Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche filed motion to dissolve preliminary injunction on ballroom construction — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche filed a motion late on April 28, 2026, seeking to dissolve the court's preliminary injunction blocking construction of the White House ballroom. The motion contained seven pages of argument that the lack of a ballroom endangers Trump, and opened with dismissive language attacking the National Trust for Historic Preservation's name and legitimacy. The motion did not address the court's separate decision not to stop construction of an underground bunker beneath the proposed addition.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration officials use shooting incident to advance ballroom construction and suppress criticism. — Within hours of the shooting, Trump administration officials and allied Republicans coordinated messaging to use the incident as justification for a contested White House ballroom construction project. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Dan Scavino attempted to lead a "USA! USA!" chant immediately after the shooting. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a letter to the National Trust for Historic Preservation demanding dismissal of their lawsuit against the ballroom, stating the lawsuit "puts the lives of the president, his family, and his staff at grave risk." Multiple Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. John Fetterman, called for taxpayer funding of the ballroom. Trump held a press conference claiming the incident proved the need for the ballroom's "bulletproof glass" and "much more secure" design.
• Trump invokes shooting incident to press White House ballroom construction project — Following a shooting at the Washington Hilton during the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on Saturday night, President Trump used the incident to advance his controversial $400 million White House ballroom project. Trump claimed at a Saturday press briefing and in a Sunday Truth Social post that the incident demonstrated the need for a secure on-site ballroom, stating it would be "drone-proof" and "bulletproof." Trump also demanded on Sunday that lawsuits challenging the ballroom construction "must be dropped, immediately."
• DOJ demands National Trust drop White House ballroom lawsuit citing assassination attempt — Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the DOJ Civil Division sent a letter to the National Trust for Historic Preservation demanding the organization withdraw its lawsuit challenging Trump's planned ballroom on the site of the former White House East Wing. Shumate cited a shooting incident the previous night at the Washington Hilton during the White House Correspondents' Dinner, where a man carrying firearms and knives was apprehended by Secret Service. Shumate argued the ballroom is essential for presidential security and threatened to move to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case if the lawsuit was not voluntarily dismissed by 9 a.m. Monday.
• Trump insisted security incident proved need for proposed ballroom — At a press conference hours after the April 26, 2026 security incident at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Trump stated that the trouble demonstrated the necessity of his proposed ballroom addition to the White House.
• Department of Justice demanded National Trust for Historic Preservation drop lawsuit against Trump ballroom plans — On April 27, 2026, the Department of Justice sent a letter demanding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation withdraw its lawsuit challenging Trump's plans to construct a ballroom addition to the White House, arguing that the lawsuit "puts the lives of the President, his family, and his staff at grave risk." The National Trust rejected the demand, stating that while the security incident was "awful," Trump must still follow the law and obtain congressional approval for the ballroom.
• DOJ pressures National Trust for Historic Preservation to drop lawsuit against Trump ballroom project — Following a shooting at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on April 26, the Department of Justice, through Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, sent a letter to lawyers representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation demanding the organization voluntarily withdraw its lawsuit challenging Trump's $400 million White House ballroom construction project. The DOJ characterized the lawsuit as "frivolous" and argued the ballroom was essential for presidential security. The trust had previously obtained a preliminary injunction halting the project in March, but a three-judge appeals panel granted a stay allowing construction to resume on April 11.

Supporting reports

• FCC Chairman Brendan Carr signals enforcement of equal-time rule against talk shows — FCC Chairman Brendan Carr issued new guidance signaling that late-night and daytime talk shows can no longer assume they fall under the "bonafide news" exemption from the equal-time rule. Carr indicated that exemption determinations would depend on multiple factors, including whether there was "partisan motivation" in featuring political candidates as guests. The guidance prompted stations to seek pre-approval before booking candidates, effectively making the FCC a de facto guest-booking authority.
• FCC Chair Carr opened investigation of The View — FCC chair Brendan Carr opened an investigation of the morning talk show The View after Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico appeared on the show earlier this month. Carr changed the FCC's enforcement of the Equal Time Rule to apply to non-news talk shows that appear to be "motivated by partisan purposes," requiring networks to give equal time to all candidates for an office if they interview one candidate.
• FCC chair investigates talk show for Equal Time Rule violation — FCC chair Brendan Carr opened an investigation into the talk show "The View" after it featured Democratic candidate James Talarico, suggesting that the show may have violated the Equal Time Rule by not providing equal airtime to other candidates.
• FCC launches investigation into ABC's interview with Democratic candidate — After ABC's The View interviewed Texas State Representative James Talarico on February 2, 2026, an anonymous FCC source leaked to Fox News that the Commission had launched an investigation into the interview. The FCC source stated, "Fake news is not getting a free pass anymore," signaling that the investigation was retaliatory and politically motivated.
• FCC investigated San Francisco radio station over ICE coverage — Early in Trump's second term, the FCC launched an investigation into San Francisco radio station KCBS over its coverage of ICE operations in San Jose. According to the Associated Press, the station's news directors told employees to ensure that the station's coverage did not anger the FCC, demonstrating that regulatory threat had a chilling effect on editorial independence.

