Trump Action Archive

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

• Congress blindsided by Trump's Ukraine peace plan — Congressional representatives were not informed in advance of the 28-point Ukraine peace plan that Trump is pressuring Zelensky to sign. The proposal was leaked to media rather than shared with Congress, leaving lawmakers unaware of a major foreign policy initiative affecting NATO, European security, and U.S. strategic interests.

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

• 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

• Trump stated he could invoke the Insurrection Act without judicial review — During the 60 Minutes interview, Trump stated that if he needed to send the Army or Marines into cities, he would do so "in a heartbeat" using the Insurrection Act, claiming "no judge can even challenge you on that. If I wanted to I could."
• Trump claims he can invoke Insurrection Act without judicial review — During a 60 Minutes interview, Trump said he would send the Army or Marines into US cities "in a heartbeat" and claimed no judge could challenge his invocation of the Insurrection Act if he did so.

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.

Supporting reports

• War Powers Resolution 60-day deadline for boat strikes passed without congressional approval — The Trump administration informed Congress of the boat strikes on September 4 to ensure Congress was "fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution." However, the administration has since ignored the War Powers Resolution, which requires congressional approval for hostile actions to continue longer than 60 days. The 60-day deadline passed in early November 2025 without congressional approval for the continuation of strikes.
• Trump notifies Congress of military strike — On September 4, 2025, President Trump notified Congress of a military strike against a vessel in the Caribbean, claiming it was linked to a terrorist organization and involved in drug trafficking. This notification was part of his obligation under the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to inform Congress of military actions.

Supporting reports

• Federal judges ruled administration's SNAP funding refusal likely illegal — Two federal judges found that the Trump administration's refusal to use Congressional reserves to fund SNAP benefits in an emergency was likely illegal. One judge ordered the government to use the reserved funds. Despite the court order, the administration did not immediately comply. Trump posted on social media claiming government lawyers believe the administration lacks legal authority to pay SNAP and instructed lawyers to ask the court for clarification, while blaming Democrats for the shutdown and directing SNAP recipients to contact Senate Democrats.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration withholds SNAP emergency reserve funds despite congressional appropriation — The Trump administration refused to release emergency reserve funds Congress appropriated for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), claiming it lacked authority to do so during the government shutdown. The withholding threatened to cut benefits to 42 million Americans (one in eight U.S. residents) receiving an average of $186 monthly. Two federal judges found the withholding likely illegal and ordered the administration to use the emergency funds to maintain SNAP benefits.
• Federal judges block Trump administration from suspending SNAP benefits during government shutdown — Two federal judges issued separate rulings on October 31, 2025, blocking the Trump administration from suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for nearly 42 million low-income Americans. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order, and Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts ruled the government must continue funding the program. The administration had planned to halt payments on November 1 due to the ongoing government shutdown, but plaintiffs argued the USDA possessed sufficient contingency funds ($5.25 billion) to maintain benefits.
• Federal judge in Rhode Island orders USDA to provide SNAP benefits from emergency funds — U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in a lawsuit brought by several cities, a major labor union, and Rhode Island nonprofits, ordered the USDA to use emergency contingency funds to provide SNAP benefits and to provide an update by noon on Monday, November 3. McConnell stated that the six billion dollars in contingency funds are appropriated funds necessary to carry out the program's operation.
• Federal judge orders SNAP benefits funded from emergency reserves — U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts, in a lawsuit brought by Democratic attorneys general and governors against the USDA and Office of Management and Budget, found that Congress had appropriated emergency funds specifically for such crises and ordered the administration to decide by Monday whether to release those funds for SNAP benefits. The judge stated: "Congress has put money in an emergency fund, and it is hard for me to understand how this is not an emergency."
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-13165 — District Court Judge Talwani found that State Plaintiffs have standing and are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the administration's suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is contrary to law during the ongoing appropriations lapse. The motion for a temporary restraining order remains under advisement until Monday, Nov. 3, to allow the administration to advise the court on whether it would use contingency funds to authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November 2025.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00569 — District Court Judge John McConnell, Jr. issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to distribute November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits using contingency funds effective immediately, to report to the Court on Monday, Nov. 3 regarding the status of the distribution, and to honor any existing waivers.
• Federal judge in Boston ruled Trump administration's SNAP suspension plan likely unlawful — A federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's plan to suspend SNAP food aid benefits during the government shutdown is likely unlawful. The judge ordered the Trump administration to respond by Monday with a plan to at least partially fund SNAP benefits, indicating the court's intent to prevent full suspension of the program.
• Federal judge in Rhode Island ordered USDA to distribute SNAP contingency funds for November 1 payments — A federal judge in Rhode Island issued an oral order requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to distribute contingency funds to ensure SNAP benefits are paid on November 1, 2025, during the ongoing government shutdown. The judge stated the USDA must distribute the money "timely, or as soon as possible" to meet the deadline. This order directly contradicts the Trump administration's plan to suspend food aid benefits during the shutdown.
• Federal judge ordered Trump administration to release emergency SNAP funds immediately — A federal judge granted a request and ordered the Trump administration to release emergency funds for SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) immediately, hours after Speaker Mike Johnson claimed there was "no way" to fund the program during the shutdown. The ruling came in response to litigation filed by Democrats challenging the administration's withholding of benefits. Johnson had previously dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous, but the court order directly contradicted his assertion that funding was impossible.

Supporting reports

• Trump announces federalization of National Guard and deployment to Democratic-led cities — During a speech in Japan on October 29, President Trump announced he is federalizing National Guard troops and deploying them into Democratic-led cities, stating the purpose is to "have safe cities." Trump also repeated false claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. When pressed by reporters, Trump referenced the Insurrection Act, claiming that if invoked, it would allow him to deploy military forces without court involvement, though the Act legally applies only during actual insurrection or rebellion.
• Trump said he would deploy Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines to US cities — Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said he would be willing to deploy other branches of the military into US cities, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Without naming the Insurrection Act, Trump said, "If I want to enact a certain act, I'm allowed to do it," adding that "I'd be allowed to do whatever I want" and claiming that "the courts wouldn't get involved."
• Trump stated he could deploy any military branch into American cities without court involvement. — When asked about his prior statement regarding sending "more than the National Guard" into American cities, Trump stated he was "allowed to do that" and could deploy the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines as he wished. Trump asserted that "the courts wouldn't get involved. Nobody would get involved" and that "I could send anybody I wanted."