Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US Citizen Detained by Immigration Officials — Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a US-born citizen, was detained by immigration officials in Foley, Alabama, during an operation targeting undocumented workers. While filming the arrests of his co-workers, officials dismissed his Real ID as fake, wrestled him to the ground, and cuffed him. Despite providing his social security number to verify his citizenship, he was detained for hours. The Department of Homeland Security stated that Garcia Venegas was arrested for allegedly interfering with law enforcement duties. The incident highlights the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement measures, which have inadvertently affected US citizens.

Supporting reports

• US judge orders Trump administration to return wrongly deported gay man — A federal judge, Brian Murphy, ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a Guatemalan man, identified as OCG, who was wrongly deported to Mexico despite fears of harm. OCG, who is gay, had applied for asylum in the US after facing homophobic violence in Guatemala. The deportation was found to lack due process, and the judge emphasized that OCG posed no security threat. This ruling is part of a series of court findings against recent deportations by the Trump administration.

Supporting reports

• US judge overturns Trump order targeting Jenner & Block — A US district judge, John D Bates, overturned an executive order issued by Donald Trump that targeted the law firm Jenner & Block. The order, signed in March, suspended security clearances for the firm's lawyers and restricted their access to government buildings, officials, and federal contracting work. Trump accused the firm of undermining justice due to its employment of Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer involved in the Mueller investigation. Bates ruled the order unconstitutional, citing violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. The administration may appeal the decision to the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.
• Summary judgment ruling — Jenner & Block v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00916 — Judge John Bates issued an order and opinion granting Jenner & Block's motion for summary judgment and denied the government's motion to dismiss, declaring EO 14, 246 unlawful and “null and void” because it violates the First Amendment, and permanently enjoined the government from implementing or enforcing the order, directing agencies to rescind any steps taken under it and to resume ordinary dealings with the firm as if the order had never issued.

Supporting reports

• Judge Blocks DHS Order Revoking Student Visas — U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order blocking DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's order to revoke visas for foreign students at Harvard University. The order, which Harvard claims would affect over 7,000 visa holders, is being challenged in court for its potential to harm the university and its international student body. A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Tuesday.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11472 — Judge Allison Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order (TRO).

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court Blocks Religious Charter School in Split Ruling — The US Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling that blocked the establishment of St Isidore of Seville Catholic virtual school in Oklahoma, leaving intact a lower court's decision. The lower court had found that the proposed taxpayer-funded religious charter school would violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, which limits government involvement in religion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, resulting in an evenly divided court. The decision does not set a precedent, allowing for future cases on similar issues to be brought before the court.
• Supreme Court Deadlocks on Religious Schools Funding Case — The Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on a case regarding public funding for religious schools, leaving a lower court ruling in place. This decision does not set a precedent but leaves open the possibility of future cases.

Supporting reports

• DoJ moves to cancel police reform deals with Minneapolis and Louisville — The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, has moved to cancel consent decrees with the cities of Minneapolis and Louisville. These decrees were established during the Biden administration to reform police practices following the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. The Justice Department filed a motion in Minnesota and plans to do the same in Kentucky, stating that the decrees are not in the public interest. This decision reflects a shift in the civil rights division's approach under Trump, which opposes federal oversight of local police departments.
• DOJ Ends Negotiations for Police Reform Settlements — The DOJ's Civil Rights Division announced it will end negotiations for court-approved settlements with police agencies in Minneapolis and Louisville, despite previous findings of civil rights violations. This decision affects efforts to address systemic police misconduct.

Supporting reports

• ICE Detains Columbia Student Mahmoud Khalil — Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and green card holder, remains detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Louisiana. Khalil was arrested in March, allegedly in retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights. Surveillance footage released contradicts claims that Khalil attempted to flee during his arrest. Khalil's detention has sparked protests, including at Columbia's graduation ceremony, where students chanted "Free Mahmoud." An immigration hearing is scheduled for May 22, and Khalil awaits a ruling from a New Jersey judge on his case.