Supporting reports

• Stephen Colbert reports CBS blocked Talarico interview — The Trump administration issued new guidance in January 2026 reinterpreting the "equal-time rule" to apply to daytime and late-night talk shows, reversing the longstanding assumption that interviews with politicians conducted by talk show hosts would be exempt from the rule. This guidance became the legal basis cited by CBS for blocking the Colbert-Talarico interview.
• Texas Democratic Senate primary between Talarico and Crockett — James Talarico and Jasmine Crockett are competing in the Texas Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat scheduled for March 3, 2026. On February 16, CBS refused to air Stephen Colbert's interview with Talarico, citing Trump administration FCC guidance concerns. The incident generated widespread censorship allegations and boosted Talarico's campaign through viral YouTube views and fundraising. Both candidates present contrasting strategies: Crockett emphasizes partisan confrontation of Trump; Talarico pursues cross-partisan economic messaging to appeal to disaffected Trump voters and independents.
• Stephen Colbert reports network legal censorship of Texas state representative — Late-night host Stephen Colbert announced on air that his network's legal team had prohibited him from interviewing Texas state Representative James Talarico, who was scheduled as a guest. Colbert stated he was told "in no uncertain terms" that he could not have Talarico on the broadcast and was further instructed not to mention the prohibition itself. Colbert then proceeded to discuss the censorship on air, citing the network's apparent unwillingness to address the matter.
• CBS refused to air Colbert interview with Democratic candidate over FCC equal-time rule — Late-night host Stephen Colbert reported that CBS refused to broadcast an interview he conducted with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, citing legal concerns about FCC chair Brendan Carr's regulatory guidance issued in January requiring equal airtime for political candidates on daytime and late-night talk shows. CBS claimed the broadcast "could trigger" the equal-time rule, though the network stated the program was not prohibited. Colbert's team found no historical enforcement of the rule on late-night shows dating to the 1960s. The interview was uploaded to YouTube instead.
• CBS Blocks Stephen Colbert Interview with Texas State Representative — CBS network legal counsel blocked Stephen Colbert from airing an interview with Texas State Representative James Talarico and instructed him not to mention the cancellation. The network cited concerns about retaliation from FCC Chair Brendan Carr. Colbert disclosed the censorship on-air and subsequently released the interview independently online, revealing the chilling effect of government pressure on editorial decisions.
• CBS prohibits Colbert interview with Democratic candidate under FCC pressure — CBS forbade Late Show host Stephen Colbert from interviewing Texas State Representative James Talarico, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, citing the FCC's January 21 "equal time rule" reinterpretation. The FCC declared that talk-show interviews with political candidates would no longer have blanket news exemptions and would be evaluated case-by-case for "bona fide" news purposes versus "partisan purposes." CBS also instructed Colbert's lawyers to prevent him from discussing the censorship decision. Colbert aired the incident anyway on his February 17 show, calling it an effort to silence Trump critics on television.
• Colbert's interview with Talarico received 3.8 million YouTube views — As of 10:00 p.m. on February 18, Colbert's 15-minute interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico had been viewed on YouTube 3.8 million times. Forbes reported it is Colbert's most watched interview in months, indicating significant public interest in Talarico's message criticizing Republican use of Christianity as a political weapon.
• CBS blocked interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico — Late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert told viewers he had been unable to air an interview he did with Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Texas James Talarico. Colbert stated: "I was told…that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on." CBS chose not to challenge the FCC's reinterpreted Equal Time Rule, which FCC chair Brendan Carr had changed to apply to non-news talk shows deemed "motivated by partisan purposes."

Supporting reports

• Senator Mark Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for military censure in retaliation for protected speech — Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Defense Department, Navy Secretary John Phelan, and the Navy Department, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights, the Speech and Debate Clause, separation of powers, due process, federal law governing retired officer ranks (10 USC 1370), and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit challenges Hegseth's January 5 formal censure of Kelly, which followed Kelly's November 18 participation in a video with five other Democratic veterans in Congress warning military and intelligence personnel that they have a legal duty to refuse unlawful orders. The lawsuit seeks to declare the censure and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional, vacate them, and enjoin their enforcement.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Kelly v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00081 — Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Sen. Kelly sued Secretary Hegseth to block reduction of his Navy rank and retirement pay for protected speech — Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seeking an injunction to prevent unilateral reduction of Kelly's Navy rank and retirement pay in retaliation for a video urging service members not to follow unlawful orders. Kelly's complaint alleges First Amendment violation, retaliation for protected legislative speech, and an unprecedented executive attack on congressional independence and military oversight authority.
• Senator Kelly sued Defense Secretary Hegseth over military retaliation — Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon to block their efforts to punish him for a video he participated in last year with other Democratic lawmakers calling on military members to refuse illegal orders, asking a federal judge to find the move "unlawful and unconstitutional."
• Mark Kelly sues Hegseth over military rank reduction and pension censure — Democratic Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit in Washington DC federal court challenging Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's formal censure and threatened demotion/pension reduction. The censure targeted Kelly and five other military-veteran lawmakers for a November video urging service members to resist unlawful orders. Kelly argues the action violates free speech, legislative independence, and separation of powers. The lawsuit names Hegseth, the Department of Defense, the Navy, and Navy Secretary John Phelan as defendants and seeks to vacate the censure and all related actions.
• Senator Mark Kelly files lawsuit against Defense Secretary Hegseth over retaliation for protected speech — Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attempt to reduce his rank and pension as punishment for the video urging troops to refuse illegal orders. Kelly characterized Hegseth's actions as an "unconstitutional crusade" that sends a chilling message to retired military members that speaking against the administration will result in loss of rank and pay. Kelly argued that such retaliation violates constitutional protections and sets a dangerous precedent for suppressing military veterans' free speech.
• Pentagon censures Senator Mark Kelly and launches administrative proceedings — Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth formally censured Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, in January and initiated administrative proceedings that could result in rank reduction and pension cuts. Kelly participated in the same November video about military duty to illegal orders. Kelly has responded with litigation arguing the Pentagon's actions violate constitutional protections.

Supporting reports

• Senator Slotkin said she is under federal investigation — Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said in an interview that federal prosecutors are investigating her for participating in a video with other Democratic lawmakers calling on military members to refuse illegal orders.
• DOJ threatens Federal Reserve with criminal indictment over interest rate policy — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell publicly stated that the Department of Justice threatened criminal charges against the Fed related to a multi-year renovation project of Federal Reserve office buildings. Powell characterized the threat as retaliation for the Fed's decision to set interest rates based on economic conditions rather than presidential preference, stating the threat was "a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President."
• Federal investigation opened against Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin for video urging troops to refuse illegal orders — Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin announced she is under federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for her participation in a video released in 2025 in which she and five other Democratic lawmakers with military backgrounds urged U.S. troops to refuse unlawful orders. The video's message aligns with established military law and constitutional principle. President Trump called the video "seditious behavior by traitors" punishable by death; the White House later clarified he did not seek execution but wanted them "held accountable." Slotkin characterized the investigation as weaponization of federal government to intimidate political opponents.
• Senator Elissa Slotkin faces federal criminal investigation for oath video — Senator Elissa Slotkin is now under federal criminal investigation for appearing in a video urging service members to remember their oath and refuse illegal orders. The investigation represents potential criminalization of speech encouraging military personnel to uphold constitutional obligations and refuse unlawful commands.
• Four additional Democratic lawmakers said they are under investigation — Four additional Democratic lawmakers said they are being investigated by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia over their participation in a viral video calling on military members to refuse illegal orders.
• Trump DOJ investigates Democratic lawmakers over military video on illegal orders — Three House Democrats—Jason Crow (Colorado), Maggie Goodlander (New Hampshire), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pennsylvania)—confirmed that the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C., led by Jeanine Pirro, requested interviews regarding their participation in a November video instructing troops they need not comply with illegal orders. The investigation expands to five lawmakers total; the Pentagon also formally censured Senator Mark Kelly and launched administrative proceedings. Trump called the video "seditious" and threatened capital punishment, later walking back but maintaining the lawmakers face "serious jeopardy."

