Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Pam Bondi testifies before House committee on Epstein files handling and admits to redaction errors — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared for a transcribed deposition before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 29, 2026, to answer questions about the Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein files under her leadership. Bondi admitted to "redaction errors" in the released files but defended the department's overall compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. She stated she delegated oversight to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche rather than leading the effort herself. Democratic lawmakers reported that Bondi refused to answer questions about Donald Trump's involvement in the release or direction of redactions.
• Pam Bondi testifies before House oversight committee on DOJ's handling of Epstein files — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Oversight and Reform Committee to answer questions about the Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein case files during her tenure. Bondi testified that Todd Blanche, her deputy and Trump's nominee to replace her as attorney general, was "in charge" of the entire release of Epstein files. She acknowledged redaction errors but defended the department's commitment to transparency. Bondi also stated she had no involvement in Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer and declined to discuss conversations with Trump.
• DOJ attorney intervened to block congressional questions about Trump's role in Epstein file handling — During Bondi's appearance before the House Oversight Committee, a Department of Justice attorney sat beside the former Attorney General and personally intervened to shut down questioning whenever Democrats asked about Donald Trump's role or knowledge regarding the Epstein files. Congresswoman Stansbury (D-NM) stated that "The United States Department of Justice is intervening on behalf of Pam Bondi to stop her from answering questions about what happened in the cover-up of this case and her conversations with Donald Trump." Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) reported asking Bondi five separate times about her conversations with Trump; she refused to answer all five times due to DOJ intervention.
• Pam Bondi refused oath, filming, and questions about Trump at House Oversight Committee deposition on Epstein files — Former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 29, 2026, for a hearing on the Justice Department's handling of Jeffrey Epstein files. Bondi refused to be sworn in, refused to be filmed, and refused to answer questions about her conversations with Donald Trump regarding the Epstein investigation. A DOJ attorney sat beside her and intervened to block questions about the president. Democrats objected strenuously; Chairman James Comer (R-KY) blocked requests for oath and video recording.
• Bondi blamed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for Epstein file mishandling — During her testimony, Bondi deflected responsibility for the Justice Department's handling of Epstein files by attributing all critical decisions and failures to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. When questioned about redaction failures that exposed survivors' names while protecting Epstein's co-conspirators, and about Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer to a less secure prison facility, Bondi referred questions to Blanche and the Bureau of Prisons. The Democrats' Oversight account noted that under Bondi's tenure, one survivor's name appeared over 500 times in released documents while co-conspirators remained redacted.
• Attorney General Bondi testified on Epstein Files release compliance — Attorney General Pam Bondi testified behind closed doors before members of the House Oversight Committee regarding the Department of Justice's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi acknowledged "redaction errors" but stated the department had been "committed to accountability and transparency" since the process began. House Oversight Chair James Comer downgraded her appearance from a formal deposition to a transcribed interview, meaning she would not answer questions under oath and proceedings would not be videotaped. Bondi deflected responsibility to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in her opening statement.

Supporting reports

• Bipartisan group of ex-federal judges files lawsuit challenging Trump's $1.8bn anti-weaponization fund — Thirty-five former federal judges, including conservative J. Michael Luttig and former district judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida on May 29 seeking to reopen Trump's IRS case. They argue the $1.776bn settlement fund is "a product of collusion and a fraud on the Court," claiming Judge Kathleen Williams may have been deceived before approving it on May 18. The judges contend the fund was created to distribute taxpayer dollars to Trump's political allies, including those convicted in the January 6 Capitol riot.
• Thirty-five federal judges requested Trump lawsuit reopening — Thirty-five federal judges filed a request that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopen a legal case that Trump, his oldest sons, and the Trump Organization had brought against the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Trumps had dropped the suit, the Department of Justice used it as justification for establishing the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to compensate those claiming the legal system had been "weaponized" against them for crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The judges' filing challenges the legitimacy of the fund by questioning whether the Trumps and the IRS were actually adversaries in the case.
• Thirty-five former federal judges challenge Trump IRS settlement as fraud on the court — A group of thirty-five former federal judges, appointed by members of both political parties, filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the legal case Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The judges alleged that Trump and his organization dropped the lawsuit and announced a "settlement agreement" with the Department of Justice as a pretext to justify a $1.776 billion slush fund for paying off those convicted in connection with Trump's schemes to overturn the 2020 election results. The judges characterized the lawsuit and settlement as "fraud on the Court," noting that Trump was simultaneously the plaintiff and the person in charge of the IRS, and that the settlement lacked constitutional or congressional authority.
• Florida court ordered Trump to respond to retired federal judges' filing on slush fund — A federal court in Florida ordered President Trump to respond to a filing by 35 retired federal judges who are requesting an investigation into the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the dismissal of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS. The retired judges' filing alleges possible "collusion" in the case. This represents an early procedural victory for the judges in their challenge to the fund.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary order blocking "anti-weaponization" fund — A federal judge issued a temporary order preventing the Trump administration from establishing the nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund while a lawsuit seeking to stop it is considered. The fund, which originated from a settlement after Trump sued the IRS over disclosure of his tax returns, had been proposed to compensate individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack.
• Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's $1.8bn Anti-Weaponization Fund — US District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order on Friday barring the Trump administration from transferring money into or taking further action on a $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund." The fund was created to settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons over leaked tax returns, without the government mounting a legal defense. The order preserves the status quo pending legal arguments in a challenge brought by Democracy Forward and other plaintiffs, preventing irreversible disbursement of taxpayer funds.
• Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary order halting the Department of Justice from creating, operating, or distributing funds from the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion slush fund established by the Trump administration to compensate those convicted of crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The order prohibits the administration from transferring money to the fund, considering claims for payment, or paying out any funds. Brinkema scheduled a hearing on the case for June 12. The plaintiffs challenging the fund are people and entities prosecuted or threatened by the Trump administration who argue they are not being treated equally with Trump loyalists in compensation claims.
• Motion granted — Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) 1:26-cv-01399 — Judge Brinkema enjoined Defendants from taking any action related to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, including transferring money to the Fund, considering submitted claims, or disbursing any funds. Judge Brinkema also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited briefing and granted the Defendants' request for additional time.
• Federal Judge Brinkema temporarily blocked Trump's $1.776 billion fund for fraudsters and insurrectionists — Federal Judge Brinkema issued a temporary block on any further action involving Trump's $1.776 billion fund, preserving the status quo while litigation moves forward. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 12, 2026. The fund was characterized as being for "fraudsters and insurrectionists."
• Federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Justice from taking further action on the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded initiative. The order blocks the transfer of money to the fund, consideration of claims, and disbursement of funds while plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is pending. Judge Brinkema scheduled a hearing for June 12 to hear further arguments on the case.
• Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's $1.776 Billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from creating or operating a planned $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to compensate individuals who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the government, potentially including those Trump pardoned for Jan. 6 involvement. The order prohibits consideration of submitted claims and disbursement of funds pending a June 12 hearing.

