Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Senators Sanders and Merkley and Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduce Ban Flock Act — Senators Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley, along with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, introduced the Ban Flock Act on Friday. If passed, the legislation will prevent federal agencies from using automated license-plate readers. State and local governments that continue using the technology could lose federal grant funding. The bill would also allow individuals to sue the federal government over violations. The legislation responds to documented cases of officers misusing license-plate databases, including searches involving former romantic partners.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require Fourth Amendment privacy protections — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. US that law enforcement's use of geofence warrants—which compel tech companies to hand over smartphone location data from people near crime scenes—constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring constitutional privacy protections. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, holding that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location records even when in public spaces. The ruling rejected the government's argument that accessing limited location data does not trigger Fourth Amendment protections and clarified that opting into location services does not constitute voluntary consent to government surveillance.
• Court rules that law enforcement’s use of “geofence warrant” was a “search” — The court has ruled that the use of "geofence warrants" by law enforcement constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. This decision impacts how digital data can be accessed by authorities, requiring them to obtain a warrant before accessing location data from electronic devices. The ruling emphasizes the need for privacy protections in the digital age and sets a precedent for future cases involving digital privacy and law enforcement practices.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Chatrie v. United States (25-112) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Chatrie v. United States. Docket number(s): 25-112.

Supporting reports

• US House blocks extension of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) section 702 — The US House of Representatives failed to pass a short-term extension of FISA section 702 in a 198-218 vote on June 11, 2026. Democrats blocked the renewal in protest of Trump's appointment of Bill Pulte, a major Republican donor with no national security experience, as acting director of national intelligence. The law will lapse on June 12, though a FISA court certification allows collection to continue under existing orders through approximately March 2027.
• House rejected FISA renewal measure — Nineteen Republicans joined all but seven Democrats to reject a measure to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expires on June 12, 2026. Under the fast-track procedure used by House Speaker Mike Johnson, the measure required a two-thirds majority but failed 218 to 198, not reaching even a simple majority. The rejection reflected concerns about Pulte's potential oversight of the program.
• Congress fails to reauthorize Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before deadline — Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits warrantless collection of communications involving foreigners outside the US and incidentally sweeps up American communications, was set to expire on June 12, 2026. Congress failed to reauthorize it by the deadline. House Speaker Mike Johnson blocked votes on reform amendments, particularly a warrant requirement for surveilling Americans' communications, refusing to allow longer extensions that included such reforms. The program continues operating under existing court certifications through March 2027, but the statutory authorization lapsed.
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act lapses — The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which grants the executive branch broad surveillance powers, lapsed on June 12 after Congress failed to pass a short-term extension. The lapse occurred amid Senate outrage over Pulte's potential appointment as acting DNI. Some Republicans attempted to pass a two-week extension, but their efforts failed.

Supporting reports

• FBI seizes Cyber Ninjas audit data from Arizona state senate president — In March 2026, the FBI seized a large collection of digital data compiled by Cyber Ninjas during its 2020 audit of Maricopa County election results. The material, which may include vote details and ballot images, was handed over by Republican state senate president Warren Petersen under a federal grand jury subpoena. Secretary of State Fontes criticized Petersen's compliance as a political favor to Trump and suggested it may have violated state data-protection laws.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration sues Arizona to obtain voter roll data; federal judge dismisses case — The U.S. Department of Justice sued Arizona to compel release of voter roll information as part of a broader effort to obtain voter files from 30 states. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes refused, citing state law prohibiting disclosure of sensitive personal data on nearly 5 million voters. Federal Judge Susan Brnovich, a Trump appointee, ruled the DOJ was not entitled to the document under federal law, dismissing the suit. This marks the sixth federal court to reject the administration's voter data demands.

