Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Trump claimed authority to nullify Biden's autopen-signed executive orders — On Truth Social, Trump claimed he will nullify any executive order from the Biden administration signed with an autopen or "anything else that was not directly signed" by Biden himself, and warned that Biden "will be brought up on charges of perjury" if he claims involvement in the autopen process. Trump has admitted to using the autopen himself and lacks legal authority to nullify Biden's pardons, which included his son and Jan. 6 investigators.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces plan to cancel most Biden executive orders based on autopen signature claims — Donald Trump declared via social media that he intends to cancel approximately 92% of Joe Biden's executive orders, claiming baselessly that Biden did not personally authorize them and that White House staff used an autopen signature machine without his approval. Trump alleged Biden was not involved in the autopen process and threatened perjury charges if Biden claimed otherwise. The announcement prompted Republican celebration, including statements from the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project and House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, though legal experts warned such actions could set problematic precedents.
• Trump announced cancellation of executive orders signed via Autopen — Trump posted that he is "hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally." Trump claimed that if Biden says he was involved in the Autopen process, Biden will be "brought up on charges of perjury." Legal experts noted that perjury charges require false statements made under oath and that presidents now have immunity following Trump's Supreme Court appeal.
• Trump claimed authority to nullify Biden's autopen-signed executive orders — On Truth Social, Trump claimed he will nullify any executive order from the Biden administration signed with an autopen or "anything else that was not directly signed" by Biden himself, and warned that Biden "will be brought up on charges of perjury" if he claims involvement in the autopen process. Trump has admitted to using the autopen himself and lacks legal authority to nullify Biden's pardons, which included his son and Jan. 6 investigators.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Jason Crow detailed Trump's threats to use military unlawfully — Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) appeared on CBS and detailed Trump's threats to use the military in unlawful ways, including sending troops into Chicago, into polling stations, killing terrorists' families, and shooting peaceful protesters. Crow stated that Trump cannot tolerate members of Congress reminding service members of their constitutional duty to obey the law and resorts to threats of violence and arrest.
• Pentagon announces investigation of Senator Mark Kelly for video calling troops to refuse illegal orders — The Pentagon announced an investigation into Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, after he participated in a video with other Democratic lawmakers calling on US troops to refuse unlawful orders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the video was "despicable" and that Kelly's conduct undermines military discipline. The Pentagon cited federal law allowing recall of retired service members to active duty for possible court-martial. Kelly responded that the investigation was meant to intimidate Congress and vowed not to be silenced.
• Defense Department announced investigation of Senator Kelly for alleged misconduct and threatened recall to active duty — The Defense Department posted on social media that it was investigating Senator Mark Kelly following "serious allegations of misconduct" and suggested that Kelly could be recalled to active duty "for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures." This announcement came after Kelly participated in a November 18 video with five other Democratic veterans in Congress warning military and intelligence personnel of their legal right and duty to refuse unlawful orders.
• Department of War initiated review of Senator Mark Kelly for potential court-martial — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Department of War has initiated a review of retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly (D-AZ) for potential recall to active duty and court-martial proceedings. The review stems from a video Kelly made with five other Democratic lawmakers informing service members of their constitutional duty to refuse unlawful orders. The DOD statement cited 10 U.S.C. § 688 and 18 U.S.C. § 2387, which prohibits actions intended to interfere with military loyalty, morale, and discipline. Hegseth characterized the video as "despicable" and "seditious."
• Trump posted threats against Senator Mark Kelly — President Trump posted on social media that Senator Mark Kelly should be "arrested, hanged, and put to death" in response to Kelly's video encouraging service members to follow the Constitution and refuse unlawful orders. Kelly responded by reaffirming his oath to the Constitution and stating that Trump's threats would not intimidate him or other members of Congress from holding the administration accountable.
• Pete Hegseth orders Navy investigation into Mark Kelly's video comments — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum to Navy Secretary John Phelan on Tuesday ordering an investigation into "potentially unlawful comments" made by Senator Mark Kelly and fellow Democrats in a social media video encouraging military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. The Pentagon had already announced an investigation on Monday. Hegseth requested a brief by December 10. The group faces FBI counter-terrorism inquiry and potential court-martial proceedings.
• Defense Secretary Hegseth directs Navy review of Senator Kelly — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared a memo directing the Navy secretary to review Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) for "potentially unlawful conduct" related to the viral video where Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers urged military members to resist illegal orders. The memo requested the Navy review be completed and briefed to Hegseth by December 10.
• Defense Secretary threatens Senator with court martial over military dissent video — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened Senator Mark Kelly with court martial after Kelly recorded a video with five Democratic lawmakers warning military members to question unlawful orders, apparently in reference to the Caribbean boat strikes. The threat represents potential retaliation against a senator for encouraging military personnel to uphold constitutional obligations.
