Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal grand jury indicts Southern Poverty Law Center for wire fraud, false statements, and money laundering conspiracy — A federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The indictment alleges that between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals associated with violent extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America, while publicly claiming to oppose those groups. The DOJ alleges the organization used fictitious bank accounts to conceal the scheme and made false statements to financial institutions.
• Acting Attorney General Blanche announces 11-count indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center — Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche held a press conference announcing an 11-count federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, charging the civil rights organization with wire fraud, making false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to launder money. The charges relate to a now-defunct program in which the SPLC paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups and shared information with law enforcement. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing. The indictment was widely viewed as an effort by Blanche to demonstrate to Trump his willingness to use the DOJ against political rivals.
• DOJ pressured prosecutors to indict Southern Poverty Law Center despite case-strength concerns, whistleblower alleges — A Department of Justice lawyer, Aakash Singh, reportedly pressured federal prosecutors in Alabama to rush an 11-count indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center despite serious concerns about the case's strength, according to a whistleblower account shared with House Democrats. Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the indictment on April 21, accusing the civil rights organization of wire fraud and money laundering related to an informant program. Democrats Jamie Raskin and Mary Gay Scanlon opened an investigation into the matter, citing Singh's directive to prosecutors to expedite charges. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing.
• Justice Department indicts Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges — Trump's Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges, alleging the civil rights organization defrauded donors by secretly paying informants more than $3 million to infiltrate white supremacist and extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan. The tactic of using paid informants has been used by the FBI and other federal agencies for decades. Critics characterized the indictment as "nakedly political."
• DOJ indicts Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges — The Department of Justice, through Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, announced an 11-count federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) by an Alabama grand jury. The charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, alleging the SPLC funneled over $3 million to confidential informants within extremist groups between 2014 and 2023 using fictitious entities, and misrepresented to donors and banks how funds were being used. The SPLC's CEO Bryan Fair disputed the allegations and stated the informant program "saved lives."
• Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges by Trump administration DOJ — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted on federal fraud charges by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, alleging the organization improperly paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups without disclosing payments to donors. The indictment claims at least $3 million went to informants affiliated with the KKK, Aryan Nations, and other groups between 2014 and 2023. SPLC CEO Bryan Fair stated the payments were necessary to monitor violence threats and that information was shared with the FBI and law enforcement. Charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
• DOJ indicted Southern Poverty Law Center for fraud — The Department of Justice indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleging that SPLC used donor money to pay informants to infiltrate right-wing hate groups, but claiming the purpose was to create false flags to instigate violence and racist demonstrations. The indictment has refueled conspiracy theories that the January 6 insurrection was instigated by infiltrators paid by left-wing groups. Rep. Dan Goldman criticized the indictment as legally baseless, comparing it to prosecuting the FBI for funding drug trafficking through informants.

Supporting reports

• Acting Attorney General Blanche announces 11-count indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center — Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche held a press conference announcing an 11-count federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, charging the civil rights organization with wire fraud, making false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to launder money. The charges relate to a now-defunct program in which the SPLC paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups and shared information with law enforcement. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing. The indictment was widely viewed as an effort by Blanche to demonstrate to Trump his willingness to use the DOJ against political rivals.
• DOJ pressured prosecutors to indict Southern Poverty Law Center despite case-strength concerns, whistleblower alleges — A Department of Justice lawyer, Aakash Singh, reportedly pressured federal prosecutors in Alabama to rush an 11-count indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center despite serious concerns about the case's strength, according to a whistleblower account shared with House Democrats. Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the indictment on April 21, accusing the civil rights organization of wire fraud and money laundering related to an informant program. Democrats Jamie Raskin and Mary Gay Scanlon opened an investigation into the matter, citing Singh's directive to prosecutors to expedite charges. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing.

Supporting reports

• Joe DiGenova sworn in to lead "Russia hoax investigation" — On April 20, 2026, Joe DiGenova, an 81-year-old former Trump election lawyer and conspiracy theorist, was sworn in to oversee a multi-year "grand conspiracy" investigation against Trump's perceived enemies, including former CIA director John Brennan. DiGenova stated that Trump "personally asked" him to lead the investigation and publicly sketched a grand conspiracy narrative framing investigations into Trump as a coordinated plot to deny him civil rights.

