Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

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

Supporting reports

• House Republicans pass budget resolution authorizing $95bn reconciliation bill for Iran war, farm aid, and voting restrictions — The Republican-controlled House passed a 216-214 budget resolution on Wednesday authorizing a $95bn reconciliation bill. The measure allocates $73bn for military operations against Iran (responding to the Trump administration's $88bn supplemental request), $12bn for farm aid affected by the Iran conflict and tariffs, and $10bn for the House administration committee to attempt passage of the Save America Act, which would ban mail-in ballots nationwide and impose strict voter ID requirements. The reconciliation process allows passage with a simple Senate majority, bypassing the Democratic filibuster.
• House Dem Whip criticizes GOP budget as prioritizing Trump's war and voter suppression — House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark issued a statement criticizing the House GOP's latest partisan budget, stating it allocates $73 billion for Trump's war, $10 billion for voter suppression, and $0 to lower costs. Clark characterized the budget as a misallocation of priorities away from helping constituents.
• House GOP leaders schedule packed floor agenda including Iran war funding and defense policy — House GOP leaders scheduled a packed floor agenda for the week of July 20, with only four days remaining before summer recess. The schedule includes the annual defense policy package, a bill to fund the government beyond the midterms, a budget resolution to unlock the reconciliation process, and a GOP-led stock trading ban measure. The agenda includes a $95 billion fiscal blueprint that includes funds for Iran war and farm aid, along with a watered-down version of an elections bill.
• House Democrats criticized Secretary of Defense Hegseth's Senate testimony — Multiple House Democrats, including Jeffries, Raskin, and AOC, publicly criticized Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's testimony before the Senate. The criticism followed Hegseth's appearance before the Senate, where he faced questioning about his qualifications and positions.
• House voted on budget resolution for third GOP reconciliation package — The House of Representatives voted on a budget resolution on July 22, 2026, that sets up a third GOP reconciliation package. Reconciliation packages allow the majority party to pass legislation with a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing the normal 60-vote threshold.
• Rep. Ted Lieu criticized UN Ambassador Mike Waltz over wounded troop figures — Rep. Ted Lieu publicly criticized UN Ambassador Mike Waltz during a hearing, challenging the accuracy of figures Waltz provided regarding the number of wounded troops. Lieu's criticism focused on what he characterized as misrepresentation of casualty data.

Supporting reports

• Trump notified Congress of second military engagement in Iran — On July 10, 2026, Trump notified Congress for a second time that the nation was engaging in military action in Iran. The administration maintains that this second notification constitutes a new military engagement and thus restarts the 60-day clock under the War Powers Act. Legal analysts state this interpretation has no basis in law, legislative history, or practice.

Supporting reports

• Legal challenge filed against DHS border wall waivers in Big Bend sector — The Friends of the Ruidosa Church, river guide Billy Miller, and the Center for Biological Diversity updated an existing lawsuit on Thursday, June 12, 2026, challenging DHS border wall-related waivers of environmental laws in the Big Bend sector. The plaintiffs argue that the waivers violate due process and other constitutional rights, marking the first major legal challenge to the administration's authority to suspend environmental protections in a national park.

Supporting reports

• Department of Homeland Security issues waiver allowing border wall construction in Big Bend National Park — The Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security published a waiver in the Federal Register on June 11, 2026, that suspends enforcement of major environmental and historical preservation laws—including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act—to permit Customs and Border Protection to construct border security infrastructure in Big Bend National Park, Texas. The waiver authorizes construction of vehicle barriers, roads, surveillance systems, and potentially 30-foot steel bollard fencing across 17 miles of the park's river frontage and interior, despite the area accounting for less than 0.5% of unauthorized border crossings nationally.

Supporting reports

• Congress repeatedly rejected or delayed War Powers measures since March — Congress has been repeatedly rejecting, blocking, or delaying War Powers measures since March regarding the Iran conflict. The White House declared on May 1 that hostilities had "terminated," but fighting has continued. The article notes that a ceasefire would be welcome, but that war narrated from press availabilities with Congress kept at the margins is not how war powers are supposed to function constitutionally.

Supporting reports

• House GOP cancels War Powers Resolution vote on Iran — House Republican leaders abruptly canceled a vote on an Iran War Powers Resolution that was likely to pass due to absences of Republican members and others who signaled support for the measure. The cancellation came after the Senate advanced a similar resolution earlier in the week to limit Trump's military action against Iran without congressional approval.
• House Republican leaders delayed Iran war-powers vote past Memorial Day recess — House Republican leaders delayed a vote on the Iran war-powers resolution into June, after appearing to lack the votes to defeat it. The measure's sponsor, Rep. Gregory Meeks, stated he believed it would have passed. A similar House resolution had fallen on a tie vote the week before. The delay postpones a constitutional confrontation over congressional war-declaration authority.
• House Republicans cancel scheduled war powers resolution vote on Iran conflict — House Speaker Mike Johnson canceled a scheduled Thursday vote on a war powers resolution that would have required President Trump to end the US war with Iran. The measure likely would have passed with bipartisan support. Democrats criticized the cancellation as cowardly avoidance of political embarrassment for Trump. The vote has been postponed until June. Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick stated the resolution would pass when brought to a vote again.
• House Republicans adjourned without voting on War Powers resolution — Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) reported that House Republicans did not have the votes to continue the war and decided to adjourn for the holiday instead of stopping the war. While the war continues, American taxpayers are paying tens of billions of dollars, service members are being lost, and gas prices are rising. The House closed up shop without addressing the War Powers resolution.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration invokes Defense Production Act to force reopening of California offshore oil pipeline — On Friday, March 15, 2026, the Trump administration ordered the reopening of the Santa Ynez offshore oil pipeline system in California, which had been closed since 2015 following a major oil spill. Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked emergency powers under the Defense Production Act, citing national security and military readiness amid the US-Israel war on Iran. Sable Offshore Corporation, the Houston-based operator, announced oil was flowing through the system by Monday, March 18. California Governor Gavin Newsom immediately threatened legal action and the state parks department ordered removal of the pipeline from Gaviota State Park.

Supporting reports

• Pentagon briefers tell Congress Iran had no plan to attack U.S. unless Israel struck first — Briefers from the Pentagon told congressional staff that Iran had not been planning to attack U.S. forces or bases in the Middle East unless Israel attacked first. This contradicted Trump administration claims made on Saturday that Iran was planning to strike the U.S. preemptively and posed an imminent threat. The Pentagon briefers stated there was no intelligence to support the administration's imminent-threat claim.
• Pentagon admitted no intelligence supported imminent Iranian threat — During closed-door congressional briefings on March 1, 2026, the Pentagon disclosed that it possessed no intelligence indicating Iran was planning to attack U.S. forces first. This admission directly contradicted Trump's public justification for the military campaign. Trump separately told the New York Times the war could last "four to five weeks" and acknowledged there would "likely be more" deaths of U.S. troops before it concludes.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's argument to deploy federalized National Guard in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's legal argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The decision limited Trump's authority to use military forces within the United States without explicit congressional authorization or state consent.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's National Guard deployment authority in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The 6-3 decision blocked the administration's attempt to militarize American cities without state consent.
• Supreme Court rejects Trump's National Guard deployment in Illinois as unlawful — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 preliminary ruling that President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in the Chicago area beginning in October violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The majority held that a president must first attempt to execute laws using regular U.S. military forces and may deploy the National Guard only if unable to do so with regular forces. The Court found the Government failed to identify statutory or constitutional authority permitting military enforcement of laws in Illinois.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump's National Guard deployment for immigration enforcement in Illinois — The Supreme Court rejected Trump's deployment of the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement in Illinois, ruling that federal law limits use of the National Guard to situations where regular military forces are insufficient. The majority found that the President does not have inherent authority to deploy the military to protect ICE property. Three justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) dissented.
• Supreme Court blocks Trump administration from deploying National Guard in Illinois — The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois as part of his mass immigration crackdown, ruling that the government "failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois." The decision represents a rare judicial check on executive power in the Trump administration.
• Supreme Court Denies Stay in Trump v. Illinois — On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Illinois. This decision upheld a lower court's order that barred the Trump administration from deploying the federalized National Guard in Illinois for immigration enforcement actions. The case arose after the Trump administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement in Chicago, which was challenged by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court's denial means the federal government cannot deploy the National Guard in Illinois pending further legal proceedings. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the decision.
• US Supreme Court blocks Trump national guard deployment to Chicago — The US Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower court order blocking the deployment of national guard troops to the Chicago area. In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that the government failed to meet the legal burden required to show it could not enforce immigration laws without federal military intervention. The decision upholds a ruling by US District Judge April Perry from October and signals potential impact on similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Denies Stay in Trump v. Illinois — On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Illinois. This decision upheld a lower court's order that barred the Trump administration from deploying the federalized National Guard in Illinois for immigration enforcement actions. The case arose after the Trump administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement in Chicago, which was challenged by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court's denial means the federal government cannot deploy the National Guard in Illinois pending further legal proceedings. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the decision.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration withholds SNAP emergency reserve funds despite congressional appropriation — The Trump administration refused to release emergency reserve funds Congress appropriated for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), claiming it lacked authority to do so during the government shutdown. The withholding threatened to cut benefits to 42 million Americans (one in eight U.S. residents) receiving an average of $186 monthly. Two federal judges found the withholding likely illegal and ordered the administration to use the emergency funds to maintain SNAP benefits.
• Federal judges block Trump administration from suspending SNAP benefits during government shutdown — Two federal judges issued separate rulings on October 31, 2025, blocking the Trump administration from suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for nearly 42 million low-income Americans. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order, and Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts ruled the government must continue funding the program. The administration had planned to halt payments on November 1 due to the ongoing government shutdown, but plaintiffs argued the USDA possessed sufficient contingency funds ($5.25 billion) to maintain benefits.
• Federal judge in Rhode Island orders USDA to provide SNAP benefits from emergency funds — U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in a lawsuit brought by several cities, a major labor union, and Rhode Island nonprofits, ordered the USDA to use emergency contingency funds to provide SNAP benefits and to provide an update by noon on Monday, November 3. McConnell stated that the six billion dollars in contingency funds are appropriated funds necessary to carry out the program's operation.
• Federal judge orders SNAP benefits funded from emergency reserves — U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts, in a lawsuit brought by Democratic attorneys general and governors against the USDA and Office of Management and Budget, found that Congress had appropriated emergency funds specifically for such crises and ordered the administration to decide by Monday whether to release those funds for SNAP benefits. The judge stated: "Congress has put money in an emergency fund, and it is hard for me to understand how this is not an emergency."
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13165 — District Court Judge Talwani found that State Plaintiffs have standing and are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the administration's suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is contrary to law during the ongoing appropriations lapse. The motion for a temporary restraining order remains under advisement until Monday, Nov. 3, to allow the administration to advise the court on whether it would use contingency funds to authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November 2025.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00569 — District Court Judge John McConnell, Jr. issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to distribute November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits using contingency funds effective immediately, to report to the Court on Monday, Nov. 3 regarding the status of the distribution, and to honor any existing waivers.
• Federal judge in Boston ruled Trump administration's SNAP suspension plan likely unlawful — A federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's plan to suspend SNAP food aid benefits during the government shutdown is likely unlawful. The judge ordered the Trump administration to respond by Monday with a plan to at least partially fund SNAP benefits, indicating the court's intent to prevent full suspension of the program.
• Federal judge in Rhode Island ordered USDA to distribute SNAP contingency funds for November 1 payments — A federal judge in Rhode Island issued an oral order requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to distribute contingency funds to ensure SNAP benefits are paid on November 1, 2025, during the ongoing government shutdown. The judge stated the USDA must distribute the money "timely, or as soon as possible" to meet the deadline. This order directly contradicts the Trump administration's plan to suspend food aid benefits during the shutdown.
• Federal judge ordered Trump administration to release emergency SNAP funds immediately — A federal judge granted a request and ordered the Trump administration to release emergency funds for SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) immediately, hours after Speaker Mike Johnson claimed there was "no way" to fund the program during the shutdown. The ruling came in response to litigation filed by Democrats challenging the administration's withholding of benefits. Johnson had previously dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous, but the court order directly contradicted his assertion that funding was impossible.

