Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's conditional cuts to homeland security funding for states — US District Judge Mary McElroy of Rhode Island ruled on December 23, 2025, that the Trump administration's cuts of over $230 million in federal homeland security and FEMA grants to seven states and DC were unlawful. The administration had reduced funding for Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and DC as punishment for non-compliance with immigration enforcement policies. McElroy's 48-page decision found the cuts violated administrative law and held vital counterterrorism and law enforcement programs hostage to political demands. The Department of Homeland Security indicated it would appeal.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's argument to deploy federalized National Guard in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's legal argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The decision limited Trump's authority to use military forces within the United States without explicit congressional authorization or state consent.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's National Guard deployment authority in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The 6-3 decision blocked the administration's attempt to militarize American cities without state consent.
• Supreme Court rejects Trump's National Guard deployment in Illinois as unlawful — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 preliminary ruling that President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in the Chicago area beginning in October violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The majority held that a president must first attempt to execute laws using regular U.S. military forces and may deploy the National Guard only if unable to do so with regular forces. The Court found the Government failed to identify statutory or constitutional authority permitting military enforcement of laws in Illinois.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump's National Guard deployment for immigration enforcement in Illinois — The Supreme Court rejected Trump's deployment of the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement in Illinois, ruling that federal law limits use of the National Guard to situations where regular military forces are insufficient. The majority found that the President does not have inherent authority to deploy the military to protect ICE property. Three justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) dissented.
• Supreme Court blocks Trump administration from deploying National Guard in Illinois — The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois as part of his mass immigration crackdown, ruling that the government "failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois." The decision represents a rare judicial check on executive power in the Trump administration.
• Supreme Court Denies Stay in Trump v. Illinois — On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Illinois. This decision upheld a lower court's order that barred the Trump administration from deploying the federalized National Guard in Illinois for immigration enforcement actions. The case arose after the Trump administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement in Chicago, which was challenged by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court's denial means the federal government cannot deploy the National Guard in Illinois pending further legal proceedings. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the decision.
• US Supreme Court blocks Trump national guard deployment to Chicago — The US Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower court order blocking the deployment of national guard troops to the Chicago area. In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that the government failed to meet the legal burden required to show it could not enforce immigration laws without federal military intervention. The decision upholds a ruling by US District Judge April Perry from October and signals potential impact on similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department sues District of Columbia over semi-automatic firearm registration ban — The Department of Justice, through its Civil Rights Division and newly established Second Amendment Section, filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia and its Metropolitan Police Department, alleging that D.C.'s ban on AR-15 and other semi-automatic firearms violates the Second Amendment. The suit challenges the District's registration requirement and pattern of refusing to register protected firearms, claiming the policy unconstitutionally restricts law-abiding citizens' rights to own commonly used weapons for lawful purposes including self-defense.
• Justice Department sues DC over AR-15 ban — The Justice Department sued Washington, DC and its Metropolitan Police Department, arguing that DC's gun laws banning AR-15 style weapons—which have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in the US—are "unconstitutional" and violate the Second Amendment. The suit represents federal intervention to overturn local gun safety measures.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed in O'Neill v. Hartman (D. Md. 1:25-cv-04228) — A transgender data scientist employed by the National Security Agency filed a complaint in federal district court on December 22, 2025, challenging Executive Order 14168, issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025. The order directs federal agencies to implement policies based on sex rather than gender and prevents accommodation of transitioning employees. The plaintiff alleges the NSA created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks a declaration that the executive order violates Title VII, an injunction against its implementation, and compensatory damages.