Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US District Judge Kate Menendez heard lawsuit challenging federal immigration surge in Minnesota — US District Judge Kate Menendez heard a lawsuit seeking to halt the federal immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota, with lawyers for the state arguing that the operation violates the 10th Amendment by coercing state compliance with federal demands. The judge repeatedly cited Trump's social media threats of "a day of reckoning and retribution" against Minnesota and Attorney General Pam Bondi's letter to Governor Walz (described by state lawyers as a "shakedown" and "ransom note") as evidence that the operation may be intended to strongarm state officials rather than solely enforce immigration law. The judge declined to rule immediately.
• Federal judge hears arguments on ending ICE surge in Minneapolis — A federal judge heard arguments on Monday regarding whether to end the federal officer surge in Minneapolis known as Operation Metro Surge. No ruling was expected imminently. The hearing follows the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti and represents judicial review of the legality and scope of the federal immigration enforcement deployment.
• Minneapolis federal court hears constitutional challenge to Trump's "Operation Metro Surge" ICE deployment — A federal court in Minneapolis heard arguments on whether the Trump administration's deployment of 3,000 ICE agents to Minnesota violates the 10th Amendment by functioning as an illegal occupation of the state. Judge Kate Menendez ordered the Trump administration to respond to claims that Operation Metro Surge was designed to punish sanctuary jurisdictions. The case was filed after a fatal shooting of a Minneapolis nurse by federal agents and involves allegations that the surge uses coercion and racial profiling to force policy changes unrelated to immigration enforcement.
• Federal judge denies Minnesota's request to halt ICE Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis — Minnesota's state government, along with Minneapolis and St Paul, sued to end the Trump administration's Operation Metro Surge after ICE agents killed two people—Renee Good and Alex Pretti—sparking weeks of protests. The plaintiffs argued the operation violated the 10th Amendment by exceeding federal authority. On Saturday, federal judge Kate Menendez denied the request, ruling the state failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation, though she acknowledged the operation's "profound and heartbreaking" impact and evidence of racial profiling and excessive force by ICE and CBP agents.

Supporting reports

• Stay motion decided — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administration's emergency motion to stay a district court order that had blocked the federalization of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. In a 2-1 decision, the panel concluded that the President likely lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) , finding his decision “reflect[ed] a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.'” The majority found that the district court had erred by minimizing evidence of violence in the months before the federalization order was issued and that it placed too much emphasis on Trump's social media remarks, writing that the deployment constituted a “proportionate” and “measured” response by “sending only a minimal number of Guardsmen to restore order around a federal building” and that the decision of how many troops to send “warrants the highest possible deference.” Judge Graber dissented, warning that the ruling “hands the President a blank check to militarize domestic disputes whenever he declares himself dissatisfied with civilian law enforcement.” The stay reinstates the administration's power to deploy the Oregon National Guard while the appeal proceeds.
• Federal appeals court ruled Trump administration can deploy National Guard to Portland — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with deploying National Guard troops to Portland. Two Trump-appointed judges wrote that "Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis" to support the deployment. A Clinton-appointed judge dissented, writing that the decision "is not merely absurd, it erodes core constitutional principles."
• Ninth Circuit judge requests en banc rehearing vote on Trump troop deployment ruling — Hours after the three-judge panel decision, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the case should be reheard by a larger en banc panel of all 29 active judges. This triggered a formal order requiring written briefs from Oregon and Portland (supporting rehearing) and the Trump administration (opposing it) by midnight Wednesday. All 29 judges will then vote on whether to grant the rehearing. The dissenting judge, Susan Graber, had urged vacatur of the panel's decision, and Oregon's governor and attorney general both called for the full court to reverse the ruling.
• Three-judge federal appeals panel lifts block on Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland — A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 on October 21 to lift a lower court's injunction blocking Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. Trump had ordered the deployment citing federal property protection; Oregon's governor and attorney general challenged it as unlawful. The dissenting judge called the ruling "absurd" and without legal justification. Hours later, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the full 29-judge court should rehear the case, triggering a briefing schedule with a Wednesday midnight deadline.
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pauses lifting of Portland national guard block — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday paused the lifting of Judge Immergut's first temporary restraining order blocking deployment of 200 Oregon national guard troops to Portland until the following Tuesday evening. The pause was granted to allow the court time to decide whether to rehear the appeal of that order before a larger 11-judge panel, effectively extending the deployment block for at least four additional days.
• Case update — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied an administrative stay on an earlier order temporarily blocking the administration from deploying the Oregon National Guard while the legal challenge against it proceeds. The ruling temporarily reinstates the district court's order while the full court determines whether to rehear the case en banc.

