Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice refuses to comply with court order to release unredacted Epstein files — Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a status conference in Phang v. Blanche on Thursday, August 14. The lawsuit, filed by independent journalist Katie Phang, seeks unredacted versions of Epstein investigation documents that the Department of Justice has withheld in violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress mandated be released by December 19, 2025. Sullivan had granted Phang's request in late June and ordered the DOJ to produce unredacted documents in July; the DOJ refused both times. When Sullivan asked if he would learn anything more from the government, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block answered affirmatively. Sullivan warned he had held prosecutors in contempt in the past and gave Phang's lawyers ten days to propose an order.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice claims Pam Bondi subpoena void after her removal as Attorney General — The Department of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis, informed House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer that former Attorney General Pam Bondi will not appear for a scheduled 14 April deposition regarding the DOJ's handling of the Epstein investigation and release of Epstein files. The DOJ argued the subpoena, issued in her official capacity, no longer obligates her to testify since she was ousted from office on 7 April. The committee has not withdrawn the subpoena; bipartisan members and Democratic leadership assert Bondi remains legally obligated to appear.
• DOJ blocks Pam Bondi deposition on Epstein files — The Department of Justice announced that former Attorney General Pam Bondi will not appear for her deposition before the House Oversight Committee on April 14th. The DOJ claimed she was subpoenaed in her capacity as AG and no longer holds that role. House Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia clarified that the subpoena is to Bondi as an individual, not to her title, and stated that contempt charges are on the table if she does not comply. This continues an ongoing cover-up of Epstein files by the administration.
• Pam Bondi cancels deposition on Epstein files handling — The Republican-led House Oversight and Reform Committee announced that former Attorney General Pam Bondi will no longer appear for a scheduled deposition to provide testimony about the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files. Ranking Member Rep. Robert Garcia warned that if Bondi defies her subpoena, the committee "will begin contempt charges in the Congress."

Supporting reports

• Trump ordered AG Pam Bondi to reopen Epstein investigation — Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to open a new investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case after she had announced months earlier that she was closing it. Rep. Thomas Massie suggested this was a "smokescreen" to prevent release of Epstein files, noting that ongoing investigations can be used to withhold documents from public release.
• Attorney General Bondi opened investigations into Democrats' Epstein connections — Attorney General Pam Bondi opened investigations into several Democrats' connections to Jeffrey Epstein after Trump pressed her to do so, according to the article. Rep. Thomas Massie warned this action might be "a big smokescreen" to classify documents under "ongoing investigations," potentially blocking the release of Epstein files by claiming they are part of active investigations.
• Deputy AG Todd Blanche announced new Epstein investigation ordered by Trump — Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the DOJ will investigate whether anyone involved in the Epstein case has not been held accountable. The investigation was ordered by Trump following his social media posts about releasing Epstein files and characterizing the matter as a Democratic hoax.
• Trump ordered DOJ investigation of Democrats connected to Epstein to block document release — Trump previously ordered the Department of Justice to investigate Democrats connected to Epstein. He is now using this self-created investigation as justification for refusing to release Epstein files to Congress, claiming an "ongoing investigation" prevents disclosure. This represents a deliberate strategy to sabotage transparency and then cite his own sabotage as grounds for secrecy.
• Pam Bondi opens investigation into Democratic ties to Epstein at Trump's request — U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi opened an investigation into ties between Democrats and Jeffrey Epstein at President Trump's request. The action follows accusations that Bondi has undermined the Department of Justice's independence from the White House. The investigation occurs as the DOJ is now legally required to release Epstein-related files under the newly signed transparency law.
• Trump administration appoints prosecutor to investigate Clinton and Epstein-linked political opponents — At Trump's direction, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed a prosecutor in New York to investigate Bill Clinton, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and other political opponents with past associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Neither Clinton nor Hoffman has been accused of misconduct; both have publicly expressed regret for their Epstein associations. The investigation creates a legal basis under the Epstein documents law to withhold materials, potentially blocking transparency while targeting political rivals.
• Trump directs DOJ investigation into Epstein-linked figures — President Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi on November 15, 2025, to open a Justice Department investigation into links between Jeffrey Epstein and former President Bill Clinton, economist Larry Summers, venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, and JPMorgan Chase. The investigation could enable the DOJ to withhold documents from any eventual Epstein file release on grounds that disclosure would prejudice the investigation.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders removal of fence blocking public street at ICE facility — A federal judge ordered ICE to remove an 8-foot-tall fence installed outside the Broadview ICE facility after the village of Broadview challenged it as illegally blocking a public street. The ruling came late Thursday in response to local government objections to the obstruction of public access.
• Democratic senators denied access to ICE detention facility in Illinois — U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth visited an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois on Friday, requesting a tour and attempting to deliver supplies to protesters, but were barred from entering. Both senators invoked their congressional oversight authority and expressed concern about undisclosed conditions inside the facility. Durbin stated he had never experienced such "stonewalling" from a presidential administration in his tenure.

Supporting reports

• White House removed DNI Gabbard from Iran briefing to Senate — The White House pulled Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard from the team briefing the Senate on Iran, according to Punchbowl News. The briefing team was reduced to CIA Director Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and Joint Chiefs Chair Caine. The removal occurred as the administration faced intelligence assessments contradicting its claims about the Iran bombing's effectiveness.
• Sen. Murphy objected to DNI Gabbard's exclusion from Iran briefing — Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) stated he had never been part of a major Cabinet-level classified briefing where the Director of National Intelligence was excluded from the room. This occurred when DNI Tulsi Gabbard was barred from a Senate briefing on Iran.

Supporting reports

• Stephen Miller disclosed Palantir stock holdings — News broke that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, widely believed to be responsible for the administration's draconian immigration policies, owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of stock in Palantir, the data and intelligence software company owned by Peter Thiel. Palantir has valuable contracts with ICE to track undocumented immigrants.
• Conflict-of-interest disclosures for new ACIP members not published in writing before meeting — The eight newly appointed ACIP members were asked to verbally disclose conflicts of interest at the meeting, but it is unclear whether written conflict-of-interest disclosures were published in advance. The new members did not appear on the Trump administration's conflict-of-interest tracker for ACIP members as of Wednesday morning. An HHS spokesperson stated ethics reviews had been conducted but did not clarify when or where disclosures would be published. One member dropped out Tuesday evening after a government financial review.
• Trump celebrates Supreme Court ruling as vindication of executive power expansion — President Trump declared the Supreme Court's decision a "giant win" and stated that the ruling would allow his administration to "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." Trump framed the decision as freeing the executive from judicial constraints, signaling intent to enforce previously blocked policies across all states without nationwide court protection.
• Supreme Court limits lower courts' power to block federal executive orders via nationwide injunctions — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa Inc ending the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders. The ruling prevents judges from halting or slowing presidential orders before their constitutionality is tested, including Trump's executive order attempting to remove birthright citizenship protections. Liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision undermines the rule of law and shifts the burden of defending constitutional rights onto individuals.
• Supreme Court restricts courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders — The Supreme Court issued a decision significantly limiting lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. The ruling fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach. Previously, courts had issued approximately 35 nationwide injunctions against Trump administration actions during the first six months of his second term. The decision leaves narrow exceptions, such as when a judge determines nationwide relief is necessary to protect plaintiffs from irreparable harm, as in the birthright citizenship case.
• US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, restricting federal judges' power to block Trump orders — The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies; instead, court orders apply only to specific plaintiffs who sue. The decision arose from Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. While the ruling did not immediately implement the birthright citizenship ban, it fundamentally shifts judicial oversight by preventing courts from protecting all Americans from allegedly unconstitutional policies. The policy cannot take effect for 30 days. Immigration advocates are refiling lawsuits as class actions to seek broader protections.
• Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court decided Trump v. CASA, restricting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling was announced on June 27, 2025. President Trump immediately claimed the decision as a major victory that would enable him to end birthright citizenship by executive action, citing a fabricated historical narrative about the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil War.
• SCOTUS ruled on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship executive order — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that nationwide injunctions likely exceed congressional authority, narrowing the scope of injunctions that had blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The ruling left underlying injunctions in place for named plaintiffs but created uncertainty about nationwide relief. A class-action lawsuit was immediately filed after the ruling to seek broader protection.
• Supreme Court Grants Partial Stay in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, which was consolidated with Trump v. New Jersey and Trump v. Washington. The Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lower courts had issued universal injunctions blocking the enforcement of Executive Order 14160, which directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children of non-citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts likely exceeded their equitable authority by issuing nationwide injunctions and limited the injunctions to the named plaintiffs only. The ruling narrows the use of nationwide injunctions but did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order or the question of birthright citizenship.
• White House issues fact sheet celebrating Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions — The White House issued a fact sheet on June 27, 2025, celebrating a Supreme Court decision that restricts the use of nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The document states that the ruling "restores the proper separation of powers" and claims that 35 of 40 nationwide injunctions filed against Trump's second-term executive actions originated from five jurisdictions (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and D.C.). The fact sheet lists pending policy actions it states can now proceed, including ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and other measures.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Docket number(s): 24A884.

