bondi's removal from office, though House oversight leadership indicated uncertainty about whether the deposition would proceed.
• Pam Bondi defies congressional subpoena on Epstein files handling — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi failed to appear for a scheduled 14 April congressional deposition before the House Oversight Committee regarding her handling of Epstein investigative files. The Trump Department of Justice, led by Todd Blanche, notified the committee that Bondi would not appear because she is "no longer attorney general." Ranking Democrat Robert Garcia called the non-appearance an evasion of a lawful subpoena and threatened contempt proceedings. The committee stated it would reschedule the deposition, but the status remains unclear amid broader questions about DOJ transparency on Epstein-related documents.
• Rep. Garcia invokes congressional subpoena for Epstein documents — Rep. Garcia, Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee, responded to Acting AG Blanche's statement by reminding the public that a legally binding congressional subpoena exists for Epstein documents, separate from any DOJ discretionary release standard. Garcia asserted that the subpoena remains in force and the matter will not disappear.
• House Oversight Committee Moves to Hold Pam Bondi in Contempt — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi failed to appear for a scheduled testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee regarding the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein files. In response, Democrats on the committee announced plans to hold her in contempt of Congress for defying a lawful subpoena. Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) stated that Bondi is responsible for the White House cover-up of the Epstein files and emphasized the need for accountability.
• Representative Crockett announced intention to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress — Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) posted that Pam Bondi refused to appear for the House Oversight deposition in defiance of a lawful subpoena. Crockett stated that Oversight Democrats will move to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress, citing her responsibility for leading a White House cover-up of the Epstein files and the need for accountability and justice for survivors.
• Representative Garcia stated people must be held accountable for congressional subpoenas — Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told the Weeknight that people have to be held accountable for the laws that Congress passes and the subpoenas that it puts in place.
• Department of Justice asserted subpoena no longer in force for former Attorney General Bondi — The Department of Justice took the position that because Pam Bondi was subpoenaed as attorney general and no longer holds that position, the subpoena was no longer in force. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee disagreed with this legal position.
• Former Attorney General Pam Bondi failed to appear for House Oversight Committee deposition — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi was scheduled to testify under oath before the House Oversight and Reform Committee regarding the Department of Justice's handling of the release of Epstein files. The DOJ has released only approximately half of the files despite a law requiring full production by December 19 of the previous year, with many released records heavily redacted despite narrow congressional authorization for redactions. Bondi did not appear for the scheduled deposition.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice claims Pam Bondi subpoena void after her removal as Attorney General — The Department of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis, informed House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer that former Attorney General Pam Bondi will not appear for a scheduled 14 April deposition regarding the DOJ's handling of the Epstein investigation and release of Epstein files. The DOJ argued the subpoena, issued in her official capacity, no longer obligates her to testify since she was ousted from office on 7 April. The committee has not withdrawn the subpoena; bipartisan members and Democratic leadership assert Bondi remains legally obligated to appear.
• DOJ blocks Pam Bondi deposition on Epstein files — The Department of Justice announced that former Attorney General Pam Bondi will not appear for her deposition before the House Oversight Committee on April 14th. The DOJ claimed she was subpoenaed in her capacity as AG and no longer holds that role. House Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia clarified that the subpoena is to Bondi as an individual, not to her title, and stated that contempt charges are on the table if she does not comply. This continues an ongoing cover-up of Epstein files by the administration.
• Pam Bondi cancels deposition on Epstein files handling — The Republican-led House Oversight and Reform Committee announced that former Attorney General Pam Bondi will no longer appear for a scheduled deposition to provide testimony about the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files. Ranking Member Rep. Robert Garcia warned that if Bondi defies her subpoena, the committee "will begin contempt charges in the Congress."

Supporting reports

• Attorney General Bondi appears at closed-door briefing instead of sworn hearing — Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared at a closed-door, unsworn briefing before the House Oversight Committee on March 18, rather than complying with the subpoena requiring sworn testimony on April 14. When Democrats repeatedly asked if Bondi would comply with the subpoena, she refused to commit. Committee Chair Comer dismissed Democratic concerns about the lack of sworn testimony.
• House Democrats walk out of Bondi briefing — Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee walked out of the closed-door briefing with Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Blanche on March 18, in protest of the lack of sworn testimony and the Attorney General's refusal to commit to complying with the subpoena. Representative Maxwell Frost (D-FL) characterized the briefing as a "fake deposition" designed to allow Bondi to "weasel herself out of sitting in front of us under oath."

Supporting reports

• House Oversight Committee chair issues subpoena to Attorney General Bondi — House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) formally issued a subpoena requiring Attorney General Pam Bondi to appear before the committee on April 14 to testify under oath regarding DOJ handling of Epstein files.
• House Oversight Committee subpoenas Attorney General Pam Bondi over Epstein investigation — On March 17, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena requiring Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify about the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and associates, as well as DOJ compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Later that day, Democratic committee members walked out of a private briefing with Bondi after she refused to commit to complying with the subpoena and providing a deposition.
• House committee subpoenas Attorney General Pam Bondi over Epstein files handling — The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Republican James Comer, formally subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify about the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the DOJ for improperly redacting material, withholding names of potential criminals, and exposing survivor personal information. Bondi is required to appear for a deposition on April 14, 2026. The subpoena followed a March 4 committee vote in which five Republicans joined Democrats to authorize it.