Supporting reports

• Case update — D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10676 — Judge Murphy ordered the Defendants to maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country and to ensure the practical feasibility of their return if the court finds that such removals were unlawful. The court also ordered that Defendants be prepared by the next hearing, scheduled for May 21, to identify the time and manner of notice each individual in the affected class received as to their third-country removal, and what opportunity each individual had to raise a fear-based claim.
• Federal Judge Orders Trump Administration to Maintain Custody of Immigrants — A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to maintain custody of immigrants being flown to South Sudan, citing potential violations of a court order. This decision emphasizes the need for compliance with legal processes in deportation cases.
• Judge rules White House violated order by deporting migrants to South Sudan — A federal judge in Massachusetts, Brian E. Murphy, ruled that the Trump administration violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan. The ruling came after the administration deported eight individuals, despite a previous injunction requiring due process for deportations to third countries. The judge criticized the administration for providing insufficient notice to the deportees and ordered clarification on the deportation process. The case highlights ongoing legal challenges against the administration's immigration policies, particularly concerning the deportation of individuals to countries where they may face harm.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10676 — Following an emergency hearing, Judge Murphy found the government violated the court's preliminary injunction by deporting at least six members of the class to South Sudan without meaningful opportunity to assert claims of protection under the Torture Convention. Judge Murphy held that “no reasonable interpretation of the Court's Preliminary Injunction” could endorse the government's action. The court issued a “summary and clarification” of the injunction requiring removal to a third country to include written notice to both the non-citizen and the non-citizen's counsel in a language the non-citizen can understand, and a meaningful opportunity and a minimum of ten days to raise a fear-based claim for Torture Convention protection (plus an additional 15 days if to seek reopening of immigration proceedings if initially denied). Also following the emergency hearing, Judge Murphy issued a separate order to remedy the violation of the preliminary injunction. It requires giving the six individuals a reasonable fear of torture interview including access to counsel, an interpreter, and technology for transfer of documents “commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures occurred within the United States prior to their deportation.”
• Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Violated Court Order — A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration violated a court order by deporting seven men to South Sudan without due process, with officials potentially facing criminal contempt penalties. This ruling emphasizes the importance of legal compliance in deportation cases.
• Judge rules administration violated court order on deportations — Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the administration violated a court order by deporting eight men to South Sudan without providing them due process. The court had mandated that the men be given a fair review before being sent to a country other than their own.
• Court halts Trump administration’s deportation of eight men to South Sudan — A federal court ruling has halted the Trump administration's attempt to deport eight men to South Sudan. The men, who are currently in temporary custody in Djibouti, were initially set to be deported despite their home countries refusing to accept them. US District Judge Brian Murphy criticized the administration for not providing adequate time for the men to legally challenge their deportation, ruling that they must be given at least 15 days to contest the decision. The ruling aligns with international human rights standards and allows six of the men to assert fears of torture or mistreatment.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department Launches Criminal Investigation Against Andrew Cuomo — The New York Times reported that the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation against Andrew Cuomo, focusing on allegations of lying to Congress about COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes. This investigation could impact Cuomo's political future.
• Justice Department Opens Inquiry into Andrew Cuomo’s Covid-19 Response — The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a criminal investigation into Andrew Cuomo, former New York governor and current New York City mayoral candidate, over allegations of mishandling the state's Covid-19 response, particularly in nursing homes. The investigation, led by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, follows a criminal referral by Republican Representative James Comer, who accused Cuomo of making false statements to Congress about the Covid-19 nursing home situation. The inquiry aims to determine if Cuomo engaged in a cover-up to protect himself from accountability for the high number of deaths in nursing homes.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke protected status for Venezuelans — The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration's request to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. This decision allows the administration to proceed with plans to end legal protections that shield these individuals from deportation, despite an ongoing appeal in a lower court. The ruling follows a previous decision by a federal judge in California to temporarily block the administration's efforts, citing concerns of racism. The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Motion granted — National TPS Alliance et al. v. Noem (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-01766 — The Supreme Court granted the stay for the government.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. National TPS Alliance — The Supreme Court granted an emergency application from the federal government to stay a lower court's order in the case of Noem v. National TPS Alliance. This decision temporarily halts the enforcement of a ruling by Judge Edward Chen, which had paused the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for individuals from Venezuela and Haiti. The stay allows the Department of Homeland Security, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, to proceed with ending the TPS designation while the case is under appeal. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.
• Supreme Court Approves Termination of TPS for Venezuelans — The Supreme Court approved an emergency appeal from the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans, paving the way for their potential deportation. This decision affects the legal status and future of many immigrants.
• Supreme Court grants stay in Noem v. Nat. TPS Alliance — The Supreme Court granted a stay on the March 31, 2025 order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Noem, Sec., DHS, et al. v. Nat. TPS Alliance, et al. This stay is pending the outcome of an appeal in the Ninth Circuit and any potential petition for a writ of certiorari. If certiorari is denied, the stay will automatically terminate. If granted, the stay will end upon the Supreme Court's judgment. The order does not affect challenges to Secretary Noem's February 3, 2025 vacatur notice regarding certain immigration documents.
• Venezuelan immigrants express betrayal over TPS revocation — Venezuelan immigrants who previously supported Trump expressed feelings of betrayal after the revocation of their Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which now subjects them to potential deportation.

Supporting reports

• Appeal filed — State of Rhode Island v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00128 — Defendants appealed to the First Circuit (Case No. 25-1477 ).
• Case update — Agelviz-Sanguino v. Noem (S.D. Tex.) 4:25-cv-02116 — Following a hearing, district court Judge Keith Ellison issued an order granting Plaintiffs' emergency motion. Among other actions, it states: “If Defendants claim an inability to facilitate communication due to lack of control over El Salvadoran facilities, they must: i. Set forth in a declaration all efforts made to secure cooperation, including through diplomatic or contractual channels. ii. Disclose all agreements or arrangements with El Salvador (or any agency or sub-division otherwise involved) related to Agelviz-Sanguino's detention, including any memoranda of understanding with, or funding ties to CECOT.”
• Case update — Southern Education Foundation v. United States Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01079 — Plaintiffs filed an amended supplemental complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Educational Research Association v. Department of Education (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-01230 — Plaintiffs filed a reply further supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Butterbee Farm v. United States Department of Agriculture (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00737 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which noted that USDA had resumed processing invoices and advance requests for IRA grant recipients following the entry of preliminary injunction in Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Dep't of Agriculture . Plaintiffs asserted that permanent judicial relief is still needed even in light of Woonasquatucket .
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00206 — Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction .
• Stay motion decided — Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (E.D. Va.) 1:25-cv-00300 — The court granted Defendants' consent motion to stay proceedings pending appeal.
• Stay pending appeal decided — J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.) 8:19-cv-01944 — The Fourth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, denied the government's request for a stay pending appeal. Judge Benjamin, joined by Judge Gregory, upheld the district court's enforcement order; Judge Gregory concurred separately, suggesting that the underlying AEA proclamation was “plainly invalid,” while Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that AEA removals were outside the scope of the settlement and that “court-commanded negotiation with a foreign state” exceeded judicial authority.
• Case update — CASA, Inc. v. Noem (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-01484 — Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint .
• Motion to dismiss decided — Chung v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02412 — Chung filed a sur-reply in further opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss to address intervening 2nd Circuit decisions in Ozturk v. Hyde and Mahdawi v. Trump that reject Defendants' jurisdictional challenges.
• Notice of appeal filed — Sustainability Institute v. Trump (D.S.C.) 2:25-cv-02152 — Judge Gergel granted Plaintiffs judgment on their uncontested APA claims for Grants 1-26 and 33-38, issuing declaratory and permanent injunctive relief and denying Defendants' motion to stay. The court also found jurisdiction and standing for the nonstatutory review claims and granted preliminary injunctive relief for Grants 1-26 and 33-38, while denying preliminary relief for Grants 27-32. The following day, the government filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
• Summary judgment ruling — Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ct. Intl. Trade) 1:25-cv-00077 — Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, arguing that the States do have standing, reiterating that the IEEPA does not authorize the tariff orders and that the States have established the other elements for an injunction.
• Lawsuit Filed Over Death of Glenn Smallwood Jr. in Police Custody — Defendants appealed Judge Friedman's May 14 preliminary injunction order.
• Appeal filed — American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01030 — Judge Ellison issued an order requiring supplemental information by the government. “Defendants' declaration provided no meaningful information regarding Plaintiff Agelviz-Sanguino's location, health, or the legal basis for his detention,” the court wrote.
• Case update — King County v. Turner (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00814 — Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint .
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00677 — The Plaintiffs filed notice that they were appealing the Court's order denying their Motion for Preliminary Injunction to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
• Appeal filed — Agelviz-Sanguino v. Noem (S.D. Tex.) 4:25-cv-02116 — The government appealed, and, on May 23, the Fifth Circuit issued an administrative stay pending appeal.
• Case update — Espinoza Escalona v. Noem (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00604 — Plaintiffs submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal stating that the government has removed them and their claims are thus rendered moot.
• Case update — State of Washington v. Dept. of Transport et al (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00848 — Seven nonprofit environmental and public interest organizations filed a motion to intervene as Intervenor-Plaintiffs. The Parties allege that they seek to protect their interests in the federal EV charging program, which they argue is critical for reducing pollution and ensuring access to reliable charging infrastructure. The Parties move to intervene by alleging that the federal government's suspension of the program directly harms their members and that no current party in the case fully represents their interests.
• Motion to dismiss decided — Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00457 — Defendants motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice.
• Motion to dismiss decided — Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts v. Bessent (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-12822 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that included additional facts, amended one claim for relief, and added three more, including a violation of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and a separation of powers violation for usurping legislative function.
• Case update — Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00298 — The district court case was voluntarily dismissed and on May 27, the appeal was dismissed.
• Case update — New York et al v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01144
• Dismissal entered — Agelviz-Sanguino v. Noem (S.D. Tex.) 4:25-cv-02116

Supporting reports

• Trump administration attempts to dismantle the CFPB — The Trump administration has been actively working to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by attempting to fire the majority of its workforce, which consists of about 1,700 employees. This move was blocked by a federal judge last month. The administration's actions have left the agency unable to protect consumers effectively, especially during a time of potential financial crisis. Additionally, the administration has rescinded the nomination of Jonathan McKernan to lead the CFPB, further fueling concerns about the agency's future.
• CFPB issues list of policy and regulatory guidance documents to rescind — Earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a list of nearly 70 policy and regulatory guidance documents it plans to rescind. These include measures such as exempting medical debt from credit reports and banning lenders from considering borrowers' medical information during credit assessments. The rescission of these policies could lead to increased financial burdens on consumers, particularly those with medical debt.

Supporting reports

• Georgia's RICO Prosecution Against Cop City Protesters — The state of Georgia is prosecuting 61 individuals under the RICO statute for their involvement in protests against the Cop City police training center near Atlanta. The case, initiated by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr in August 2023, has faced significant delays and is criticized for being politically motivated. Defense attorneys argue that the prosecution is causing undue harm to the defendants' lives and has a chilling effect on protest activities. The case involves a large volume of evidence, and the new judge, Kevin Farmer, plans to conduct trials in smaller groups starting as early as June.

Supporting reports

• Settlement reached for wrongful death lawsuit involving Ashli Babbitt — The Biden administration agreed to a nearly $5 million settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Ashli Babbitt, a participant in the January 6 insurrection. The settlement will allocate 33% to Judicial Watch and a Virginia lawyer. The Capitol Police Chief expressed disappointment with the DOJ's decision to settle.
• Trump officials reach $5m settlement in January 6 wrongful death suit — The Trump administration has reportedly agreed to a $5 million settlement with the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by police during the January 6, 2021, US Capitol breach. The settlement aims to resolve the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Babbitt's estate, which initially sought $30 million in damages. Attorneys for both Babbitt’s family and the federal government informed a judge of the agreement in principle, with a formal update expected by Thursday. The case was initially scheduled for trial in July 2026.
• US Taxpayers to Pay $5 Million Settlement to Ashli Babbitt’s Family — The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration reached a $5 million settlement with Ashli Babbitt’s family over her death during the January 6 insurrection. This settlement has implications for law enforcement accountability and public perception of the event.
• DOJ Considers Settlement in Ashli Babbitt Lawsuit — The Department of Justice is reportedly considering a $5 million settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by law enforcement while attempting to breach the Speaker's Lobby during the January 6 Capitol riot. This potential settlement indicates ongoing legal ramifications from the events of that day.

