Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Three former FBI agents filed lawsuit against Kash Patel — Three former FBI agents filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Kash Patel portraying him as a "partisan neophyte more interested in social media and swag" than professional law enforcement, occurring on the same day Patel mishandled the Kirk shooting investigation.
• Three former FBI officials sue Kash Patel for wrongful termination over Trump investigations — Three senior FBI officials—Brian Driscoll Jr., Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans—filed a federal lawsuit in Washington DC against FBI Director Kash Patel and the federal government, alleging wrongful termination and unlawful political influence. The complaint alleges Patel stated he was instructed by the White House to fire agents who worked on Trump investigations, and that Emil Bove pressured officials to compile lists of agents involved in January 6 investigations. The officials seek reinstatement, backpay, and a declaration that their firings were illegal.
• Three former FBI officials sued Patel and DOJ for politicizing the FBI — Three former top officials at the FBI filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Patel, the FBI, Attorney General Bondi, the Department of Justice, and the president, accusing them of unlawfully politicizing the FBI and purging anyone who had ever worked on a criminal investigation of Trump. The lawsuit suggests Bongino had an "intense focus on [using] his social media profiles to change his followers' perceptions of the FBI."
• FBI director and deputy director focused on social media rather than investigation — FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, both MAGA influencers without law enforcement experience, appeared to prioritize social media activity over the investigation into Kirk's shooting. Hours after the shooting, Patel's personal social media account posted a picture of himself and Kirk; minutes later, Patel's official FBI account posted conflicting updates about the suspect's custody status. Both officials appeared focused more on posting than conducting investigative work.

Supporting reports

• Texas Redistricting Lawsuit Filed — A lawsuit has been filed challenging the newly drawn congressional maps in Texas, alleging that the maps are a partisan gerrymander favoring the Republican Party. The plaintiffs argue that the redistricting process violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution by diluting the voting power of minority communities. The case has been filed in federal court, and the plaintiffs are seeking a court order to block the use of the maps in upcoming elections.
• Missouri Republicans approve mid-decade congressional redistricting eliminating Democratic seat — Missouri Republicans approved a new congressional map on September 12, 2025, that eliminates a district currently held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver in Kansas City and redistributes voters into GOP-friendly districts, increasing Republican seats from six to seven of eight. The map now goes to Republican Governor Mike Kehoe for signature. Opponents plan to gather signatures for a statewide referendum within 90 days to force a voter decision on the maps in 2026.

Supporting reports

• Republicans block release of Epstein files in Rules Committee vote — All eight Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted to block the release of the Epstein files after Trump warned them it would be a "hostile act" to vote for release. The Republicans who voted to block were Virginia Foxx (NC), Michelle Fischbach (MN), Ralph Norman (SC), Chip Roy (TX), Nick Langworthy (NY), Austin Scott (GA), Morgan Griffith (VA), and Brian Jack (GA). Democrats have secured 216 signatures on a discharge petition and expect two special election victories to provide the votes needed to force a floor vote on release.