• Secretary of Defense Hegseth threatens court martial of Senator Mark Kelly — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened to court martial Senator Mark Kelly in response to Kelly's video urging military personnel to follow the law and refuse illegal orders. Hegseth called the video "sedition" and made deranged social media posts attacking Kelly's uniform and medals, later claiming Kelly's image was reversed by his phone. Kelly responded that the threat was about intimidation and the media cycle, not law, and refused to be silenced.
• Trump threatened to court-martial Senator Mark Kelly over military discipline video — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened to court-martial Senator Mark Kelly after Kelly released a video with five other Democratic lawmakers urging military members not to follow illegal orders. The video was released in response to the alleged illegal directives issued by Hegseth regarding lethal operations.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge rules on Halligan appointment legality in Comey case — A federal judge overseeing the consolidated unlawful-appointment claim in the Comey and James cases indicated he would rule before Thanksgiving on whether prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was lawfully appointed to her position as temporary U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Comey and James argue that Trump and Attorney General Bondi circumvented vacancy laws to install Halligan, rendering her effectively a private citizen with no authority to prosecute on behalf of the United States. If the judge dismisses with prejudice, the DOJ would be barred from bringing the same charges in the future.
• Federal judge dismisses DOJ cases against Comey and James for unlawful appointment of prosecutor — On Monday (November 24), a federal judge dismissed without prejudice the DOJ's cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after finding that Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi circumvented vacancy laws in appointing U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. The judge ruled that Halligan was serving unlawfully when she sought indictments, making her the fourth Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney determined to be illegitimate. Because the statute of limitations on charges against Comey had expired, the DOJ is unlikely to resurrect its case against him.
• Federal judge dismisses criminal cases against Comey and James, ruling interim prosecutor unlawfully appointed — Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of the Eastern District of Virginia threw out criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on November 24, 2025, ruling that interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan—appointed by Trump in September—lacked lawful authority to prosecute them. Halligan's appointment violated federal law governing interim prosecutor tenure. The judge found the Trump administration's attempt to circumvent Senate confirmation rules unlawful and dismissed both indictments without prejudice, though Comey's statute of limitations has expired.
• Federal judge found Trump's appointment of Lindsey Halligan illegal — A federal judge found that Trump's appointment of Lindsey Halligan to the post of U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was illegal and threw out the cases she had brought against former FBI director James Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James. The ruling invalidated prosecutions brought by an illegally appointed prosecutor.
• U.S. District Judge Currie dismisses indictments of Comey and James, ruling interim U.S. attorney appointment unlawful — A federal judge found that President Trump's appointment of Lindsey Halligan to the post of U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was illegal and threw out the cases she had brought against former FBI director James Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James.
• Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed indictments against James Comey and Letitia James — U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of South Carolina dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding that President Trump's appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated both federal law and the Appointment Clause of the Constitution. Halligan, a former insurance lawyer and Trump aide, had obtained grand jury indictments against both officials after Trump removed interim U.S. attorney Erik Seibert for declining to prosecute them. Judge Currie ruled that Halligan's appointment circumvented Senate confirmation requirements and invalidated all prosecutorial actions undertaken by her.
• Federal judge dismisses criminal cases against Comey and James — Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that Lindsay Halligan was unlawfully appointed as Interim US Attorney. The court found that the 120-day appointment clock expired on May 21, 2025, making Halligan's service invalid since September 22, 2025. The dismissal was issued "without prejudice," allowing potential re-indictment by a lawfully appointed official. However, the statute of limitations has expired in Comey's case, effectively barring future prosecution.
• Trump attorney blames DOJ official for Comey indictment dismissal — A federal judge dismissed criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after ruling that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed as interim US Attorney of Eastern Virginia. Attorney General Pam Bondi subsequently announced the Justice Department would appeal and pursue "all available legal action" to hold James and Comey "accountable."
• 11th Circuit Court upheld $1 million sanction against Trump and Alina Habba — Trump personal attorney David Schoen told Fox's Laura Ingraham that the dismissal of James Comey's indictment was the fault of DOJ official Pam Bondi, claiming the dismissal was "avoidable" and that DOJ should have had someone in the room with Lindsey Halligan. Schoen praised Bondi for showing "great courage" in obtaining the indictment despite being "left without support." Trump's former NSA Michael Flynn posted that Bondi should be fired and replaced by Sidney Powell, who previously claimed Hugo Chavez rigged the 2020 elections using Italian satellites.
• Federal appeals court affirms penalty against Trump and Habba — The conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $1 million sanction against Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba for their frivolous conspiracy-laden racketeering lawsuit targeting Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and former FBI Director James Comey. The court agreed that Trump has a "pattern" of filing meritless lawsuits and spoke bluntly about the abuse, with the appeals court imposing penalties of this size being rare.
• — A federal appeals court affirmed a nearly $1 million penalty against Trump and lawyer Alina Habba, finding their lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey was "sanctionable conduct." The court found many of their legal arguments "were indeed frivolous" and rejected Trump's effort to revive a 2022 lawsuit targeting his political enemies.