Supporting reports

• Dhillon directs civil rights division to investigate Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson for alleged race discrimination — After Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who is Black, spoke about hiring Black people in his administration to ensure they "look out for the interest of Black folks," the civil rights division's official account posted a letter from Dhillon informing Johnson he was under investigation for violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition on race discrimination. The investigation was announced publicly on social media the day after Johnson's remarks, a highly unusual practice that alarmed former civil rights lawyers and signals the weaponization of civil rights law against efforts to address racial equity.
• Dhillon directs investigation into Cassidy Hutchinson, January 6 committee witness — The civil rights division, under Dhillon's oversight, is investigating Cassidy Hutchinson, the former Trump aide who gave vivid testimony to the January 6 committee about the president's actions on that day. The source notes it is unclear what civil rights violation, if any, Hutchinson committed. The investigation appears retaliatory against a witness who testified against Trump.
• Dhillon directs investigation into Pennsylvania school bus driver firing over "English only" sign — In December 2025, after a local news outlet published a story about a Pennsylvania school bus driver being fired for posting an "English only" sign on her bus, Dhillon posted that she had directed the civil rights division to open an investigation into "this situation implicating DEI wokeness." The investigation was announced on social media days after learning of the incident, departing sharply from standard practice in which the civil rights division does not publicly announce investigations or release letters informing targets they are under investigation.
• Dhillon posts on social media about ongoing DOJ investigations in early stages — Harmeet Dhillon, with 1.3 million followers on her personal X account, has posted official department letters on X announcing civil rights investigations, a highly unusual practice that has alarmed former civil rights division lawyers. The practice violates longstanding norms that investigations remain confidential until formal notice is provided. Dhillon has also posted about investigations in early stages, departing from standard practice in which the civil rights division does not publicly announce investigations.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department appoints Trump loyalist Joe diGenova to lead probe into officials who investigated Trump — The Justice Department announced the appointment of Joe diGenova, a Trump loyalist and 2020 election denier, to lead a Florida-based federal probe into intelligence and law enforcement officials who investigated Trump. DiGenova previously worked with Rudy Giuliani on efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and to obtain damaging information on then-candidate Joe Biden from Ukrainian officials. The appointment signals the administration's intent to investigate and potentially prosecute those who conducted prior investigations into Trump.
• Joe DiGenova sworn in to lead "Russia hoax investigation" — On April 20, 2026, Joe DiGenova, an 81-year-old former Trump election lawyer and conspiracy theorist, was sworn in to oversee a multi-year "grand conspiracy" investigation against Trump's perceived enemies, including former CIA director John Brennan. DiGenova stated that Trump "personally asked" him to lead the investigation and publicly sketched a grand conspiracy narrative framing investigations into Trump as a coordinated plot to deny him civil rights.

Supporting reports

• DOJ applies FACE Act religious-freedom provision to prosecute church protest for first time — The Trump administration charged protesters and journalists under an unused provision of the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that prohibits interfering with religious freedom at places of worship. This marks the first use of that provision. Simultaneously, the administration has virtually stopped prosecuting under the FACE Act's original provisions protecting reproductive healthcare access and has pardoned nearly two dozen anti-abortion activists convicted under those provisions. Legal experts call the application to journalists "unprecedented" and "a really dramatic overcharge."

Supporting reports

• DOJ files motions to vacate January 6 seditious conspiracy convictions — The US Department of Justice, under Trump-appointed US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, filed motions on April 15, 2026, to overturn seditious conspiracy convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members convicted for their roles in the January 6, 2021 Capitol siege. The filing targets convictions of leaders including Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Stewart Rhodes. This action follows Trump's January 2025 mass pardons and commutations of roughly 1,600 Capitol-related defendants, including Enrique Tarrio, who had been sentenced to 22 years. The filing would erase convictions from defendants' records.
• Department of Justice moved to dismiss seditious conspiracy convictions of January 6 defendants — The Department of Justice filed a motion to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys members convicted for their roles in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Lenerz wrote that "The United States has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice." This action follows Trump's January 2025 pardons and sentence commutations of January 6 participants, effectively erasing accountability for convictions related to the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
• DOJ seeks to dismiss Oath Keepers and Proud Boys Jan. 6 convictions — Trump's Justice Department filed a motion with a federal appeals court to dismiss seditious conspiracy convictions of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys members charged for their roles in the January 6 insurrection. The defendants had previously received sentence commutations on Trump's first day in office but were not among the 1,200+ individuals pardoned for January 6-related crimes.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department sues Connecticut and New Haven over sanctuary immigration policies — The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the District of Connecticut against the State of Connecticut, Governor Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, the City of New Haven, and Mayor Justin Elicker, challenging state and local sanctuary policies that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The complaint alleges that Connecticut's "Trust Act" and related policies obstruct federal immigration law enforcement and have resulted in the release of individuals the department characterizes as dangerous criminals. The department invokes the Supremacy Clause as the constitutional basis for preemption.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department settles lawsuit alleging Biden State Department social media censorship — The Department of Justice announced settlement of litigation alleging the Biden State Department censored disfavored speech through its Global Engagement Center by funding private companies' development of technologies to suppress protected speech online. The settlement implements President Trump's Executive Order on "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship." The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had denied the government's motions to dismiss and transfer venue, finding good cause for discovery. The settlement avoids continued litigation.

