Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues injunction against federal agents' use of crowd control force — On November 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis in Chicago issued a broad injunction prohibiting federal agents from using tear gas, pepper balls, and other "less-lethal" crowd control measures in violation of constitutional rights. Ellis found that federal agents had violated protesters' First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly, and had prevented the free exercise of religion by using force against clergy members. The judge repeatedly noted that federal agents had made false statements.

Supporting reports

• Judge Susan Illston grants temporary restraining order blocking Trump's mass layoffs during government shutdown — On Wednesday (October 15, 2025), Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court's Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's latest mass layoffs from the government shutdown. The order represents a significant legal victory for unions battling the administration's workforce reduction efforts.
• Federal court rules Trump's federal worker layoffs during shutdown illegal — A federal court in San Francisco ruled that Trump's layoffs of federal workers during the government shutdown were illegal. The ruling represented a judicial check on executive action during the shutdown.
• Federal judge temporarily blocked firing of federal employees during shutdown — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the government shutdown, saying the move appeared to be politically motivated and adding, "It's a human cost that cannot be tolerated."
• Federal judge issues temporary injunction blocking federal worker layoffs — A federal judge on October 16, 2025, issued a temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration's layoffs of more than 4,000 federal workers. The injunction halted the firings, though the administration signaled that additional cuts were planned and that the current layoffs represented only a partial reduction in the workforce.
• Judge Illston grants temporary injunction blocking Trump administration federal employee firings during shutdown — Federal Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's mass firings of federal employees during the government shutdown. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions (AFGE and AFSCME) alleging that the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management violated law by threatening and executing reductions in force during the shutdown. Judge Illston found evidence that OMB and OPM "took advantage of the lapse in government spending" and acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in excess of authority.
• Trump administration lays off 4,000 federal workers; federal judge issues temporary injunction — The Trump administration laid off more than 4,000 federal government workers during the shutdown. On October 16, 2025, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the firings. The Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, stated that the 4,000 layoffs were merely a "snapshot" and that the total number could exceed 10,000. The administration indicated further cuts were expected.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court grants stay on Education Department layoff order — The Supreme Court's right-wing majority granted a stay on a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from gutting the Department of Education while litigation proceeds. Federal Judge Myong Joun had ordered reinstatement of 1,378 fired workers after nineteen states and D.C. sued to stop the layoffs. The stay permits the layoffs to continue. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the majority enabled executive defiance of law and violated separation of powers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10677 — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to grant a stay of a preliminary injunction that had blocked the administration's plans to dismantle the Department of Education and fire thousands of department employees. The majority did not provide any reasoning. In dissent , Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned that the Court's order enables the executive branch to functionally “abolish” an entire department “by executive fiat.”
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. McMahon (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10601 — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of McMahon v. New York. This decision temporarily allows the Department of Education to proceed with a reduction in force that impacts nearly 50% of its workforce, approximately 1,378 employees. The stay was granted in a 6-3 decision, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The case was initially brought by twenty states and the District of Columbia, challenging the reduction in force as unlawful.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in McMahon v. New York — The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, allowing it to move forward with gutting the Department of Education by firing nearly half of the agency's workforce. The decision bypassed lower-court review and normal appellate procedures.
• Supreme Court grants emergency appeal allowing Department of Education workforce cuts

Supporting reports

• Republicans attempt to pass significant budget bill — Republicans in Congress attempted to advance a budget measure dubbed “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” which aimed to extend Trump’s tax cuts at a projected cost of $4.6 trillion over ten years while raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill faced opposition and ultimately failed to advance out of the House Budget Committee.
• House Budget Committee passes bill in late-night session — The House Budget Committee passed a budget bill after a late-night session, with some members who previously voted 'No' changing their votes to 'Present.' The bill is set to face further scrutiny in the Rules Committee.
• Republicans criticized for scheduling votes at odd hours — Several Democratic representatives criticized Republicans for scheduling votes on significant legislation during late-night hours, suggesting a lack of transparency and public engagement in the legislative process.
• House Committee Advances Trump’s Tax Cut Bill — On May 18, 2025, a key House committee passed a tax cut and border security package, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, after reaching an agreement with far-right Republicans who had previously stalled its progress. The bill, which aims to extend tax breaks from Trump's first term and increase spending on border security, faces challenges in the full House due to potential opposition from moderates concerned about cuts to climate incentives and healthcare programs. The bill's passage is crucial for Republicans, who need to unite their party to pass it before the Memorial Day deadline.
• House Budget Committee Passes Controversial Bill — The House Budget Committee passed a bill referred to as the “Big, Beautiful Bill” on a party-line vote, with 17 Republicans in favor and 16 Democrats against. The bill includes cuts to Medicaid and extends tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will significantly increase the federal deficit. House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated minor modifications would be made, while critics argue the bill is being rushed through Congress without adequate scrutiny.
• House Republicans schedule procedural vote on Trump's bill — House Republicans have scheduled a procedural vote for 1am on Wednesday to advance President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which aims to enact his taxation and immigration priorities. The bill includes making permanent or extending tax cuts, ending taxation of tips and overtime, funding a border wall, and mass deportations. It proposes slashing federal safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP to offset costs, which has caused division among Republicans. The bill's passage is crucial for Trump, but it faces opposition from some lawmakers concerned about its impact on Medicaid and the SALT deduction.
• House Rules Committee to Consider Omnibus Bill — The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on May 21, 2025, to discuss a 1,116-page omnibus bill proposed by Republicans that aims to implement significant parts of former President Trump's agenda, including cuts to Medicaid and increased logging on public lands. The bill is being advanced through a budget reconciliation process, which allows it to pass with only Republican votes in the Senate. However, there is notable division among Republicans regarding the proposed Medicaid cuts, which are unpopular among constituents.
• House passes Budget Reconciliation Bill — The House of Representatives passed the Budget Reconciliation Bill by a narrow margin of 215-214, with two Republicans voting against it and one voting present. The bill's passage is significant as it will now move to the Senate, where Republican opposition is anticipated.
• Congressional Republicans pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — Congressional Republicans narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a 215-214 vote. The bill aims to permanently extend tax cuts from Trump's first term and introduce new deductions for working-class families, but these benefits will expire in 2028. The bill also includes cuts to social safety net programs, potentially affecting millions of poor and disabled Americans. The legislation is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. It now moves to the US Senate for further consideration under the budget reconciliation procedure, which limits Democratic influence.
• House Passes Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act — The House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" act, which enacts President Donald Trump's taxation and spending priorities. The bill includes making permanent the tax cuts from Trump's first term, increasing the standard deduction, and introducing new tax write-offs. It also allocates significant funds for mass deportations and border wall construction, imposes new fees on immigrants seeking asylum, and restricts federal courts from enforcing certain contempt citations. Additionally, it cuts funding for Medicaid and SNAP, phases out green energy incentives, and raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate.
• House Passes Trump's Tax Bill — On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax bill championed by Donald Trump, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This legislation aims to make permanent the tax cuts established in 2017, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans and corporations. The bill also includes cuts to government assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP, and ends clean energy tax credits. The bill is expected to cost the federal government $4.6 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade, while saving $1 trillion through reduced spending on assistance programs.
• House passes Trump's tax-and-spend bill — On May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax-and-spend bill, which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and makes significant spending reductions, particularly in Medicaid and food assistance programs. The bill passed without any Democratic support and has been criticized for potentially increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis indicates that the bill would leave 10.9 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. The bill now moves to the Senate, where modifications are expected.
• House passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill — The House of Representatives passed a major tax-cut bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aligns with Donald Trump's tax and spending priorities. The bill, passed by a narrow margin of 215-214, includes provisions for tax cuts for individuals and corporations, funding for a border wall, and new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP. It is expected to add $2.3 trillion to the deficit. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans aim to pass it by July 4th.
• House Committee Advances Bill with Steeper Medicaid Cuts — After extensive debate, the House Rules Committee agreed to advance The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes steeper cuts to Medicaid to gain support from far-right Republicans. These cuts are expected to leave at least 9 million people without healthcare coverage, reflecting a significant shift in healthcare policy.
• House of Representatives passes Republicans' megabill — The House of Representatives passed a significant bill by a vote of 215 to 214, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. The bill includes substantial cuts to healthcare and nutrition assistance, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that it will result in over 2.7 million households losing benefits. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
• House Rules Committee Begins Hearing on The One Big, Beautiful Bill — The House Rules Committee commenced a hearing on a budget bill dubbed The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes significant restrictions on federal courts' authority to hold government officials in contempt for violating court orders. This bill also proposes a $3.8 trillion extension of tax cuts from 2017, primarily benefiting the wealthy and corporations, while cutting federal healthcare and food assistance programs, potentially leaving millions without coverage. The committee moved the bill forward after 22 hours of debate, aiming for a swift vote in the House.
• House Republicans Pass Bill Cutting Medicaid and Medicare — In a late-night session, House Republicans passed a bill that could remove 8 million people from Medicaid, cut Medicare spending, and add $4 trillion to the national debt. The bill also includes tax cuts for the wealthy and funds for the border wall.
• Congressional Budget Office Reports on Impact of Proposed Bill — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the proposed budget bill will add $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years and will trigger cuts to Medicare due to the Pay-As-You-Go law. These cuts, limited by law to 4%, are expected to total approximately $490 billion from 2027 through 2034. The CBO's findings highlight the bill's potential negative impact on low-income Americans and the healthcare system.
• Proposed Cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — The proposed budget bill includes cuts of about 30% to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which would be the largest cut in the program's history. This reduction is projected to cut approximately $300 billion from the program through 2034, affecting over 40 million people, including children and seniors.
• House passes Trump’s budget bill with significant cuts — The House of Representatives passed a budget bill that extends tax cuts for individuals and corporations while implementing funding cuts and new work requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These changes are expected to bar millions from receiving essential benefits, raising concerns among affected workers and advocates. The bill also includes funding for a border wall and facilities for mass deportations.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders reinstatement of fired probationary staff — A federal judge in California, William H. Alsup, issued a preliminary injunction to reinstate thousands of probationary federal employees who were fired from six federal agencies. The ruling is part of a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees. The judge criticized the Trump administration's justification for the firings, stating that claims of poor performance were false. The order affects employees from the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. The judge also restricted the Office of Personnel Management from advising agencies on terminations.
• Judge orders Musk to comply with lawsuit — U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over their records and answer questions in response to a lawsuit filed by 14 attorneys general from Democratic-dominated states. They are required to comply within three weeks.
• Judge orders rehiring of federal employees — Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to immediately rehire tens of thousands of federal employees from various departments who were terminated due to Elon Musk's DOGE cuts. The judge criticized the administration for allegedly firing employees under false pretenses of performance issues, calling it a lie and expressing frustration over the lack of transparency in the process.
• Federal judge reinstates fired probationary workers — On March 13, 2025, a federal judge in California granted a preliminary injunction to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers at federal agencies. This decision was part of a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees. The ruling applies to employees from several departments, including Defense and Veterans Affairs, who were dismissed under claims of poor performance. The judge criticized these claims as false and prohibited the Office of Personnel Management from advising on terminations.
• Federal judges rule against Musk's firings — Two federal judges issued rulings against Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) regarding the firing of probationary employees. Judge William H. Alsup in California ruled that fired employees must be offered their jobs back, criticizing the process as a "sham." In Maryland, Judge James Bredar issued a temporary restraining order blocking further firings at 18 federal agencies. These rulings challenge Musk's cost-cutting measures, which have faced public disapproval and legal scrutiny.
• Judge orders reinstatement of federal workers — U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that federal agencies must immediately offer jobs back to thousands of probationary workers who were purged from the government early in President Trump's administration. The judge stated that the mass firings did not follow legal protocols. Additionally, Judge James Bredar ordered the reinstatement of these workers across multiple federal departments, indicating that the government likely engaged in an illegal scheme regarding the firings.
• Judge rules against mass firings — U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the mass firings of probationary workers from various federal departments did not comply with legal requirements. The judge expressed skepticism about the government's claims regarding the firings and criticized the lack of transparency in the process.

Supporting reports

• Court rules Trump’s firing of labor board official illegal — A federal court ruled that Donald Trump's firing of Gwynne Wilcox, a senior official at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was illegal. The court ordered her reinstatement, stating that the president does not have the authority to terminate NLRB members at will. The ruling emphasized that the president is not a king and must adhere to constitutional limits. Wilcox's removal had left the NLRB without a quorum, affecting its ability to function. The court's decision reinforces the independence of the NLRB and the rule of law.
• Summary judgment ruling — Gwynne A. Wilcox v. Donald J. Trump et al (D.C. Cir.) 1:25-cv-00334 — Judge Beryl Howell granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The court issued a declaratory judgment that Wilcox's firing was unlawful and that she remains a member of the NLRB; the court further ordered that Wilcox be allowed to continue to serve in office unless removed for cause under the NLRA, and enjoined defendants from removing Wilcox or impeding her from executing her duties.
• Federal court rules Trump's firing of labor chief illegal — A federal court ruled that President Trump's firing of Gwynne Wilcox, a senior official at the National Labor Relations Board, was illegal. The court ordered her reinstatement, marking a significant legal setback for the administration. This ruling underscores the limits of presidential power in removing officials and reinforces the independence of labor oversight bodies.