Supporting reports

• Cuts to healthcare for 9/11 first responders reported — Reports indicate that cuts to a program funding healthcare for first responders and survivors of the September 11 attacks have left many patients uncertain about their cancer treatment coverage.
• Cuts to IRS enforcement budget announced — The Trump administration announced a 31% cut to the enforcement wing of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which is expected to exacerbate tax evasion among high earners, costing the government approximately $700 billion annually.
• Cuts to USAID contracts reported — The Trump administration's cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are projected to result in approximately $2 billion less in contracts for American farmers and leave food that could feed millions rotting in government warehouses.
• Trump administration cuts grants for Harvard University — The Trump administration cut an additional $450 million in grants for Harvard University, expanding a lawsuit by the school against the administration for violating proper procedures and First Amendment rights.
• Trump administration cuts federal grants to Harvard University — The Trump administration cut off federal grants to Harvard University over allegations of racial discrimination against white and Asian individuals. This action is part of a broader initiative to address perceived discrimination in hiring and admissions practices at the university.

Supporting reports

• Moody’s downgrades U.S. credit rating — Moody’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States from AAA to AA1, citing dysfunction in Washington, D.C., and an uncertain economic outlook. This downgrade signals potential challenges for the U.S. economy and its financial stability.
• Moody's lowers U.S. credit rating — Moody's announced it is lowering the U.S. credit rating for the first time since 1917, citing instability in the economy due to tariffs and high debt projections, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attributed to the Biden administration's spending.
• Moody's Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating — Moody's downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time since 1917, citing concerns over the potential passage of the Republicans' “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which is expected to add approximately $4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade. This downgrade follows similar actions by Fitch and Standard & Poor's in previous years, indicating a growing concern about U.S. fiscal health.

Supporting reports

• Republicans attempt to pass significant budget bill — Republicans in Congress attempted to advance a budget measure dubbed “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” which aimed to extend Trump’s tax cuts at a projected cost of $4.6 trillion over ten years while raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill faced opposition and ultimately failed to advance out of the House Budget Committee.
• House Budget Committee passes bill in late-night session — The House Budget Committee passed a budget bill after a late-night session, with some members who previously voted 'No' changing their votes to 'Present.' The bill is set to face further scrutiny in the Rules Committee.
• Republicans criticized for scheduling votes at odd hours — Several Democratic representatives criticized Republicans for scheduling votes on significant legislation during late-night hours, suggesting a lack of transparency and public engagement in the legislative process.
• House Committee Advances Trump’s Tax Cut Bill — On May 18, 2025, a key House committee passed a tax cut and border security package, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, after reaching an agreement with far-right Republicans who had previously stalled its progress. The bill, which aims to extend tax breaks from Trump's first term and increase spending on border security, faces challenges in the full House due to potential opposition from moderates concerned about cuts to climate incentives and healthcare programs. The bill's passage is crucial for Republicans, who need to unite their party to pass it before the Memorial Day deadline.
• House Budget Committee Passes Controversial Bill — The House Budget Committee passed a bill referred to as the “Big, Beautiful Bill” on a party-line vote, with 17 Republicans in favor and 16 Democrats against. The bill includes cuts to Medicaid and extends tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will significantly increase the federal deficit. House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated minor modifications would be made, while critics argue the bill is being rushed through Congress without adequate scrutiny.
• House Republicans schedule procedural vote on Trump's bill — House Republicans have scheduled a procedural vote for 1am on Wednesday to advance President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which aims to enact his taxation and immigration priorities. The bill includes making permanent or extending tax cuts, ending taxation of tips and overtime, funding a border wall, and mass deportations. It proposes slashing federal safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP to offset costs, which has caused division among Republicans. The bill's passage is crucial for Trump, but it faces opposition from some lawmakers concerned about its impact on Medicaid and the SALT deduction.
• House Rules Committee to Consider Omnibus Bill — The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on May 21, 2025, to discuss a 1,116-page omnibus bill proposed by Republicans that aims to implement significant parts of former President Trump's agenda, including cuts to Medicaid and increased logging on public lands. The bill is being advanced through a budget reconciliation process, which allows it to pass with only Republican votes in the Senate. However, there is notable division among Republicans regarding the proposed Medicaid cuts, which are unpopular among constituents.
• House passes Budget Reconciliation Bill — The House of Representatives passed the Budget Reconciliation Bill by a narrow margin of 215-214, with two Republicans voting against it and one voting present. The bill's passage is significant as it will now move to the Senate, where Republican opposition is anticipated.
• Congressional Republicans pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — Congressional Republicans narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a 215-214 vote. The bill aims to permanently extend tax cuts from Trump's first term and introduce new deductions for working-class families, but these benefits will expire in 2028. The bill also includes cuts to social safety net programs, potentially affecting millions of poor and disabled Americans. The legislation is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. It now moves to the US Senate for further consideration under the budget reconciliation procedure, which limits Democratic influence.
• House Passes Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act — The House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" act, which enacts President Donald Trump's taxation and spending priorities. The bill includes making permanent the tax cuts from Trump's first term, increasing the standard deduction, and introducing new tax write-offs. It also allocates significant funds for mass deportations and border wall construction, imposes new fees on immigrants seeking asylum, and restricts federal courts from enforcing certain contempt citations. Additionally, it cuts funding for Medicaid and SNAP, phases out green energy incentives, and raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate.
• House Passes Trump's Tax Bill — On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax bill championed by Donald Trump, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This legislation aims to make permanent the tax cuts established in 2017, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans and corporations. The bill also includes cuts to government assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP, and ends clean energy tax credits. The bill is expected to cost the federal government $4.6 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade, while saving $1 trillion through reduced spending on assistance programs.
• House passes Trump's tax-and-spend bill — On May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax-and-spend bill, which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and makes significant spending reductions, particularly in Medicaid and food assistance programs. The bill passed without any Democratic support and has been criticized for potentially increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis indicates that the bill would leave 10.9 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. The bill now moves to the Senate, where modifications are expected.
• House passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill — The House of Representatives passed a major tax-cut bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aligns with Donald Trump's tax and spending priorities. The bill, passed by a narrow margin of 215-214, includes provisions for tax cuts for individuals and corporations, funding for a border wall, and new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP. It is expected to add $2.3 trillion to the deficit. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans aim to pass it by July 4th.
• House Committee Advances Bill with Steeper Medicaid Cuts — After extensive debate, the House Rules Committee agreed to advance The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes steeper cuts to Medicaid to gain support from far-right Republicans. These cuts are expected to leave at least 9 million people without healthcare coverage, reflecting a significant shift in healthcare policy.