Supporting reports

• Trump offered mass pardons to White House staff before leaving office — The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump has repeatedly offered mass pardons to White House staff, initially stating he would pardon "everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval Office." The offer was made to encourage staff to conduct themselves without concern about future prosecution for illegal conduct. Trump indicated he would host a news conference to announce mass pardons before leaving office, with the radius of the pardon offer reportedly expanding over time.
• Trump promises mass pardons to staff before leaving office — The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump has privately promised mass presidential pardons to his staff before leaving office, stating in a private meeting that he would "pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval." The White House did not deny the promise but claimed the president was joking, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt stating "the president's pardon power is absolute."

Supporting reports

• DOJ opinion claims Presidential Records Act unconstitutional — Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser published an opinion stating that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional, arguing it infringes on presidential autonomy. This opinion could significantly impact the handling of presidential records and accountability.
• Office of Legal Counsel published opinion declaring Presidential Records Act unconstitutional — Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser of the Office of Legal Counsel published a legal opinion for the White House arguing that the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which requires presidents to keep records of official business and transfer them at the end of their term, is unconstitutional. The memo claims the PRA "unconstitutionally intrudes on the independence and autonomy of the President guaranteed by Article II" and states "the President need not further comply with its dictates."

Supporting reports

• Trump fires Attorney General Pam Bondi; Todd Blanche becomes acting AG and affirms Trump's "right" to direct DOJ investigations — Donald Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 2, 2026, after months of pressure to prosecute political rivals including James Comey, Letitia James, and Adam Schiff. Though the DOJ secured indictments against Comey and James, the cases collapsed. Trump was reportedly angered by the department's lack of progress in pursuing enemies. Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, subsequently stated Trump has the "right" to direct investigations at the justice department, signaling the administration's intent to weaponize law enforcement for political retribution.

Supporting reports

• Pam Bondi fired as Attorney General; Todd Blanche assumes interim role — President Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 1, 2026, shortly before delivering a primetime address on the Iran war. Trump announced her departure via Truth Social, stating she would transition to the private sector. According to reporting, Trump cited Bondi's alleged intervention in matters related to Rep. Eric Swalwell and FBI investigative documents concerning Swalwell's relationship with Christine Fang as a reason for the dismissal. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was named interim AG. Bondi reportedly pleaded for more time but Trump remained firm.
• Trump fires Attorney General Pam Bondi; Todd Blanche becomes acting AG and affirms Trump's "right" to direct DOJ investigations — Donald Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 2, 2026, after months of pressure to prosecute political rivals including James Comey, Letitia James, and Adam Schiff. Though the DOJ secured indictments against Comey and James, the cases collapsed. Trump was reportedly angered by the department's lack of progress in pursuing enemies. Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, subsequently stated Trump has the "right" to direct investigations at the justice department, signaling the administration's intent to weaponize law enforcement for political retribution.
• Trump dismisses Attorney General Pam Bondi — President Trump announced on 2 April via Truth Social that Attorney General Pam Bondi was being removed from office. Trump cited her transition to "a much needed and important new job in the private sector" without explicitly naming the Epstein files as the reason, though reporting indicates her mishandling of the Epstein investigation and repeated missed disclosure deadlines under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) were a primary motivation for her ouster. Todd Blanche assumed the role of acting attorney general.
• Trump fires attorney general Pam Bondi — Donald Trump dismissed Pam Bondi as US attorney general after 14 months, citing frustration with her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and her failure to prosecute additional political enemies to his satisfaction. Bondi had reshaped the Justice Department through staff purges, shifted prosecutorial focus toward immigration, and complied with Trump's demands to indict former FBI director James Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche assumed acting leadership; Lee Zeldin is reportedly a top contender for permanent replacement.
• Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi via social media — President Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi by posting her dismissal on social media. Trump was reportedly angry that Bondi had not adequately punished his political enemies and that her handling of the Epstein files had failed to contain the story. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, will serve as her replacement.
• Pam Bondi fired as Attorney General — President Trump terminated Pam Bondi as Attorney General on April 2, 2026. According to reporting, Bondi reportedly pleaded with Trump not to fire her during a confrontation at the White House. Trump released a statement describing her as a "Great American Patriot" transitioning to the private sector. Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal attorney and current Deputy Attorney General, assumed the role of Acting Attorney General. Bondi remains subject to a bipartisan congressional subpoena to testify before the Oversight Committee regarding the Epstein files.
• Trump appoints Todd Blanche as acting Attorney General — Trump appointed Deputy AG Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense attorney, to replace fired Attorney General Pam Bondi in an acting capacity on April 2. Blanche's appointment places a personal loyalist with no prior DOJ leadership experience in control of the nation's chief law enforcement agency, raising concerns about politicization of the Justice Department.
• Trump fires Attorney General Pam Bondi — Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 2 after she failed to prosecute Trump's perceived political enemies and mishandled the release of the Epstein files. CNN reported that Bondi's upcoming deposition about the Epstein files influenced the timing of her firing, as the White House sought to avoid it. Trump appointed Deputy AG Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense attorney, to replace Bondi in an acting capacity. Bondi is the second woman in Trump's Cabinet to be fired.