Supporting reports

• Judge Christopher Cooper ordered removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center — U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia ordered the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to remove Trump's name from the building, all official materials, and signage within fourteen days. Cooper also blocked the Kennedy Center's plan to close for two years. The judge affirmed that Congress, not the Trump administration, has authority over the Kennedy Center's name and operations. Cooper found that the Kennedy Center's board had agreed to the closure without legal counsel and that the executive director had proposed the shutdown within minutes of assuming the role.
• Judge Cooper issued ruling requiring Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — On May 29, 2026, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Trump's name must be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, finding that Congress alone has authority to change the center's name and that the board's renaming violated statutory restrictions on memorials. Cooper set a midnight June 12 deadline for removal of all signage, merchandise, and related materials bearing Trump's name.
• Federal judge ordered Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., declared that the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees lacked authority to rename the facility for President Trump. The judge ruled that only Congress can change the Center's official name under federal statute (20 U.S.C. 76h-76s), and voided the Board's December 18, 2025 resolution to rename it the "Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center." The court found the defendants violated the Kennedy Center's organic statute by installing signage, altering the website, and issuing materials bearing Trump's name.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice argued for unlimited presidential firing power — Karen Lesperance, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, told Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the government's position is that the President has the power to fire anyone, even if doing so for political reasons. The statement was made in the case of Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. When Judge Furman asked whether there were any limits to presidential firing power—such as whether the President could fire people to create an "all-white executive branch" or "all-Black" executive branch—Lesperance avoided answering the question. Comey's lawyer characterized the Justice Department's position as a "novel and breathtaking theory about the scope of" presidential power.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice sues four states over undercover license plate policies — The Department of Justice filed lawsuits against Maine, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts on May 28, 2026, challenging state policies that deny confidential license plates to federal law enforcement agents. The DOJ alleged the policies are unconstitutional, threaten agent safety, and undermine federal operations including immigration enforcement. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated the policies are discriminatory and obstructionist. The Civil Division was instructed to identify additional state and local laws impeding federal operations.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Gill v. United States Department of Justice — Allison M. Gill, a former Department of Veterans Affairs employee, filed a complaint in the Southern District of California challenging the DOJ's establishment of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," created by settlement of Trump v. IRS on May 18, 2026. The Fund, authorized to distribute $1.776 billion from the Judgment Fund to individuals claiming harm from "Lawfare" or "Weaponization," was established without notice-and-comment rulemaking. Gill alleges the Fund Establishment Order and DOJ Notice violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to publish notice in the Federal Register or afford interested parties an opportunity to comment. She seeks declaration of APA violation, vacatur of the orders, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring implementation pending APA-compliant rulemaking, and temporary relief to prevent depletion of the Fund's corpus.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Biden v. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-01818) — Former President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the Department of Justice's planned June 15, 2026 release of audio recordings and transcripts of his private 2016–2017 conversations with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer, recorded at his home during the writing of his memoir. The Department obtained the materials during Special Counsel Robert K. Hur's 2023 investigation into Biden's handling of classified records. Biden alleges the DOJ's decision to release the materials to the Heritage Foundation and House Judiciary Committee is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act, and violates the Privacy Act because he did not consent. He seeks declaratory judgment, vacatur of the disclosure decision, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring release.
• Biden sues DOJ to block release of Hur interview audio and transcripts — Former President Joe Biden filed a federal lawsuit in Washington DC on May 27, 2026, seeking to prevent the Department of Justice from releasing audio recordings and transcripts of interviews conducted by Special Counsel Robert Hur. The conversations, from 2016–2017 with Biden's biographer, were obtained during Hur's classified-documents investigation. Biden's attorneys argue the release violates his privacy rights and that the DOJ bears responsibility to protect personal information obtained during criminal investigations. The lawsuit targets disclosure to the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee and the Heritage Foundation.

Supporting reports

• Senate Republicans rebuke Trump over White House ballroom project and political weaponization compensation fund — Senate Republicans issued a rare rebuke of Trump over his lavish White House ballroom project and a controversial $1.8 billion compensation fund for allies claiming to be victims of "political weaponisation." The rebuke signals fracturing Republican unity on Trump's spending priorities and use of public funds for partisan purposes.

Supporting reports

• Republican officials publicly criticize Iran deal terms — Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the reported terms a framework matching the Obama-era Iran deal, the very agreement Trump spent a decade attacking. Senator Ted Cruz issued a lengthy statement expressing deep concern that Iran would emerge with billions in assets, uranium enrichment capability, and control of the Strait. Senator Roger Wicker called the deal "ill-advised." Senator Lindsey Graham warned that a deal leaving Iran in regional dominance would empower Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militias. Ben Rhodes, an Obama-era JCPOA negotiator, stated that Operation Epic Fury accomplished nothing except putting the IRGC in charge of Iran and the Strait.
• Senator Roger Wicker condemned Iran deal as surrender — Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, publicly condemned the reported Iran agreement as "a disaster" that would nullify the accomplishments of Operation Epic Fury. Wicker urged Trump to allow the armed forces to complete the destruction of Iran's conventional military capabilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, warning that pursuing an agreement with Iran's government "risks a perception of weakness."