Supporting reports

• House reauthorized Section 702 FISA surveillance powers for three years — The House of Representatives passed a three-year reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA on Wednesday by a vote of 235–191. The program permits U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept communications of foreign nationals abroad without a warrant, but data of Americans communicating with those targets is swept up incidentally, and the FBI can search that data without a court order. Civil liberties advocates have sought a warrant requirement for nearly two decades, which was not included in the bill. House leaders attached an unrelated ban on central bank digital currency to secure conservative votes; Senate Majority Leader Thune has called this provision a nonstarter.
• Congress passes a 10-day extension of Section 702 — Congress has passed a short-term 10-day extension of Section 702, a surveillance law that allows the government to collect communications. The extension is set to expire on April 30, 2026. The debate continues over whether to renew the law with reforms, such as a warrant requirement for searches involving Americans' data and closing the data broker loophole. The Senate is also considering a separate three-year FISA extension bill, keeping the issue active this week.
• Senate Republicans proposed three-year extension of Section 702 surveillance authority without reforms — Senate Majority Leader John Thune scheduled a vote on a bill to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for three years, until April 2029, without substantive reforms. Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concern that the system for collecting information on foreign threats can sweep in U.S. citizens and enable warrantless government surveillance. The House has attempted to negotiate cosmetic reforms, but if those negotiations fail, Thune plans to pass a three-year extension with no reforms, removing Congress's ability to revisit and strengthen constitutional safeguards for three years.

Supporting reports

• Attorney General Bondi testified before House Judiciary Committee and refused to answer questions about Epstein co-conspirators — Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2026. When asked by Congressman Nadler how many of Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators had been indicted and how many perpetrators were being investigated, Bondi did not answer directly. Instead, she attacked members of Congress throughout the hearing. When Congresswoman Jayapal asked survivors of Epstein's crimes to stand if they had not met with the Department of Justice, all survivors present raised their hands. Jayapal then asked Bondi to turn and apologize to the survivors; Bondi refused to acknowledge them and instead attacked Democrats over past impeachment proceedings.
• Pam Bondi testified before House Judiciary Committee on Epstein files handling — Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to address her handling of Epstein-related documents and redactions. Her testimony drew intense criticism from Democratic lawmakers and observers who alleged she was covering up information, lying under oath, and that the DOJ had improperly surveilled members of Congress reviewing the files. Multiple representatives and senators called for her impeachment or resignation, citing her conduct as unprofessional and her role in withholding documents and redacting victim information.
• Attorney General Bondi refused to release Epstein files to public as required by law — Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Judiciary Committee but refused to release all Epstein files to the public as Congress required when it passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi did not acknowledge survivors of Epstein's sexual assaults and sex trafficking who were present in the audience. When Representative Pramila Jayapal urged her to apologize to survivors for the sloppiness of the release that left many survivors' names, identifying information, and sexually explicit photos unredacted while covering perpetrators' names, Bondi accused Jayapal of theatrics and dragging the hearing "into the gutter."
• Pam Bondi defends DOJ Epstein file handling in heated House judiciary committee hearing — US Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House judiciary committee on Wednesday to defend the Department of Justice's handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats questioned the DOJ's compliance with a law mandating complete release of the files, citing concerns about released survivor names and unexplained redactions of names of potential crime perpetrators. Bondi avoided substantive answers, instead attacking and insulting Democratic questioners, calling one a "washed-up loser lawyer" and refusing to apologize to Epstein victims present in the hearing room.
• DOJ Refuses to Release Epstein Files to Congress — The Department of Justice (DOJ) did not comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Judiciary Committee but did not provide satisfactory answers regarding the withheld documents, which has raised concerns about transparency and accountability in the administration.

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

• FBI seizes 2020 ballots and election materials in Fulton County, Georgia — The FBI seized 2020 ballots and election materials in Fulton County, Georgia, described as "the top target of Trump's multi-year, conspiracy theory-fueled campaign against the 2020 presidential election." The operation involved Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. intelligence director, who is leading the Trump administration's effort to re-examine the 2020 election based on claims it was stolen due to alleged foreign government interference.
• FBI raided Fulton County election office and seized 2020 ballots — The FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, and seized ballots from the 2020 election. The raid occurred less than one week before Trump's public statements encouraging federal takeover of state elections.
• Court documents reveal FBI Fulton County raid based on debunked 2020 fraud claims — Unsealed court documents show that the FBI raid on a Fulton County, Georgia warehouse that seized 700 boxes of ballots and election-related materials was based on debunked claims of 2020 election fraud from election deniers. The search warrant affidavit was submitted by Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who worked with Trump to overturn the 2020 election and whom Trump recently appointed director of election security and integrity. Olsen recycled numerous debunked fraud theories in the affidavit. Legal analysis indicates the statute of limitations has likely expired on any potential election crimes, and both the Republican-led Georgia General Assembly and State Election Board found no intentional fraud or misconduct in Fulton County's 2020 ballot counting.