Supporting reports

• Pentagon launches investigation into Senator Mark Kelly — The Pentagon launched an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) for "serious allegations of misconduct" in response to a viral video in which Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers urged military members to refuse illegal orders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the video "despicable, reckless and false." Kelly responded that intimidation would not silence him.
• FBI Counterterrorism Division opened investigation into six lawmakers — By November 25, 2025, the FBI's Counterterrorism Division notified Congress it was opening an inquiry into the six veteran lawmakers and requested interviews with all six members. The investigation was triggered by their one-minute video reminding service members of their legal obligation to refuse illegal orders—a principle codified in U.S. military law since 1950 and rooted in post-World War II Nuremberg principles. Legal experts confirmed the lawmakers were simply restating existing law and that their statement does not constitute sedition.
• Pentagon announced investigation of Senator Kelly and signaled possible recall to active duty — The Pentagon announced it is investigating Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, and signaled it could recall him to active duty for possible court-martial over his participation in the video reminding troops of their legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. The threatened recall and court-martial of a sitting U.S. senator for restating military law represents an extraordinary use of military authority against a member of Congress.
• FBI contacts House and Senate regarding Democratic lawmakers' anti-Trump military video — The FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requesting interviews with several Democratic members of Congress—Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan, plus Sen. Elissa Slotkin—after they filmed a video urging military troops not to follow illegal orders. The lawmakers characterized the FBI outreach as intimidation and harassment, with Sen. Slotkin stating that the President is "weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies."
• FBI counterterrorism division investigates Democratic lawmakers — The FBI's counterterrorism division launched an investigation into six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a viral video calling on military members to refuse illegal orders. Four House members stated that the FBI contacted the House and Senate sergeant at arms to set up interviews. They accused Trump of "using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress."
• Far-right figures call for investigation and deportation of Arab-Americans — In the days following the November 18 rally, far-right figures including Tommy Robinson, Wall Street Apes, and Sidney Powell used the Dearborn incident to call on the Department of Justice to investigate and deport Arab-Americans. These calls amplified the rally's narrative of victimhood and framed an entire ethnic group as a threat requiring federal action.
• FBI contacts Capitol Police to schedule interviews with six Democratic senators — Fox News reported that the FBI contacted US Capitol Police to schedule interviews with the six Democratic senators who released the video advising military personnel to refuse illegal orders. The interviews appear to be part of the broader investigation into the lawmakers' statements.
• Pentagon launches investigation into Senator Mark Kelly for video advising troops to refuse illegal orders — The Pentagon announced an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers after they released a video advising military service members that they can refuse illegal orders and warning of "threats to our constitution" from within the administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the video "despicable, reckless, and false." Trump characterized the senators' statement as "seditious behaviour" punishable by death. The Pentagon warned it could recall Kelly to active duty for court-martial under a federal law prohibiting military retirees from interfering with military discipline.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice files complaint challenging California in-state tuition and scholarship laws for undocumented immigrants — The Department of Justice announced a civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging state laws that provide in-state tuition rates, scholarships, and subsidized loans to undocumented immigrants. The complaint names California, Governor Newsom, the state attorney general, and university system boards as defendants. The DOJ alleges the laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens and create incentives for illegal immigration, and seeks an injunction to prevent enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi characterized the action as the third lawsuit against California in one week.
• DOJ sues California over in-state tuition for undocumented students — The Trump administration's Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the state's policy allowing undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition at public universities. The complaint alleges the policy violates federal law and discriminates against US citizens and out-of-state residents. The lawsuit also challenges California's extension of scholarship and subsidized loan eligibility to undocumented students. Defendants include the state, California officials, and the University of California and California State University systems. The suit marks the third Trump administration lawsuit against California filed within one week.

Supporting reports

• Trump signs executive order directing prosecution of flag burning as incitement or fighting words — President Trump signed Executive Order 14341 on August 25, 2025, directing the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement of federal, state, and local criminal laws against flag desecration, framing such acts as potential incitement to violence or fighting words. The order instructs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to deny or revoke immigration benefits for foreign nationals engaged in flag desecration. The order acknowledges Supreme Court precedent (Texas v. Johnson) protecting flag burning as speech but asserts the administration will prosecute flag desecration under content-neutral laws and pursue litigation to clarify First Amendment exceptions.
• Trump ordered DOJ to prosecute flag burning — Trump ordered the Department of Justice to prosecute anyone who burns an American flag, claiming such individuals would automatically face one year in prison. This order contradicts the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which established flag burning as protected First Amendment speech.
• Trump announced executive order directing DOJ to prosecute flag burning — Trump held a press event in the Oval Office and announced an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute instances of flag burning. Trump claimed burning a flag would result in one year in jail and a criminal record. White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf clarified that the order directs DOJ to prosecute flag burning only where it constitutes criminal activity (such as burning someone else's property) and does not violate First Amendment protections, since the Supreme Court previously ruled flag burning as political speech is constitutionally protected.
• Trump issues executive order directing prosecution of flag burning — President Trump issued an executive order on August 25, 2025, directing the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement of federal, state, and local laws against flag desecration. The order instructs the DOJ to prosecute flag burning as a crime where it violates content-neutral laws (disorderly conduct, open burning, property destruction) and authorizes the State Department, Attorney General, and DHS to deny or revoke visas, residence permits, and immigration benefits for foreign nationals engaged in flag desecration. The order acknowledges Supreme Court precedent in Texas v. Johnson but asserts authority to prosecute flag burning that incites imminent lawless action or constitutes "fighting words."
• White House signed executive order directing prosecution of flag desecration — The White House signed Executive Order 14341 on August 25, 2025, directing the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement of criminal and civil laws against flag desecration, including violent crimes, hate crimes, and property crimes. The order instructs the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Secretary of Homeland Security to deny or revoke visas, residence permits, and immigration benefits for foreign nationals engaged in flag desecration. The order acknowledges Supreme Court precedent in Texas v. Johnson but asserts authority to prosecute flag burning that incites imminent lawless action or constitutes "fighting words."
• Trump signs flag-burning criminalization order — Trump signed an executive order to criminalize the burning of a US flag, an action the Supreme Court ruled was protected under the First Amendment in 1989. The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to prioritize prosecuting flag desecration cases and allows officials to deny or revoke visas and residence permits for immigrants who burn flags.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order prosecuting flag desecration — The White House published a fact sheet on August 25, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump directing the Attorney General to prosecute flag desecration "to the fullest extent permissible" and to "pursue litigation to clarify the scope of First Amendment in this area." The order also directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Attorney General to deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits for foreign nationals determined to have desecrated the flag, or to seek their removal from the United States.
• Trump signs executive order directing prosecution of flag burning as protest — On Monday, August 26, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue criminal charges against individuals who burn American flags during protests. The order directs prosecutors to explore alternative charges such as disturbing the peace or environmental violations. This action attempts to circumvent the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which established that flag burning constitutes protected political speech under the First Amendment.
• Trump signed executive order banning flag burning — Trump issued an executive order criminalizing flag burning. The order drew immediate criticism from conservative legal scholars and right-wing media figures who noted that the Supreme Court had settled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning constitutes protected free speech under the First Amendment. Multiple conservative commentators, including Justice Antonin Scalia's son, cited the constitutional prohibition on such restrictions.
• Trump issued executive order criminalizing flag burning — President Trump issued an executive order directing arrest and prosecution of Americans for burning the American flag, despite a standing Supreme Court ruling protecting flag-burning as free speech under the First Amendment. Although Trump's order acknowledged the SCOTUS ruling, the Secret Service arrested one man who burned a flag near the White House in protest of the order.

Supporting reports

• Trump directs FHFA head Pulte to publicly accuse Democratic opponents of mortgage fraud and demand Cook's resignation from Federal Reserve — Bill Pulte, appointed by Trump to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has publicly accused New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook of owner-occupancy mortgage fraud via social media and referrals to the Department of Justice. Trump has demanded Cook resign and threatened to fire her if she does not step down. Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the Fed, denies the allegations and states she will not be "bullied" into resigning. The accusations remain unverified.
• Sen. Adam Schiff accused Trump administration of mortgage-based political persecution — Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is being criminally investigated after a referral from Bill Pulte, stated that the Trump administration's use of mortgage investigations against political opponents is "patently false" and that Pulte is "essentially doing the president's bidding." Schiff stated that "Mortgage is their new weapon to go after their critics" and that the administration will "manufacture anything to go after their critics."
• Trump administration weaponized Federal Housing Finance Agency against political opponents — The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration weaponized the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to investigate mortgage records of political opponents. Bill Pulte, a homebuilder heir appointed to lead the agency overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, initiated probes into mortgages of prominent Democrats and a Biden-appointed Federal Reserve official. Pulte partnered Fannie Mae with Palantir, a data analysis firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, and took an unusually active role at both firms.
• Bill Pulte weaponized Federal Housing Finance Agency to investigate Democrats for mortgage fraud — Bill Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, weaponized the typically low-key, non-political agency to open investigations of Democrats for alleged mortgage fraud. Pulte made a criminal referral against Senator Adam Schiff and others, and provided the justification for Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing mortgage fraud concerns. Pulte posted on social media that "fraud will not be tolerated in President Trump's housing market."

Supporting reports

• Trump demands Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook resign and threatens termination over unverified mortgage fraud allegations — President Trump publicly demanded that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook resign, threatening to fire her if she does not step down voluntarily. The demand follows unverified allegations of mortgage fraud leveled by FHFA head Bill Pulte. Cook, appointed in 2022 for a 14-year term, has not been singled out as a Trump antagonist but her role on the Fed board that sets interest rates—which Trump has pressured to cut—appears to have made her a target. Cook stated she has "no intention of being bullied" and will gather information to address questions about her financial history.
• Trump fires Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — Trump fired Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a governor of the Federal Reserve, accusing her of committing mortgage fraud. Cook said she will not resign, pointing out that Trump can only legally fire her "for cause" and that "no cause exists under the law." Her lawyer said Trump's "reflex to bully is flawed" and his demands lack legal authority.
• Trump announced removal of Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook "for cause" — President Trump announced via social media that he was removing Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook from her position "for cause," citing allegations from William Pulte (head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency) that Cook had made false statements on a mortgage years ago. Cook has not been charged with any crime. Trump has been pressuring the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and has mused about taking control of the Fed himself. Cook responded stating Trump has no authority to remove her and she will not resign.
• Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, claiming cause under the Federal Reserve Act. Cook, appointed by President Biden to a term ending in 2038, refused to resign and stated she would challenge the firing in court. Cook's attorney Abbe Lowell stated that Trump's action lacked proper process, basis, or legal authority. Under the Federal Reserve Act, Fed governors can only be removed "for cause," and Cook has not been charged with any crime. The justification came from Bill Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who cited alleged mortgage fraud investigations.
• Trump fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook without stated cause — President Trump removed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from office, citing mortgage fraud allegations that legal analysts suggest may not withstand court scrutiny. Trump justified the removal as addressing what his administration characterized as an unqualified diversity hire. The firing demonstrates presidential power over the Fed and signals intent to pressure the institution into adopting monetary policies aligned with Trump's preferences, undermining the Fed's institutional independence.

Supporting reports

• Texas attorney general sues New York county clerk to enforce abortion-related fine — Ken Paxton, Texas attorney general, filed a petition in New York state supreme court seeking to compel Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck to enforce a $100,000+ fine against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, a New York physician accused of mailing abortion pills to a Texas woman. Bruck twice rejected the enforcement request, citing New York's "shield law" that blocks state officials from complying with out-of-state abortion prosecutions. The case is expected to escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court and represents a major state-versus-state conflict over abortion access and interstate commerce.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration issues executive orders targeting law firms over representation of Trump opponents and prosecutors — The Trump administration issued executive orders against corporate law firms that either represented attorneys involved in prosecution efforts against Trump during the Biden presidency or represented the current administration's political opponents. Obama characterized this as an unprecedented use of executive power to punish legal representation based on political alignment.
• Law firms reach deals with Trump administration to avoid executive orders — Multiple prominent law firms—Willkie, Farr and Gallagher; Milbank LLP; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom—capitulated to Trump's executive orders by reaching deals with the White House. In exchange for avoiding the orders, the firms agreed to perform pro bono work for causes aligned with Trump and to decline race-based hiring practices. This capitulation drew criticism from law firm alumni and Senator Bernie Sanders, who characterized it as "absolute cowardice" and a betrayal of professional independence.
• Trump administration issues executive orders targeting law firms representing political rivals — President Trump issued executive orders targeting law firms that had represented his political rivals. The orders sought to revoke security clearances, ban attorneys from accessing federal buildings, and require firms doing business with the government to disclose existing client relationships. The orders threatened to cripple targeted firms. Some firms capitulated and reached deals with the White House; others, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, challenged the orders in court and secured injunctions or mandates blocking most of the measures.
• Trump executive orders target law firms for retribution; judges block orders on First Amendment and due process grounds — Trump issued executive orders targeting law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, seeking to revoke security clearances and curtail their government business. The orders targeted firms whose lawyers led a special counsel inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Three Washington DC judges in March blocked these orders. Judge John Bates called Trump's move "disturbing" and "troubling," noting it violated the firms' and lawyers' First Amendment and due process rights. Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked sanctions against Perkins Coie.
• Trump signs executive order targeting Susman Godfrey law firm — President Trump signed an executive order on April 9, 2025, targeting Susman Godfrey, the law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in its $787.5 million defamation settlement against Fox News over 2020 election falsehoods. The order restricts the firm's attorneys from accessing government buildings, revokes security clearances, and bars the firm from representing clients with federal business. Trump stated "there were some very bad things that happened with these law firms" without clarifying his rationale. Susman Godfrey announced it would challenge the order as unconstitutional.
• Trump issued executive order targeting law firm Susman Godfrey, suspending security clearances and restricting federal contracts — President Trump issued an executive order on April 9, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Susman Godfrey LLP employees, cease provision of government materials and services to the firm, review and terminate federal contracts involving the firm, and restrict official access and hiring of Susman employees. The order alleges the firm engages in activities undermining U.S. interests, including weaponizing the legal system, funding groups that undermine military effectiveness, and administering race-based employment programs.
• White House signed Executive Order 14263 targeting law firm Susman Godfrey with security clearance suspensions, contract terminations, and personnel restrictions. — The White House issued Executive Order 14263 on April 9, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Susman Godfrey LLP employees, terminate government contracts with the firm, require contractors to disclose business relationships with Susman, restrict employee access to federal buildings, and limit hiring of Susman staff. The order characterizes the firm as engaging in "weaponization" of the legal system, undermining military effectiveness, and racial discrimination. Agencies must submit assessments of affected contracts within 30 days.
• Trump executive order targeted law firm representing Dominion — Another executive order targets a law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems Inc. in a lawsuit against Fox Corp. that resulted in the media company agreeing to pay a $787.5 million settlement. The firm is also involved in a defamation case against Trump supporter and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Supporting reports

• Trump issues executive orders targeting Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling law firms — Trump issued executive orders targeting the law firms Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling, similar in structure to the Paul Weiss order. Perkins Coie was targeted over its ties to a lawyer who worked with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign; Covington and Burling was targeted for representing former special counsel Jack Smith in litigation against the administration.
• Trump issues executive orders penalizing law firms Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie — President Trump issued executive orders targeting three major law firms—Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—barring them from federal buildings, restricting agency interaction, and revoking security clearances from some lawyers. The orders were widely characterized as punitive retaliation against firms whose clients included former special counsel Jack Smith and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked enforcement against Perkins Coie on 12 March, citing First Amendment violations. Paul Weiss reversed the order on 19 March after agreeing to $40 million in pro bono services.
• Trump warned law firms to "behave themselves" — After the settlement with Paul Weiss, Trump warned that "law firms have to behave themselves." The warning signals that the administration will use executive power to target firms that do not comply with its preferences.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14246 suspending security clearances of Jenner & Block employees, restricting federal contracts, and limiting government access to the law firm. — President Trump issued Executive Order 14246 on March 25, 2025, targeting Jenner & Block LLP. The order directs the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to suspend active security clearances held by firm employees pending review. It requires federal agencies to cease provision of government goods, property, and services to the firm. Agencies must review all contracts with Jenner & Block, terminate contracts where the firm provides services, require contractors to disclose business relationships with the firm, and restrict official access and engagement between federal employees and firm staff, including attorney Andrew Weissmann.
• Trump signs executive orders targeting law firms challenging his administration — President Trump signed multiple executive orders targeting major law firms (Jenner & Block, Covington and Burling, Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss) that have represented his political opponents or employed prosecutors involved in investigations into Trump. The orders threaten to revoke security clearances, deny access to government buildings, and require government clients to disclose representation by these firms. Trump also directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate lawyers blocking administration priorities. Paul Weiss capitulated and accepted Trump's demands; Perkins Coie obtained a temporary restraining order blocking its order.
• Trump issued executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, suspending security clearances and restricting federal contracts. — President Trump issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Jenner & Block LLP employees, cease provision of government goods and services to the firm, and review all federal contracts involving the firm for termination. The order alleges the firm engaged in "partisan lawfare," pro bono work undermining administration priorities, and employment discrimination. It specifically names attorney Andrew Weissmann and restricts federal employee engagement with firm staff.
• White House signed executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, directing suspension of security clearances and termination of federal contracts. — The White House issued an executive order on March 25, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Jenner & Block LLP employees, cease provision of government services and facilities to the firm, terminate federal contracts with the firm, and restrict official access and hiring of its employees. The order characterizes the firm as engaging in "partisan lawfare," pro bono activities deemed harmful to U.S. interests, and alleged racial discrimination. The order specifically names attorney Andrew Weissmann and directs agencies to submit compliance assessments within 30 days.
• Trump signed order targeting law firm with Mueller connection — Trump signed another executive order targeting a law firm that once employed Andrew Weissman, the former deputy to Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order suspends security clearances of the firm's employees, terminates government contracts, and orders a review of the firm's compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias.
• Trump administration stripped security clearances from law firms and barred attorneys from federal buildings — The Trump administration issued executive orders stripping security clearances from Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss law firms and barring their attorneys from entering federal buildings, including courthouses. The chair of Paul, Weiss stated the move "could easily have destroyed our firm." The orders targeted firms representing Trump's opponents in litigation.
• Trump signed executive order encouraging disciplinary action against attorneys filing litigation against the administration — President Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to refer attorneys for disciplinary action if they file "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation" against the administration. Critics argue the order will have a chilling effect on litigation challenging government actions, and law firms have begun refusing to represent Trump's opponents out of fear of retaliation.
• Trump issues Executive Order 14250 suspending security clearances and restricting federal contracts with WilmerHale law firm — President Trump signed Executive Order 14250 directing the suspension of security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending national-interest review, cessation of federal goods and services to the firm, termination of government contracts with WilmerHale, restrictions on federal building access for firm employees, and guidance against hiring WilmerHale staff. The order cites the firm's pro bono work, representation of immigration and voting-rights cases, and employment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller as grounds for the action.
• Trump issued executive order targeting WilmerHale law firm with security clearance suspensions and federal contracting restrictions. — President Trump issued an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by WilmerHale employees, cease provision of government goods and services to the firm, require federal contractors to disclose business relationships with WilmerHale, review and terminate relevant contracts, restrict WilmerHale employee access to federal buildings, and limit hiring of WilmerHale staff. The order cites the firm's pro bono work, representation of immigration and election-related cases, and employment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller as grounds for the action.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14250 targeting WilmerHale law firm with security clearance suspensions, contract terminations, and personnel restrictions. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14250 on March 27, 2025, directing the suspension of security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending review, cessation of government provision of materials and services to the firm, termination of federal contracts with WilmerHale, restrictions on federal employee access to WilmerHale staff, and limitations on hiring WilmerHale employees into government. The order characterizes the firm's pro bono work and representation of clients as threats to national security and American interests, and specifically names former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and colleagues as examples of "weaponization of government."
• Trump signed executive order suspending security clearances for WilmerHale employees and terminating federal contracts with the firm — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, suspending security clearances held by WilmerHale employees pending review, halting federal material and services to the firm, restricting employee access to government buildings, terminating WilmerHale contracts, and barring federal agencies from hiring the firm's employees without authorization. The fact sheet characterizes WilmerHale as engaging in partisan activities, racial discrimination, and obstruction of immigration enforcement.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14253 directing removal of exhibits and narratives from federal museums and historical sites deemed ideologically divisive, with authority delegated to the Vice President over the Smithsonian Institution. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14253 on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to remove exhibits, programs, and historical narratives from museums and monuments that the order characterizes as "divisive" or promoting "ideology" rather than "objective facts." The order specifically targets the Smithsonian Institution, directing the Vice President to work through his role on the Smithsonian Board of Regents to remove what the order calls "improper ideology." It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to audit and reinstate pre-2020 monuments and ensure all federal historical sites focus on "greatness" and "achievements" rather than narratives the order deems disparaging. Future appropriations are to be conditioned on prohibiting exhibits that "divide Americans based on race" or are "inconsistent with Federal law and policy."
• Trump issues executive order directing federal agencies to remove "ideological" content from Smithsonian Institution and federal historical sites — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, directing the Vice President, OMB Director, and Secretary of the Interior to remove what the order characterizes as "divisive, race-centered ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution, Independence National Historical Park, and other federal historical sites. The order mandates restoration of pre-2020 monuments and memorials, prohibits future federal funding for exhibits deemed to "degrade shared American values" or "divide Americans based on race," and requires the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to exclude recognition of transgender athletes. The order frames this as restoring "truth" and "sanity" to American history.
• Trump administration issues executive orders targeting law firms; two firms sue to block — The Trump administration issued executive orders halting business with five law firms (Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie) and revoking security clearances of their attorneys, citing retaliation for the firms' representation of political opponents or employment of Trump critics. On Friday, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed federal lawsuits in Washington DC seeking to block the orders as unconstitutional. Perkins Coie had already successfully convinced a judge to block its order. Paul Weiss and Skadden reached settlements with the administration to avoid or withdraw orders.

Supporting reports

• Executive Order on Paul Weiss Risks — President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14237 to address risks associated with the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. The order mandates a review of security clearances for individuals at Paul Weiss, cessation of government services to the firm, and a review of government contracts involving the firm. The order aims to prevent taxpayer funds from supporting activities deemed harmful to American interests, including racial discrimination and actions inconsistent with national security.
• Executive Order: Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss — President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 14, 2025, targeting the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. The order mandates a review and potential suspension of security clearances for individuals at the firm, citing national interest concerns. It also directs federal agencies to cease providing goods and services to Paul Weiss and to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. The order aims to prevent taxpayer dollars from supporting activities deemed inconsistent with American interests, including alleged racial discrimination and actions against national security.
• Trump signed executive order targeting law firm Paul Weiss with security clearance suspensions, contract terminations, and personnel restrictions. — President Trump signed an executive order on March 14, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by Paul Weiss employees, terminate government contracts with the firm, restrict employee access to federal buildings, and limit hiring of firm personnel. The order cites the firm's representation of January 6 defendants, employment of former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, and alleged racial discrimination in hiring. Agencies must submit compliance assessments within 30 days.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order suspending security clearances for Paul Weiss law firm employees — The White House published a fact sheet stating that President Trump signed an executive order suspending security clearances held by employees of Paul Weiss law firm and attorney Mark Pomerantz, pending review of whether such clearances align with the national interest. The order directs the federal government to halt material and services to the firm, restrict building access, terminate contracts, and refrain from hiring its employees unless authorized. The fact sheet characterizes the firm's practices as warranting civil rights review under Title VII.