Supporting reports

• Navarro files appeal demanding DOJ explain withdrawal from defending his subpoena conviction — Peter Navarro, Trump's White House trade adviser, filed a 13-page appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit requesting the justice department explain why it will not defend his 2022 conviction for defying a January 6 committee subpoena. Navarro was convicted after refusing to testify, claiming executive privilege. After Trump returned to office and Navarro joined the White House, federal prosecutors withdrew their defense of the conviction and urged appointment of external counsel. Navarro's filing argues the DOJ must provide detailed explanation for abandoning its legal position, citing separation-of-powers concerns and potential implications for congressional subpoena enforcement against presidential advisers.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rules Trump exceeded presidential authority on tariff imposition — A federal appeals court found that Trump overstepped his presidential authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries earlier in 2025, including a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners and reciprocal tariffs on specific nations. The ruling sent shock waves across global markets. The Trump administration subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling — Following a federal appeals court ruling that Trump exceeded his presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Treasury Secretary Bessent expressed confidence the conservative-majority court would side with the administration, stating there were "numerous other avenues" available if the court ruled against them.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling and expedite decision — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D John Sauer, filed with the Supreme Court requesting the justices decide by Wednesday 10 September whether to take the case. Sauer argued the appeals court's decision had "disrupted highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations" and cast legal uncertainty over the president's tariff efforts. The administration requested oral argument in the first week of November and claimed any adverse ruling would "destroy" the US financial fabric.
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules Trump's tariffs exceed presidential authority — The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump's tariffs "assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations" of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law the administration invoked. The court found that the word "tariff" does not appear in IEEPA and questioned whether the statute grants the president sufficient power to impose tariffs. The appeals court paused its ruling, allowing tariffs to remain in place until 14 October while the case proceeds to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling — Following a federal appeals court ruling that Trump exceeded his presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Treasury Secretary Bessent expressed confidence the conservative-majority court would side with the administration, stating there were "numerous other avenues" available if the court ruled against them.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling and expedite decision — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D John Sauer, filed with the Supreme Court requesting the justices decide by Wednesday 10 September whether to take the case. Sauer argued the appeals court's decision had "disrupted highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations" and cast legal uncertainty over the president's tariff efforts. The administration requested oral argument in the first week of November and claimed any adverse ruling would "destroy" the US financial fabric.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Doe v. Department of Defense (D. Md. 8:25-cv-02947) — Two minor children and a young adult filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the Department of Defense's June 11, 2025 revision to the TRICARE policy manual, which eliminated coverage for gender transition medications and therapy for both children and adults. The revision followed President Trump's January 28, 2025 Executive Order 14187. Plaintiffs allege the policy change violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow required rulemaking procedures and notice requirements, and violated separation of powers. They seek declaratory judgment that the new policy is unlawful and a permanent injunction against enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Chief Justice Roberts allowed Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC member — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts allowed Trump to move forward with the firing of a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission, directly contravening a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a federal law meant to restrict the White House's ability to control the agency, while litigation around her termination continues.
• SCOTUS stays District Court order in Trump v. Slaughter — The Supreme Court, acting through Chief Justice Roberts, issued an emergency stay of a July 17, 2025 order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (case 1:25-cv-909). The stay halts the lower court's ruling pending further order from the Court or the Chief Justice. Respondents are directed to file a response by September 15, 2025 at 4 p.m. EDT. The underlying case involves Trump and other applicants against Rebecca K. Slaughter and others.
• Supreme Court allows Trump to fire Democratic FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — The Supreme Court allowed Trump to ignore a lower court decision that he could not fire Rebecca Slaughter, the last remaining Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, while her case was in the courts. This overturns precedent established since 1935 that the president does not have the power to fire members of independent agencies created by Congress. The decision was issued without hearings, briefs, or written explanation under the "shadow docket."

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court authorized freezing of $4 billion in foreign aid — The Supreme Court temporarily authorized the Trump administration to freeze approximately $4 billion in foreign aid set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which includes funding for global health and HIV/AIDS programs. The decision allowed the administration to prevent the spending of congressionally appropriated funds.
• Trump administration filed emergency appeal to freeze foreign aid — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to authorize the freezing of billions of dollars in foreign aid after a lower court ruled it must spend the funds before they expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The move seeks to override judicial authority over appropriated funds.
• Supreme Court temporarily halts lower court order requiring Trump administration to spend $4.9bn in foreign aid — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay on Tuesday halting a Washington DC federal judge's order requiring the Trump administration to spend nearly $5bn in congressionally appropriated foreign aid. Trump had announced via "pocket rescission" that he would not spend the funds, characterizing them as "woke, weaponized and wasteful." The stay gives aid groups until Friday to file a response. This marks the first pocket rescission in 50 years and follows Trump's earlier moves to dismantle USAID and downsize US global development and emergency response support.
• Supreme Court partially stays District Court order in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition — The Supreme Court, in an emergency application, partially stayed a September 3, 2025 District Court order (D.D.C., cases 1:25-cv-400 and 1:25-cv-402) for funds subject to the President's August 28, 2025 rescission proposal pending before Congress. The stay applies only to those funds and remains in effect pending further order of the Chief Justice or the full Court. Respondents were ordered to file a response by September 12, 2025, at 4 p.m. EDT.

Supporting reports

• Arizona Republicans file ethics complaint seeking expulsion of Democratic senator for reposting ICE warning — Arizona Republican state senators, led by Jake Hoffman, filed a formal ethics complaint against Democratic state senator Analise Ortiz for resharing an Instagram post warning of ICE enforcement activity near an elementary school. The complaint seeks her expulsion from the chamber or, alternatively, removal from committees and loss of office and staff. The ethics committee chair referred the complaint to the U.S. attorney's office for potential federal investigation. Ortiz maintains she exercised her First Amendment right to inform constituents of government activity.

Supporting reports

• Trump filed emergency appeal to block FTC member reinstatement — Trump filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to block the reinstatement of a Biden-appointed Federal Trade Commission member and let her termination proceed while the legality of the move is challenged in court.