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

• Motion granted — Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12174 — The Seventh Circuit denied the request for an administrative stay as to the deployment of the federalized National Guard to Chicago. However, the appeals court granted an administrative stay for the part of the lower court order blocking the federalization of the Guard. “Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so,” the appellate court said in its brief order.
• Federal appeals court temporarily paused part of lower court order on National Guard federalization in Chicago — A federal appeals court temporarily paused part of a lower judge's order prohibiting the Trump administration from federalizing National Guard troops in Chicago, but left in place a block on their active deployment in the city. The court wrote that troops "do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so," allowing a partial continuation of the federalization process while maintaining restrictions on active deployment.
• A federal appeals court blocked deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago. — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday blocked the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area in response to protests at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. The court upheld a ruling from U.S. District Judge April Perry earlier in the week denying the White House's request to deploy National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago. The Trump administration had vowed to crack down on the protests, but the court found the deployment request lacked legal justification.
• Federal appeals court halts national guard deployment in Illinois while allowing troops to remain — An appeals court ruled Saturday that national guard troops sent by Trump to Illinois may remain in the state under federal control but cannot be deployed, pausing the case pending further arguments. This followed federal judge April Perry's Thursday ruling temporarily blocking the deployment for two weeks, finding no evidence of "danger of rebellion" in Illinois. The decision upholds constitutional protections against military involvement in domestic policing and state sovereignty under the 10th and 14th Amendments.
• Federal court blocks National Guard deployment to Illinois — A federal court ruling this week prevented the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard troops to Chicago, despite the administration's push to use military forces for immigration enforcement. The deployment was opposed by Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, who argued it violated state sovereignty and was unnecessary.
• Case update — Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-12174 — The Seventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion denying the administration's request to stay a district court order that blocked deployment of the Illinois National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The court agreed with the lower court that the President's Oct. 4 federalization order , issued to suppress protests against “Operation Midway Blitz,” lacked statutory justification finding that the demonstrations at an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, did not constitute a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” nor did they show the President was “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” The panel rejected the claim of unreviewable presidential discretion and found the administration unlikely to prevail under § 12406 or the Tenth Amendment. While allowing Guard troops to remain temporarily under federal control, the court kept in force the injunction barring their deployment in Illinois pending appeal.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court ruled Trump can proceed with federal workforce reduction — The Supreme Court ruled that Trump can proceed with his plan to reduce the federal workforce through mass layoffs. In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson panned the ruling, writing, "This was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground."
• US Supreme Court lifts stay on Trump federal workforce reductions — The US Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on Tuesday lifting a lower court freeze on Trump administration "reductions in force" (mass federal layoffs). The decision reversed San Francisco District Judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling that had blocked agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and ordered reinstatement of fired workers. The Court found Trump's executive order and implementing memorandum "likely to succeed" on lawfulness grounds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision would result in hundreds of thousands of job losses across agriculture, commerce, health, state, treasury, veterans affairs, and other agencies.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03698 — In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction which had blocked the administration from implementing widespread Reduction in Forces (RIFs) and agency reorganizations across 22 agencies. The majority noted that the Executive Order 14210 and related memorandum are likely to be lawful, and found the district court had based its injunction on those directives rather than individual agency plans. They declined to opine as to whether any specific RIFs or reorganization plans may be lawful. Justice Sotomayor concurred to emphasize that the lower court may still review individual agency plans on a case-by-case basis. Justice Jackson dissented.
• Supreme Court stays preliminary injunction in case challenging Trump's executive order — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had been issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction had temporarily blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative, which aimed to enact a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The Supreme Court's decision allows the federal government to proceed with the order while the legal challenge continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the 8-1 decision.
• Supreme Court stays preliminary injunction on Trump's workforce optimization order — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had been issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction had temporarily blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative, which aimed to enforce a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The Supreme Court's decision allows the federal government to proceed with the order while the legal challenge continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the 8-1 decision.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al. This decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with implementing an executive order that enacts a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The order had been previously blocked by a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Supreme Court's decision was made in an 8-1 vote, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