Supporting reports

• Judge James Boasberg quashes grand jury subpoena for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a 37-page ruling on March 13, 2026, quashing a grand jury subpoena for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Boasberg found "abundant evidence that the subpoenas' dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will." The judge noted the government offered no evidence that Powell committed any crime "other than displeasing the president." Trump had been waging a public campaign against Powell to lower interest rates faster and attacked Boasberg on Truth Social following the ruling.

Supporting reports

• FBI investigated New York Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson over story on Kash Patel's girlfriend — The FBI opened an investigation into New York Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson in March 2026 following her February 28 article alleging that FBI Director Kash Patel used federal resources to provide protection and transportation for his girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins. FBI agents searched databases for details about Williamson and suggested assessing whether her reporting violated federal stalking laws. Patel denied the investigation on Fox News, claiming the article posed a direct threat to his girlfriend. The Times' executive editor condemned the FBI's actions as unconstitutional and a violation of First Amendment rights.

Supporting reports

• DHS instructs agents to identify naturalized citizens who voted — The Department of Homeland Security sent a memo instructing agents in its investigative arm to identify any person who registered to vote and/or voted in any federal, state, or local election and subsequently became naturalized U.S. citizens. This directive, seen by the Guardian, is part of the administration's effort to stir up fears about illegal voting by noncitizens—a phenomenon that is extremely rare—ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Supporting reports

• DOJ unseals indictment charging 30 additional people in Minnesota church protest; 25 arrested — Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the Department of Justice unsealed an indictment charging 30 more people for their involvement in a January 18 protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Federal agents arrested 25 of those charged on Friday, with Bondi stating "more to come." The total number charged in connection with the demonstration now stands at 39. The protest targeted a pastor allegedly serving as acting ICE field director. Bondi framed the prosecutions as defense of places of worship.

Supporting reports

• Trump posted demands to imprison political opponents over 2020 election — Trump posted demands that political opponents be imprisoned over the 2020 election, shared fabricated electoral maps to claim a victory that did not occur, amplified calls to prosecute investigators like Jack Smith, and circulated communications suggesting federal regulators should pressure private companies like Apple to alter its News app in ways favorable to him.