Supporting reports

• DOJ launches criminal investigation into Schiff's home purchase — Following President Trump's public order to Attorney General Bondi to target perceived enemies, the DOJ launched a criminal investigation into Senator Adam Schiff's purchase of a home in Maryland based on a criminal referral from FHFA Director Bill Pulte, who cited mortgage documents of unclear origins. The investigation was referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. However, federal prosecutors may have shifted to probing Martin's and Pulte's handling of the inquiry, according to NBC News reporting Thursday.

Supporting reports

• DOJ opens investigation into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — The DOJ opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook based on a mortgage fraud referral from FHFA Director Bill Pulte. The investigation follows Trump's failed attempt to dismiss Cook from the Federal Reserve, a move aimed at seizing control of the U.S. central bank. Cook's attorney Abbe Lowell characterized Pulte's accusations as politically motivated and noted that Pulte has ignored reports indicating his family members and multiple senior Trump officials may have committed similar mortgage fraud infractions.
• Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's lawyer disputed mortgage fraud allegations — A lawyer for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Special Attorney for Mortgage Fraud Ed Martin, arguing that allegations made by Trump and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that Cook engaged in mortgage fraud "fail on even the most cursory look at the facts," and that alleged contradictions in her loan applications were "cherry-picked, incomplete snippets."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration pressures Ukraine to accept 28-point peace plan before Thanksgiving — President Trump is pressuring Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to sign a 28-point "peace" plan by November 27. The plan, reportedly leaked by Kirill Dmitriev (a Putin ally) and negotiated by Dmitriev and Trump envoy Steve Witkoff without Ukrainian or European representatives, cedes Crimea and most of four eastern Ukrainian oblasts to Russia, limits Ukraine's military, grants full amnesty for Russian war crimes, requires Ukraine to amend its constitution to reject NATO membership, and proposes lifting sanctions and readmitting Russia to the G7. The plan also suggests U.S. separation from NATO and positions the U.S. and Russia to profit from European-funded reconstruction of Russian-controlled territory.
• Trump set Thursday deadline for Ukraine peace agreement — Trump announced a deadline of the following Thursday for Ukraine to agree to a peace plan. The deadline was set amid reports that the U.S. is preparing to pressure Ukraine to accept unfavorable terms, and Zelensky warned the Ukrainian people that Ukraine faces a choice between loss of dignity or loss of a key partner.
• Trump's 28-point Ukraine peace plan contained Russian-language syntax — The Guardian reported that sections of Trump's 28-point Ukraine peace plan contained syntax and phrasing commonly used in Russian, including passive constructions and vocabulary that are more natural in Russian than English. The White House acknowledged that Vladimir Putin's envoy Kirill Dmitriev and Trump's special representative Steve Witkoff jointly wrote the proposal during a meeting in Miami.
• Trump rejected Maduro's conditions for leaving Venezuela — Reuters reported that during a November 21 phone call, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro told Trump he was willing to leave the country on conditions including full legal amnesty for himself and family members, removal of sanctions for over 100 Venezuelan officials, and Vice President Delcy Rodriguez leading an interim government. Trump rejected most of Maduro's requests and told him he had a week to leave Venezuela. The deadline expired on November 28.

Supporting reports

• Federal court rejects Trump's authority to independently mobilize D.C. National Guard for policing — On November 20, a federal court rejected Trump's assertion that he had the right to independently mobilize the D.C. National Guard for routine police work. The judge found that the deployment of more than 2,000 Guard troops to Washington was unlawful and violated the District's right to govern itself, establishing a significant legal constraint on the president's domestic military deployment authority.
• Court ruled National Guard deployment in Washington D.C. illegal but stayed order pending government appeal — On November 20, 2025, a court ruled that the deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia was illegal but stayed the order ending the deployment until December 11 to permit the government to appeal the decision.
• Case update — District of Columbia v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-03005 — Judge Cobb temporarily blocked the administration from using the D.C. National Guard for crime control in the District and from using out-of-state Guards. The order is slated to take effect on Dec. 11 in order to “permit orderly proceedings on appeal.”

Supporting reports

• President Trump designates Commerce officials to exercise control over U.S. Steel through Golden Share agreement with Nippon Steel — President Trump, holding a Class G Preferred Stock ("Golden Share") in U.S. Steel pursuant to a National Security Agreement with Nippon Steel Corporation, designated Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade William Kimmitt as his designee to exercise authorities under the company's Certificate of Incorporation, and appointed David Shapiro, Chief Counsel of the Commerce Department's Investment Accelerator, as the Class G Director of U.S. Steel's board. The designations remain in effect unless Trump directs otherwise.

Supporting reports

• Trump posted memes instructing Attorney General to arrest political opponents — Trump posted memes on social media, including one featuring comedian Chris Farley screaming into Attorney General Pam Bondi's ear captioned as an instruction to "just arrest somebody," and a bingo card with X's over the faces of individuals he wants indicted, labeled "Obama's Russia Hoax Treason Club." These posts appear designed to communicate orders to the Department of Justice to prosecute political enemies.

Supporting reports

• Trump ordered AG Pam Bondi to reopen Epstein investigation — Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to open a new investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case after she had announced months earlier that she was closing it. Rep. Thomas Massie suggested this was a "smokescreen" to prevent release of Epstein files, noting that ongoing investigations can be used to withhold documents from public release.
• Attorney General Bondi opened investigations into Democrats' Epstein connections — Attorney General Pam Bondi opened investigations into several Democrats' connections to Jeffrey Epstein after Trump pressed her to do so, according to the article. Rep. Thomas Massie warned this action might be "a big smokescreen" to classify documents under "ongoing investigations," potentially blocking the release of Epstein files by claiming they are part of active investigations.
• Deputy AG Todd Blanche announced new Epstein investigation ordered by Trump — Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the DOJ will investigate whether anyone involved in the Epstein case has not been held accountable. The investigation was ordered by Trump following his social media posts about releasing Epstein files and characterizing the matter as a Democratic hoax.
• Trump ordered DOJ investigation of Democrats connected to Epstein to block document release — Trump previously ordered the Department of Justice to investigate Democrats connected to Epstein. He is now using this self-created investigation as justification for refusing to release Epstein files to Congress, claiming an "ongoing investigation" prevents disclosure. This represents a deliberate strategy to sabotage transparency and then cite his own sabotage as grounds for secrecy.
• Pam Bondi opens investigation into Democratic ties to Epstein at Trump's request — U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi opened an investigation into ties between Democrats and Jeffrey Epstein at President Trump's request. The action follows accusations that Bondi has undermined the Department of Justice's independence from the White House. The investigation occurs as the DOJ is now legally required to release Epstein-related files under the newly signed transparency law.
• Trump administration appoints prosecutor to investigate Clinton and Epstein-linked political opponents — At Trump's direction, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed a prosecutor in New York to investigate Bill Clinton, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and other political opponents with past associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Neither Clinton nor Hoffman has been accused of misconduct; both have publicly expressed regret for their Epstein associations. The investigation creates a legal basis under the Epstein documents law to withhold materials, potentially blocking transparency while targeting political rivals.
• Trump directs DOJ investigation into Epstein-linked figures — President Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi on November 15, 2025, to open a Justice Department investigation into links between Jeffrey Epstein and former President Bill Clinton, economist Larry Summers, venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, and JPMorgan Chase. The investigation could enable the DOJ to withhold documents from any eventual Epstein file release on grounds that disclosure would prejudice the investigation.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration orders targeted infrastructure cuts and federal workforce layoffs during shutdown — During the 42-day shutdown, Russell Vought, White House Office of Management and Budget director, ordered layoffs of federal employees beyond the standard furloughs and cut infrastructure project funding in states that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. These actions exploited the funding lapse to achieve partisan policy objectives without congressional authorization, targeting opposition-aligned jurisdictions for fiscal punishment.

Supporting reports

• Trump attempted to pressure Republican signatories to withdraw from Epstein discharge petition — In the hours before Grijalva's swearing-in on November 12, President Trump attempted to persuade Republican representatives who had signed the discharge petition to remove their signatures. Trump focused on Representatives Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO). He attempted to reach Mace by phone and invited Boebert to a meeting in the White House Situation Room, which is equipped to prevent recording. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and FBI Director Kash Patel attended the meeting with Boebert. Trump's efforts failed; the discharge petition proceeded to ripening.
• Trump contacts Republican members to block DOJ Epstein files release — In the hours before Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in on November 12, 2025—providing the final signature for a discharge petition to force a vote on releasing Department of Justice Epstein files—President Trump made direct contact with Republican members to persuade them to withdraw support. Trump called Congresswoman Lauren Boebert early Tuesday morning and summoned her to the White House on Wednesday for a meeting in the Situation Room with Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel. Trump also attempted to contact Congresswoman Nancy Mace. A vote on the DOJ files is expected in early December.
• Trump pressures congressional Republicans to block Epstein files discharge petition — President Trump attempted to persuade Republican representatives Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace to withdraw their signatures from a discharge petition that would force a House vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump invited Boebert to the White House and had Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel attempt persuasion, followed by "vague threats." Mace received an unsuccessful phone call and responded with a letter citing her personal history of sexual abuse. Both representatives refused to withdraw, and the petition achieved the necessary 218 votes this week, setting up a potential House vote that could expose Trump to political damage.
• White House pressured representatives to withdraw from Epstein petition — The White House conducted a sustained pressure campaign against Representatives Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace to persuade them to remove their names from the discharge petition to release Epstein files. The campaign included phone calls from Trump to Mace, vague threats to Boebert about the risks of crossing Trump in her district, and inquiries about what it would take to change their positions. Both representatives refused to withdraw.

Supporting reports

• Vought suspends majority of CFPB operations — Russell Vought, White House Office of Management and Budget director, suspended most of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's work while the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to take the case. A lower court order previously blocked the firings of approximately 90% of the agency's staff, but Vought proceeded with operational suspension pending appellate review.

Supporting reports

• Trump claimed government lacks funds to refund tariff revenue if Supreme Court rules against tariff authority — Trump stated in public remarks that the federal government cannot afford to repay tariff revenue collected if the Supreme Court rules against his tariff authority, claiming repayment would exceed $3 trillion and constitute a "National Security Event." Trump also accused justices opposed to his position of "giving low Numbers" to make the case appear easy to resolve. The administration lost twice in lower courts on the tariff issue and made no fiscal preparations for a potential loss.
• Trump claimed tariff ruling would cost $2–3 trillion and constitute national security catastrophe — President Trump stated on Monday that if the Supreme Court ruled his tariffs unconstitutional, the U.S. would owe "in excess of $2 Trillion Dollars," later increasing the figure to $3 trillion, and characterized this as a "National Security catastrophe." He blamed "Anarchists and Thugs" for challenging his tariffs. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the actual figure at approximately $195 billion. The Supreme Court had heard arguments on tariff constitutionality on November 5.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration formally said CFPB is legally prohibited from seeking additional funding — In a court filing on November 10, the Trump administration formally determined that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally prohibited from seeking additional funding from the Federal Reserve, a move that could result in the agency closing in early 2026 when current funds are exhausted unless Congress passes new funding, which is unlikely due to Republican opposition.
• Office of Legal Counsel issues opinion on CFPB Federal Reserve funding — The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel issued a formal opinion claiming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cannot draw money from the Federal Reserve, arguing that "combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System" in the statute refers only to Fed profits rather than total earnings. Since the Federal Reserve has operated at a loss since 2022, the opinion concludes no funds are available to the CFPB under current law.
• Trump administration files court brief arguing CFPB funding mechanism is unlawful — The Trump administration's Department of Justice filed a court brief claiming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism through the Federal Reserve is unlawful and that the agency will exhaust available funds by early 2026. The filing argues the CFPB cannot draw money from the Fed, citing an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that "combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System" refers only to Fed profits, which have operated at a loss since 2022. The brief sets the stage for the agency's dismantling absent new funding authority.

Supporting reports

• USDA directs states to reverse SNAP benefit payments issued under court order — The US Department of Agriculture issued a Saturday memo directing states to "immediately undo" full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits distributed to approximately 42 million low-income Americans on Friday, following a Supreme Court order that temporarily paused a lower court ruling requiring full November payments during the federal government shutdown. The USDA warned states that noncompliance could result in cancellation of federal administration cost-sharing and liability for overpayments, though the scope of the directive—particularly regarding states using their own funds—remained unclear.
• USDA deputy undersecretary ordered states to reverse SNAP payments already issued — On Saturday, November 8, 2025, Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sent a memo to states declaring that any full SNAP payment files sent for November 2025 were "unauthorized" and ordering states to "immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits." The memo threatened states with cancellation of federal administrative cost reimbursement and liability for any overissuances if they failed to comply.
• Trump administration directed states to undo full SNAP benefit payments — The Trump administration sent a memo to state agencies on November 8 directing them to "immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits" for November after the Supreme Court paused an order for food benefit payments to be issued one day earlier. This action sought to reverse emergency food assistance that had been authorized, affecting millions of low-income Americans relying on the program during a federal government shutdown.
• Administration refused to fund SNAP benefits to pressure Democrats on continuing resolution — The Trump administration declined to use congressionally established emergency reserve funds to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which 42 million Americans depend on for food. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution in September; Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked further House work to force the Senate to pass it. Democrats refused unless Republicans extended premium tax credits supporting the Affordable Care Act. The administration's refusal to tap SNAP reserves—a practice used by prior administrations including Trump's first term—was designed to pressure Democrats to capitulate on the healthcare issue.
• Administration Refuses to Fund SNAP Benefits — The Trump administration has refused to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting 42 million Americans, as a tactic to pressure Democrats into agreeing to a continuing resolution passed by House Republicans. The administration previously stated it would not use emergency funds to support SNAP, leading to multiple lawsuits. A federal judge ordered the administration to distribute SNAP benefits, but the administration appealed the ruling and sought a stay from the Supreme Court, which was granted by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
• USDA Memo to States on SNAP Payments — The USDA sent a memo to states instructing them to reverse any unauthorized full SNAP payments issued for November, warning of potential consequences for noncompliance. This memo followed confusion over the administration's directives regarding SNAP funding.

