Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Appeals court reverses district judge ruling on military deployment — An appeals panel reversed a district court ruling that had found President Trump exceeded his authority in deploying national guard and marines to Los Angeles and had ordered the return of control of the state national guard to California. The reversal allowed the military deployment to continue, undermining the initial judicial check on executive power and leaving the deployment in place indefinitely.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11472 — Judge Burroughs issued an order halting the administration's proclamation to suspend entry for any international students studying at Harvard. Judge Burroughs had issued a preliminary injunction on June 20 to similar effect, but provided reasoning for her injunction this time. In the order, she wrote, “the government's misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views,” threatened core constitutional rights, which she notes “must be safeguarded.”
• Federal judge blocked Trump administration's attempt to prohibit Harvard from enrolling international students — On June 23, a federal judge blocked another attempt by the Trump administration to prohibit Harvard University from enrolling international students, ruling that officials' "misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution" are a threat to freedom of speech.
• Appeal filed — President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11472 — Defendants appealed Judge Burroughs' June, 23 preliminary injunction order to the First Circuit (Case No. 25-1627 ).

Supporting reports

• Federal judge chastised Trump administration for Voice of America non-compliance — On June 23, a federal judge chastised the Trump administration for failing to comply with a preliminary injunction related to mass firings of Voice of America employees. The judge required the administration to provide information about its compliance with statutory obligations for running the news organization and the US Agency for Global Media, asking "What would be the point of Voice of America if there is no voice?" and questioning whether a contempt trial should be launched.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge released MS-13 defendant from custody pending trial — A Tennessee federal judge released defendant Kilmar Abrego Garcia from custody pending trial, a ruling that infuriated AG Pam Bondi and Stephen Miller. The judge denied the DOJ's request for criminal detention, stating: "The govt's evidence that Abrego is a member of MS-13 consists of general statements, all double hearsay, from two cooperating witnesses. Those statements are, however, directly inconsistent with statements by the first cooperator."
• Federal judge ordered release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on bail — On June 25, a federal judge ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on bail while he awaits trial on criminal charges, but acknowledged that he would likely be taken into ICE custody upon his release and could face a possible second deportation.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge Hellerstein rejects Trump's invocation of Alien Enemies Act — On an unspecified date in June 2025, New York federal judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that Venezuelan refugee migration and gang infiltration do not constitute an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The ruling rejected Trump's legal justification for mass deportations without due process, finding no statutory basis for the administration's interpretation of the 1798 law.

Supporting reports

• Liberty Justice Center files lawsuit challenging tariff emergency on behalf of small businesses — The Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit at the U.S. Court of International Trade on behalf of several small businesses challenging Trump's tariff emergency declaration. The lawsuit, involving law professor Ilya Somin, contested the administration's invocation of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional authorization or genuine crisis justification.
• Two courts reject Trump's tariff emergency declaration — Two federal courts rejected Trump's April 2025 claim that foreign trade practices constituted a national emergency justifying unilateral tariff imposition. An appeals court subsequently issued a temporary stay of the more expansive ruling, allowing the tariff regime to remain partially in effect pending further litigation.
• Fifteen Democratic state attorneys general sue to halt Trump's energy emergency declaration — In June 2025, fifteen Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Trump to halt his national "energy emergency" declaration from January 2025. The states argued the declaration was unlawful, designed to bypass normal environmental permitting procedures for hundreds of oil and gas projects, and would cause enormous damage to historic and natural resources while undermining drinking water standards.
• Stephen Miller attacks court ruling on tariffs as "judicial coup" — Following a court of international trade ruling against the Trump administration's tariff emergency in late May 2025, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller attacked the ruling on social media as a "judicial coup." A day later, Miller escalated rhetoric, claiming "we are living under a judicial tyranny," despite two of the three judges being Republican appointees, including one Trump had appointed.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department filed intervention complaint challenging Washington State's Senate Bill 5375 as violating religious freedom — The Department of Justice announced it filed a complaint in intervention in federal court challenging Washington State's Senate Bill 5375, which the department alleges violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring Catholic priests to violate the confidentiality seal of Confession and subjecting them to criminal consequences. The motion to intervene is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in the case Etienne v. Ferguson.

Supporting reports

• Congressional debate and legislative response to unilateral military action — Following Trump's June 21 airstrikes, Congress faced pressure to assert constitutional war powers. The article documents fractured Republican response—Senator John Fetterman praised decisive action while Representative Thomas Massie raised constitutional authority concerns. Democrats and independent voices called for congressional intervention and formal approval. The article calls for citizens to contact representatives demanding a resolution halting military operations until formal approval is granted and for Congress to reform War Powers limitations.
• Congress Criticizes Trump's Unilateral Military Action — Members of Congress, including Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Sean Casten, criticized President Trump's decision to bomb Iran without congressional approval, arguing it violated the Constitution. They emphasized that no imminent threat from Iran justified the military action and called for adherence to the War Powers Resolution.
• Representative Ronny Jackson rejected congressional notification requirement — Representative Ronny Jackson (R-TX) told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that Trump did not have to notify Congress because "[w]e do not have trustworthy people in Congress especially on the left side of the aisle." He claimed that sharing information with Democrats and opposing Republicans would be equivalent to "put[ting] the [ayatollah] on the phone." The article notes there is no basis for this statement.
• Representative Sean Casten called bombing an impeachable offense — Representative Sean Casten (D-IL) posted on social media that the bombing constituted "an unambiguous impeachable offense" because no president has authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat without congressional approval. He stated: "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach. I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval."
• House Democratic veterans announce support for War Powers Act resolution against Trump's Iran airstrikes — Twelve House Democratic military veterans, led by Representative Pat Ryan, issued a letter on Monday demanding congressional approval for Trump's airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The veterans, some with Iraq and Afghanistan service records, characterized the strikes as "preventive air strikes" conducted without congressional consent and drew parallels to pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan decisions. Multiple War Powers Act resolutions are gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pushing for a vote as early as the week of June 23. The veterans demanded clear answers on military objectives, costs, and potential casualties before escalation.
• Trump attacked Rep. Thomas Massie for opposing Iran strikes — On June 23, Trump posted on Truth Social attacking Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, writing "GET THIS 'BUM' OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!" after Massie introduced a War Powers Resolution and spoke out against Trump's military strikes on Iran.

Supporting reports

• Senate budget proposal includes public land sale mandate and cuts to social programs — The North Carolina Senate released a budget proposal that extends tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts SNAP food assistance, drastically reduces Medicaid, limits court power to challenge Trump administration policies, rolls back clean energy incentives, and mandates the sale of 40 percent of all public land. The article notes that cracks were forming among Republicans over the scope of Medicaid cuts within hours of the bill's release, but warns that backroom deals and reward-punishment structures will influence votes.
• Senate Republicans bypass filibuster to pass Trump tax cut extension via budget reconciliation manipulation — Senate Republicans voted 53–47 on June 24 to approve Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham's decision to manipulate the Congressional Budget Office's budget baseline calculation, allowing Trump's 2017 individual tax cuts to be included in a budget reconciliation bill without triggering the filibuster. Graham directed the CBO to assume the tax cuts would continue indefinitely even if the megabill did not pass, a fictional baseline that violates standard budget reconciliation rules. The Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough was not consulted, and Republicans avoided her formal determination that the provision would increase the deficit beyond the 10-year window and thus be ineligible for reconciliation.
• Senate parliamentarian ruled budget reconciliation provisions ineligible — Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled on June 26, 2025, that many provisions Republicans had included in their budget reconciliation bill do not qualify for inclusion under Senate rules. Specifically, MacDonough determined that major Medicaid cuts that Republicans had counted on to save $250 billion do not fit within budget reconciliation parameters. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) announced the Senate would not override the parliamentarian but would instead seek to revise the measure to comply with Senate rules.
• Republican senators called for firing the Senate parliamentarian — Several Republican senators, including Dan Crenshaw and Tommy Tuberville, called for Senate Majority Leader Thune to fire Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough following her ruling that removed provisions from the reconciliation bill. Crenshaw claimed she had "failed to apply the rules of reconciliation accurately on multiple occasions." Tuberville attacked her as "woke" and appointed by Harry Reid. However, Senators Lisa Murkowski, Bill Cassidy, and Susan Collins declined to support firing or overruling the parliamentarian, with Murkowski stating the parliamentarian was "doing her job."
• Senate Majority Leader Thune declined to fire or overrule parliamentarian — Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated he would not fire the Senate Parliamentarian or call for a vote to overrule her decisions, saying "that would not be a good option for getting a bill done." Thune's position aligned with moderate Republicans who defended the parliamentarian's independence, suggesting the majority would proceed with removing the ruled-out provisions rather than attempting to override the parliamentarian.
• Senate parliamentarian ruled provisions improperly added to reconciliation bill — The Senate parliamentarian ruled that many provisions Republicans added to the budget reconciliation package were improperly included and must be removed. The ruled-out provisions included Medicaid provider tax cuts, ACA limits, a ban on transgender care in Medicaid, denial of Medicaid to green card holders, penalties for states providing care to undocumented immigrants, citizenship proof requirements, student loan repayment limits, expanded Pell Grants, and restrictions on cost-sharing for abortion-covering insurance. These provisions would not survive a filibuster as standalone bills.
• Republican lawmakers called for firing of Senate Parliamentarian — On June 26, Republican lawmakers called for the firing of Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough after she declared that several measures in the GOP's tax and spending bill couldn't be passed via the reconciliation process, meaning they would need 60 votes to pass. The provisions include several restrictions on Medicaid, student aid, and other assistance for many immigrants who aren't US citizens, as well as a block on funding for gender-affirming care through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
• Senate Parliamentarian removed provision restricting court injunctions against federal government — On June 23, the Senate Parliamentarian removed a provision from the GOP's tax and spending bill that would have restricted the power of courts to issue injunctions or restraining orders against the federal government. The provision would have required plaintiffs seeking an injunction to pay a fee equal to "the costs and damages sustained by the federal government," a move legal experts said would deter people from filing lawsuits. The removal was based on a challenge by Democratic senators, finding it did not comply with the "Byrd rule."