Supporting reports

• DOJ withheld Epstein files related to Trump sexual abuse allegations — An NPR investigation found that the Department of Justice withheld some Epstein files related to allegations that Trump sexually abused a minor. The DOJ also removed some documents from the public database where accusations against Epstein mention Trump. Files that should have been made public under law were not released, including more than 50 pages of FBI interviews and notes from conversations with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor. NPR's investigation identified dozens of pages catalogued by DOJ but not shared publicly by examining serial numbers on documents.
• Justice Department withheld Epstein documents referencing Trump allegations — NPR reported that the Justice Department removed documents from the public Epstein database that contained accusations against Donald Trump, including allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. More than 50 pages of FBI interviews and notes from a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor were not made public. Some documents mentioning Trump were briefly available and later removed from the database. The gaps were identified by reviewing Bates numbers, the serial identifiers used in legal document production.
• DOJ claims withheld Epstein files fall within legal exemptions despite contradictory evidence — The Department of Justice released a statement claiming that withheld documents fall within categories of duplicates, privileged materials, or ongoing federal investigations. However, the article documents that these justifications do not withstand scrutiny. The interviews about Trump allegations are not duplicates; Deputy Attorney General Blanche stated in July that the DOJ determined "there was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody," contradicting the ongoing investigation claim. The DOJ also claimed the documents were withheld pursuant to a protective order in Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case, but the DOJ itself acknowledged in a court filing that those documents were not subject to the protective order.
• DOJ removed photo of Commerce Secretary Lutnick from Epstein Files — The DOJ was caught removing a photo of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick from the Epstein Files that showed him alongside Epstein on Epstein's island. Months earlier, Lutnick had insisted he thought Epstein was disgusting upon first meeting and never associated with him afterward. The removal of the photograph contradicts Lutnick's public statements.
• DOJ withheld FBI interview summaries related to Trump accuser in Epstein case — The New York Times reported that the DOJ failed to include key materials related to a woman who accused both Trump and Epstein of sexual assault decades earlier when she was a minor. An index of investigative materials indicated that the FBI conducted four interviews in connection with her claims and wrote summaries about each. However, only one summary—describing her accusations against Epstein—was released by DOJ. The other three summaries and underlying interview notes were missing. DOJ stated that withheld materials were either privileged or duplicates, or were withheld due to an ongoing federal investigation. On Wednesday, DOJ announced it would review which documents were released and publish any documents "found to have been improperly tagged in the review process."
• Missing FBI interview memos in Epstein investigation identified — During the Clinton depositions, it was revealed that FBI 302 interview memos tied to a survivor who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault as a minor are missing from the Department of Justice's released Epstein materials. Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member on the Oversight Committee, stated that the Department of Justice continues to lead a White House cover-up and noted that missing materials extend beyond a single survivor's account, with a significant portion of Epstein investigation files remaining unreleased.
• Rep. Robert Garcia demands release of missing Epstein files related to Trump accuser — House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia announced that the committee will demand release of remaining Epstein files, including newly discovered files from a survivor who made serious accusations against Trump. Garcia stated that an archive manifest shows that interviews and information related to this survivor have been removed and are missing. He demanded answers about the location of the files and who removed them, stating: "Where are these files? Who removed them? Those questions have to be answered."
• DOJ appears to have illegally withheld material from Epstein files — NPR reporter Stephen Fowler reported on Tuesday morning that the Department of Justice appears to have illegally withheld material from the Epstein files. The withheld material relates to allegations that Trump sexually assaulted two girls when they were approximately thirteen years old. The DOJ also removed from published files documents mentioning Trump among allegations against convicted sexual abuser Epstein. On February 14, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress they had not withheld or redacted records "on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity." The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required release of all files by December 19, 2025, prohibits such redactions except to protect victims and survivors.