Supporting reports

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued administrative stay blocking SNAP benefit distribution — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, to whom the emergency application fell as the circuit justice for the First Circuit, issued an administrative stay of Judge McConnell's order shortly after 9:00 p.m. EST on Friday, November 7, 2025. The stay prevented the distribution of full SNAP benefits that the district court had ordered. Jackson used her ruling to give the First Circuit a deadline to decide whether to permit the SNAP funding to proceed.
• Supreme Court grants administrative stay in SNAP funding dispute (Rollins v. Rhode Island State Council of Churches) — The Supreme Court issued an administrative stay of two District Court orders requiring the Department of Agriculture to fully fund SNAP benefits for November and distribute $4 billion by end of day November 7. The stay was granted to facilitate the First Circuit Court of Appeals' expeditious consideration of the government's pending stay motion. The administrative stay terminates 48 hours after the First Circuit resolves its motion or upon further Court order.

Supporting reports

• JD Vance rejected federal court authority over SNAP compliance — Vice President JD Vance stated on the record that the administration will not follow a federal judge's order to distribute SNAP benefits, calling the ruling "absurd." Vance asserted that a court cannot direct the president how to "triage the situation" and that the administration will instead act "according to what we think we have to do to comply with the law."
• Trump refused to disperse SNAP funds despite court order — Trump announced he is refusing to distribute SNAP (food assistance) benefits to 42 million Americans despite a federal court order mandating the disbursement. He justified the refusal by stating the country must "remain very liquid" due to potential "problems, catastrophes, wars." Vice President JD Vance characterized the court order as "absurd" and stated the administration would not comply with judicial direction on the matter.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration petitioned Supreme Court to block SNAP benefit distribution — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay a U.S. District Court order by Judge John McConnell requiring distribution of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by the end of the day, effectively seeking permission to halt food assistance to 42 million Americans during the government shutdown.
• Trump Administration Appeals Court Order on SNAP Benefits — The Trump administration filed an appeal against a federal court order requiring the release of emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to 42 million Americans. The administration's justification for the appeal was that it needed to "stay liquid," despite having recently approved $40 billion in aid for Argentina. This action reflects a prioritization of financial liquidity over domestic food assistance.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration appeals SNAP benefits ruling — On November 6, 2025, immediately after Judge John McConnell's order to restore SNAP benefits, the Trump administration filed an appeal of the ruling.
• Trump administration appealed to First Circuit and sought emergency stay from Supreme Court — The Trump administration appealed Judge McConnell's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and requested that court pause the order while it decided the appeal. When the First Circuit had not ruled by late Friday afternoon, the administration filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to stay McConnell's order, preventing the distribution of SNAP benefits.
• Trump Administration Criticizes Federal Judge Over SNAP Ruling — Trump's legal team criticized the Rhode Island federal judge who ordered the release of SNAP benefits, claiming the ruling "makes a mockery of the separation of powers." This statement reflects the administration's broader strategy of defying judicial authority while prioritizing political interests.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge ordered SNAP benefits funding from emergency reserve — U.S. District Judge John McConnell of the District of Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to fund SNAP benefit payments using the $4.65 billion emergency reserve Congress had set aside. McConnell suggested the administration could make full November payments by also tapping the Child Nutrition Program and other funds, but left discretion to the administration.
• Federal judge orders administration to restore SNAP benefits — On November 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell in the District of Rhode Island found that the Trump administration had violated his prior court order by withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The judge accused the administration of withholding benefits "for political reasons" and cited Trump's social media post stating SNAP would be funded only after the shutdown ends as evidence of "intent to defy the court order." McConnell ordered full SNAP payments to states by November 7 for distribution to beneficiaries.
• Judge McConnell found administration ignored court order and mandated full SNAP benefit distribution — After the Trump administration failed to comply with his initial order to distribute at least partial SNAP benefits, Judge John McConnell found the administration in violation and issued a new order requiring the Trump administration to distribute the full amount of SNAP benefits for November to the states for distribution by the end of Friday (November 7, 2025).
• Trump administration appeals SNAP benefits ruling — On November 6, 2025, immediately after Judge John McConnell's order to restore SNAP benefits, the Trump administration filed an appeal of the ruling.

Supporting reports

• Trump threatens to withhold SNAP benefits unless Democrats capitulate on government funding — On November 4, 2025, President Trump threatened on social media to withhold SNAP (food assistance) benefits to 42 million Americans unless Democrats vote to fund the government. The threat came after the Trump administration had been forced by court rulings to provide emergency funds to keep SNAP operating at 50% capacity during the shutdown. Trump's statement—"Snap benefits will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government"—weaponizes a critical anti-poverty program as leverage in the funding standoff.
• Trump announced withholding SNAP benefits to pressure Democrats on government shutdown — President Trump announced via social media that SNAP benefits for 43 million Americans would be withheld until Democrats agree to reopen the government on Republican terms. This directly contradicted a federal court order from U.S. District Judge John McConnell requiring the administration to fund SNAP using emergency reserves. The White House initially claimed full compliance but Trump's announcement made clear the administration intended to use hunger as political leverage in the shutdown dispute.
• Trump announced refusal to comply with federal court order on SNAP benefits distribution — President Trump posted on Truth Social that he would refuse to follow a federal court order requiring SNAP benefits distribution to nearly 42 million Americans, stating benefits would only be given when "Radical Left Democrats open up govt." The White House later clarified the administration was still sending partial food aid benefits despite the president's threat, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating the administration was "fully complying with the court order."
• Trump defies court order on SNAP benefits — Also on Truth Social, Trump said that SNAP benefits "will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government … and not before!" despite a court order requiring the administration to issue payments.

Supporting reports

• Trump threatened Senate Republicans with retaliation if they do not pass continuing resolution without Democrats — According to an Axios report, a Trump advisor stated that if Senate Republicans do not pass the continuing resolution without Democratic support by eliminating the filibuster, Trump "will make their lives a living hell," including calling them at 3 a.m., attacking them in their districts, and calling them un-American and creatures of a dying institution.

Supporting reports

• Administration claims exemption from War Powers Act consultation requirement — The Trump administration is claiming it does not have to consult Congress regarding continued military strikes against Venezuela, contrary to the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The administration notified Congress on September 4, 2025, of a strike against a vessel in the Caribbean allegedly affiliated with a terrorist organization and engaged in drug trafficking. As of November 1, the 60-day deadline requiring Congressional approval approaches on Monday, but the administration has not sought approval and has been reluctant to share information about the strikes with Congress, excluding senior Senate Democrats from briefings and providing incomplete briefings to House members.
• Trump administration ignored War Powers Act deadline for Venezuela strikes — The Trump administration did not seek congressional approval by the November 4 deadline required under the 1973 War Powers Act for ongoing military strikes against Venezuela. The administration took the position that no approval was necessary because U.S. military personnel were not at risk in the strikes, which have killed 65 people so far. The administration's interpretation effectively exempts the strikes from War Powers Act requirements.