• House of Representatives passes Republicans' megabill — The House of Representatives passed a significant bill by a vote of 215 to 214, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. The bill includes substantial cuts to healthcare and nutrition assistance, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that it will result in over 2.7 million households losing benefits. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
• House Rules Committee Begins Hearing on The One Big, Beautiful Bill — The House Rules Committee commenced a hearing on a budget bill dubbed The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes significant restrictions on federal courts' authority to hold government officials in contempt for violating court orders. This bill also proposes a $3.8 trillion extension of tax cuts from 2017, primarily benefiting the wealthy and corporations, while cutting federal healthcare and food assistance programs, potentially leaving millions without coverage. The committee moved the bill forward after 22 hours of debate, aiming for a swift vote in the House.
• House Republicans Pass Bill Cutting Medicaid and Medicare — In a late-night session, House Republicans passed a bill that could remove 8 million people from Medicaid, cut Medicare spending, and add $4 trillion to the national debt. The bill also includes tax cuts for the wealthy and funds for the border wall.
• Congressional Budget Office Reports on Impact of Proposed Bill — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the proposed budget bill will add $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years and will trigger cuts to Medicare due to the Pay-As-You-Go law. These cuts, limited by law to 4%, are expected to total approximately $490 billion from 2027 through 2034. The CBO's findings highlight the bill's potential negative impact on low-income Americans and the healthcare system.
• Proposed Cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — The proposed budget bill includes cuts of about 30% to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which would be the largest cut in the program's history. This reduction is projected to cut approximately $300 billion from the program through 2034, affecting over 40 million people, including children and seniors.
• House passes Trump’s budget bill with significant cuts — The House of Representatives passed a budget bill that extends tax cuts for individuals and corporations while implementing funding cuts and new work requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These changes are expected to bar millions from receiving essential benefits, raising concerns among affected workers and advocates. The bill also includes funding for a border wall and facilities for mass deportations.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rules against Trump on deportations — The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Trump must halt deportations of alleged gang members without due process. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the decision.
• Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration's Deportation Bid Under 1798 Law — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration's request to lift a temporary block on the deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration sought to use the law to deport individuals accused of being gang members, but the court's decision, which included two dissenting votes, returned the case to a federal appeals court. The ruling emphasized the need for due process and reasonable time for detainees to challenge their deportation, countering the administration's proposal of a 12-hour notice period.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — W.M.M. v. Trump (a.k.a. A.A.R.P. v. Trump) (N.D. Tex.) 1:25-cv-00059 — The U.S. Supreme Court , in a per curiam decision. recognized the putative class in the Northern District of Texas and held that “notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster” under the Fifth Amendment. The Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit to address “(1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs' underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President's March 14, 2025, Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class's due process claims against summary removal.” The Court enjoined the government from removing putative class members pending the outcome of the litigation. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented on procedural grounds.
• Supreme Court Grants Injunction in A.A.R.P. v. Trump — On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court granted an injunction in the case of A.A.R.P. v. Trump, which involved a challenge to a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act against members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the case on behalf of Venezuelan nationals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that the executive order violated their rights. The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision granted the ACLU's request for an injunction, temporarily halting deportations under the proclamation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (24A1007) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in A.A.R.P. v. Trump. Docket number(s): 24A1007.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge in New Jersey to rule on Mahmoud Khalil's release — A federal judge in New Jersey is expected to rule soon on the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian permanent resident and Columbia University student, who remains in detention. Khalil was detained by the Trump administration for his pro-Palestinian activism. His case is part of a broader legal battle over the government's authority to detain and deport noncitizens for political speech. Khalil's attorneys are optimistic, given recent releases of other detained students.
• Federal judge orders release of Badar Khan Suri from custody — On May 14, 2025, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the release of Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow, from immigration custody. Suri, an Indian scholar, was detained by the Trump administration as part of a campaign to deport international students over pro-Palestinian speech. The administration claims their presence harms U.S. foreign policy. This ruling follows the release of other students, Rümeysa Öztürk and Mohsen Mahdawi, who were also detained under similar circumstances.
• Federal judge orders release of Indian academic from ICE detention — On May 14, 2025, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the immediate release of Badar Khan Suri, an Indian academic detained by ICE. Suri, a Georgetown postdoctoral fellow, had been held for two months after his visa was revoked due to alleged pro-Palestinian activism. The judge ruled that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence for its claims and emphasized the public interest in protecting free speech. Suri, who faces deportation proceedings, was released without conditions or bond and returned to his family in Virginia.
• Federal judge orders release of Rümeysa Öztürk and Mohsen Mahdawi — On May 14, 2025, a federal judge ordered the release of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student, and Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student, from immigration custody. Both were detained by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian activism, which the government claims is harmful to U.S. foreign policy. The judge's decision reflects skepticism about the administration's use of immigration laws to suppress political dissent.