Supporting reports

• Judge Aileen Cannon blocked release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's classified documents report — U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order permanently blocking the release of Volume Two of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on classified documents. Cannon ruled that releasing the report would be "unfair" to Trump and his co-defendants, citing her prior conclusion that the Special Counsel lacked lawful authority. The Department of Justice did not oppose the motion, allowing Cannon to write that "all parties agree" disclosure would violate the court's dismissal order. The decision shields the report from public scrutiny.
• Judge Cannon permanently blocks release of Jack Smith's classified documents report — US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, issued a permanent injunction barring the Department of Justice from releasing Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the classified documents case (Volume II). Cannon condemned Smith's compilation of the report after she had dismissed the underlying case in 2024 on grounds of unlawful appointment, calling it a "brazen stratagem" and a breach of her dismissal order. She ruled that release would expose grand jury material and cause irreparable harm to Trump, distinguishing the case from prior special counsel reports (Mueller) that were publicly released.
• Judge Aileen Cannon blocked release of Jack Smith's classified documents report — Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, blocked the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on his investigation of Trump's retention of classified documents after leaving office in 2021. It is standard procedure for a special counsel's report to be made public. Legal analyst Joyce White Vance noted that Cannon has consistently worked to suppress Smith's report and that Trump's fierce fight to keep it under wraps has led to speculation about surprising contents.
• Judge blocks release of Jack Smith’s report on Trump — Judge Aileen Cannon blocked the release of special counsel Jack Smith's report regarding Trump's retention of classified documents. This decision is notable as it deviates from the usual procedure of making such reports public, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of Trade Act — Following the Supreme Court's ruling striking down his IEEPA-based tariffs, President Trump announced a new 10% global baseline tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits tariffs for 150 days. Trump stated the administration would initiate investigations into unfair trading practices that could lead to permanent tariffs. Trump framed the court's decision as actually strengthening presidential tariff authority and vowed to enact "very powerful alternatives" to the struck-down tariffs.
• Trump announces 10% global tariff under Section 122 — Following the Supreme Court's invalidation of his national emergency tariffs, Trump announced a 10% blanket global tariff "over and above our normal tariffs already being charged" under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which permits temporary tariffs to address balance-of-payments deficits. This action circumvents the Court's ruling by invoking alternative statutory authority, though Section 122 requires congressional approval to extend beyond 150 days and prohibits country-specific discrimination.
• Trump announces new 10% global tariff under Trade Act of 1974 — Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, President Trump held a press conference announcing he would continue his tariff war using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 instead of the IEEPA. He announced a new 10% global tariff and directed his administration to conduct investigations into unfair trading practices under other sections of the 1974 Act. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated the new tariffs would result in "virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026" and acknowledged the process would be more complicated but ultimately achieve the same outcome.
• Trump announces new 10% global tariff, increases to 15% within 24 hours — After the Supreme Court ruled his tariffs unconstitutional, President Trump announced a new 10% global tariff using different statutory authority and increased it to 15% less than 24 hours later. Trump stated "The policy hasn't changed. The legal tools that implement that may change but the policy hasn't changed," signaling intent to circumvent the court's constitutional ruling through alternative legal mechanisms. Top trade negotiator Jamieson Greer defended the shift as providing US business "leverage" in world trade.
• Trump signals intent to reimpose tariffs via alternative legal authority — At a news conference on 21 February 2026, President Trump stated he would attempt to reintroduce 10 percent tariffs on all countries using a different legal mechanism after the Supreme Court struck down his IEEPA-based tariffs. Trump characterized the court's failure to address refunds as "crazy" and predicted years of litigation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent similarly suggested refunds could be delayed indefinitely.
• Trump announced 10% tariff on foreign imports following Supreme Court ruling — On Friday, February 21, 2026, immediately after the Supreme Court's decision striking down his IEEPA tariffs, Trump announced he was imposing a 10% tariff on foreign imports, directly contradicting the court's constitutional finding.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariff regime unlawful; Trump announced new tariffs under Section 122 of Trade Act — The Supreme Court struck down Trump's sweeping tariff regime as lacking statutory authority. Within hours, Trump announced a new 10 percent worldwide tariff, raising it to 15 percent by the following morning, claiming authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Legal analysis indicates Section 122 permits only temporary import surcharges of up to 15 percent for no more than 150 days, and only when the United States faces a serious international balance-of-payments crisis. The current U.S. balance-of-payments deficit is zero, and no such crisis exists. Trump's new tariff announcement appears to be an attempt to circumvent the Court's ruling through a different legal theory.
• Supreme Court rules Trump tariffs illegal under emergency powers law — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Friday declaring that most of Trump's tariffs lacked legal justification under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court held that tariff authority belongs to Congress during peacetime, not the president. Trump responded by announcing a 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Trade chief Jamieson Greer stated the administration would persist with tariff policy despite the ruling and would not seek congressional authorization for the new tariffs.
• Trump signs global 10% tariff proclamation under Section 122 after Supreme Court blocks tariff authority — President Trump signed a proclamation on February 21, 2026, imposing a temporary 10% tariff on all countries effective February 24, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The action followed a Supreme Court ruling blocking his use of tariffs. Trump claimed authority under existing statutes without congressional approval. Canada, Mexico, certain food products, and critical minerals were exempted. Trump publicly attacked six justices as a "disgrace to the nation" while praising three dissenters.
• Trump increased proposed global tariff rate from 10% to 15% via social media post — Trump announced via Truth Social that he was raising worldwide tariffs from the initially announced 10% to 15%, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The announcement claimed the tariffs would take effect "effective immediately," though it remained unclear whether official documents had been signed. This followed Trump's earlier press conference announcement of 10% tariffs and came after the Supreme Court struck down his previous tariff actions as illegal on Friday.
• Trump imposed 10% global tariff under Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974, then raised it to 15% — On February 21, 2026, President Trump announced a 10% global tariff citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, then raised it to 15% the following day. Trump invoked this authority immediately after the Supreme Court struck down his previous tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to Popular Information's analysis, Trump's invocation of Section 122 is legally defective because the statute authorizes tariffs only in response to "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits, not trade deficits; the U.S. currently has a zero balance-of-payments deficit, making the tariff legally unsupported.
• Trump announces 15% global tariff under alternative legal framework — Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump announced a 15% global tariff on all foreign imports (increased from 10% announced Friday) under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, a different legal framework than the one struck down by the court. Trade chief Greer indicated the administration would not automatically seek congressional authorization for these tariffs, which are set to expire within five months without it.