Supporting reports

• DOJ claimed ICE no longer required to accommodate congressional oversight visits — Politico reported that Justice Department lawyers said in court that ICE is no longer required to accommodate oversight visits from lawmakers to its facilities, arguing that the requirement was part of government funding laws that expired when the federal government shutdown began in September, and that ICE is now operating with appropriations made in Trump's tax and spending bill, which does not require congressional access to ICE facilities.
• Congress denied entry to ICE holding facilities for oversight inspections — According to a lawsuit filed in Washington DC, members of Congress have been denied entry to ICE field offices in New York City, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and Washington for congressionally mandated oversight inspections of holding facilities. ICE claims these are not traditional detention centers and therefore not subject to congressional inspection. Additionally, the government shutdown has been cited by the Trump administration to override oversight rules preventing congressional inspection of holding and detention centers.
• ICE claims shutdown eliminates congressional oversight obligation — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asserted that the government shutdown eliminates its legal obligation to permit congressional oversight visits to its detention facilities. This claim emerged despite ICE receiving an injection of $75 billion into its budget from July's budget reconciliation bill, allowing law enforcement agents to continue receiving paychecks including overtime. The assertion represents a unilateral claim of exemption from congressional oversight authority during the shutdown.
• ICE Claims Shutdown Limits Congressional Oversight — On October 28, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that the government shutdown means it no longer has a legal obligation to allow congressional oversight visits to its detention facilities. This statement raises concerns about transparency and accountability within the agency during the shutdown.

Supporting reports

• Stay motion decided — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administration's emergency motion to stay a district court order that had blocked the federalization of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. In a 2-1 decision, the panel concluded that the President likely lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) , finding his decision “reflect[ed] a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.'” The majority found that the district court had erred by minimizing evidence of violence in the months before the federalization order was issued and that it placed too much emphasis on Trump's social media remarks, writing that the deployment constituted a “proportionate” and “measured” response by “sending only a minimal number of Guardsmen to restore order around a federal building” and that the decision of how many troops to send “warrants the highest possible deference.” Judge Graber dissented, warning that the ruling “hands the President a blank check to militarize domestic disputes whenever he declares himself dissatisfied with civilian law enforcement.” The stay reinstates the administration's power to deploy the Oregon National Guard while the appeal proceeds.
• Federal appeals court ruled Trump administration can deploy National Guard to Portland — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with deploying National Guard troops to Portland. Two Trump-appointed judges wrote that "Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis" to support the deployment. A Clinton-appointed judge dissented, writing that the decision "is not merely absurd, it erodes core constitutional principles."
• Ninth Circuit judge requests en banc rehearing vote on Trump troop deployment ruling — Hours after the three-judge panel decision, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the case should be reheard by a larger en banc panel of all 29 active judges. This triggered a formal order requiring written briefs from Oregon and Portland (supporting rehearing) and the Trump administration (opposing it) by midnight Wednesday. All 29 judges will then vote on whether to grant the rehearing. The dissenting judge, Susan Graber, had urged vacatur of the panel's decision, and Oregon's governor and attorney general both called for the full court to reverse the ruling.
• Three-judge federal appeals panel lifts block on Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland — A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 on October 21 to lift a lower court's injunction blocking Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. Trump had ordered the deployment citing federal property protection; Oregon's governor and attorney general challenged it as unlawful. The dissenting judge called the ruling "absurd" and without legal justification. Hours later, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the full 29-judge court should rehear the case, triggering a briefing schedule with a Wednesday midnight deadline.
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pauses lifting of Portland national guard block — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday paused the lifting of Judge Immergut's first temporary restraining order blocking deployment of 200 Oregon national guard troops to Portland until the following Tuesday evening. The pause was granted to allow the court time to decide whether to rehear the appeal of that order before a larger 11-judge panel, effectively extending the deployment block for at least four additional days.
• Case update — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied an administrative stay on an earlier order temporarily blocking the administration from deploying the Oregon National Guard while the legal challenge against it proceeds. The ruling temporarily reinstates the district court's order while the full court determines whether to rehear the case en banc.