Supporting reports

• South Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Six-Week Abortion Ban — The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state's six-week abortion ban, rejecting Planned Parenthood's argument that the definition of a "fetal heartbeat" was incorrect. The court's 5-0 decision confirmed that the legislative intent was to prohibit abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. This ruling is a significant setback for Planned Parenthood, which argued that the ban should not apply until nine weeks, when a fetus's heart is formed. The decision reinforces the restrictive abortion laws prevalent in the southeastern United States.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court hears birthright citizenship case — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a significant case challenging former President Trump's executive order aimed at deporting children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents. The case has drawn attention due to its potential impact on the interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The arguments reportedly did not favor the Trump administration, with even conservative justices posing challenging questions. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for immigration policy and constitutional interpretation.
• Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order — On January 21, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. without at least one parent being a legal permanent resident or U.S. citizen. The order was immediately challenged and blocked by lower courts as unconstitutional. The case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court as an emergency case, with the administration seeking to allow the restrictions to take partial effect. The Supreme Court's decision could have significant implications for the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the future of birthright citizenship in the U.S.
• Supreme Court hears cases on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order — On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding former President Donald Trump's executive order issued in January, which seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil if their parents are not citizens or permanent residents. The order challenges the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The administration is also contesting the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential orders. The Supreme Court's decision could impact the scope of presidential power and the role of federal courts in checking executive actions.
• Supreme Court to Hear Birthright Citizenship Case — The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a consolidated case challenging an executive order signed by Donald Trump that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The case involves multiple plaintiffs, including Monica, a Venezuelan asylum seeker, and two immigration advocacy groups, Asap and Casa. The executive order, which was signed shortly after Trump took office, has sparked significant legal and public debate. The outcome of the case will determine whether children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents will be granted citizenship, impacting many immigrant families.

Supporting reports

• Chuck Schumer announces hold on DOJ nominations over Qatar jet gift — Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer announced he would obstruct all Trump administration justice department nominations until the White House provides answers regarding the acceptance of a luxury aircraft from Qatar for presidential use. Schumer's hold is a response to concerns over the constitutional and security implications of accepting such a gift, which may violate the emoluments clause. The hold requires Senate Republicans to use additional floor time to confirm nominees individually. Schumer demands that Attorney General Pam Bondi testify before Congress to explain the deal's compliance with the Constitution.

Supporting reports

• Shutdown of CBP One App for Migrant Appointments — In January, the Trump administration shut down the CBP One app, which previously allowed migrants to schedule appointments with immigration officials. This move has effectively closed a legal pathway for asylum seekers to enter the United States, leaving many in limbo and increasing the risk of illegal crossings. The shutdown has been part of a broader crackdown on immigration, contributing to a tense atmosphere at the US-Mexico border and complicating the work of non-profits assisting migrants.

Supporting reports

• Jay Bratt summoned by House judiciary committee — Jay Bratt, the former special counsel prosecutor who led the Mar-a-Lago case against Donald Trump, is scheduled to appear before the Republican-led House judiciary committee. The committee is investigating potential politicization in federal criminal cases against Trump. This marks the first known instance of a special counsel prosecutor being summoned by the committee since Trump took office. The deposition is set for next Wednesday, and it is unclear if Bratt will invoke any privileges to avoid testifying. The committee, led by Jim Jordan, has expressed concerns about political bias in the justice department's actions against Trump.
• Jay Bratt asserts Fifth Amendment rights before House committee — Jay Bratt, a former special counsel prosecutor, invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during a deposition before a Republican-led House committee. The committee, chaired by Jim Jordan, is investigating alleged politicization in the prosecutions of Donald Trump. Bratt, who was involved in the federal criminal case concerning Trump's handling of classified documents, was invited to testify as part of the committee's inquiry. This marks the first known instance of a special counsel prosecutor being summoned before the judiciary committee since Trump took office.

Supporting reports

• Stephen Miller Suggests Suspending Habeas Corpus — White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller indicated that the administration is considering suspending the writ of habeas corpus, a move that would allow the government to detain individuals without charges. This statement has raised alarms about potential overreach and the erosion of civil liberties.