Open an event to see its evidence. Attack and trait tags link to their definitions
Jun 24, 2026 US Postal Service proposed rule requiring states to surrender voter mail-ballot data or lose ballot delivery Tier 1 · Primary Institutions and Governance
The Postal Service proposed conditioning mail-ballot delivery on states handing over voter data, a measure Democratic senators warned would disenfranchise millions before courts later blocked its core provisions.
Supporting reports
- US Postal Service proposes rule requiring states to surrender voter mail-ballot lists — The US Postal Service, under Postmaster General David Steiner, issued a proposed rule requiring states to hand over lists of voters who requested mail-in ballots and associated barcodes to the postal service. Steiner stated that the postal service would refuse to deliver mailed ballots in states that declined to comply. All 47 Democratic senators sent a letter warning the rule would disenfranchise millions of voters and risked abuse and inaccuracies that would prevent eligible voters from casting ballots.
- Postmaster General announces USPS will not deliver election mail in states refusing to surrender voter rolls — Postmaster General David Steiner testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that under a new Trump administration rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to surrender their voting lists to the federal government. Senator Gary Peters clarified that the proposed rule coerces states to comply with federal voting requirements or lose mail-in voting access.
- USPS proposes rule to withhold election mail — The Postmaster General testified that under a new proposed rule, the United States Postal Service will not deliver election mail in states that refuse to provide their voting lists to the federal government. This rule is seen as a coercive measure to enforce compliance with federal demands.
Mar 24, 2026 State of Michigan and City of Romulus filed suit challenging DHS's purchase of a warehouse for conversion into a detention center Tier 1 · Primary Institutions and Governance
State and local governments sued the federal government over a major immigration detention facility, alleging bypassed environmental review and consultation requirements.
Supporting reports
- Complaint filed: State of Michigan v. United States Department of Homeland Security — The State of Michigan and City of Romulus filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan challenging DHS's purchase of a 249,090-square-foot warehouse in Romulus for $34.7 million to convert into a 500-bed immigration detention center. The plaintiffs allege seven counts under the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming DHS violated federal law by failing to conduct environmental review despite the property's location in a floodplain, failing to consult state and local officials, and failing to consider existing detention facilities before constructing a new one. The complaint names DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons as defendants and seeks declaratory relief, vacatur of the purchase decision, and injunctive relief barring conversion of the warehouse into a detention facility.
Mar 24, 2026 State of Minnesota filed suit demanding federal evidence-sharing on fatal shootings by federal agents Tier 1 · Primary Institutions and Governance
A state sued the Justice Department and DHS for withholding evidence about fatal shootings by federal agents, challenging federal noncooperation with state investigators.
Supporting reports
- State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice, complaint filed — The State of Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans filed a complaint in federal district court against the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Attorney General Bondi, and DHS Secretary Noem. The suit challenges a federal policy of refusing to share evidence with state investigators regarding three fatal or injurious shootings by federal agents during "Operation Metro Surge" in January 2026. Plaintiffs allege the categorical refusal violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tenth Amendment, and seek declaratory relief, vacatur of the noncooperation policy, and a court order compelling production of evidence.
- Minnesota sued Trump administration for federal officer shooting records — Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration seeking access to information about shootings by federal officers, including shootings that resulted in the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. The lawsuit was filed as part of state-level efforts to defend ordinary Americans and expand protections under law.
Oct 6, 2025 Senate repeatedly rejected competing funding bills as the government shutdown continued Tier 1 · Primary Institutions and Governance
Congress remained deadlocked over healthcare subsidies during a prolonged shutdown, disrupting federal services and harming workers.
Supporting reports
- Federal government shutdown enters fifth day amid stalled negotiations between Republicans and Democrats — The U.S. federal government entered its fifth day of shutdown on October 6, 2025, with negotiations between House Republicans led by Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer at a standstill. Johnson accused Democrats of being "not serious" in negotiations, while Democratic leaders countered that Republicans were driving the shutdown. White House economic council director Kevin Hassett threatened mass layoffs of federal workers if negotiations fail. A CBS poll showed only 28% of Democratic voters and 23% of Republicans support their party's shutdown position.
- Senate rejects rival government funding bills; shutdown enters second week — The US Senate held its fifth vote on competing government funding proposals as the shutdown entered its second week. A Republican-written bill failed 52-42, and the Democratic proposal was defeated 50-45, both falling short of the 60-vote threshold. Trump suggested possible negotiations with Democrats over healthcare subsidies, while the White House threatened federal workforce layoffs and warned that food assistance programs for low-income mothers and children would exhaust funding if the shutdown continued.
- Senate rejects competing shutdown-funding bills; deadlock persists — On Wednesday, the Senate voted down both Democratic and Republican proposals to end the federal government shutdown for the sixth time. No senators changed their positions from recent days. The shutdown, now eight days old, has forced federal office closures, furloughed employees, and created staffing shortages at airports and air traffic control centers. Democrats demand healthcare provisions including ACA premium tax credit extensions; Republicans propose funding only through November 21. Military personnel and federal workers face missed paychecks next week unless the government reopens.
- Senate deadlocked on shutdown funding as Trump threatens Democratic-led jurisdictions with retaliation cuts — The US Senate held its seventh round of votes on competing proposals to end an eight-day government shutdown, with neither Democratic nor Republican bills achieving the 60-vote threshold needed for advancement. Democrats demand extension of ACA premium tax credits and restoration of public media and Medicaid funding; Republicans insist on a clean continuing resolution through November 21. During a White House cabinet meeting, Trump threatened to make permanent cuts exclusively to "Democrat programs" in Democratic-led states and cities as retaliation. The OMB has already cancelled federal funding for projects in several Democratic jurisdictions.
Jun 30, 2025 Trump administration (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles over its sanctuary city immigration policies Tier 1 · Primary Institutions and Governance
The federal lawsuit directly challenges local sovereignty over immigration cooperation, escalating conflict between the administration and sanctuary jurisdictions.
Supporting reports
- Trump administration sued Los Angeles over sanctuary city policy — The Trump administration sued the city of Los Angeles over a sanctuary city policy prohibiting city resources from being used for immigration enforcement, arguing it is hindering efforts to crack down on what the administration calls a "crisis of illegal immigration." The lawsuit challenges local authority to restrict participation in federal immigration enforcement.
- Trump administration files lawsuit against Los Angeles over sanctuary city immigration policies — The Trump administration, through the Department of Justice, filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California against the city of Los Angeles, challenging its sanctuary city ordinance that restricts local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The suit claims the city law discriminates against federal law enforcement and obstructs immigration law enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated the lawsuit targets what the administration characterizes as illegal sanctuary policies that prioritize undocumented immigrants over American citizens. The filing follows weeks of aggressive immigration enforcement operations and protests in Los Angeles.
- Department of Justice files lawsuit challenging Los Angeles sanctuary city policies — The Department of Justice announced a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass, and the Los Angeles City Council, alleging that sanctuary city policies enacted after President Trump's reelection interfere with federal immigration law enforcement. The complaint alleges that Los Angeles's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities contributed to recent civil unrest requiring deployment of the California National Guard and U.S. Marines. Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated the lawsuit holds the city accountable for obstructing federal immigration enforcement. The lawsuit is part of a series targeting sanctuary policies in multiple jurisdictions.
- Congress allocates $170.7 billion for immigration and border enforcement over four years — Legislation, referred to as Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," allocates $170.7 billion to immigration and border enforcement programs over the next four years. This represents a significant increase compared to ICE's current annual budget of approximately $8 billion, substantially expanding resources for mass deportation and immigration enforcement operations.
Jun 18, 2025 The Ninth Circuit allowed President Trump to keep control of California National Guard troops during the appeal Corroborated Institutions and Governance
The ruling strengthened federal control in an active state-federal dispute over domestic troop deployment while the case continued.
Supporting reports
- Federal court ruling against military deployment in Los Angeles — A federal judge ruled that control of national guard troops and US marines deployed to Los Angeles should return to California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. This ruling was in response to California's lawsuit against the Trump administration's deployment of troops to the city. However, an appeals court has stayed the ruling, allowing the troops to remain under federal control for the time being. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested he might not comply with the court's decision, indicating a potential constitutional crisis.
- Appeals court rules in favor of Trump on National Guard deployment — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of President Trump, allowing him to maintain control over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. This decision overturned a temporary restraining order by US District Judge Charles Breyer, who had previously ruled that Trump acted illegally by deploying the troops without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom. The appellate court found that the Trump administration provided sufficient evidence of violent acts by protesters to justify federalizing the troops. The ruling allows the federal control of the California National Guard to continue as the lawsuit proceeds.
- Federal Appeals Court Rules on National Guard Control — A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump can temporarily maintain control over California's National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The decision affects state-federal military relations.
Apr 8, 2025 Trump administration froze federal funding to Cornell ($1 billion), Northwestern ($790 million), Harvard ($2.2 billion), Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania over ideological disputes Tier 1 · Primary Institutions and Governance
The administration withheld billions in federal research funding from multiple universities over antisemitism allegations, DEI policies, and transgender athlete inclusion, using money as leverage over academic institutions.
Supporting reports
- Trump signed executive order stopping enforcement of state climate laws — On April 8, 2025, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to "stop the enforcement" of state climate laws, which his administration suggested are unconstitutional or unenforceable. The order states "These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration's objective to unleash American energy. They should not stand." The action represents Trump's attempt to preempt state climate initiatives.
- Trump administration freezes $790 million in federal funding to Northwestern University — The Trump administration froze $790 million in federal funding to Northwestern University as part of broader crackdowns on students and faculty members across US colleges who have expressed opposition to Israel's military operations in Gaza. The freeze targeted the university in response to activism and legal representation related to pro-Palestinian causes.
- White House freezes federal funding for Cornell and Northwestern universities — The Trump administration froze over $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University, citing investigations into alleged "failure to protect Jewish students" following pro-Palestinian campus protests. The freeze includes grants and contracts from federal departments of health, education, agriculture, and defense. Cornell received over 75 stop-work orders from the Department of Defense affecting research in defense, cybersecurity, health, and cancer. The action follows warning letters sent to 60 universities in early March and comes after Cornell's president published a defiant op-ed defending academic freedom and free discourse.
- Princeton University reports suspension of federal research grants — Princeton University announced that dozens of its federal research grants were suspended over allegations that the university promoted antisemitism. This action follows similar defunding threats against Columbia and Harvard, representing a coordinated campaign against major research institutions.
- Trump administration announces cancellation of $400 million in grants and loans to Columbia University — The Trump administration announced the cancellation of $400 million in grants and loans to Columbia University, alleging the school failed to protect students from antisemitic harassment. In response, Columbia officials capitulated to a series of changes demanded by federal officials, sparking outrage from advocates and prompting at least one prominent academic to leave the institution.
- Trump administration announces plan to review $9 billion in Harvard University contracts and grants — The Trump administration announced a plan to review approximately $9 billion in contracts and multiyear grants to Harvard University over accusations that the university failed to protect Jewish students and promoted "divisive ideologies over free inquiry." The action follows the defunding of Columbia University and represents escalating pressure on major research institutions.
- Trump administration considers consent decree to place Columbia University under federal control — The Trump administration is reportedly considering placing Columbia University under a legally binding consent decree, a dramatic escalation following the university's acceptance of administration-demanded changes as a condition for restoring $400 million in suspended federal grants and contracts. The proposal originates from the administration's antisemitism taskforce, composed partly of Justice Department lawyers who question Columbia's good faith compliance. If Columbia resists, the Justice Department would need to present its case in court, risking prolonged litigation and continued funding withholding.
- Trump administration freezes nearly $1 billion in federal funding from Cornell University — During a cabinet meeting, President Trump pressed Education Secretary Linda McMahon on withholding federal funds from universities deemed "not behaving." McMahon confirmed the administration has frozen nearly $1 billion in funding from Cornell University and is investigating multiple institutions while holding back grant money pending compliance discussions with university presidents.
- Trump administration pauses $175 million in federal funding to University of Pennsylvania — The Trump administration paused $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its inclusion of transgender athletes in women's college sports. This action represents another instance of defunding universities over policies the administration opposes.
- Trump administration demands Harvard surrender academic freedoms; Harvard refuses; administration retaliates by freezing $2.2bn in grants — The Trump administration (Departments of Education, HHS, and GSA) issued an 11 April demand letter to Harvard University president Alan Garber requiring sweeping reforms including installation of "viewpoint-diverse" faculty, elimination of DEI programs, and adoption of specific antisemitism definitions as conditions for continued federal funding. Harvard's legal team, citing First Amendment violations and constitutional limits on executive authority, rejected the demands as governmental overreach into academic freedom. Within hours, the administration froze $2.2bn in grants and a $60m contract in retaliation.
- Trump administration withheld Harvard University federal funding pending government control of admissions and intellectual content — On April 11, the Trump administration announced it would withhold $2.2 billion in grants already awarded and a $60 million contract from Harvard University unless the university permitted the federal government to control its admissions and intellectual content. The administration framed the action as addressing antisemitism. On April 22, Harvard filed suit against the departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Education, Energy, and Defense, the General Services Administration, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, NASA, and their leaders, alleging violation of the First Amendment and abuse of legal authority.
- White House claims letter to Harvard withholding federal funds was "unauthorized" — On Friday, April 18, the administration claimed that a letter sent to Harvard University on April 11 withholding federal grants until the university granted administration officials power over the school's students and programs was "unauthorized." However, the White House simultaneously stated it was standing by the letter. The letter was signed by three federal officials, placed on official letterhead, and sent from the email of a senior federal official. Harvard responded by pointing out the letter's official provenance and noting that the government's actions had "real-life consequences."
- Harvard University rejected Trump administration demand for control over university governance — On April 11, 2025, Harvard University rejected the Trump administration's demand to regulate "intellectual and civil rights conditions" at Harvard, including its governance, admissions, programs, and extracurricular activities, in exchange for continuation of $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and a $60 million contract. Harvard's lawyers stated the university would not surrender its independence or relinquish constitutional rights and would not allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.
Feb 6, 2025 DOJ sued the state of Illinois and city of Chicago over sanctuary immigration laws Corroborated Institutions and Governance
The federal government sought a court order nullifying state and local laws limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement, escalating federal-state conflict over immigration policy.
Supporting reports
- DoJ sues Chicago and Illinois over sanctuary laws — The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, accusing them of obstructing the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies. The lawsuit seeks a court order to nullify sanctuary laws that the federal government claims interfere with federal immigration law enforcement. The complaint was filed in a federal court in Chicago, following a national emergency declaration by Donald Trump on his inauguration day. The DoJ aims to prevent these jurisdictions from receiving federal grants if they continue to impede immigration enforcement.