Supporting reports

• Trump signs Executive Order 14339 establishing specialized federal law enforcement and National Guard units for District of Columbia crime emergency response. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14339 on August 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to deploy additional resources to address crime in Washington, D.C. The order mandates hiring of U.S. Park Police and federal prosecutors, establishes an online recruitment portal for law enforcement applicants, creates specialized federal and D.C. National Guard units for public safety enforcement, directs HUD to investigate housing authority compliance with safety requirements, and instructs the Attorney General to review and recommend changes to Metropolitan Police Department General Orders. The order references prior emergency declarations and authorizes potential deployment of state National Guard units nationwide.
• Trump executive order on National Guard civil disturbance response — On August 25, President Trump signed an executive order directing the secretary of defense to ensure that each state's Army National Guard and Air National Guard are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring public safety and order. The order also mandates establishment of a standing National Guard quick reaction force resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment.
• Trump issued executive order directing federal law enforcement expansion and National Guard mobilization in Washington, D.C. — President Trump signed an executive order on August 25, 2025, directing the National Park Service to hire additional U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. to hire prosecutors focused on violent and property crimes, and the Department of Defense to create and train a specialized National Guard unit in D.C. dedicated to public safety. The order also directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure all state National Guard units are resourced and available for rapid deployment to assist law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances nationwide, and instructs HUD to investigate housing authority non-compliance with safety requirements.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14339 directing federal law enforcement expansion and National Guard mobilization in Washington, D.C. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14339 on August 25, 2025, directing the National Park Service to hire additional U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. to hire prosecutors focused on violent crime, and the Department of Defense to create and train a specialized D.C. National Guard unit under Title 32 activation. The order also directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure all state National Guard units are resourced and available for rapid nationwide deployment to quell civil disturbances, establishes a standing National Guard quick reaction force, and instructs HUD to investigate housing authority compliance with crime-prevention requirements. The order references a prior crime emergency declaration (Executive Order 14333 of August 11, 2025).
• Trump expands law enforcement takeover in DC — Trump signed a fourth executive order expanding his takeover of law enforcement in DC, directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "ensure the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment."
• Trump signs executive order priming National Guard for rapid mobilization — President Trump signed an executive order on an unspecified date that primes the National Guard "for rapid mobilization" across the country. The order follows Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and signals potential deployment to Chicago. Trump justified the moves by claiming he has authority to act when he believes the country is in danger, stating "I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the President of the United States of America."

Supporting reports

• Federal court rules Trump's asylum ban proclamation unlawful — US District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that President Trump's proclamation declaring an "invasion" at the US-Mexico border and suspending asylum processing exceeded presidential authority and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and Constitution. Trump had signed the proclamation on inauguration day, directing officials to "repel, repatriate, or remove" migrants. Moss found the president lacks authority to unilaterally replace Congress's immigration statutes with an alternative system. The Trump administration has 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court; if upheld, the ruling would require the Department of Homeland Security to resume processing asylum claims at the southern border.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court allows deportations under Alien Enemies Act with venue restrictions — The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on April 7 that President Trump may continue using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members, but imposed limits: judicial challenges must occur in Texas (where detainees are held), not Washington DC; detainees must receive notice and reasonable time to seek habeas relief before removal. The ruling lifted a DC judge's temporary block on deportations, though two planes had already departed US airspace before the order was issued.
• US Supreme Court lifts block on deportations under 1798 Alien Enemies Act, requires due process — On Monday, April 7, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to lift a temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration's deportation of 238 Venezuelan men to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. While allowing the deportations to proceed, the Court unanimously affirmed that individuals facing removal have a constitutional right to habeas corpus and due process to challenge their deportation. The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas for further proceedings on the legality of invoking the wartime statute.
• Ruling vacated — J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00766 — The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, vacated the district court's TROs holding that the case should have been brought as a habeas case where the plaintiffs were in custody at the time. The Court also stated, “notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
• Supreme Court Grants Emergency Application in Trump v. J.G.G. — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision granting the federal government's emergency application to vacate a lower court's order in the case of Trump v. J.G.G. The case involved a presidential proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act targeting members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The lower court had temporarily blocked the deportation of several Venezuelan men, treating them as a class. The Supreme Court's decision vacated this order, requiring challenges to be filed individually through habeas petitions in Texas, where some plaintiffs were held, rather than as a class action in D.C. The opinion did not address the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations but affirmed non-citizens' due process rights.
• Supreme Court allowed deportation of Venezuelan migrants under Alien Enemies Act — The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to deport Venezuelan migrants using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act in a 5-4 decision. The ruling stated that migrants must be told they are being deported under the act and receive "reasonable time" to challenge their removal in the state where they are detained.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. J. G. G. (24A931) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. J. G. G. Docket number(s): 24A931.