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

• Federal judge blocks federal employee buyout plan — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration and DOGE/Musk from implementing a federal employee buyout plan. Judge George O'Toole Jr. set a hearing to consider further blocking the offer, which unions argue is unlawful and harmful to federal operations. The plan's legality and impact on civil service stability are under scrutiny.
• Trump administration restricts DOGE access to Treasury systems — Following a lawsuit by government employee unions, the Trump administration filed a proposed order to temporarily restrict DOGE officials' access to sensitive Treasury payment systems. The order allows two DOGE employees to read data without further access. This move likely preempted a judicial restraining order, and its acceptance by the judge or plaintiffs remains uncertain.
• Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s buyout deadline for federal employees — A federal judge, George O’Toole, temporarily blocked the Trump administration's deadline for federal employees to decide on a buyout offer. The deadline, initially set for February 6, 2025, was extended to allow time for legal briefs before a hearing. The buyout offer involved severance pay and benefits for those leaving their jobs, with new reforms for those staying. The judge's decision provides time for further legal examination without indicating the final ruling outcome.
• Case update — American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10276 — Judge George O'Toole issued an order to pause the program and extend the deadline until Monday when a hearing is scheduled.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration halts federal grants and loans — On January 27, the Trump administration ordered a pause on all federal government grants and loans, requiring that they ban diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This directive affects a wide range of federal programs and funding.
• Trump freezes federal grants, loans, and payments — President Trump ordered an immediate freeze on federal grants, loans, and payments to millions of Americans, citing a need to review their appropriateness and potential ties to DEI initiatives. This action, which affects funds previously allocated by Congress, has been criticized as illegal under the 1974 Impound Control Act. The freeze has caused widespread confusion and concern, with reports of Medicaid portals being down nationwide and various federal programs in disarray.
• Trump administration freezes federal funding for DEI and environmental programs — The Trump administration announced a freeze on federal grants targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and environmental initiatives, described as "illegal DEI programs" and "green new scam" initiatives. This funding pause, set to activate on the evening of January 28, 2025, could impact trillions of dollars in grants and loans, affecting programs such as school meals for low-income students and wildfire preparedness. The Office of Management and Budget has requested details from federal agencies about over 2,600 programs that could be affected.
• White House rescinds spending freeze on federal loans and grants — The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescinded a policy that temporarily paused federal loans and grants, reversing a decision made earlier in the week. This policy had initially halted funding for various programs, including Medicaid. The rescission followed a federal judge's restraining order against the funding freeze, which was issued due to conflicting messages from the White House. Despite the rescission, the White House press secretary stated that the executive orders on federal funding remain in effect.
• Trump administration memo orders freeze on federal financial assistance — The Trump administration issued a memo directing federal agencies to freeze the disbursement of all federal financial assistance, effective January 30, 2025. The memo, authored by acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth, requires agencies to submit detailed information about their financial assistance programs by February 10, 2025. The freeze will remain until the Office of Management and Budget reviews and approves each program. The memo excludes direct assistance to individuals, such as Social Security and Medicare. The stated purpose is to prevent federal resources from advancing certain policies deemed wasteful by the administration.
• Trump administration rescinds federal funding freeze memo — The Trump administration rescinded a memo that froze federal funding after it caused widespread chaos and legal challenges. The initial freeze had paused federal grants and loans, affecting public programs and government spending.
• Case update — National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00239 — The Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated , “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
• Case update — State of New York v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00039 — The Government submitted a notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated , “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
• Trump administration sued over funding freeze — The Trump administration faced a lawsuit from multiple states over a funding freeze memo. Despite rescinding the memo, the administration argued in court for the lawsuit's dismissal. However, a judge ordered the release of funds, citing conflicting statements from the administration's press secretary, which suggested the freeze was still in effect.
• Reports of Medicaid portal outages following funding freeze — Following the Trump administration's memo to freeze federal financial assistance, reports emerged of Medicaid portal outages across all 50 states. Senator Ron Wyden confirmed the outages, describing them as a "blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans." The White House attributed the outages to technical issues, but the Medicaid website cited delays due to executive orders on grant payments. Medicaid provides health insurance to nearly a fifth of all Americans.
• Trump administration freezes federal funding — The Trump administration announced a freeze on all federal funding and grants, claiming it would ensure the removal of "Marxist" diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This decision affects various programs, including Meals on Wheels and Medicaid, which are essential for many Americans. The Office of Management and Budget later issued a memo to rescind the freeze, but the press secretary contradicted this, indicating the cuts were still in effect. The situation has led to significant public outcry and legal scrutiny.
• Trump issues executive order freezing government grants — Former President Trump issued an executive order freezing government grants, which was described as illegal and a direct assault on congressional authority. The order was rescinded after two days due to public outrage and pressure from lawmakers. The freeze caused significant disruption and uncertainty for millions of Americans dependent on government benefits and payments. The swift public and political response highlighted the power of civic engagement in countering executive overreach.
• Trump’s administration freezes federal grants — The Office of Management and Budget under Trump sent out a memo freezing all federal grants and loans without prior approval from the White House, leading to concerns about a constitutional crisis.
• Court issues injunction against Trump Administration — U.S. District Court Judge Jack McConnell issued an injunction against the Trump Administration, preventing it from impounding federal funds intended for states. The court found that the Executive's pause in disbursement of federal funding would cause irreparable harm to states' ability to provide vital services. The injunction ensures that federal financial assistance to states remains uninterrupted.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of New York v. Trump (D.R.I.) 1:25-cv-00039 — Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow the states to file their motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge McConnell's order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.” The judge also wrote, "the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims."