Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Trump attacked New York Times and objected to First Amendment — Trump reacted with fury to a New York Times story reporting that analysts did not believe the Iran war had accomplished much. Trump called the paper's reporters "corrupt and unethical cowards" and appeared to object to the First Amendment, writing that the Times' coverage was "TREASONOUS" and announcing he would add their reporting to a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against them, calling them "Criminals."

Supporting reports

• CBS 60 Minutes correspondent departs after editorial independence compromised — Sharyn Alfonsi, a correspondent for CBS's 60 Minutes, departed the program this week after her contract was not renewed. In a statement, Alfonsi criticized CBS management for "abandoning" the show's mission of "fearless, independent reporting," stating the network is "choosing access journalism over accountability and protecting power rather than scrutinizing it." She alleged that "the wall between editorial independence and corporate interest at CBS is being methodically torn down."
• Kash Patel's girlfriend sues MSNBC for defamation — Alexis Wilkins, girlfriend of Kash Patel, filed a defamation lawsuit against MSNBC. Her legal team used the phrase "This was hogwash and they knew it" in the filing.
• Scott Pelley confronts new 60 Minutes leadership hire at all-hands meeting — Scott Pelley publicly confronted new 60 Minutes hire Nick Bilton at an all-hands meeting, questioning his qualifications. Pelley also called out Bari Weiss by name, stating she was brought in to kill the show and is doing exactly that, per Puck's Dylan Byers.

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

• Trump threatened to jail journalist and compel source disclosure — During the press conference, Trump threatened to jail the journalist who first reported details about a missing U.S. airman, stating he would force the media company to reveal the source or face imprisonment. Trump stated: "We're going to go to media company who released it and say 'national security, give it up or go to jail.'" The journalist identified was Amit Segal, an Israeli journalist with proximity to Netanyahu. Trump repeated the threat: "The person that did the story will go to jail if he doesn't say."

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

• Claimed Civil Rights Act harmed white people — In a New York Times interview, Trump claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led to white people being "very badly treated."
• Trump announces expansion of defamation lawsuit against New York Times over unfavorable poll — President Donald Trump announced via Truth Social that he is expanding his existing defamation lawsuit against the New York Times to include claims related to a Times/Siena University poll showing his approval rating at 40%. Trump alleged the poll was "heavily skewed toward Democrats" and "fake results," and instructed his lawyers to demand the Times preserve records of how the poll was "computed." The Times responded by defending its polling methodology as rigorous and independent of political favorability.
• Trump threatened legal action against polling organizations over unfavorable poll — Following release of a New York Times/Siena poll showing Trump with 40% job approval and 56% disapproval across multiple policy areas, Trump posted three lengthy posts on Truth Social threatening to sue the Times and prosecute polling companies criminally. Trump claimed the polls were "fake" and "tremendously negative," and stated his lawyers had demanded the Times preserve records of how results were "computed."
• Trump delivers address at World Economic Forum in Davos with multiple false and exaggerated claims — Donald Trump addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, 2026, making numerous claims about foreign policy achievements, technological leadership, renewable energy, NATO support, and budget matters. Fact-checkers found the claims ranged from exaggerated to provably false, including assertions about settling eight wars, leading China in AI, China's wind capacity, NATO allies' commitment, and the US ownership of Greenland. The speech exemplified a pattern of dubious assertions presented as fact to an international audience.
• Trump threatened to criminalize polling and sued New York Times — After the New York Times/Siena poll was released showing his approval at 40%, Trump's social media account posted that "Fake and Fraudulent Polling should be, virtually, a criminal offense" and claimed polls during the 2020 election were knowingly wrong and designed to influence the outcome. Trump announced he would add the Times/Siena poll to an existing lawsuit against the New York Times, threatening legal action against the news organization for publishing polling data.
• Trump threatened to sue New York Times over approval rating poll — Trump spent the morning lashing out at the press and threatened to sue The New York Times over its latest Siena poll, which shows his approval rating deeply underwater. Trump labeled the poll fake, accused the paper of fraud, and demanded internal records. The poll showed Trump with a net approval of minus sixteen and underwater on nearly every major issue, from the economy to foreign relations to immigration.
• Trump continues to repost conspiracy theories about 2020 election — Trump is still reposting conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, including content from QAnon-linked accounts. Many lawyers who pushed these lies lost their licenses, but the damage to the information environment remains.

Supporting reports

• Freedom of the Press Foundation reports surge in journalist assaults during Trump administration — The Freedom of the Press Foundation released a report documenting 170 assaults against journalists in 2025 (through December 16), nearly matching the 175 assaults recorded across 2022–2024 combined. Most attacks occurred at protests against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies. Law enforcement officials allegedly used batons and fired projectiles at journalists covering these events, despite visible press credentials. The foundation attributes the rise partly to anti-media rhetoric from Trump and other officials that delegitimizes journalists as targets.

Supporting reports

• Trump threatened to sue BBC for $1 billion over Jan. 6 documentary — Trump threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion on November 10, claiming in a letter from his lawyers that their documentary included "malicious, disparaging" edits to his January 6 speech at the Ellipse. The letter demanded an apology, full retraction of the documentary, and compensation for alleged harm.
• Trump threatens $1bn lawsuit against BBC over edited January 6 speech — Donald Trump's legal team sent a letter to the BBC threatening a $1 billion defamation lawsuit in Florida state court unless the corporation provides a "full and fair retraction" of a Panorama documentary that edited his January 6, 2021 Capitol speech. The BBC has acknowledged the edit was misleading. Trump claims reputational and financial harm. Legal experts note Trump has a history of unsuccessful libel suits and that the $1bn figure lacks substantive basis; the BBC has not yet committed to settlement.
• Trump threatens $1 billion lawsuit against BBC over Panorama January 6 editing — Donald Trump's legal team sent a cease-and-desist letter to the BBC threatening a $1 billion defamation lawsuit over a Panorama documentary episode that aired in October 2024, alleging the network defamatorily edited Trump's January 6 speech to suggest he encouraged Capitol violence. The letter cites "election interference" and claims the editing caused Trump "overwhelming financial and reputational harm." BBC director general Tim Davie and chief executive of BBC News Deborah Turness have already resigned over the controversy. The BBC stated it will review the correspondence and respond in due course.

Supporting reports

• Trump filed $15 billion lawsuit against New York Times — President Trump filed a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times and several of its leading reporters, alleging the newspaper is "a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democrat Party." The case filing praised Trump extensively for his success as a politician, entertainer, and entrepreneur. The New York Times responded that the case "lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting."
• Trump files $15 billion defamation lawsuit against New York Times — Donald Trump filed a defamation lawsuit in a Florida district court against the New York Times, book publisher Penguin, and several Times reporters, seeking $15 billion plus punitive damages and court costs. The suit alleges that Times reporting on Trump's role in The Apprentice, his inheritance from his father, and comments attributed to former chief of staff John Kelly about Trump's admiration for Hitler were false and designed to damage his business, personal, and political reputation. Trump argues the Times acted with malice and engaged in election interference through the timing and framing of its reporting.
• ABC and CBS settled Trump lawsuits after his election victory — Donald Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times in Florida district court, accusing the newspaper of being a "mouthpiece" for the Democratic Party and spreading false content about him. The suit targets articles and a book by Times journalists published before the 2024 election, claiming intentional malicious defamation. The Times responded that the lawsuit lacks merit and is an attempt to intimidate and stifle independent reporting.
• Pattern of Trump lawsuits against media organizations to suppress coverage — ABC and CBS, both defendants in Trump defamation lawsuits, reached settlements with Trump after his election victory in November 2024. David Enrich, deputy investigations editor at the New York Times, states: "I do not think it was a coincidence that they rushed to reach a settlement after Trump was elected, as opposed to before Trump was elected. I think that speaks pretty clearly to the power dynamics at play here and the fact that some major American institutions are not comfortable going up against the president."
• Trump sued the New York Times for $15 billion over 2024 election coverage — Trump has filed a series of lawsuits against major news organizations—ABC, CBS, the Des Moines Register, and the Wall Street Journal—over election coverage. ABC and CBS rushed to settle after Trump's election victory, according to David Enrich, deputy investigations editor at the New York Times. Enrich notes this represents a precedent-breaking use of presidential power: "Until a few weeks ago, when Trump sued the Wall Street Journal over the Epstein birthday book, a sitting United States president had never sued a news organization while in office."
• — President Trump filed a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times on September 17, 2025, alleging the paper published "malicious, defamatory, and disparaging articles" during the 2024 election. The articles, adapted from the book "Lucky Loser" by Times investigative journalists, detailed Trump's inheritance of hundreds of millions of dollars, consistent business losses, and bailouts by others. The lawsuit is part of a broader pattern: Trump has sued ABC, CBS, the Des Moines Register, and the Wall Street Journal over election coverage, with ABC and CBS settling after his election victory.

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 sued Wall Street Journal for ten billion dollars over Epstein letter publication — After the Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of a 2003 birthday letter from Trump to Jeffrey Epstein in July 2025, Trump sued the Journal, its reporters, and its parent company for ten billion dollars. Trump claimed the letter was "nonexistent," despite the paper's documented possession and publication of the document. The lawsuit represents an attempt to suppress press coverage through financial intimidation and legal action.
• Trump sues Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over Epstein letter story — President Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, its owner Rupert Murdoch, and the two reporters who authored the story about the alleged 2003 birthday message to Epstein. Trump claimed the letter is "fake" and "not the way I talk," seeking damages for what he characterized as false reporting. The lawsuit represents an attempt to use legal action to suppress or punish journalism about the alleged communication.
• Trump sues Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over Epstein story — Trump filed a lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and owner Rupert Murdoch (who also owns Fox News) in response to the WSJ's story connecting Trump to Jeffrey Epstein via a signed birthday card message. The lawsuit was assigned to Judge Darrin Gayles, appointed by Barack Obama. The White House subsequently banned the WSJ from covering Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in private workspaces.
• Trump sues Wall Street Journal over Epstein-Maxwell letter story — After the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Trump contributed a letter with a doodle of a nude woman to a 2003 Festschrift compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, Trump denied the story and announced on Friday that he was suing the Wall Street Journal's publisher for libel. The lawsuit represents an attempt to suppress or punish press reporting on Trump's documented connections to Epstein.
• Wall Street Journal publishes alleged 2003 birthday message from Trump to Epstein — The Wall Street Journal reported on July 18, 2025, that materials collected during the Department of Justice's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein included a 2003 birthday message allegedly from Trump to Epstein. The message, described as typewritten text framed by a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, contains a dialogue between Trump and Epstein discussing shared secrets and enigmas. Trump denied authenticity, calling it "fake" and sued the Journal, its owner Rupert Murdoch, and the two reporters for $10 billion, claiming the letter does not reflect how he speaks or writes.

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

• North Dakota jury rules against Greenpeace — A North Dakota jury ruled that Greenpeace must pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer for defamation and other claims related to the Dakota Access pipeline protests. This decision is seen as a significant setback for environmental activism, potentially encouraging other energy companies to pursue legal action against protesters. The ruling has sparked concern among environmental and civil rights groups about its chilling effect on free speech and protest activities. Greenpeace plans to appeal the decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court.