Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal judge declines to block Pentagon from firing Stars and Stripes journalists — US District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the Pentagon may proceed with firing Stars and Stripes journalists Max Lederer, Erik Slavin, and Lara Korte without legal impediment. The journalists had sued to challenge their terminations, arguing the Pentagon violated their First Amendment rights after they spoke about the publication's need for editorial independence. McFadden concluded the firings were lawful because the journalists gave pre-approved interviews in their official capacity, not as private citizens, and found no clear First Amendment violation.

Supporting reports

• DOJ official encouraged prosecutors to "go big" and "go loud" in prosecuting protesters — A top Justice Department official encouraged prosecutors to "go big" and "go loud" when pursuing criminal charges against people who protested against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, according to reporting. The Minneapolis case is one of several the DOJ has brought across the U.S. leveling charges against wide swaths of protesters, including cases in Texas where prosecutors secured decades-long sentences for nine people protesting outside an ICE facility.
• Law enforcement provided false information in criminal case against journalist Georgia Fort — Federal law enforcement officials, including Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), provided false information to federal judges in at least 15 search warrant applications and to a grand jury in the case against independent journalist Georgia Fort, who was charged alongside nearly 40 others after interrupting a Minnesota church service to protest an ICE official serving as a pastor. The Justice Department later conceded the false claims. Fort's lawyers filed motions on Thursday seeking dismissal, arguing the prosecution violates the First Amendment, fails to state an actual crime, and is vindictive retaliation against her journalism.
• Prosecutors charged journalist Georgia Fort with conspiracy to interfere with religious rights for documenting anti-ICE protest — Journalist Georgia Fort was charged with conspiracy to interfere with the religious rights of parishioners after she entered and documented a protest at Cities church in St Paul, Minnesota, where demonstrators interrupted a service upon learning an ICE official was a pastor. Fort's lawyers argue the prosecution is vindictive retaliation targeting her for her journalism and for amplifying a message the government opposes, violating the First Amendment.
• Prosecutors made false claims in search warrant applications regarding protest conduct — In search warrant applications, prosecutors claimed a congregant had broken her arm during the protest when she had not, and made other false characterizations of Fort's conduct, including claims she conspired with others in advance when evidence showed she arrived late and was not present for planning discussions. Prosecutors also claimed Fort blocked a van from leaving when her own livestream showed the van left easily.
• Journalist Georgia Fort indicted for covering anti-ICE protest; seeks dismissal on First Amendment grounds — Attorneys for Twin Cities journalist Georgia Fort asked a federal judge to dismiss charges against her for covering an anti-ICE protest at a St. Paul church, arguing the indictment violates her First Amendment rights. Fort was indicted alongside former CNN host Don Lemon and dozens of protesters on charges of conspiring against the right of religious freedom at a place of worship. Her attorneys argue the 19-page indictment contains no allegation of physical force, threats, or blocking the church entrance, and that her role was to observe and document. Magistrate Judge John Docherty twice refused to sign search warrants for Fort's and Lemon's YouTube accounts, finding they violated the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. A government attorney acknowledged a mischaracterization in an affidavit at a July hearing.

Supporting reports

• Kash Patel files $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick — FBI Director Kash Patel filed a defamation lawsuit in US District Court for the District of Columbia seeking $250 million in damages against the Atlantic magazine and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick over an article published April 17 alleging excessive drinking and unexplained absences during his tenure. Patel's legal team claimed the article was a "malicious hit piece" relying on anonymous sources and accused the magazine of acting with actual malice. The Atlantic and Fitzpatrick have stated they stand by the reporting and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
• Kash Patel filed $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic — FBI Director Kash Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit in DC federal court against The Atlantic magazine over an article documenting multiple incidents of alleged intoxication while serving as FBI Director. The lawsuit challenges the article's use of anonymous sources and claims the publication engaged in a "deliberate and malicious smear." The article cited dozens of sources including current and former FBI officials, law-enforcement and intelligence agency staff, hospitality workers, members of Congress, and political operatives.
• FBI Director Kash Patel files $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic — FBI Director Kash Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic magazine. The Atlantic stated it stands by its reporting. The lawsuit represents a high-stakes legal action by a law enforcement leader against a news organization over published reporting.
• Patel sues The Atlantic for $250 million defamation — FBI Director Kash Patel sued The Atlantic magazine and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick on Monday for defamation, seeking $250 million in damages over a story published Friday alleging Patel engaged in excessive drinking, unexplained absences, and conduct that alarmed colleagues. The Atlantic's story was based on interviews with more than two dozen sources including current and former FBI officials, intelligence agency staff, and members of Congress, all speaking anonymously. Patel's complaint claims the article is "replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations" published with "actual malice," but legal analysis suggests his case faces significant obstacles under defamation law for public figures.
• FBI Director Kash Patel filed $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic — On April 21, Kash Patel sued The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick for $250 million for publishing "a sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece" full of "obviously fabricated allegations." The suit denies that Patel drinks to excess and claims this has never been a source of concern across government. The Atlantic stated it stands by its reporting and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.
• — FBI Director Kash Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic on April 21, 2026, in response to an article alleging he has alarmed colleagues with excessive drinking. Patel's complaint characterizes the article as "a sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece." According to Popular Information, the complaint itself actually confirms several key aspects of The Atlantic's reporting, suggesting the lawsuit may be a strategic effort to intimidate press coverage of the FBI Director.

Supporting reports

• DOJ established controlled in-person review system for congressional Epstein files access — The Department of Justice opened an in-person review facility in Washington on February 9, 2026, allowing members of Congress to search unredacted Epstein records under tight controls on access and note-taking. This was the sole mechanism established for congressional review of unredacted files following passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act in late 2025, which required DOJ to release unclassified Epstein-related records. The DOJ controlled all variables of the review process, including which files could be accessed, how searches were conducted, and what records were kept of congressional activity.
• DOJ tracked congressional searches in Epstein files review system — Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared at a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on February 11, 2026, carrying a printed document labeled "Jayapal Pramila Search History" that detailed Rep. Pramila Jayapal's searches within the DOJ's controlled, members-only review system for unredacted Epstein records. A Reuters photographer captured the document. The DOJ had established the in-person review system on February 9, 2026, as the sole mechanism for congressional access to unredacted Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The revelation suggests the DOJ monitored lawmakers' investigative activity and used that intelligence during the oversight hearing itself.
• DOJ surveilled House member's access to Epstein files — During Attorney General Bondi's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, a photograph captured by Reuters showed a page of Bondi's briefing book with a printout titled "Jayapal Pramila Search History," appearing to be files showing what Representative Pramila Jayapal accessed after the DOJ made some Epstein files available at DOJ offices. This represents executive branch surveillance of a legislative branch member's document access. Representative Jamie Raskin, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he will ask for an investigation of this "outrageous abuse of power."
• Ranking Member Raskin requested DOJ Inspector General investigation into congressional surveillance — House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin formally requested that the DOJ Inspector General investigate the DOJ's apparent surveillance of lawmakers' searches in the Epstein files review system. Raskin stated he had "reason to believe that it was happening to everyone," not just Rep. Jayapal. He also called for the DOJ to immediately stop tracking member searches, open Epstein file review to senior congressional staff, and publicly release all remaining files with only survivor information properly redacted.
• Rep. Jayapal organized formal congressional letter demanding investigation into surveillance — Rep. Pramila Jayapal organized a formal congressional letter demanding an investigation into what she characterized as improper surveillance of Congress by the DOJ. Jayapal also raised the question of whether the DOJ's decision to open the Epstein files to congressional review two days early was intended to allow the DOJ to surveil members' searches and anticipate their questions for the oversight hearing.
• DOJ tracked congressional members' Epstein files research and displayed search records at hearing — During a House oversight hearing on Wednesday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi displayed a document titled "Jayapal Pramila Search History" showing which Epstein files Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal had accessed. The DOJ confirmed it monitors all Epstein file searches by lawmakers on its systems. Congressional members, including Jamie Raskin and Jayapal, alleged the tracking violates separation of powers and constitutes surveillance designed to anticipate questions and gather intelligence on their investigative activities.
• DOJ surveilled Congress members' search history of Epstein files — Multiple members of Congress confirmed that the Department of Justice tracked and monitored which Epstein documents members of Congress searched, opened, and reviewed, including timestamps. Rep. Pramila Jayapal reported that AG Bondi presented her with a printed search history of her email searches. Rep. Nancy Mace confirmed the DOJ was tagging all documents searched by members and that timestamps were associated with the tracking. Speaker Mike Johnson stated he was investigating the allegations.
• DOJ monitored congressional search history in Epstein files review system — Attorney General Pam Bondi carried a printed document labeled "Jayapal Pramila Search History" into a House Judiciary oversight hearing, revealing that the Department of Justice had tracked which Epstein-related files Rep. Pramila Jayapal searched within DOJ's controlled, members-only review system. The executive branch collected intelligence on the legislative branch's investigation of the executive branch. Rep. Jamie Raskin called the practice Orwellian and requested a DOJ Inspector General investigation; Rep. Jayapal is organizing a congressional letter demanding answers.
• Racist video of Obamas posted on Trump's Truth Social account — A racist video depicting the Obamas as apes appeared on President Trump's official Truth Social account. The video was removed, but Trump refused to apologize and claimed a staffer posted it without review. The incident occurred on an official presidential account.

Supporting reports

• Trump filed $10 billion lawsuit against BBC over January 6 documentary — Trump filed a lawsuit in Florida seeking $10 billion from the BBC over alleged deceptive editing of a January 6 documentary. The BBC had previously apologized for an "error of judgment" but stated there is no legal basis for a defamation claim. AP reported that legal experts have raised major obstacles for Trump's case in U.S. court, including the high bar for public figures and complications around where and how the documentary was shown.
• Trump files $10bn lawsuit against BBC over January 6 speech editing — Donald Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 16, 2025, seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC. Trump alleged the broadcaster "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively" edited his January 6, 2021 speech in a Panorama episode aired a week before the 2024 election. The complaint asserts defamation and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The BBC previously acknowledged the editing as an "error of judgment" and apologized but denied legal liability.
• Trump files $10 billion defamation lawsuit against BBC — Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC, accusing it of broadcasting a "false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction" of him when it edited parts of his January 6 speech at the Ellipse during a recent documentary that the lawsuit claims was meant to "intentionally misrepresent the meaning" of what Trump said.