Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• House reauthorized Section 702 FISA surveillance powers for three years — The House of Representatives passed a three-year reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA on Wednesday by a vote of 235–191. The program permits U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept communications of foreign nationals abroad without a warrant, but data of Americans communicating with those targets is swept up incidentally, and the FBI can search that data without a court order. Civil liberties advocates have sought a warrant requirement for nearly two decades, which was not included in the bill. House leaders attached an unrelated ban on central bank digital currency to secure conservative votes; Senate Majority Leader Thune has called this provision a nonstarter.
• Congress passes a 10-day extension of Section 702 — Congress has passed a short-term 10-day extension of Section 702, a surveillance law that allows the government to collect communications. The extension is set to expire on April 30, 2026. The debate continues over whether to renew the law with reforms, such as a warrant requirement for searches involving Americans' data and closing the data broker loophole. The Senate is also considering a separate three-year FISA extension bill, keeping the issue active this week.
• Senate Republicans proposed three-year extension of Section 702 surveillance authority without reforms — Senate Majority Leader John Thune scheduled a vote on a bill to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for three years, until April 2029, without substantive reforms. Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concern that the system for collecting information on foreign threats can sweep in U.S. citizens and enable warrantless government surveillance. The House has attempted to negotiate cosmetic reforms, but if those negotiations fail, Thune plans to pass a three-year extension with no reforms, removing Congress's ability to revisit and strengthen constitutional safeguards for three years.

Supporting reports

• Federal grand jury indicts Southern Poverty Law Center for wire fraud, false statements, and money laundering conspiracy — A federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The indictment alleges that between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals associated with violent extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America, while publicly claiming to oppose those groups. The DOJ alleges the organization used fictitious bank accounts to conceal the scheme and made false statements to financial institutions.
• Acting Attorney General Blanche announces 11-count indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center — Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche held a press conference announcing an 11-count federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, charging the civil rights organization with wire fraud, making false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to launder money. The charges relate to a now-defunct program in which the SPLC paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups and shared information with law enforcement. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing. The indictment was widely viewed as an effort by Blanche to demonstrate to Trump his willingness to use the DOJ against political rivals.
• DOJ pressured prosecutors to indict Southern Poverty Law Center despite case-strength concerns, whistleblower alleges — A Department of Justice lawyer, Aakash Singh, reportedly pressured federal prosecutors in Alabama to rush an 11-count indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center despite serious concerns about the case's strength, according to a whistleblower account shared with House Democrats. Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the indictment on April 21, accusing the civil rights organization of wire fraud and money laundering related to an informant program. Democrats Jamie Raskin and Mary Gay Scanlon opened an investigation into the matter, citing Singh's directive to prosecutors to expedite charges. Legal experts have characterized the charges as weak, and the SPLC has denied all wrongdoing.
• Justice Department indicts Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges — Trump's Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges, alleging the civil rights organization defrauded donors by secretly paying informants more than $3 million to infiltrate white supremacist and extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan. The tactic of using paid informants has been used by the FBI and other federal agencies for decades. Critics characterized the indictment as "nakedly political."
• DOJ indicts Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges — The Department of Justice, through Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, announced an 11-count federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) by an Alabama grand jury. The charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, alleging the SPLC funneled over $3 million to confidential informants within extremist groups between 2014 and 2023 using fictitious entities, and misrepresented to donors and banks how funds were being used. The SPLC's CEO Bryan Fair disputed the allegations and stated the informant program "saved lives."
• Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges by Trump administration DOJ — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted on federal fraud charges by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, alleging the organization improperly paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups without disclosing payments to donors. The indictment claims at least $3 million went to informants affiliated with the KKK, Aryan Nations, and other groups between 2014 and 2023. SPLC CEO Bryan Fair stated the payments were necessary to monitor violence threats and that information was shared with the FBI and law enforcement. Charges include wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
• DOJ indicted Southern Poverty Law Center for fraud — The Department of Justice indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleging that SPLC used donor money to pay informants to infiltrate right-wing hate groups, but claiming the purpose was to create false flags to instigate violence and racist demonstrations. The indictment has refueled conspiracy theories that the January 6 insurrection was instigated by infiltrators paid by left-wing groups. Rep. Dan Goldman criticized the indictment as legally baseless, comparing it to prosecuting the FBI for funding drug trafficking through informants.

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

• Texas judge blocks Onion's purchase of Infowars; leasing deal proposed instead — A Texas court initially blocked the Onion's (via parent company Global Tetrahedron) outright purchase of Alex Jones's Infowars misinformation platform. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled she was not convinced the Onion's bid had more value than competing offers from Jones-associated bidders. In response, the Onion proposed a six-month lease at $81,000 monthly, with creative director Tim Heidecker planning to parody the platform. The deal requires Gamble's final approval, expected within two weeks. Jones continues operating Infowars and may appeal any ruling.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge in Rhode Island dismisses DOJ lawsuit seeking voter records — A federal judge in Rhode Island dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking to obtain sensitive records on every voter in the state. The ruling came after an unfavorable hearing for the government. This marks the fifth consecutive case in which the Trump administration's DOJ has lost its attempt to compel states to surrender voter data, with the administration having sued 30 states total on this issue.
• DOJ falsely claimed compliance with Privacy Act in voter roll complaints — The DOJ's complaints assert that the agency has complied with the 1974 Privacy Act, but the DOJ has not yet filed a Statement of Records Notice explaining how it will use the voter data it is demanding, as required by the Privacy Act. Legal experts characterize this as a premature assertion of an affirmative defense and a significant unforced error.
• DOJ filed California voter roll lawsuit in wrong federal court — The DOJ filed its California voter roll case in the Central District of Los Angeles rather than the Eastern District covering Sacramento, where the state capital and all voter registration files are located. This procedural error represents one of several mistakes in the DOJ's complaints that legal experts characterize as significant flaws in the litigation.
• DOJ files four new lawsuits demanding unredacted voter rolls from states — The U.S. Department of Justice filed four new lawsuits last week seeking unredacted voter rolls from states, bringing the total number of similar actions to 18 states, predominantly led by Democrats. The DOJ claims the lawsuits aim to ensure states are removing ineligible voters and to run rolls through Department of Homeland Security databases. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced Georgia, a GOP-led state, will also be sued, framing voter roll maintenance as "a bipartisan problem." Election experts question whether the stated purpose reflects the full scope of the DOJ's intentions.
• DOJ seeks memoranda granting unprecedented power over state list maintenance — Along with demand letters, the DOJ has asked states to sign memoranda that would grant the agency unprecedented power to conduct list maintenance and order states to conduct it in particular ways—not merely requiring general reasonable maintenance programs but directing specific voter removals by name. Legal experts argue the DOJ lacks statutory authority to take such power from states, and Congress has not authorized such delegation.
• DOJ shifts legal strategy from NVRA/HAVA to Civil Rights Act claims — The December lawsuits filed by the DOJ employ a different legal strategy than the September filings, dropping claims based on the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Votes Act (HAVA) and instead arguing that Title III of the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA) empowers the attorney general to demand unredacted voter data. Legal experts note this shift suggests recognition that the earlier statutory claims were weak, and that the CRA's inspection provisions do not authorize production of unredacted records.
• Judge Carter denies DOJ motion for production of voter records in California — In the California voter roll case, Judge David O. Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee, denied the DOJ's motion for an order to produce records in a short order that did not elaborate on his reasoning. The DOJ had filed the motion days before a scheduled hearing, and California responded with an emergency ex parte application arguing the demand was both rushed and improper.

Supporting reports

• Harmeet Dhillon confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights; dismantles civil rights enforcement — Harmeet Dhillon was confirmed by the Senate in a 52-45 vote in April 2025 as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Within two weeks, she issued new mission statements abandoning core civil rights laws (Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act) in favor of preventing voter fraud, anti-transgender issues, and preventing discrimination against white people. She involuntarily reassigned career lawyers with decades of experience, triggering an exodus of over 100 attorneys. The division has dropped dozens of anti-discrimination cases and reoriented enforcement away from minorities toward white Americans, leaving the division a "shadow of its former self."
• Dhillon served as co-chair of Lawyers for Trump; promoted false 2020 election claims — Before joining the DOJ, Harmeet Dhillon served as co-chair of Lawyers for Trump in 2020, a position from which she worked on lawsuits contesting the 2020 election results and frequently appeared on television promoting the false claim that the election was stolen. During one appearance on Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business, she suggested Trump's Supreme Court appointees would save the election for him, stating "We're waiting for the United States supreme court which the president has nominated three justices to step in and do something and, hopefully, Amy Coney Barrett will come through and pick it up."
• Dhillon's firm defended Trump against 14th Amendment ballot disqualification effort — Before joining the DOJ, Dhillon's law firm successfully defended Trump against an effort to use a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment to disqualify him from the 2024 presidential ballot. The firm also defended Trump and several close aides in litigation related to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. David Warrington, who now serves as White House counsel, was a managing partner at the firm.

Supporting reports

• US Congress passes 10-day extension of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act section 702 — Both chambers of Congress voted on April 18 to pass a brief 10-day extension of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), a warrantless surveillance law, after Republican infighting blocked attempts at a longer reauthorization. The law allows national security agencies to collect texts and emails sent to and from foreigners outside the US without a warrant, with Americans' communications potentially swept up incidentally. A rare coalition of progressive Democrats and hardline Republicans opposed an unchanged extension, demanding a warrant requirement for Americans' communications. The House vote occurred after midnight following two failed procedural votes.
• Became Law: FISA Amendments Act Extension — Congress passed and the President signed legislation extending Title VII surveillance authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act through April 30, 2026. The measure amends the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, preserving federal intelligence-gathering powers on foreign targets and their communications. The law became Public Law 119-84, authorizing continued bulk collection and monitoring frameworks.