Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Revolution Wind developers file federal lawsuit seeking preliminary injunction — On September 5, 2025, Revolution Wind project developers Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables filed a separate lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the stop-work order and requesting a preliminary injunction. The filing asserts the order "was issued without statutory authority, lacks any evidentiary basis, and is unlawful." The companies warn that if specialized offshore construction vessels depart due to the stoppage, the project faces delays of at least one year or potential cancellation, despite having already invested $5 billion.
• Rhode Island and Connecticut file lawsuit challenging Revolution Wind halt — On September 5, 2025, Rhode Island and Connecticut attorneys general filed suit in federal court challenging the Trump administration's stop-work order on Revolution Wind as "blatantly illegal." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong stated the order was "erratic and reckless governing." The states argue the halt threatens jobs (over 1,000 union workers employed), clean energy deployment, billions in private investment, and state climate goals. The lawsuit contests the order's legality and seeks to reverse the stoppage.

Supporting reports

• Federal judges criticize Supreme Court's emergency docket handling in Trump cases — Lower court federal judges, in rare media interviews and court opinions, have publicly criticized the Supreme Court for overturning their rulings through brief, unsigned emergency orders without legal explanation. Judges across the ideological spectrum say the practice creates legal confusion, undermines public trust in the judiciary, and fails to defend lower courts against Trump's attacks on judicial integrity. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump on nearly every emergency application filed in his second term—over 20 in seven months—a record pace.

Supporting reports

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissents in NIH case, accusing majority of "Calvinball jurisprudence" — In dissent to the Supreme Court majority's decision allowing Trump to cancel NIH grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused her conservative colleagues of "Calvinball jurisprudence"—a reference to a fictional game with no fixed rules. Jackson wrote that the Court appears to operate under two rules: that there are no fixed rules, and that the Trump administration always wins. Jackson has previously denounced the Court's use of the shadow docket.

Supporting reports

• Judge William Young apologizes to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for NIH ruling — U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee overseeing litigation challenging Trump's attempt to eliminate NIH grant funding, publicly apologized to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during a court hearing. Young stated he did not intend to defy any Supreme Court precedent and that such defiance would be "foreign" to his conduct as a judicial officer. The apology followed Gorsuch's accusation that lower courts were deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court's orders.

Supporting reports

• Washington DC sues Trump administration over national guard deployment — Washington DC's attorney general Brian Schwalb filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trump's deployment of approximately 2,300 national guard troops from seven states to DC streets since August 11. Schwalb argues the deployment constitutes an illegal "involuntary military occupation" and violates the Posse Comitatus Act by using military forces for domestic law enforcement. The suit contends the troops, placed under Pentagon command and deputized by the US Marshals Service, exceed presidential authority and breach the Home Rule Act and the Constitution. The deployment is legally limited to 30 days unless extended by Congress, expiring September 10.
• District of Columbia sues Trump over national guard deployment — On Thursday, the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against President Trump challenging his deployment of troops to Washington DC. The suit represents a jurisdictional and constitutional challenge to the president's authority to deploy military forces in the nation's capital without proper authorization or consent from local authorities.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice sues Boston and Mayor Wu over sanctuary city policies — The Department of Justice, through its Civil Division, filed a lawsuit against the City of Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu, and the Boston Police Department, alleging that Boston's sanctuary city laws interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated that Boston's policies result in the release of individuals convicted of serious crimes who would otherwise face removal. The lawsuit is part of a broader DOJ initiative announced on Bondi's first day in office to identify and litigate against state and local sanctuary policies nationwide.

Supporting reports

• Fifth Circuit blocks Trump's invocation of Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelan deportations — A three-judge panel of the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction on September 3, 2025, blocking the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to justify rapid deportations of Venezuelans alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua gang. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority in a 2-1 decision, rejected the administration's claim that the gang constituted a "predatory incursion" warranting invocation of the 1798 wartime statute. The court found no legal basis for Trump's March 14 proclamation invoking the act during peacetime.
• Fifth Circuit blocks Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans — A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Trump unlawfully invoked the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan men he claimed were gang members. The court found no valid "predatory incursion" as required by law and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the deportations. The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the full circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed emergency appeal on tariff ruling — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling that found the majority of the president's tariffs illegal, claiming in the filing that tariffs "are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity" and warning that a failure to allow them to move forward "would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe." The administration also filed a motion to expedite the case.
• Trump petitions Supreme Court to overturn federal appeals court tariff ruling — President Trump filed a petition with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 4, 2025, challenging a federal appeals court decision that struck down most of his "liberation day" tariffs imposed on April 2, 2025. The lower court ruled 7-4 that Trump overstepped his presidential powers by invoking a 1977 national emergency law to justify reciprocal tariffs of 10–50% on imports. Trump requested expedited review with arguments by November 10 and a ruling by year-end. The tariffs remain in place pending Supreme Court review.
• Trump appeals tariff ruling to Supreme Court — A federal appeals court ruled 7-4 that Trump exceeded presidential authority by imposing tariffs on nearly every country without statutory authorization. The court found that while the president has emergency powers, none permit unilateral tariff or tax imposition. Trump has already petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, signaling the case will likely reach the conservative-majority bench.

Supporting reports

• California governor files preliminary injunction to block extended national guard deployment — Following Judge Breyer's ruling, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a preliminary injunction on September 2 seeking to block the Trump administration's extension of national guard troops' deployment in Los Angeles through the November election. Newsom argued there was no justification for continued military presence against communities. Approximately 300 troops remained deployed at the time, down from thousands sent in June.
• Federal judge rules Trump administration illegally deployed national guard in Los Angeles — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court ruled that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) by deploying thousands of national guard troops to accompany federal immigration agents on raids in Los Angeles in June 2025. The ruling, effective September 12, barred troops from conducting arrests, searches, crowd control, and other law-enforcement functions. California Governor Gavin Newsom had filed suit in June, arguing the deployment constituted militarization of domestic streets. The Trump administration vowed to appeal.
• Judge Breyer ruled Trump administration's use of military in Los Angeles violated Posse Comitatus Act — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally when they deployed the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles. The judge found that armed soldiers set up protective perimeters, traffic blockages, and engaged in crowd control, directly violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. military to execute domestic law. The judge noted that 300 troops remain in Los Angeles and warned that Trump and Hegseth have stated their intention to deploy National Guard troops in other cities, "thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief." Breyer prohibited the defendants from deploying or using military or National Guard troops to execute laws and stayed the order until noon September 12 to allow appeal.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's LA military deployment violated Posse Comitatus Act — A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment of the military to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the army from performing domestic law enforcement actions without authorization from Congress. While the judge noted that it's legal to deploy the officials to protect federal property, he said that Trump is using the military as a "national police force with the President as its chief."
• Judge Blocks Military Deployment for Law Enforcement in Los Angeles — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer issued a ruling that prohibited the Trump administration from using military troops for law enforcement in Los Angeles, citing violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge's order prevents the deployment of National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement activities, emphasizing the need to uphold legal boundaries between military and civilian roles.
• Judge Rules Against Trump's Use of Military for Domestic Law Enforcement — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally by deploying the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles to enforce domestic law, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge prohibited the use of military troops for law enforcement activities and warned against creating a national police force under presidential control.
• Judge rules Trump violated federal law in Los Angeles national guard deployment — A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that President Trump violated federal law when he deployed thousands of national guard troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer during protests against ICE operations. The ruling represents a legal challenge to Trump's authority to unilaterally deploy military forces domestically without proper statutory authorization or state consent.
• Federal judge rules Trump's military deployment to Los Angeles unlawful — A federal judge found that Trump illegally deployed thousands of military troops to Los Angeles in June and barred the Pentagon from using National Guard and Marines for police functions such as arrests and crowd control. The order takes effect September 12. The ruling upheld California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit challenging the deployment as a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military use in domestic law enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court blocked rapid deportation of Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act — A federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting Venezuelans accused of being in a gang under the Alien Enemies Act, finding there was no "invasion" or "predatory incursion" to do so, which is required under the 1798 wartime law. The ruling prevented the misapplication of a wartime statute to immigration enforcement.
• Trump authorized military strike on alleged drug boat without congressional approval — Trump authorized a military strike on a boat in the Caribbean that his administration alleges was occupied by 11 members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were transporting drugs from Venezuela. The strike, which Trump said killed all 11 on board, took place without congressional approval and may have violated international human rights and maritime law. It remains unclear under what US legal or constitutional authority Trump took action or how the military determined that the individuals aboard the vessel were Tren de Aragua members.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Adelita Grijalva won special election but was not sworn in during government shutdown — Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) won her special election in September 2025 and was the 218th required signature for the Epstein Files Transparency Act discharge petition. However, Speaker Johnson kept the House out of session during a 40+ day government shutdown, preventing her from being sworn in and signing the petition. She was finally sworn in on November 12, 2025, and signed the petition within minutes.

Supporting reports

• Harvard University wins frozen-funds lawsuit against Trump administration over Title VI enforcement — A federal judge ruled in September 2025 in favor of Harvard University in its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's withholding of billions of dollars in federal funding. The judge found that the administration "used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country's premier universities" and had applied Title VI protections for Jewish students in a manner that violated the university's First Amendment obligations and due process.
• Federal judge orders Harvard funding restoration, rules termination unlawful — A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated approximately $2.6 billion in federal grants to Harvard University and ordered the administration to reverse the funding cuts. The judge found the termination constituted illegal retaliation after Harvard refused White House demands to change its policies and governance. In a separate ruling, the judge had already barred the administration from halting Harvard's enrollment of international students.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rules Trump exceeded presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs — A federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a 7-4 ruling on August 30, 2025, striking down Trump's tariffs imposed on April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found the tariffs "unbounded in scope, amount and duration" and beyond the president's legal authority, ruling that Congress did not intend IEEPA to grant unlimited tariff power. The decision upheld a May trade court ruling but delayed implementation until October 14 to allow Trump to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs — A federal appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that struck down President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, stating that Congress did not grant the president such broad authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The decision will take effect on October 14, allowing the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Federal court rules Trump lacked legal authority for most tariffs — A federal court ruled that Trump did not have legal authority to issue most of his tariffs. Attorney General Pam Bondi responded by stating that Trump found a national emergency and took action under the law, and that the judges were interfering with the president's role in foreign policy. The DOJ announced it will appeal the decision.

Supporting reports

• Chicago Mayor Johnson signs executive order resisting federal immigration enforcement — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order on Saturday directing the city to resist the Trump administration's planned immigration crackdown. The order bars Chicago police from assisting federal authorities with civil immigration enforcement, related patrols, traffic stops, and checkpoints. It also directs all city departments to protect residents' constitutional rights amid the anticipated militarized federal operation.
• Chicago mayor signs executive order directing city police not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order on August 31, 2025, directing the Chicago Police Department to refuse cooperation with federal immigration authorities during planned ICE enforcement operations. The order bars police from assisting with civil immigration enforcement, patrols, traffic stops, and checkpoints, and prohibits officers from wearing face coverings. Johnson stated the city would guard constitutional rights of residents amid threatened federal deployment and criticized the Trump administration's immigration crackdown as unconstitutional and retaliatory against Democratic cities.
• Chicago Mayor Johnson issues Protecting Chicago executive order — At the end of August, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson passed the "Protecting Chicago" executive order, a sweeping measure designed to limit Trump administration influence on local law enforcement operations. The order represents local resistance to federal intervention and an attempt to shield Chicago's police and community from federal control.