Supporting reports

• Congressional Representatives Denied Access to Detainees — Representatives Jimmy Gomez, Luz Rivas, Norma Torres, and Lou Correa were denied access to check on detainees arrested during federal raids in Los Angeles. The representatives were turned away by a federal agent despite federal law allowing members of Congress to conduct oversight visits. The detainees reportedly lacked access to food, water, and medicine, raising concerns about their treatment and rights.
• Democratic lawmakers denied entry to detention centers in LA and New York — Over the weekend, Democratic members of Congress from California and New York were denied entry to federal detention facilities in Los Angeles and New York City. The lawmakers, including Maxine Waters, Jimmy Gomez, and Norma Torres, sought to inspect conditions and check on individuals detained during recent immigration raids and protests. The Department of Homeland Security stated that the lawmakers were turned away for safety reasons, citing large numbers of rioters. The lawmakers argued that their congressional roles entitled them to conduct oversight of the detention conditions and the welfare of detainees.
• Members of Congress Barred from ICE Detention Facilities — Five members of Congress reported being barred from entering ICE detention facilities to conduct oversight, despite having legal authority to do so. This included attempts by representatives from New York and California to check on the well-being of detainees.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans Block Investigation into Hegseth's Use of Signal — House Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats to investigate Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal by adding a provision into a rule that prevents votes on "resolutions of inquiry." This move limits congressional oversight of executive actions.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration halts federal grants and loans — On January 27, the Trump administration ordered a pause on all federal government grants and loans, requiring that they ban diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This directive affects a wide range of federal programs and funding.
• Trump freezes federal grants, loans, and payments — President Trump ordered an immediate freeze on federal grants, loans, and payments to millions of Americans, citing a need to review their appropriateness and potential ties to DEI initiatives. This action, which affects funds previously allocated by Congress, has been criticized as illegal under the 1974 Impound Control Act. The freeze has caused widespread confusion and concern, with reports of Medicaid portals being down nationwide and various federal programs in disarray.
• Trump administration freezes federal funding for DEI and environmental programs — The Trump administration announced a freeze on federal grants targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and environmental initiatives, described as "illegal DEI programs" and "green new scam" initiatives. This funding pause, set to activate on the evening of January 28, 2025, could impact trillions of dollars in grants and loans, affecting programs such as school meals for low-income students and wildfire preparedness. The Office of Management and Budget has requested details from federal agencies about over 2,600 programs that could be affected.
• White House rescinds spending freeze on federal loans and grants — The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescinded a policy that temporarily paused federal loans and grants, reversing a decision made earlier in the week. This policy had initially halted funding for various programs, including Medicaid. The rescission followed a federal judge's restraining order against the funding freeze, which was issued due to conflicting messages from the White House. Despite the rescission, the White House press secretary stated that the executive orders on federal funding remain in effect.
• Trump administration memo orders freeze on federal financial assistance — The Trump administration issued a memo directing federal agencies to freeze the disbursement of all federal financial assistance, effective January 30, 2025. The memo, authored by acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth, requires agencies to submit detailed information about their financial assistance programs by February 10, 2025. The freeze will remain until the Office of Management and Budget reviews and approves each program. The memo excludes direct assistance to individuals, such as Social Security and Medicare. The stated purpose is to prevent federal resources from advancing certain policies deemed wasteful by the administration.
• Trump administration rescinds federal funding freeze memo — The Trump administration rescinded a memo that froze federal funding after it caused widespread chaos and legal challenges. The initial freeze had paused federal grants and loans, affecting public programs and government spending.
• Case update — National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00239 — The Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated , “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
• Case update — State of New York v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00039 — The Government submitted a notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated , “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
• Trump administration sued over funding freeze — The Trump administration faced a lawsuit from multiple states over a funding freeze memo. Despite rescinding the memo, the administration argued in court for the lawsuit's dismissal. However, a judge ordered the release of funds, citing conflicting statements from the administration's press secretary, which suggested the freeze was still in effect.
• Reports of Medicaid portal outages following funding freeze — Following the Trump administration's memo to freeze federal financial assistance, reports emerged of Medicaid portal outages across all 50 states. Senator Ron Wyden confirmed the outages, describing them as a "blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans." The White House attributed the outages to technical issues, but the Medicaid website cited delays due to executive orders on grant payments. Medicaid provides health insurance to nearly a fifth of all Americans.
• Trump administration freezes federal funding — The Trump administration announced a freeze on all federal funding and grants, claiming it would ensure the removal of "Marxist" diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This decision affects various programs, including Meals on Wheels and Medicaid, which are essential for many Americans. The Office of Management and Budget later issued a memo to rescind the freeze, but the press secretary contradicted this, indicating the cuts were still in effect. The situation has led to significant public outcry and legal scrutiny.
• Trump issues executive order freezing government grants — Former President Trump issued an executive order freezing government grants, which was described as illegal and a direct assault on congressional authority. The order was rescinded after two days due to public outrage and pressure from lawmakers. The freeze caused significant disruption and uncertainty for millions of Americans dependent on government benefits and payments. The swift public and political response highlighted the power of civic engagement in countering executive overreach.
• Trump’s administration freezes federal grants — The Office of Management and Budget under Trump sent out a memo freezing all federal grants and loans without prior approval from the White House, leading to concerns about a constitutional crisis.
• Court issues injunction against Trump Administration — U.S. District Court Judge Jack McConnell issued an injunction against the Trump Administration, preventing it from impounding federal funds intended for states. The court found that the Executive's pause in disbursement of federal funding would cause irreparable harm to states' ability to provide vital services. The injunction ensures that federal financial assistance to states remains uninterrupted.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00039 — Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow the states to file their motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge McConnell's order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.” The judge also wrote, "the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims."