Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Ahmed v. Rubio et al. (S.D.N.Y.) — On December 24, 2025, Imran Ahmed, a British national and U.S. permanent resident who founded the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York challenging the State Department's December 23 determination that his presence in the United States would have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences" and would subject him to removal under INA § 237(a)(4)(C). Ahmed alleges the determination was retaliatory action taken in response to his research and advocacy highlighting hate speech on social media platforms, and specifically in retaliation for the EU's €120 million fine against X Corp. in early December 2025. Ahmed names Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Acting ICE Director Todd M. Lyons, and Acting ICE New York Field Office Director Judith Almodovar as defendants. Ahmed alleges violations of his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights, arbitrary and capricious action under the Administrative Procedure Act, abuse of discretion, and violation of the non-delegation doctrine. He seeks vacation of the State Department's determination, an injunction blocking enforcement action, and an order requiring notice and opportunity to challenge any movement or residency restrictions.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's conditional cuts to homeland security funding for states — US District Judge Mary McElroy of Rhode Island ruled on December 23, 2025, that the Trump administration's cuts of over $230 million in federal homeland security and FEMA grants to seven states and DC were unlawful. The administration had reduced funding for Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and DC as punishment for non-compliance with immigration enforcement policies. McElroy's 48-page decision found the cuts violated administrative law and held vital counterterrorism and law enforcement programs hostage to political demands. The Department of Homeland Security indicated it would appeal.

Supporting reports

• Schumer introduces Senate resolution directing legal action against DOJ over incomplete Epstein files release — Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer announced he will introduce a resolution authorizing the Senate to file a lawsuit against the Department of Justice for failing to meet a congressionally mandated December 19 deadline to release complete files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Trump administration released only a partial batch of 7,700 document links on December 20, violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed into law by President Trump. If passed, the resolution would compel DOJ to release all remaining documents through court order.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's argument to deploy federalized National Guard in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's legal argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The decision limited Trump's authority to use military forces within the United States without explicit congressional authorization or state consent.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's National Guard deployment authority in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The 6-3 decision blocked the administration's attempt to militarize American cities without state consent.
• Supreme Court rejects Trump's National Guard deployment in Illinois as unlawful — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 preliminary ruling that President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in the Chicago area beginning in October violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The majority held that a president must first attempt to execute laws using regular U.S. military forces and may deploy the National Guard only if unable to do so with regular forces. The Court found the Government failed to identify statutory or constitutional authority permitting military enforcement of laws in Illinois.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump's National Guard deployment for immigration enforcement in Illinois — The Supreme Court rejected Trump's deployment of the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement in Illinois, ruling that federal law limits use of the National Guard to situations where regular military forces are insufficient. The majority found that the President does not have inherent authority to deploy the military to protect ICE property. Three justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) dissented.
• Supreme Court blocks Trump administration from deploying National Guard in Illinois — The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois as part of his mass immigration crackdown, ruling that the government "failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois." The decision represents a rare judicial check on executive power in the Trump administration.
• Supreme Court Denies Stay in Trump v. Illinois — On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Illinois. This decision upheld a lower court's order that barred the Trump administration from deploying the federalized National Guard in Illinois for immigration enforcement actions. The case arose after the Trump administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement in Chicago, which was challenged by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court's denial means the federal government cannot deploy the National Guard in Illinois pending further legal proceedings. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the decision.
• US Supreme Court blocks Trump national guard deployment to Chicago — The US Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower court order blocking the deployment of national guard troops to the Chicago area. In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that the government failed to meet the legal burden required to show it could not enforce immigration laws without federal military intervention. The decision upholds a ruling by US District Judge April Perry from October and signals potential impact on similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Denies Stay in Trump v. Illinois — On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Illinois. This decision upheld a lower court's order that barred the Trump administration from deploying the federalized National Guard in Illinois for immigration enforcement actions. The case arose after the Trump administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement in Chicago, which was challenged by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court's denial means the federal government cannot deploy the National Guard in Illinois pending further legal proceedings. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the decision.

Supporting reports

• White House takes control of Justice Department X account — The White House took over the X account of the Justice Department on December 23. On the same day, that account posted a message claiming that accusations in the Epstein files are "unfounded and false."
• Trump White House assumed control of DOJ social media accounts — Following bizarre exchanges on the DOJ's official social media account, reporting from Axios revealed that the Trump White House has assumed direct control over the Department of Justice's social media accounts. The article notes this explains the unprofessional tone of the exchanges and raises concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — State of New York v. Vought — Eighteen states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against Russell Vought (acting CFPB director), the CFPB, and the Federal Reserve Board, challenging Vought's reinterpretation of the law governing CFPB funding. Plaintiffs allege the new interpretation will terminate all CFPB funding in violation of Congressional mandate, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to restore the statutory funding formula and compel the defendants to request funds from the Federal Reserve.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Beatty sues to block Kennedy Center name change — Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, sued the Trump administration to block the Center's name change, calling the move a "flagrant violation of the rule of law." The suit challenges the administration's authority to unilaterally alter the name of a congressionally chartered institution.
• Democratic lawmaker sues Trump over Kennedy Center renaming — Democratic U.S. Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump on Monday challenging the Kennedy Center board's vote to rename the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to the "Trump-Kennedy Center." Beatty, an ex-officio trustee, argued the renaming violates federal law requiring congressional approval and alleged she was muted and prevented from speaking during the board vote. The Trump administration announced the "unanimous" board vote last week, and workers have already changed the name on the building's exterior.

Supporting reports

• House Speaker Johnson warns of Democratic impeachment if Republicans lose majority — At a Turning Point USA event over the weekend, House Speaker Mike Johnson warned attendees that if Republicans lose their House majority, Democrats will move to impeach the president and "create absolute chaos." Johnson's statement was framed as a cautionary message intended to mobilize Republican voters, though observers characterized it as reflecting internal anxiety within the administration about its political standing and vulnerability to oversight.

Supporting reports

• Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie announced drafting articles of impeachment and inherent contempt against Attorney General Pam Bondi — Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) stated on CNN that he and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) are drafting articles of impeachment and inherent contempt against Attorney General Pam Bondi for her failure to comply with the Epstein Files Release Act. Khanna indicated the decision to move forward has not been made but noted that the question is not whether Democrats would support it, but how many Republicans would. Massie separately stated on CBS that bringing inherent contempt against Bondi is "the quickest way and most expeditious way to get justice for these victims" and does not require going through the courts.

Supporting reports

• Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie announce legal options against justice department non-compliance — Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, co-authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, announced they are "exploring all options" in response to the justice department's non-compliant release, including possible impeachment of justice department officials, contempt of Congress findings, and referral for prosecution of those obstructing justice. Massie noted that the Epstein Files Transparency Act, unlike a congressional subpoena, does not expire at the end of each Congress, potentially exposing current officials to future prosecution.

Supporting reports

• Senate and House Democrats announce investigation and legal action — Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House oversight committee Democrats, including Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, announced they are examining legal options and pursuing accountability for the justice department's violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Schumer characterized the handling as "one of the biggest cover ups in American history" and stated Senate Democrats would "pursue every option to make sure the truth comes out." House Democrats stated they are "examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law."
• Representatives Garcia and Raskin issued statement accusing Trump administration of violating federal law on Epstein files — On December 20, 2025, Representative Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland issued a joint statement accusing the Trump administration and Department of Justice of violating federal law by continuing to cover up facts and evidence about Epstein's trafficking ring. They noted that Attorney General Pam Bondi had denied survivors transparency and defied the Oversight Committee's subpoena, and that the Department of Justice was defying Congress itself while giving "star treatment" to Epstein's convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. They announced they were examining all legal options in response to the violation.

Supporting reports

• Court granted summary judgment for Enbridge, blocking Michigan's shutdown of Line 5 pipeline — The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted Enbridge Energy's motion for summary judgment, blocking Michigan's effort to shut down the Line 5 international pipeline. The Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division and Civil Division had filed a statement of interest in September. The court held that federal law preempts Michigan's action on two grounds: the Pipeline Safety Act grants exclusive authority to the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the pipeline is subject to a U.S.-Canada treaty with express federal policy favoring uninterrupted oil flow.