Supporting reports

• DOJ fired federal prosecutor who declined to prosecute Comey — MS NOW reported that the Justice Department fired a federal prosecutor who served as first assistant to the now-disqualified U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan after he declined to lead the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey.
• Six DOJ Civil Rights Division leaders resigned in protest — At least six leaders of the criminal section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division resigned in protest after the DOJ decided not to investigate the ICE officer who shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis, a process that usually takes place after any fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer.
• Federal leadership responded to ICE killings with defensive messaging and threats toward critics — After Renee Good was killed by ICE, federal leadership responded with defensive messaging, threats toward critics, and rhetoric framing accountability as an attack on law enforcement. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem appeared publicly behind messaging stating "One of ours, all of yours," signaling protection from consequences rather than transparency or restraint.
• DOJ Civil Rights Division officials resigned after being ordered not to investigate ICE agent's killing of Renee Nicole Good — Four high-ranking officials in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division resigned in protest after the Trump DOJ instructed them to investigate the victim, Renee Nicole Good, rather than the ICE agent who shot and killed her. The resignations follow a February wave of departures from the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, where prosecutors refused orders to dismiss a bribery case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The departures reflect broader institutional collapse within the DOJ, with thousands of career officials resigning or fired.
• Four leaders of DOJ Civil Rights Division criminal section resigned over ICE shooting decision — At least four leaders of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division at DOJ resigned to protest the decision by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon not to investigate the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good. The departures included the chief of the section, principal deputy chief, deputy chief, and acting deputy chief. This represents the most significant mass resignation at DOJ since February 2025, when five leaders of the Public Integrity Section resigned rather than comply with orders to dismiss the bribery case against former New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
• Department of Justice declined to investigate shooting as civil rights violation — The Department of Justice declined to investigate the fatal shooting of Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross as a civil rights attack. Instead, the DOJ classified the incident as an assault on a federal officer and initiated an investigation into Good's ties to local activists rather than examining the shooting itself. This prosecutorial decision prompted the resignation of at least six career prosecutors from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
• DOJ declines civil-rights investigation into Minneapolis ICE shooting — The Trump administration's Department of Justice leadership declined to open a civil-rights investigation into a Minneapolis ICE shooting incident, stating there was "no basis" for review while the FBI continues its investigation. In response, four senior supervisors in DOJ's Civil Rights Division resigned in protest, citing their exclusion from the case and objecting to the refusal to initiate civil-rights oversight. The resignations signal internal resistance to narrowing accountability mechanisms.
• Federal prosecutors resign from DOJ civil rights division over blocked investigation into ICE shooting — Six lawyers from the US attorney's office in Minnesota and four leaders of the DOJ civil rights division resigned in protest after the department, under assistant attorney general Harmeet Dhillon, declined to investigate the January 7 fatal shooting of unarmed civilian Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated there was "no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation" without elaboration. The resignations reflect broader purging of the civil rights division, which has lost roughly 70% of its staff since Trump's second term began.
• Federal prosecutors resign in protest over DOJ decision not to investigate killing of Renee Nicole Good — Several federal prosecutors resigned in protest after the Department of Justice declined to conduct a civil rights investigation into the killing of Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration agent. The killing sparked widespread protests and prompted state and local legal challenges to the federal immigration enforcement operation. The Trump administration has defended the agent's actions as self-defense, a characterization disputed by local officials and video evidence.
• Four senior DOJ Civil Rights Division supervisors resign over case exclusion — Four senior supervisors in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division resigned after being told they would be sidelined from the Minnesota ICE shooting investigation. The resignations were framed as protest against both their exclusion from the case and the broader refusal to open civil-rights oversight into the use-of-force incident. The departures represent internal institutional resistance to the narrowing of accountability mechanisms.
• Six career prosecutors resigned from DOJ Civil Rights Division — At least six career prosecutors from the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division resigned in protest over the DOJ's decision not to investigate the fatal shooting of Renee Good as a civil rights violation and instead to investigate Good's ties to local activists.
• DOJ declines to open civil-rights investigation into Minneapolis ICE shooting — The Department of Justice announced it found "no basis" to open a civil-rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The decision was made by DOJ leadership and signaled that civil-rights review would be granted only at the administration's discretion. The refusal to investigate followed the fatal incident and preceded the resignation of four senior DOJ Civil Rights Division supervisors.
• DOJ Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon declines to open investigation into ICE agent's fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good — Harmeet Dhillon, head of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, instructed federal prosecutors in the division's criminal section that she would not open an investigation into whether the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis violated federal law. The Civil Rights Division's criminal section normally handles investigations into law enforcement misconduct, but no probe was announced publicly or pursued internally.
• DOJ senior officials pressure federal prosecutors to investigate Renee Nicole Good's widow for criminality; six prosecutors resign — Senior DOJ officials pressed federal prosecutors to investigate Becca Good, widow of Renee Nicole Good, for possible criminality before the shooting. Six federal prosecutors in Minnesota and Washington, D.C.—including some who worked on fraud-related investigations—resigned in response to the pressure to pursue Good's family rather than investigate the ICE agent's conduct. The prosecutors' resignations were prompted by the DOJ's attempt to weaponize the fatal shooting and redirect the FBI's probe toward Good's family and their connections to local activist groups.
• DOJ civil rights division and federal prosecutors resign over handling of ICE shooting — At least four senior leaders of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and six federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned in response to how the Trump administration handled the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis. The resignations signal institutional breakdown and loss of confidence in federal accountability mechanisms.

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• Trump administration sues California cities over natural gas restrictions — The Trump administration's Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court (Northern District of California) against the San Francisco-area cities of Morgan Hill and Petaluma, seeking to block local ordinances restricting natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction. The complaint alleged the ordinances violated a 1975 federal law preventing states and cities from regulating the "energy use" of products subject to federal standards. The suit represents the administration's latest effort to challenge local climate policies.
• Justice Department sued Arizona and Connecticut for failure to produce voter registration lists — The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division announced federal lawsuits against Arizona and Connecticut for failing to produce complete voter registration lists upon request. Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated this brings the total number of states sued to 23 plus the District of Columbia. The department cited authority under the National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, and Civil Rights Act of 1960 to demand production and inspection of statewide voter registration lists.
• Justice Department sued California cities over natural gas bans in new construction — The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the cities of Morgan Hill and Petaluma, alleging their ordinances banning natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction violate federal law and preemption doctrine. The complaint seeks a declaration that the bans are preempted and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi characterized the ordinances as "radical" and stated they harm consumers and American energy dominance.
• Trump administration demands voter lists from states; DOJ sues 22 states refusing compliance — The Trump administration has demanded that states surrender complete voter lists including sensitive personal information. The U.S. Justice Department is suing 22 states—many led by Democratic secretaries of state—that have refused to comply. The administration is reportedly attempting to build a national voter file and push states to more aggressively remove people from voter rolls. This action occurs amid heightened attention to secretary of state races in 2026, particularly in swing states critical to the 2028 presidential election.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court lifts injunction on ICE roving patrols in Los Angeles — The Supreme Court's conservative majority temporarily lifted a lower court injunction that had restricted "roving" immigration patrols in the Los Angeles area. The lower court had found that federal ICE agents were indiscriminately targeting people based on race, language, employment, or location. The lifting of the injunction allows ICE to resume these patrols without the prior civil rights constraints. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling and warned it could trigger broader erosion of civil rights protections nationwide.
• Supreme Court lifts order barring race-based immigration enforcement — On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted an order that had previously barred the Trump administration from stopping people solely on the basis of race, language, or job. Immigration advocates expect this ruling will enable further acceleration of deportation raids targeting Southeast Asian communities.
• Supreme Court lifts restraining order on ICE immigration raids in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority granted a stay against a lower-court restraining order that had barred ICE agents from conducting "roving patrols" in Los Angeles based on race, language, or occupation. U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong had found "mountain of evidence" that enforcement tactics violated the Constitution and amounted to racial profiling. The 6-3 decision allows the Trump administration to resume sweeping immigration operations without the judicial restrictions, marking a major victory for the administration's mass deportation campaign.
• Supreme Court lifts restrictions on immigration patrols in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision lifting a temporary restraining order that had barred federal immigration agents from stopping people in Los Angeles based on race, ethnicity, language, employment type, or location. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence cited race as a "relevant factor" in forming reasonable suspicion. The ruling immediately enabled the Department of Homeland Security to resume "roving patrols" across the LA area, where prior sweeps had detained U.S. citizens and separated families. Civil rights advocates and local officials condemned the decision as legalizing racial profiling.
• Supreme Court lifts temporary restraining order on ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reverse a temporary restraining order that had banned ICE from stopping people based on race, language, or job. U.S. District Judge Maame E Frimpong had granted the order after finding "mountain of evidence" of constitutional violations through racial profiling. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion held that ethnicity can be a "relevant" factor in immigration enforcement. ICE immediately resumed sweeping raids in Los Angeles, with the agency announcing it would "flood the zone" in the city.
• Supreme Court ruled racial profiling legal in immigration detentions — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that racial profiling is permissible when conducting immigration detentions. Justice Kagan's dissent documented that ICE in Los Angeles was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: race, language spoken or accent, location, and type of work. The District Court had previously ruled such stops constituted illegal racial profiling. The decision applies nationwide. Justice Kagan warned that the ruling undermines Fourth Amendment protections for people based on appearance, accent, or low-wage employment.
• U.S. District Court judge issued order prohibiting race-based immigration stops; Supreme Court enjoined the ruling — On July 11, 2025, a U.S. district court judge issued an order prohibiting federal agents from stopping individuals as potential undocumented immigrants based primarily on apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, working in agriculture or construction, or combinations thereof. On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court enjoined that ruling, allowing federal agents to continue targeting people based on perceived race, language, or occupation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion dismissed concerns about Constitutional violations, while Justice Sonya Sotomayor dissented, warning that "constitutional freedoms are lost."
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. Perdomo — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Noem v. Perdomo. This decision allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue conducting immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, California, without the restrictions imposed by a lower court order. The lower court had previously ruled that the federal government must stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court's decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Supreme Court paused ruling preventing ICE racial profiling — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 unexplained decision, paused a lower court ruling preventing federal immigration officials from stopping suspects in Los Angeles based solely on factors like race, occupation, accent, or speaking Spanish. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the decision allows "the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."
• US Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ICE racial profiling in immigration enforcement — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority lifted judicial restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles, allowing federal agents to stop people if they appear Latino or speak Spanish. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling. The ruling reversed the temporary restraining order that had provided relief to Los Angeles communities and reinstated the government's ability to conduct indiscriminate enforcement operations based on perceived immigration status indicators.
• Supreme Court shadow docket decision permitting racial profiling — The Supreme Court issued a shadow docket decision that allows racial profiling. The decision was characterized as ominous in its implications for civil rights and equal protection. No additional procedural or factual details were provided in the source text regarding the specific case, parties, or scope of the ruling.

Supporting reports

• DHS imposes one-week advance notice requirement for congressional detention facility visits — The Department of Homeland Security implemented a policy requiring members of Congress and their staff to provide seven days' advance notice before visiting ICE detention facilities. Democratic lawmakers filed suit challenging the requirement as unconstitutional, arguing it violates federal law that explicitly permits members of Congress to enter DHS facilities "for the purpose of conducting oversight" without restriction. The policy effectively prevents unannounced inspections that would reveal actual daily conditions rather than prepared presentations.
• Democratic lawmakers file constitutional lawsuit challenging DHS visitation policy — Twelve Democratic members of Congress filed suit against the Trump administration challenging the DHS policy requiring one week's advance notice for congressional oversight visits to ICE detention facilities. The lawsuit argues the requirement is unconstitutional and unlawfully restricts their oversight authority under federal law, which explicitly prohibits the government from preventing members of Congress from entering DHS facilities for oversight purposes. The plaintiffs include Representatives Jason Crow and others who have been denied access.

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

• Federal Bureau of Prisons transferred Ghislaine Maxwell to minimum-security facility in violation of policy — Officials from the Federal Bureau of Prisons quietly transferred Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker serving a 20-year sentence, from a Florida prison to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas. According to the Bureau of Prisons's own designation policy, Maxwell is ineligible for transfer to a minimum-security facility because she is a convicted sex offender. Only the administrator of the Bureau of Prisons Designation and Sentence Computation Center can grant a waiver to this policy. The transfer occurred without public announcement.
• Ghislaine Maxwell transferred to minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas — Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted associate of Jeffrey Epstein, was transferred from a Florida federal prison to a minimum-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas. According to MSNBC reporting and federal prison records, the Bureau of Prisons waived eligibility rules to facilitate the transfer, as Maxwell was technically ineligible for minimum-security placement. The facility, described as a "luxury" camp by victims' advocates, offers yoga, a fully-stocked gym, gardening, limited perimeter fencing, and other amenities. Prison experts stated they had never seen such a waiver granted for a sex offender before.
• Ghislaine Maxwell transferred to minimum-security facility — Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex offender, was transferred to a minimum-security facility ("Club Fed"). Trump stated he did not know about the transfer, claiming it is "not an uncommon thing." The source characterizes this as unprecedented, noting that convicted sex offenders are never transferred to minimum-security facilities and that Deputy AG Blanche, Trump's former attorney, would not have approved the transfer without Trump's authorization.

Supporting reports

• Federal court issues temporary restraining order limiting ICE arrests based on race or occupation in central California — On 11 July, a federal judge in the central district of California issued a temporary restraining order restricting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from arresting people based on race or occupation. The order came in response to an ACLU lawsuit documenting that ICE agents had conducted sweeps targeting people with brown skin, often without warrants or reasonable suspicion. The judge found "a mountain of evidence" supporting allegations of racial profiling. The order applies to the federal court's jurisdiction covering over 19 million people in southern and central California, though enforcement has continued outside the protected zone.
• Federal judge issues temporary restraining order limiting ICE stop authority in Los Angeles — A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against DHS immigration enforcement operations in the Los Angeles region, prohibiting agents from stopping individuals without "reasonable suspicion" of immigration law violation. The order explicitly bars agents from using race, ethnicity, accent, location type (bus stops, car washes, day labor sites, agricultural sites), or presence at particular locations as justification for stops. The ruling directly responds to legal complaints documenting systematic racial profiling during weeks of intensive ICE raids and represents a potential major disruption to the federal government's enforcement campaign.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Markwayne Mullin (C.D. Cal.) 2:25-cv-05605 — The district court granted two temporary restraining orders , barring immigration officers from stopping individuals based on inappropriate factors including race, accent, location or work, and requiring that detainees in a federal building in Los Angeles be provided access to counsel at all times.

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

• 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

• Attorney General Bondi releases first phase of declassified Epstein files — Attorney General Pamela Bondi, in conjunction with the FBI, declassified and publicly released approximately 200 pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual exploitation of over 250 underage girls. The release includes evidence lists, flight logs, contact books, and masseuse lists. Bondi stated the files shed light on Epstein's network and provide accountability. The Attorney General has requested the FBI deliver thousands of additional pages of previously undisclosed documents by February 28 and tasked FBI Director Kash Patel with investigating why the initial request was not fully complied with.
• Pam Bondi demands full Epstein files from FBI — Attorney General Pam Bondi has demanded the FBI provide the complete files related to Jeffrey Epstein, following a release of partial documents. Bondi's request highlights ongoing scrutiny and demands for transparency regarding Epstein's connections and activities.
• House Judiciary Committee posts misleading link — The House Judiciary Committee's social media account posted a misleading link purporting to provide access to the Epstein files, which instead directed users to a music video. The incident raises concerns about transparency and the use of official channels for misinformation.
• Attorney General Bondi accused FBI of withholding Epstein investigation files — On February 27, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi released a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel accusing the FBI of "inappropriately withholding thousands of pages of files" related to the Epstein investigation from the DOJ. She demanded the FBI turn over the material by 8 a.m. the following day. This accusation was made after Bondi had stated on Fox News that Trump had directed her to review Epstein's client list for potential release, setting public expectations for disclosure that would later not be met.
• Trump administration delays release of Epstein files after initially promising disclosure to QAnon-aligned influencers — In February 2025, the Trump White House invited 15 right-wing influencers, including QAnon promoters, to meet with Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Vice President JD Vance. They were given binders labeled "The Epstein Files: Phase 1," signaling more releases would follow. Bondi stated on Fox News that Trump had directed her to review Epstein's client list for release. However, months passed without further disclosure. On July 6, the DOJ released an unsigned memo contradicting Bondi's claims, stating there was no "incriminating client list" and no evidence of blackmail. The delay sparked backlash from Trump's MAGA base, including QAnon adherents who believed Trump was covering up evidence.

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.