• Trump escalated tariffs to 15% and claimed court ruling expanded his powers — On Saturday, February 22, 2026, Trump posted that he was raising tariffs from 10% to 15% worldwide, effective immediately. He claimed the Supreme Court's decision "accidentally and unwittingly" gave him "far more powers and strength" than before and that he could "do absolutely 'terrible' things to foreign countries" using tariffs the court had approved.
• Trump administration announced plans to scale back tariffs on steel and aluminum — The Trump administration announced it would review and scale back tariffs on steel and aluminum goods—which had been set at up to 50 percent the previous summer—and exempt some items while halting expansion of the tariff lists. The administration also planned to launch more targeted national security probes into specific goods instead of maintaining broad tariffs. This move was undertaken in response to an affordability crisis damaging Trump's approval ratings.
• Trump invoked Section 122 authority to impose 10% tariff on all imports — Following the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling, Trump immediately invoked Section 122 of the Tariff Act—an older statutory authority requiring no investigation but limited to 15 percent for 150 days—to impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries. This action circumvented the Court's restriction on unilateral IEEPA tariffs by relying on a different legal basis Congress had previously authorized.
• Trump raised Section 122 tariff from 10% to 15% — One day after imposing a 10 percent tariff under Section 122, Trump raised the rate to 15 percent—the statutory maximum under that authority. This escalation occurred within the same legal framework but pushed the temporary tariff to its ceiling.
• Trump imposed 15% tariff invoking Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974 — President Trump announced a 15% tariff by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his prior tariff regime as unconstitutional. The administration's trade representative Jamieson Greer defended the move on Sunday shows, claiming the legal tool might change but policy remains consistent. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to commit to refunding approximately $134 billion collected under the now-invalidated tariffs, stating only that the administration would follow the court's direction.
• Administration announces pipeline of tariff investigations to rebuild tariff wall — Treasury Secretary Bessent announced on Sunday that Section 122 tariffs could expire after five months as Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices and additional Section 232 national security tariffs are lined up to replace them. The administration is using procedural investigations as a mechanism to rebuild the same tariff structure that the Supreme Court struck down, using different legal authorities.
• Trade chief states tariff policy unchanged despite court ruling — On Sunday, U.S. trade negotiator Jamieson Greer told ABC News that the Trump administration would maintain its tariff policy and continue in the same direction, stating "the policy hasn't changed. The legal tools that implement that may change but the policy hasn't changed." Greer also confirmed the U.S. would not back out of bilateral tariff deals with the UK, EU, Japan, Switzerland, and others, despite the court ruling declaring those tariffs illegal.
• Trump delivered longest State of the Union address on record during partial DHS shutdown — President Trump delivered what multiple news outlets reported as the longest State of the Union address in U.S. history on February 24, 2026, while the Department of Homeland Security remained partially shut down since February 14. The address occurred during an active government funding lapse affecting federal workers' paychecks and DHS operations including TSA PreCheck, Global Entry, border security, airport screening, and the Coast Guard. Federal News Network reported it was the first SOTU ever delivered during an active partial government shutdown.
• Trump vowed to continue imposing tariffs despite Supreme Court ruling — During the State of the Union address, President Trump responded to the Supreme Court's striking down of his tariff authority by calling the ruling "unfortunate" and vowing to pursue "alternative" legal authorities to continue imposing tariffs without congressional approval. He also repeated the claim that tariffs are paid by foreign countries, contrary to evidence showing costs are borne primarily by American importers and consumers.
• Trump claimed he does not need Congressional approval for tariffs — Fifteen minutes after his threat post, at 9:49 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted that "As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs. It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago!" He claimed tariffs were "reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision."
• Trump claims he has unchecked power after Supreme Court ruling — Trump publicly stated that the Supreme Court's ruling has given him "far more powers and strength" than before, suggesting he could use tariffs in a more aggressive manner. His comments reflect a disregard for the Court's authority and the principles of checks and balances.
• Trump posted that Supreme Court ruling granted him unchecked tariff power — At 7:06 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted on social media that the Supreme Court had "accidentally and unwittingly" given him "far more powers and strength" than he had before. He claimed he could use tariffs "in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty" and attacked the court with contemptuous language, writing "supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!)."
• Trump threatened higher tariffs against countries "playing games" — At 9:34 a.m. on February 24, 2026, Trump posted a threat that any country wanting to "play games" with the Supreme Court decision, especially those that have "ripped off" the U.S., would face "much higher Tariff, and worse" than recently agreed tariffs. The post ended with "BUYER BEWARE!!!"
• Trump threatens higher tariffs on foreign countries — Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump threatened that any country that "plays games" with the decision would face significantly higher tariffs. He asserted that he does not need Congressional approval for tariffs, claiming that previous approvals were sufficient. This statement reflects his intention to bypass legislative oversight in tariff implementation.
• Trump announced but did not sign 15 percent global tariff order — Trump announced plans to raise global tariffs to 15 percent under the 1974 Trade Act after his IEEPA tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court. However, he never actually signed the order, meaning the effective tariff rate remained at 10 percent. The announcement was made publicly or on social media but was not formalized through executive action.
• Trump proclaims 10% temporary import surcharge on most goods for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficit — President Trump issued Proclamation 11012 on February 20, 2026, imposing a temporary 10 percent ad valorem import surcharge effective February 24, 2026, for 150 days under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The proclamation cites large U.S. balance-of-payments deficits ($1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024, current account deficit of 4.0% of GDP, and negative net international-investment position of -90% of GDP) as justification. Broad exemptions apply to critical minerals, energy, agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, aerospace goods, and articles from Canada, Mexico, and Central American trade partners. The surcharge is in addition to existing tariffs and will be administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
• Trump administration imposes 10% global tariff after Supreme Court strikes down "liberation day" tariffs — Following a Supreme Court decision that struck down Trump's sweeping "liberation day" tariffs imposed the previous year, the Trump administration announced a 10% global tariff on imported articles from every country for 150 days, effective Tuesday. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated the rate would rise to 15% or higher for some countries. The move represents a recalibration of tariff policy in response to the court's rejection of the earlier tariff regime.
• Trump sought Supreme Court rehearing on tariff decision — Trump posted on social media requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider its recent tariff decision, arguing that the ruling "could allow for Hundreds of Billions of Dollars to be returned to Countries and Companies that have been 'ripping off' the USA for many years." Trump asked "Is a Rehearing or Readjudication of this case possible???" Legal experts confirmed that no such rehearing mechanism exists under Supreme Court rules.

Supporting reports

• DHS memo authorizes ICE detention of legal refugees for "rescreening" — The Department of Homeland Security issued a memo authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest and indefinitely detain legal refugees already admitted to the US who have not yet obtained permanent residence (green cards), subjecting them to intensive interviews and background checks while in custody. The policy reverses a 2010 Obama-era guidance and directly contradicts a federal judge's recent order blocking such arrests in Minnesota. The memo claims conditional admission and mandatory one-year review compel detention authority.

Supporting reports

• New Jersey federal judge orders Trump administration to explain non-compliance with court orders — US District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey ordered the Trump administration to explain what procedures are in place to ensure court orders in his district are followed consistently and on time. Farbiarz found that Trump officials failed to meet court-ordered deadlines for bond hearings in immigration court in 12 of roughly 550 cases since December 5, 2025. The judge stated that "Judicial orders should never be violated."
• Federal judge Sykes rules Trump administration violating detention law and contempt of court orders — US District Judge Sunshine Sykes in Riverside, California issued a scathing decision accusing the Trump administration of terrorizing immigrants and recklessly violating federal law through mass deportations and mandatory detention policies. Sykes found the administration had violated her December ruling requiring detainees receive notice of bond eligibility and phone access to attorneys within one hour. She also threw out a September immigration court ruling the administration had cited to justify mandatory detention. The judge noted the administration's failure to comply with multiple court orders nationwide, citing killings of two US citizens (Renée Good and Alex Pretti) by ICE and border patrol during protests in Minnesota.
• Minnesota federal judge finds Trump administration lawyer in contempt of court — A federal judge in Minnesota found a Trump administration lawyer in contempt of court on Wednesday for the government's failure to comply with an order to return identification documents to an immigrant the judge had ordered released. This represents a rare judicial sanction against the administration for non-compliance with court orders in immigration cases.
• Trump administration reverses bond hearing access for detained immigrants — The Trump administration reversed the longstanding practice under past administrations that allowed people with no criminal record to request bond hearings before an immigration judge while their cases proceeded through immigration court. With access to bond hearings cut off, immigrants by the thousands have filed separate petitions in federal court seeking release. More than 20,000 habeas corpus cases have been filed since Trump's inauguration, according to federal court records analyzed by the Associated Press.

Supporting reports

• Judge declares mistrial in Texas ICE protest terrorism case over defense attorney's civil rights shirt — US District Judge Mark Pittman, a Trump appointee, declared a mistrial in a federal case against nine protesters charged with terrorism for a July 4 demonstration at an ICE detention facility near Fort Worth. Pittam halted jury selection after defense attorney MarQuetta Clayton wore a shirt displaying civil rights movement imagery, claiming it could bias jurors. Clayton had been visible in court all day before Pittman intervened only when she began questioning potential jurors. The mistrial requires a complete restart with a new jury panel.

Supporting reports

• Immigration judges fired without cause under Trump's second term — Approximately 100 of 735 immigration judges nationwide have been fired without cause since Trump's second term began in 2025, including judges with low asylum grant rates. The Justice Department is actively recruiting replacements and has made clear through recruiting materials that "conscientious adjudication of asylum claims is no longer the point," explicitly advertising positions as "deportation judge" roles focused on maximizing deportations rather than fair adjudication.