Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• House oversight committee releases Epstein birthday book documents in response to subpoena — The House oversight committee released a batch of documents, including Epstein's birthday book containing the disputed letter allegedly signed by Trump, in response to a subpoena. The release reignited public controversy over Trump's connection to Epstein and prompted the White House to intensify its denial campaign. The committee's action also prompted discussion of a bipartisan resolution directing the Department of Justice to release all investigative files on Epstein, which appears headed toward gaining sufficient support to force action on the House floor.
• House Oversight Committee released Epstein estate documents including Trump letter — The House Oversight Committee, which had subpoenaed Epstein's estate for documents, publicly released materials on September 8 including a 238-page birthday book from 2003. Page 165 contained a letter from Trump to Epstein that precisely matched the description in the Wall Street Journal article Trump had sued over, directly contradicting Trump's claim that the letter was "fake and nonexistent" and undermining his assertion that Democrats had planted damaging material in DOJ files.
• House Oversight released Epstein estate records with Trump birthday note — The House Oversight Committee released records from Jeffrey Epstein's estate, including a note signed by Trump that was part of the sex trafficker's 50th birthday "book." The text read "We have certain things in common, Jeffrey" and "Happy birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." The records also included another entry from a Mar-a-Lago member featuring a photo of Epstein with a caption about selling a woman to Trump for $22,500.

