Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Trump refuses to rule out declaring state of emergency before midterm elections — In a Time magazine interview, President Trump declined to rule out declaring a state of emergency before the November midterm elections, stating "I don't rule anything out or in. We'll see." He also said he "could use" the Insurrection Act to deploy military troops domestically, noting that "a lot of people think I should use it sometimes." Trump dismissed low approval ratings as "fake numbers" and blamed media for misrepresenting his earlier statements about the Iran war's duration.
• Trump expresses regret over Supreme Court appointments and discusses using Insurrection Act — In a 75-minute TIME magazine interview, Trump stated he regretted appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett because they ruled against him on tariffs, mail ballots, and birthright citizenship. He expressed unapologetic expectations of judicial loyalty, stating "I do like loyalty, yeah." When asked whether he would rule out declaring a state of emergency before the midterms unless there was widespread violence, Trump said "I don't rule anything out or in" and indicated he could use the Insurrection Act, saying "A lot of people think I should use it sometimes."
• Trump defies congressional authority in TIME magazine interview — The President of the United States openly defied Congress during a TIME magazine interview, according to the article. The specific nature of the defiance is not detailed in the text provided, but the article characterizes the President's statements as demonstrating "no grasp on reality at all" and notes the defiance as part of a pattern of constitutional violations occurring under the current administration.

Supporting reports

• Time magazine releases transcript of Trump interview revealing cognitive impairment — Time magazine released a lightly edited transcript of an interview conducted by senior political correspondent Eric Cortellessa and editor-in-chief Sam Jacobs with Trump at the White House on September 28. The transcript reveals a president unable to answer questions coherently, obsessed with personal architectural projects, consumed by fantasy, and angry at media criticism. Trump claimed Supreme Court justices he appointed "voted against me too often" and suggested he expects loyalty from them, refused to rule out using the Insurrection Act before midterms or annihilating Iran, and made false claims about his cognitive abilities and poll numbers.

Supporting reports

• North Carolina legislature added Republicans to Judicial Standards Commission — The North Carolina legislature added more Republicans to the Judicial Standards Commission a couple of years prior to August 2026. This action concentrated partisan control over the body responsible for investigating ethics complaints against judges, further enabling the targeting of Democratic justices.
• North Carolina legislature created new Family Court with judges appointed by Chief Justice — The North Carolina legislature's recent budget bill created a new "special" Family Court whose judges will be appointed directly by Chief Justice Paul Newby. These judges can serve until age 78, the highest mandatory judicial retirement age in the country, concentrating judicial appointment power in the chief justice.
• Chief Justice Newby given power over new business court with wide jurisdiction — Chief Justice Paul Newby was previously given power over a new business court with exceptionally wide jurisdiction, further concentrating judicial authority in his hands and enabling him to shape outcomes in commercial disputes.
• Chief Justice Paul Newby previously pushed investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls — In 2023, North Carolina Chief Justice Paul Newby initiated an investigation into Democratic Justice Anita Earls for ethics charges related to her discussing bias and lack of diversity on the state Supreme Court. The Judicial Standards Commission backed down after Earls filed a First Amendment lawsuit. This prior action demonstrates a pattern of using ethics complaints as a tool against Democratic justices.
• Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced baseless ethics complaint before 2024 reelection — Democratic Justice Allison Riggs faced a baseless ethics complaint in the weeks before her 2024 reelection campaign. The complaint was filed as part of a pattern of using ethics processes to target Democratic justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
• GOP Supreme Court majority refused to sanction Republican judges who admitted ethics violations — In 2024, ProPublica revealed that the GOP-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court majority refused to sanction two Republican judges who admitted to violating ethics rules with serious consequences. This demonstrates a double standard in ethics enforcement, with Democratic judges targeted while Republican judges face no consequences.
• North Carolina legislature passes bill allowing GOP Supreme Court justices to remove Democratic judges — The North Carolina Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill that grants the state Supreme Court majority power to remove judges without the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. The bill would allow GOP justices to unilaterally determine ethics violations and remove Democratic justices, circumventing the votes of millions of voters who elected them. The measure faces a likely veto from Democratic Governor Josh Stein, though two former Democrats in the legislature have recently voted to override vetoes.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down 91-year-old precedent, grants president unlimited removal power over independent agencies — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Slaughter v. Trump that federal law restricting the president's ability to fire members of independent executive agencies (including the FTC) violates the constitutional separation of powers. The decision overruled Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., a 91-year-old precedent, and endorsed the "unitary executive" theory, granting the president sweeping authority over approximately two dozen multi-member agencies Congress intended to be independent.
• Supreme Court rules in Trump v. Slaughter to expand presidential removal power over independent agencies — On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president has broad authority to remove members of independent federal agencies, effectively overturning the 91-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent. The decision arose from Trump's March 2025 firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Fired officials and legal experts warn the ruling eliminates civil service protections, enabling politicization, corruption, and pay-to-play dynamics in federal agencies designed to operate independently.
• US Supreme Court rules Trump can fire independent agency leaders, overturning 90-year precedent — The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president can fire leaders of independent agencies without cause, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent. The case centered on Trump's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter via email. The ruling affects approximately two dozen agencies with multi-member bipartisan boards, including the FTC, NLRB, and Federal Reserve. Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan dissented, arguing the decision grants the president unconstitutional power and defies centuries of political practice and congressional authority.
• Supreme Court rules president has unrestricted power to remove independent agency officials — The Supreme Court decided Slaughter v. Trump in a 6–3 decision, holding that the president has complete authority to remove officers from independent agencies established by Congress without cause. The case arose when Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner, claiming her service conflicted with his administration's priorities. The majority rejected 90 years of precedent requiring removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing the ruling grants the president power exceeding even the English Crown and undermines centuries of bipartisan practice protecting nonpartisan expertise in agencies like the FTC, EPA, SEC, and others.
• Supreme Court Affirms Federal Reserve Independence — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of maintaining the independence of the Federal Reserve, rejecting challenges that could have subjected the institution to increased political influence. This decision preserves the Fed's ability to operate without direct political pressure, which is crucial for maintaining economic stability and policy effectiveness.
• Supreme Court Decision Weakens Independent Agencies — The Supreme Court delivered a ruling that significantly weakens the authority of certain independent federal agencies. This decision could lead to increased political influence over these agencies, potentially affecting their ability to function autonomously and effectively.
• Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power — The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump has the authority to fire the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner, effectively overturning a significant limitation on presidential power. This decision marks a shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, potentially increasing presidential control over such agencies. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal regulatory bodies and the separation of powers within the U.S. government.
• Supreme Court Overturns 90-Year-Old Independent Agency Protections — The Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old precedent protecting members of independent agencies from being fired by the president without cause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in dissent that the ruling "reshapes our government," noting that dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the president's hands.
• Supreme Court Overturns Protections for Independent Agencies — The Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old precedent that protected members of independent agencies from being fired without cause by the president. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that this decision could transform these agencies into executive-controlled entities, concentrating power in the presidency. This ruling is seen as a significant shift in the balance of power within the U.S. government.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. Slaughter (25-332) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. Slaughter. Docket number(s): 25-332.
• Trump claims unchecked power following Supreme Court ruling — Following the Supreme Court's decision in Slaughter v. Trump, President Trump stated that he now has the authority to remove heads of independent agencies at will, which he believes will allow him to control these agencies to serve his administration's interests. This claim raises concerns about the potential politicization of agencies that have historically operated independently of presidential influence.
• Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump in Slaughter v. Trump — On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of President Donald J. Trump in the case of Slaughter v. Trump, allowing him to fire members of independent agencies created by Congress. This decision overruled nearly 90 years of precedent that limited presidential power over such agencies, asserting that the president has complete control over executive branch officials. The dissenting justices warned that this ruling undermines the independence of agencies designed to operate free from political influence.
• US Supreme Court rules president can fire independent agency heads at will — On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Trump in a case brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was fired in March. The court overturned a 90-year-old precedent by holding that the president has the right to remove the head of any federal government agency at will. The decision, justified through the unitary executive theory, grants the president sole total control over the executive branch and opens the door to what critics call an "imperial presidency."

Supporting reports

• Trump demands Senate replace parliamentarian with loyalist — Trump posted on his social media account demanding that Senate Republicans replace Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, appointed by President Obama, with a Trump loyalist. Trump criticized MacDonough as "brutal to Republicans" and claimed she had been unfair in her rulings. The demand followed the parliamentarian's ruling that blocked $1 billion in ballroom funding from a reconciliation bill.
• Trump demands Senate pass voting restriction and eliminate filibuster — Trump posted demands that the Senate pass the SAVE America Act, which would significantly restrict voting rights, and that the Senate eliminate the filibuster to enable passage with a simple majority. Trump threatened that if Republicans did not pass "at least one of these two provisions quickly," Republicans would "never see another Republican President again."

Supporting reports

• Trump called for court-packing in response to Supreme Court tariff ruling — President Trump posted on social media complaining that the Supreme Court's decision declaring his "Liberation Day" tariffs of April 2025 unconstitutional had not included language stating that money paid to the United States did not have to be repaid. Trump criticized his own appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, for showing "so little respect to our Country" and explicitly called for court-packing, stating "PACK THE COURT! I'm working so hard to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and then people that I appointed have shown so little respect to our Country, and its people." He demanded they vote his way on birthright citizenship.

Supporting reports

• Pam Bondi fired as Attorney General; Todd Blanche assumes interim role — President Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 1, 2026, shortly before delivering a primetime address on the Iran war. Trump announced her departure via Truth Social, stating she would transition to the private sector. According to reporting, Trump cited Bondi's alleged intervention in matters related to Rep. Eric Swalwell and FBI investigative documents concerning Swalwell's relationship with Christine Fang as a reason for the dismissal. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was named interim AG. Bondi reportedly pleaded for more time but Trump remained firm.
• Trump fires Attorney General Pam Bondi; Todd Blanche becomes acting AG and affirms Trump's "right" to direct DOJ investigations — Donald Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 2, 2026, after months of pressure to prosecute political rivals including James Comey, Letitia James, and Adam Schiff. Though the DOJ secured indictments against Comey and James, the cases collapsed. Trump was reportedly angered by the department's lack of progress in pursuing enemies. Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, subsequently stated Trump has the "right" to direct investigations at the justice department, signaling the administration's intent to weaponize law enforcement for political retribution.
• Trump dismisses Attorney General Pam Bondi — President Trump announced on 2 April via Truth Social that Attorney General Pam Bondi was being removed from office. Trump cited her transition to "a much needed and important new job in the private sector" without explicitly naming the Epstein files as the reason, though reporting indicates her mishandling of the Epstein investigation and repeated missed disclosure deadlines under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) were a primary motivation for her ouster. Todd Blanche assumed the role of acting attorney general.
• Trump fires attorney general Pam Bondi — Donald Trump dismissed Pam Bondi as US attorney general after 14 months, citing frustration with her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and her failure to prosecute additional political enemies to his satisfaction. Bondi had reshaped the Justice Department through staff purges, shifted prosecutorial focus toward immigration, and complied with Trump's demands to indict former FBI director James Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche assumed acting leadership; Lee Zeldin is reportedly a top contender for permanent replacement.
• Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi via social media — President Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi by posting her dismissal on social media. Trump was reportedly angry that Bondi had not adequately punished his political enemies and that her handling of the Epstein files had failed to contain the story. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, will serve as her replacement.
• Pam Bondi fired as Attorney General — President Trump terminated Pam Bondi as Attorney General on April 2, 2026. According to reporting, Bondi reportedly pleaded with Trump not to fire her during a confrontation at the White House. Trump released a statement describing her as a "Great American Patriot" transitioning to the private sector. Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal attorney and current Deputy Attorney General, assumed the role of Acting Attorney General. Bondi remains subject to a bipartisan congressional subpoena to testify before the Oversight Committee regarding the Epstein files.
• Trump appoints Todd Blanche as acting Attorney General — Trump appointed Deputy AG Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense attorney, to replace fired Attorney General Pam Bondi in an acting capacity on April 2. Blanche's appointment places a personal loyalist with no prior DOJ leadership experience in control of the nation's chief law enforcement agency, raising concerns about politicization of the Justice Department.
• Trump fires Attorney General Pam Bondi — Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 2 after she failed to prosecute Trump's perceived political enemies and mishandled the release of the Epstein files. CNN reported that Bondi's upcoming deposition about the Epstein files influenced the timing of her firing, as the White House sought to avoid it. Trump appointed Deputy AG Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense attorney, to replace Bondi in an acting capacity. Bondi is the second woman in Trump's Cabinet to be fired.

Supporting reports

• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments in birthright citizenship case — President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump sat in the front row alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The case arose from Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order declaring that individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. Three families, represented by the ACLU, sued to challenge the order. Trump departed after approximately ninety minutes, before the ACLU's oral argument began.
• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments on birthright citizenship case — On April 1, 2026, President Trump attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the birthright citizenship case, breaking precedent by sitting in the front row of public seating alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He left after an hour and a half, before the ACLU lawyer began her argument. Lower court judges had already called the executive order "blatantly unconstitutional."
• Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the legality of his executive order on birthright citizenship. This marked the first time a sitting president attended such proceedings, raising concerns about potential intimidation of the justices. Trump was present alongside his attorney general and commerce secretary but left before the plaintiffs' attorney began speaking.
• Supreme Court hears birthright citizenship arguments; justices skeptical of Trump position — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Justice Kagan stated directly that the text of the 14th Amendment does not support Trump's position and that the administration was relying on "pretty obscure sources." Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that other countries lack birthright citizenship but questioned its constitutional relevance. Justice Gorsuch raised the landmark precedent Wong Kim Ark in a manner unfavorable to the government's argument.
• Trump attends Supreme Court oral argument and leaves early — Trump became the first sitting president in history to attend a Supreme Court oral argument. He sat in the front row of the public gallery during the birthright citizenship case but left before the arguments concluded, apparently finding the proceedings not to his liking.
• ACLU Represents Families Against Trump’s Order — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing three families in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The case, Trump v. Barbara, includes an asylum applicant from Honduras whose child is due after the order's implementation.
• President Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court for the case Trump v. Barbara, which seeks to end birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This marked the first time a sitting president has attended such proceedings. The case stems from Trump's executive order issued on January 20, 2025, which declared that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. The ACLU represents families challenging this order.
• Trump’s Historical Precedent at the Supreme Court — President Trump’s attendance at the Supreme Court oral arguments on April 1, 2026, breaks historical precedent, as no sitting president has previously attended such proceedings. His presence is seen as an attempt to influence the court's decision on a case that could significantly alter the interpretation of citizenship in the U.S.

Supporting reports

• Trump attacked the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship case — Trump publicly attacked the Supreme Court, calling it "stupid" and "dumb" as he attempted to pre-spin a potential and likely loss in a case on birthright citizenship. The attack on the judiciary reflects contempt for the court and an attempt to delegitimize an unfavorable ruling before it is issued.
• Trump posted criticism of Supreme Court justices ahead of birthright citizenship oral arguments — Two days before Trump administration lawyers were scheduled to argue the birthright citizenship case before SCOTUS, Trump posted on social media that the justices are "dumb," stating: "Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the US. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES! The World is laughing at how STUPID our US Court System has become (TARIFFS!). Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!"

Supporting reports

• Trump attacks Supreme Court justices by name and threatens future retaliation — During a White House press briefing on February 21, 2026, Trump publicly denounced six Supreme Court justices who voted against his tariff authority, calling them a "disgrace to the nation" and "unpatriotic." He praised the three dissenters (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito) and attacked two of his own appointees, Barrett and Gorsuch, describing them as "an embarrassment to their families" and suggesting they would be excluded from the State of the Union. Trump alleged without evidence that the court had been "swayed by foreign interests."

Supporting reports

• President attacks justices and invokes Section 122 tariff authority — Within hours of the Supreme Court's ruling, the President issued a proclamation under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 imposing a 10% temporary import surcharge on virtually all imports, effective February 24, then raised it to 15% by Saturday. The President publicly attacked the justices who ruled against him, calling them "fools and lapdogs," praised the three dissenters by name, and alleged foreign influence over the Court. Treasury Secretary Bessent announced the goal is to achieve the same tariff posture through different legal channels with revenue "virtually unchanged."
• Trump responds to tariff ruling with public criticism of justices and announces new tariff order — After learning of the Supreme Court's tariff decision, Trump publicly attacked the justices in the majority, including two he appointed, calling them "fools," "lapdogs," and "unpatriotic." He claimed the Court had been "swayed by foreign interests" and that "obnoxious, ignorant and loud" people had frightened the justices. Trump then announced he would sign an order imposing a 10% global tariff under a different law permitting such action for 150 days, stating he had "the right to do tariffs" and did not need to work with Congress. That evening, he posted on social media confirming he had signed the order, effective "almost immediately."
• Trump held emergency press conference attacking Supreme Court justices — Trump held an unhinged emergency press conference after learning of the tariff ruling during a breakfast meeting with governors. He called the decision a "disgrace," attacked Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett as "fools and lapdogs for the RINOs," and claimed they were "disloyal to our Constitution." Trump alleged without evidence that foreign interests had "undue influence" over the Supreme Court and suggested Democrats should pack the court with 21 justices. He refused to commit to honoring potential refunds of $175 billion in tariffs already collected and claimed he had authority to "destroy the country" through trade actions.
• Trump's angry outburst after tariff ruling — After learning of the Supreme Court's tariff decision during a meeting with governors, Trump abruptly cleared the press from the room and engaged in an angry outburst. Witnesses reported him repeatedly attacking the courts and screaming profanities. Later, in a press conference, Trump called the justices "a disgrace to our nation," "fools," "lapdogs," and "very unpatriotic," with his remarks becoming increasingly unhinged.
• Trump attacked Supreme Court justices and announced plan to circumvent tariff ruling — Following the Supreme Court's decision blocking his emergency tariff authority, President Trump called the justices who ruled against him "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution," suggested without evidence that they are being swayed by "foreign interests," and announced he will impose a 10% "global tariff" under a different statute—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—which limits tariffs to 150 days unless authorized by Congress.
• Trump attacked Supreme Court Justices over IEEPA tariff ruling — After learning of the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling, Trump publicly attacked the three conservative Justices who voted against him, calling them "fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats" and accusing them of being "unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." He also claimed the Court had been "swayed by foreign interests." These statements constituted a direct assault on the judicial branch's independence and legitimacy.
• President attacks Supreme Court justices by name — The President publicly denounced the six justices who voted to strike down the IEEPA tariffs, calling them "fools and lapdogs," alleged that foreign interests had undue influence over the Court, and praised the three dissenters by name. This public attack on the judiciary followed immediately after the ruling.

Supporting reports

• Trump denounces Utah redistricting ruling as "absolutely unconstitutional" — On Wednesday night, President Trump posted on Truth Social attacking Judge Gibson's redistricting order, calling it "absolutely unconstitutional" and questioning how Utah—a state he won in every election—could have "so many Radical Left Judges." Trump urged Utah Republicans to "stay united" and keep the state's four Republican House members in place. Gibson was appointed to the district court in 2018 by Republican Governor Gary Herbert.

Supporting reports

• Trump defied court ruling on tariffs and claimed they remain in effect — Shortly after the federal appeals court decision striking down his tariffs, Trump posted on social media claiming "ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT" and calling the court's decision "Highly Partisan" and incorrect. Trump stated the United States would "win in the end" and that if the tariffs were removed it would be "a total disaster for the Country." Trump asserted that tariffs are "the best tool to help our Workers" and expressed confidence that "with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation." Trump's statement represents a direct defiance of the court's ruling and an assertion that executive will supersedes judicial authority.

Supporting reports

• Trump attacks blue slip Senate confirmation practice — Trump ranted against the "blue slip" policy, which allows home state senators to effectively veto the president's nominees for their state, calling it an "old and outdated 'custom'" that Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley "refuses to overturn." Grassley pushed back, defending the practice as setting nominees up for success.
• Trump attacked blue slip tradition and demanded Senate Judiciary Committee override it — Trump posted on social media that the blue slip tradition—which allows senators to block federal judicial and U.S. attorney appointments in their home states—has prevented him from appointing judges he wants. He demanded that Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley override the practice and allow Republican candidates to advance, claiming the only candidates he can get confirmed are Democrats.
• Trump attacked blue-slip tradition for judicial appointments — Trump posted on social media that the tradition of blue slips—which allows senators to block federal judge and U.S. attorney appointments in their home states—has prevented him from appointing judges he wants. Trump claimed the only candidates he can get confirmed are Democrats and demanded that Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley override the blue-slip process to allow "strong Republican candidates" to ascend to these positions.

Supporting reports

• Trump demands Senate end blue-slip judicial confirmation tradition — On July 20, Trump posted on social media demanding the Senate immediately abandon the blue-slip tradition, an informal process allowing minority-party senators to block judicial nominees for their state. Trump characterized the practice as preventing him from appointing his chosen nominees and demanded Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley end it, while reposting attacks calling Grassley a "RINO" and suggesting he hates America. Grassley refused, stating he was offended by Trump's personal insults.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to reinstate transgender military service ban — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General John Sauer, filed a 39-page brief with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting reinstatement of an executive order banning transgender troops from military service. The petition follows rulings by federal judges in Tacoma, Washington; Washington D.C.; and New Jersey that struck down or blocked the ban as discriminatory. The executive order, signed by Trump and implemented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in February 2025, asserts that transgender identity harms military readiness and conflicts with service values. The administration argues the policy serves national security interests.

Supporting reports

• Trump studies firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to force interest rate cuts — President Trump instructed his economic advisors to study whether he has the legal authority to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, citing frustration that Powell has not cut interest rates fast enough. Trump publicly stated "If I ask him to, he'll be out of there," rejecting the notion of Federal Reserve independence. Powell had indicated the Fed would wait for clarity on inflation before adjusting policy, disappointing Trump's hopes for rate cuts to counter stock market losses from tariff announcements.

Supporting reports

• Trump condemns Fed chair Powell and claims he would resign if asked — President Trump posted on Truth Social condemning Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as "always too late and wrong" on interest rates, stating "Powell's termination cannot come fast enough." Trump later told reporters that Powell would resign if asked, contradicting Powell's own public statements that he would not resign if requested by the president. Trump has been pressuring Powell to cut rates despite the Fed's independence from executive influence.
• Trump attacked Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on social media, calling for his termination — President Trump posted on his social media platform that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is "always TOO LATE AND WRONG" and wrote "Powell's termination cannot come fast enough!" The attack followed Powell's public warning that Trump's tariffs would produce "significantly larger than anticipated" economic effects, including higher inflation and slower growth, and Powell's statement that the Fed would not immediately cut interest rates. The White House later told reporters Trump's post "should not be seen as a threat to fire Powell."

Supporting reports

• Trump meets with El Salvador President Bukele; signals defiance of Supreme Court — On April 14, Trump held a staged meeting with El Salvador President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office. Trump made clear he would ignore the Supreme Court's unanimous order requiring the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. The administration maintained it has no power to order Bukele to release Abrego Garcia, and Bukele stated he would not release the Maryland man. Vice President J.D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller were present.
• Trump and Bukele announced defiance of Supreme Court order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia — President Trump met with El Salvador president Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office, where they jointly announced they would not comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a U.S. resident illegally detained in El Salvador. During the meeting, Trump told Bukele "We want to do homegrown criminals next" and discussed building additional detention facilities. The administration later filed a declaration to the court falsely claiming the Supreme Court had ruled 9–0 in their favor, when the Court had actually ruled against them on the merits while cautioning about presidential foreign-affairs power.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed declaration to court containing false statements about Supreme Court ruling — The Trump administration filed a required declaration in the Abrego Garcia case that included a link to the Oval Office meeting video, thereby submitting Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller's false statements about the Supreme Court's ruling directly to the federal court. The declaration misrepresented the Court's decision to the judge.
• Trump administration claimed Supreme Court ruled they need not return mistakenly deported U.S. citizen — Trump claimed the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the administration does not have to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a U.S. citizen mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Stephen Miller stated the ruling was "in our favor, against the district court ruling, saying no district court has the power to compel foreign policy." However, ethics experts and legal analysts noted this was a misrepresentation of the actual Supreme Court ruling, which required the government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from Salvadorian custody.
• Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller made false statements about Supreme Court ruling — During the Oval Office meeting with Bukele, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller falsely told the press that the Supreme Court had ruled "9–0…in our favor" and that "the Supreme Court said that the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9–0 unanimously." Legal analysts confirmed the Supreme Court had actually ruled against the administration on the merits, though it cautioned about presidential foreign-affairs authority.

Supporting reports

• Chief Justice Roberts responds to Trump — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement in response to Trump's call for Judge Boasberg's impeachment, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions. Roberts highlighted the appellate review process as the proper channel for addressing disagreements with court rulings.
• Trump calls for Judge Boasberg's impeachment — Former President Trump called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg after a ruling against him on migrant flights. Trump criticized the judge as a "Radical Left Lunatic" and questioned his legitimacy, despite Boasberg's confirmation by the Senate with a unanimous vote.
• Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump on judicial rhetoric — After Trump referred to Judge Boasberg as a "radical left lunatic" and called for his impeachment, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke, stating: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."
• Trump calls for impeachment of Judge Boasberg — President Donald Trump publicly called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a "Radical Left Lunatic" and suggested that judges who disagree with him should be impeached. This statement drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial disagreement.
• Chief Justice Roberts Responds to Trump's Call for Judicial Impeachment — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement rebuking President Trump's suggestion that judges who disagree with him should be impeached. Roberts emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions and reaffirmed the importance of the appellate review process. This response came after Trump labeled Judge Boasberg a "Radical Left Lunatic" and called for his impeachment.
• Trump calls for impeachment of Judge James Boasberg — Former President Donald Trump has called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, a federal judge who issued a temporary restraining order to halt deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Trump labeled Boasberg a "radical left lunatic" and criticized his decision, which was meant to stop deportations that the administration argued were necessary. The call for impeachment has been met with criticism from various legal experts and Republican senators, who argue that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions.
• Chief Justice Roberts criticizes Trump's impeachment call — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement criticizing President Trump's call for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial disagreements and that the appellate review process exists for such matters.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed to dissolve injunctions in deportation case — The Trump administration filed a late-night 35-page motion on Monday to dissolve the injunctions and dismiss the case related to the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting Venezuelan nationals. The administration is challenging two injunctions: one preventing the deportation of five Venezuelans and another expanding the order to cover all removals under the Act. The administration argues that the deportation flights were outside the judge's jurisdiction once they left U.S. airspace.
• Trump administration sought removal of Judge Boasberg — The Trump administration sent a letter to an appeals court calling for Judge Boasberg to be removed from hearing the deportation case associated with the Alien Enemies Act, escalating efforts to disqualify the judge.
• DOJ argued judge's order was not enforceable — In a court filing, the Department of Justice argued that Judge Boasberg's verbal order was "not enforceable as an injunction," challenging the judge's authority to issue the restraining order blocking Alien Enemies Act deportations.

Supporting reports

• White House issues memorandum directing agencies to enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) bond requirements in litigation against the federal government — The White House issued a presidential memorandum directing executive departments and agencies to ensure that federal district courts require plaintiffs seeking injunctions against the government to post security bonds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The memorandum characterizes recent injunctions obtained by activist organizations as "sweeping" and "meritless," and directs agencies to request courts impose bond requirements to cover potential costs and damages if injunctions are later found wrongful. The directive applies to all lawsuits seeking injunctions against the federal government where agencies can demonstrate expected monetary damages, absent extraordinary circumstances.

Supporting reports

• Trump urged impeachment of Judge James Boasberg and attacked him as "radical left lunatic" — Trump in March 2025 urged the impeachment of DC federal judge James Boasberg and falsely branded him a "radical left lunatic" after Boasberg issued a ruling halting the deportation to El Salvador of scores of Venezuelan immigrants with alleged gang ties. The attack prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue hours-later criticism of political attacks on the judiciary and warnings against calls to impeach judges for their decisions.