Supporting reports

• Navarro files appeal demanding DOJ explain withdrawal from defending his subpoena conviction — Peter Navarro, Trump's White House trade adviser, filed a 13-page appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit requesting the justice department explain why it will not defend his 2022 conviction for defying a January 6 committee subpoena. Navarro was convicted after refusing to testify, claiming executive privilege. After Trump returned to office and Navarro joined the White House, federal prosecutors withdrew their defense of the conviction and urged appointment of external counsel. Navarro's filing argues the DOJ must provide detailed explanation for abandoning its legal position, citing separation-of-powers concerns and potential implications for congressional subpoena enforcement against presidential advisers.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rules Trump exceeded presidential authority on tariff imposition — A federal appeals court found that Trump overstepped his presidential authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries earlier in 2025, including a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners and reciprocal tariffs on specific nations. The ruling sent shock waves across global markets. The Trump administration subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling — Following a federal appeals court ruling that Trump exceeded his presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Treasury Secretary Bessent expressed confidence the conservative-majority court would side with the administration, stating there were "numerous other avenues" available if the court ruled against them.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling and expedite decision — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D John Sauer, filed with the Supreme Court requesting the justices decide by Wednesday 10 September whether to take the case. Sauer argued the appeals court's decision had "disrupted highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations" and cast legal uncertainty over the president's tariff efforts. The administration requested oral argument in the first week of November and claimed any adverse ruling would "destroy" the US financial fabric.
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules Trump's tariffs exceed presidential authority — The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump's tariffs "assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations" of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law the administration invoked. The court found that the word "tariff" does not appear in IEEPA and questioned whether the statute grants the president sufficient power to impose tariffs. The appeals court paused its ruling, allowing tariffs to remain in place until 14 October while the case proceeds to the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court upholds $83.3m E Jean Carroll defamation verdict against Trump — A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously rejected Donald Trump's attempt to overturn a jury's $83.3 million damages award to writer E Jean Carroll for defamation. Trump had argued presidential immunity—citing the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling on immunity for official acts—should shield him from liability. The panel ruled Trump had waived his immunity argument by not raising it earlier and that the damages award was reasonable given the "extraordinary and egregious facts" of the case.
• Appeals court upholds $83.3 million defamation judgment against Trump in E. Jean Carroll case — An appeals court upheld the $83.3 million judgment a jury rendered in 2024 against Trump in a defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. The judgment stands as a legal consequence for Trump's public statements denying Carroll's allegations of sexual assault and defaming her character. The decision affirms lower court findings of liability and damages.
• Federal appeals court upheld $83 million Carroll defamation judgment — A federal appeals court upheld the $83 million judgment against Trump in a defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, rejecting his claims that he should have been shielded from liability due to presidential immunity. The panel found the jury's damages awards "fair and reasonable" and noted that hundreds of death threats Carroll faced due to Trump's attacks supported the finding of "remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented" reprehensibility.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court lifts injunction on ICE roving patrols in Los Angeles — The Supreme Court's conservative majority temporarily lifted a lower court injunction that had restricted "roving" immigration patrols in the Los Angeles area. The lower court had found that federal ICE agents were indiscriminately targeting people based on race, language, employment, or location. The lifting of the injunction allows ICE to resume these patrols without the prior civil rights constraints. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling and warned it could trigger broader erosion of civil rights protections nationwide.
• Supreme Court lifts order barring race-based immigration enforcement — On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted an order that had previously barred the Trump administration from stopping people solely on the basis of race, language, or job. Immigration advocates expect this ruling will enable further acceleration of deportation raids targeting Southeast Asian communities.
• Supreme Court lifts restraining order on ICE immigration raids in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority granted a stay against a lower-court restraining order that had barred ICE agents from conducting "roving patrols" in Los Angeles based on race, language, or occupation. U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong had found "mountain of evidence" that enforcement tactics violated the Constitution and amounted to racial profiling. The 6-3 decision allows the Trump administration to resume sweeping immigration operations without the judicial restrictions, marking a major victory for the administration's mass deportation campaign.
• Supreme Court lifts restrictions on immigration patrols in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision lifting a temporary restraining order that had barred federal immigration agents from stopping people in Los Angeles based on race, ethnicity, language, employment type, or location. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence cited race as a "relevant factor" in forming reasonable suspicion. The ruling immediately enabled the Department of Homeland Security to resume "roving patrols" across the LA area, where prior sweeps had detained U.S. citizens and separated families. Civil rights advocates and local officials condemned the decision as legalizing racial profiling.
• Supreme Court lifts temporary restraining order on ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reverse a temporary restraining order that had banned ICE from stopping people based on race, language, or job. U.S. District Judge Maame E Frimpong had granted the order after finding "mountain of evidence" of constitutional violations through racial profiling. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion held that ethnicity can be a "relevant" factor in immigration enforcement. ICE immediately resumed sweeping raids in Los Angeles, with the agency announcing it would "flood the zone" in the city.
• Supreme Court ruled racial profiling legal in immigration detentions — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that racial profiling is permissible when conducting immigration detentions. Justice Kagan's dissent documented that ICE in Los Angeles was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: race, language spoken or accent, location, and type of work. The District Court had previously ruled such stops constituted illegal racial profiling. The decision applies nationwide. Justice Kagan warned that the ruling undermines Fourth Amendment protections for people based on appearance, accent, or low-wage employment.
• U.S. District Court judge issued order prohibiting race-based immigration stops; Supreme Court enjoined the ruling — On July 11, 2025, a U.S. district court judge issued an order prohibiting federal agents from stopping individuals as potential undocumented immigrants based primarily on apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, working in agriculture or construction, or combinations thereof. On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court enjoined that ruling, allowing federal agents to continue targeting people based on perceived race, language, or occupation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion dismissed concerns about Constitutional violations, while Justice Sonya Sotomayor dissented, warning that "constitutional freedoms are lost."
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Noem v. Perdomo — The Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Noem v. Perdomo. This decision allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue conducting immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, California, without the restrictions imposed by a lower court order. The lower court had previously ruled that the federal government must stop conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court's decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
• Supreme Court paused ruling preventing ICE racial profiling — The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 unexplained decision, paused a lower court ruling preventing federal immigration officials from stopping suspects in Los Angeles based solely on factors like race, occupation, accent, or speaking Spanish. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the decision allows "the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."
• US Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ICE racial profiling in immigration enforcement — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority lifted judicial restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles, allowing federal agents to stop people if they appear Latino or speak Spanish. Immigration advocates characterized the decision as effectively legalizing racial profiling. The ruling reversed the temporary restraining order that had provided relief to Los Angeles communities and reinstated the government's ability to conduct indiscriminate enforcement operations based on perceived immigration status indicators.
• Supreme Court shadow docket decision permitting racial profiling — The Supreme Court issued a shadow docket decision that allows racial profiling. The decision was characterized as ominous in its implications for civil rights and equal protection. No additional procedural or factual details were provided in the source text regarding the specific case, parties, or scope of the ruling.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling — Following a federal appeals court ruling that Trump exceeded his presidential authority in imposing sweeping tariffs, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Treasury Secretary Bessent expressed confidence the conservative-majority court would side with the administration, stating there were "numerous other avenues" available if the court ruled against them.
• Trump administration petitions Supreme Court to overturn tariff ruling and expedite decision — The Trump administration, through Solicitor General D John Sauer, filed with the Supreme Court requesting the justices decide by Wednesday 10 September whether to take the case. Sauer argued the appeals court's decision had "disrupted highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations" and cast legal uncertainty over the president's tariff efforts. The administration requested oral argument in the first week of November and claimed any adverse ruling would "destroy" the US financial fabric.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Doe v. Department of Defense (D. Md. 8:25-cv-02947) — Two minor children and a young adult filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the Department of Defense's June 11, 2025 revision to the TRICARE policy manual, which eliminated coverage for gender transition medications and therapy for both children and adults. The revision followed President Trump's January 28, 2025 Executive Order 14187. Plaintiffs allege the policy change violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow required rulemaking procedures and notice requirements, and violated separation of powers. They seek declaratory judgment that the new policy is unlawful and a permanent injunction against enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Chief Justice Roberts allowed Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC member — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts allowed Trump to move forward with the firing of a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission, directly contravening a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a federal law meant to restrict the White House's ability to control the agency, while litigation around her termination continues.
• SCOTUS stays District Court order in Trump v. Slaughter — The Supreme Court, acting through Chief Justice Roberts, issued an emergency stay of a July 17, 2025 order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (case 1:25-cv-909). The stay halts the lower court's ruling pending further order from the Court or the Chief Justice. Respondents are directed to file a response by September 15, 2025 at 4 p.m. EDT. The underlying case involves Trump and other applicants against Rebecca K. Slaughter and others.
• Supreme Court allows Trump to fire Democratic FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — The Supreme Court allowed Trump to ignore a lower court decision that he could not fire Rebecca Slaughter, the last remaining Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, while her case was in the courts. This overturns precedent established since 1935 that the president does not have the power to fire members of independent agencies created by Congress. The decision was issued without hearings, briefs, or written explanation under the "shadow docket."

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court rejected states' lawsuit over mass federal firings — A federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit by a coalition of 19 states and DC, finding that they had no legal standing to sue the Trump administration over its mass firings of thousands of federal probationary employees. The ruling prevented judicial review of the terminations.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court authorized freezing of $4 billion in foreign aid — The Supreme Court temporarily authorized the Trump administration to freeze approximately $4 billion in foreign aid set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which includes funding for global health and HIV/AIDS programs. The decision allowed the administration to prevent the spending of congressionally appropriated funds.
• Trump administration filed emergency appeal to freeze foreign aid — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to authorize the freezing of billions of dollars in foreign aid after a lower court ruled it must spend the funds before they expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The move seeks to override judicial authority over appropriated funds.
• Supreme Court temporarily halts lower court order requiring Trump administration to spend $4.9bn in foreign aid — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay on Tuesday halting a Washington DC federal judge's order requiring the Trump administration to spend nearly $5bn in congressionally appropriated foreign aid. Trump had announced via "pocket rescission" that he would not spend the funds, characterizing them as "woke, weaponized and wasteful." The stay gives aid groups until Friday to file a response. This marks the first pocket rescission in 50 years and follows Trump's earlier moves to dismantle USAID and downsize US global development and emergency response support.
• Supreme Court partially stays District Court order in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition — The Supreme Court, in an emergency application, partially stayed a September 3, 2025 District Court order (D.D.C., cases 1:25-cv-400 and 1:25-cv-402) for funds subject to the President's August 28, 2025 rescission proposal pending before Congress. The stay applies only to those funds and remains in effect pending further order of the Chief Justice or the full Court. Respondents were ordered to file a response by September 12, 2025, at 4 p.m. EDT.

Supporting reports

• Arizona Republicans file ethics complaint seeking expulsion of Democratic senator for reposting ICE warning — Arizona Republican state senators, led by Jake Hoffman, filed a formal ethics complaint against Democratic state senator Analise Ortiz for resharing an Instagram post warning of ICE enforcement activity near an elementary school. The complaint seeks her expulsion from the chamber or, alternatively, removal from committees and loss of office and staff. The ethics committee chair referred the complaint to the U.S. attorney's office for potential federal investigation. Ortiz maintains she exercised her First Amendment right to inform constituents of government activity.

Supporting reports

• Speaker Mike Johnson refused to support Massie's reelection — Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team signaled that Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) would have to fend for himself in his reelection bid. Five members of House GOP leadership declined to offer backing for Massie's reelection, and Johnson would not say if he would support his colleague. Johnson stated that Massie is "actively working against his team almost daily now and seems to enjoy that role." Trump's allies are preparing to spend millions to defeat Massie in the GOP primary, with a pro-Trump super PAC called "MAGA Kentucky" reserving $1.6 million in ads.
• Pro-Trump super PAC reserved $1.6 million to defeat Massie — A pro-Trump super PAC called "MAGA Kentucky" reserved $1.6 million in ads to defeat Representative Thomas Massie in the 2026 GOP primary. The group is being led by Chris LaCivita, Trump's 2024 campaign co-manager, and pollster Tony Fabrizio. Pro-Israel groups like AIPAC also plan to spend significant funds to oust Massie, who has a long history of voting against U.S. support for Israel.

Supporting reports

• DOJ pushes to dismiss civil lawsuit by Epstein survivors against federal government — The Trump Justice Department is actively seeking to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by Merson Law on behalf of 33 Epstein survivors. The suit alleges that federal law enforcement agencies failed to act on allegations against Epstein when survivors came forward 20 years ago. Attorneys Jennifer Plotkin and Jordan Merson note that the FBI has acknowledged responsibility to Larry Nassar victims but continues to fight Epstein survivors.

Supporting reports

• Bill Pulte refers Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook for criminal investigation into alleged mortgage fraud — William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and a Trump appointee, referred Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to the Department of Justice for alleged mortgage fraud, claiming she misrepresented her homes as primary residences to secure favorable rates. The DOJ opened a criminal investigation and issued subpoenas. Cook denies wrongdoing, calling discrepancies a clerical error. Former officials and experts called Pulte's direct involvement "bizarre," as criminal referrals typically originate from the FHFA's inspector general office, not the agency director.
• Housing Finance Agency director targeted Democrat with mortgage fraud allegations — Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who has been targeting Democrats with flimsy mortgage fraud allegations, posted that Federal Reserve Board member Dr. Lisa Cook obtained bank loans with "lower than allowed" interest rates while serving on the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's academic advisory council. Economist Justin Wolfers responded that Pulte's claim was dishonest: Cook was asked to give macroeconomic advice to an academic advisory council, not to set interest rates, and the Chicago Fed does not set rates.
• Trump administration officials accused Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook of mortgage fraud based on documents later shown to be inaccurate — President Trump sought to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook by alleging she committed mortgage fraud by claiming two homes as primary residences to obtain lower interest rates. Reuters reported that documents show Cook actually designated the Georgia property as a "vacation home" to her lender, and standardized forms were overridden by her personal application specifying it as a second home. Cook never claimed a primary residence tax exemption for the Georgia property and referred to it officially as a "2nd home." The allegations appear to be false.

Supporting reports

• Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche conducts soft interview with Ghislaine Maxwell — In late July 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell over two days. The resulting transcript, released on August 22, revealed that Blanche's questions were not probing on key issues, particularly regarding Trump or those close to him. Survivors and their attorneys condemned the interview as inadequate and characterized it as "coddling" a known sex abuser.
• Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer suggested quid pro quo for prison transfer — Asked on CNN about why Ghislaine Maxwell was moved to a lower-security prison, her former lawyer seemingly admitted that it was likely part of a deal with the Trump administration in exchange for her interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, saying "when anybody who's represented by a lawyer who knows what they're doing goes in and meets with the government, there's always a quid pro quo."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration fails to contact Epstein survivors despite public commitment to investigate — Nine attorneys representing approximately 50 Epstein survivors told the Guardian that the Trump Justice Department has not contacted them in over six months, despite repeated public commitments to transparently investigate Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. Attorney Gloria Allred (27 survivors), Lisa Bloom (11 survivors), Spencer Kuvin, Jennifer Freeman, and others confirmed no outreach. The DOJ released previously public documents in February, announced in July it would release no further files, and conducted a soft interview with Ghislaine Maxwell in late July. Legal experts note that victim engagement is standard investigatory practice.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans established new Jan. 6 investigation subcommittee — House Republicans voted to establish a new subcommittee tasked with another investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans voted against Jan. 6 police memorial plaque — Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted against an amendment that would require the speaker to hang a commemorative plaque for police officers who protected lawmakers during the Jan. 6 insurrection, even though the plaque was commissioned by Congress more than three years ago.

Supporting reports

• House voted to toss censure resolution against Rep. McIver — The House voted to toss a censure resolution against Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver, which would have also resulted in her removal from the Committee on Homeland Security. McIver was charged in May with assaulting and interfering with ICE agents at an immigration detention facility in New Jersey. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Massie introduced discharge petition to force Epstein files release vote — Republican Rep. Thomas Massie introduced what's known as a discharge petition in an effort to force a vote on the release of the Epstein files. The measure must receive 218 signatures to succeed. A White House official later told NBC News in an email that Republicans deciding to sign on to the "attention-seeking" petition "would be viewed as a very hostile act to the administration."

Supporting reports

• DOJ sued Boston over sanctuary policies — Trump's Justice Department sued the city of Boston and Mayor Michelle Wu over sanctuary policies it calls an "intentional effort to obstruct" the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court allowed termination of $16 billion in climate grants — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with the termination of more than $16 billion in grants authorized by the Biden administration for non-profit organizations to fight climate change. The ruling permitted the administration to claw back congressionally appropriated funds.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court authorized continuation of "Alligator Alcatraz" detention facility — A federal appeals court temporarily authorized the continuation of operations at the Florida immigration detention facility known as "Alligator Alcatraz" until a lower court makes a final decision in the case.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court reinstated Biden-appointed FTC member Trump fired — A federal appeals court reinstated a Biden appointee to the Federal Trade Commission, finding that Trump didn't demonstrate "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" when he fired her in March. The ruling blocked the president's removal of the commissioner.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court temporarily lifted LA National Guard restriction — A federal appeals court temporarily lifted a judge's order restricting the Trump administration's use of National Guard troops in Los Angeles as the president appeals the ruling.