Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Revolution Wind developers file federal lawsuit seeking preliminary injunction — On September 5, 2025, Revolution Wind project developers Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables filed a separate lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the stop-work order and requesting a preliminary injunction. The filing asserts the order "was issued without statutory authority, lacks any evidentiary basis, and is unlawful." The companies warn that if specialized offshore construction vessels depart due to the stoppage, the project faces delays of at least one year or potential cancellation, despite having already invested $5 billion.
• Rhode Island and Connecticut file lawsuit challenging Revolution Wind halt — On September 5, 2025, Rhode Island and Connecticut attorneys general filed suit in federal court challenging the Trump administration's stop-work order on Revolution Wind as "blatantly illegal." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong stated the order was "erratic and reckless governing." The states argue the halt threatens jobs (over 1,000 union workers employed), clean energy deployment, billions in private investment, and state climate goals. The lawsuit contests the order's legality and seeks to reverse the stoppage.

Supporting reports

• Federal judges criticize Supreme Court's emergency docket handling in Trump cases — Lower court federal judges, in rare media interviews and court opinions, have publicly criticized the Supreme Court for overturning their rulings through brief, unsigned emergency orders without legal explanation. Judges across the ideological spectrum say the practice creates legal confusion, undermines public trust in the judiciary, and fails to defend lower courts against Trump's attacks on judicial integrity. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump on nearly every emergency application filed in his second term—over 20 in seven months—a record pace.

Supporting reports

• Judge Allison Burroughs critiques Supreme Court's treatment of emergency orders as binding precedent — In a ruling on Trump's attempt to strip research funding from Harvard, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs publicly criticized the Supreme Court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent when those orders appear to overturn longstanding precedent without explanation. Burroughs argued that the Supreme Court's informal orders create confusion in a "rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape" and that criticizing district courts for "defying" the high court is unhelpful when courts are working to apply both existing precedent and interim Supreme Court guidance.

Supporting reports

• Justice Gorsuch accuses lower courts of defying Supreme Court orders in NIH funding case — In an emergency order allowing Trump to cancel approximately $800 million in National Institutes of Health grants, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, accused lower courts of deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court's orders. Gorsuch claimed this was the third time in weeks the Court had to intervene in a case "squarely controlled" by its precedent and suggested lower court misbehavior prompted the Supreme Court's involvement. Gorsuch referred to the Court's emergency orders as "precedents."

Supporting reports

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissents in NIH case, accusing majority of "Calvinball jurisprudence" — In dissent to the Supreme Court majority's decision allowing Trump to cancel NIH grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused her conservative colleagues of "Calvinball jurisprudence"—a reference to a fictional game with no fixed rules. Jackson wrote that the Court appears to operate under two rules: that there are no fixed rules, and that the Trump administration always wins. Jackson has previously denounced the Court's use of the shadow docket.

Supporting reports

• Judge William Young apologizes to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for NIH ruling — U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee overseeing litigation challenging Trump's attempt to eliminate NIH grant funding, publicly apologized to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during a court hearing. Young stated he did not intend to defy any Supreme Court precedent and that such defiance would be "foreign" to his conduct as a judicial officer. The apology followed Gorsuch's accusation that lower courts were deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court's orders.

Supporting reports

• Board of Immigration Appeals curtails bond release for immigration detainees — The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision on September 5 that dramatically curtailed the immigration system's ability to release detainees on bond while awaiting status determinations. The decision "virtually eliminate[d] bond for people no matter how long they've lived here and whether they have jobs and contribute to our nation," according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. This action prompted immigration attorneys to shift strategy toward filing habeas corpus petitions in federal district courts.

Supporting reports

• House Republicans establish new subcommittee to reinvestigate January 6 attack — House Republicans voted along party lines to establish a new Republican-led subcommittee to reinvestigate the January 6 Capitol attack. The subcommittee, chaired by Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, will have eight members appointed by Speaker Mike Johnson and up to three appointed in consultation with Democratic leadership. The panel is authorized to conduct a full investigation and issue a final report by December 31, 2026. Democrats have criticized the move as an attempt to rewrite the narrative and exonerate Trump.

Supporting reports

• Washington DC sues Trump administration over national guard deployment — Washington DC's attorney general Brian Schwalb filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trump's deployment of approximately 2,300 national guard troops from seven states to DC streets since August 11. Schwalb argues the deployment constitutes an illegal "involuntary military occupation" and violates the Posse Comitatus Act by using military forces for domestic law enforcement. The suit contends the troops, placed under Pentagon command and deputized by the US Marshals Service, exceed presidential authority and breach the Home Rule Act and the Constitution. The deployment is legally limited to 30 days unless extended by Congress, expiring September 10.
• District of Columbia sues Trump over national guard deployment — On Thursday, the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against President Trump challenging his deployment of troops to Washington DC. The suit represents a jurisdictional and constitutional challenge to the president's authority to deploy military forces in the nation's capital without proper authorization or consent from local authorities.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice sues Boston and Mayor Wu over sanctuary city policies — The Department of Justice, through its Civil Division, filed a lawsuit against the City of Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu, and the Boston Police Department, alleging that Boston's sanctuary city laws interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated that Boston's policies result in the release of individuals convicted of serious crimes who would otherwise face removal. The lawsuit is part of a broader DOJ initiative announced on Bondi's first day in office to identify and litigate against state and local sanctuary policies nationwide.

Supporting reports

• Maine shooting survivors and families sue US government alleging army failed to prevent 2023 mass shooting — Survivors and family members of victims from the October 2023 Lewiston, Maine mass shooting filed suit in Maine district court on September 4, 2025, alleging the US Army repeatedly violated its own policies and procedures by failing to intervene against an Army reservist despite months of advance warning and red flags—including threatening messages and warnings from fellow soldiers and family members—that he posed a public-safety risk. The shooting killed 18 people. The suit seeks accountability and justice after an independent commission concluded the Army unit had missed "several opportunities" that might have prevented the attack.

Supporting reports

• Fifth Circuit blocks Trump's invocation of Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelan deportations — A three-judge panel of the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction on September 3, 2025, blocking the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to justify rapid deportations of Venezuelans alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua gang. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority in a 2-1 decision, rejected the administration's claim that the gang constituted a "predatory incursion" warranting invocation of the 1798 wartime statute. The court found no legal basis for Trump's March 14 proclamation invoking the act during peacetime.
• Fifth Circuit blocks Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans — A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Trump unlawfully invoked the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan men he claimed were gang members. The court found no valid "predatory incursion" as required by law and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the deportations. The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the full circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration filed emergency appeal on tariff ruling — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling that found the majority of the president's tariffs illegal, claiming in the filing that tariffs "are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity" and warning that a failure to allow them to move forward "would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe." The administration also filed a motion to expedite the case.
• Trump petitions Supreme Court to overturn federal appeals court tariff ruling — President Trump filed a petition with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 4, 2025, challenging a federal appeals court decision that struck down most of his "liberation day" tariffs imposed on April 2, 2025. The lower court ruled 7-4 that Trump overstepped his presidential powers by invoking a 1977 national emergency law to justify reciprocal tariffs of 10–50% on imports. Trump requested expedited review with arguments by November 10 and a ruling by year-end. The tariffs remain in place pending Supreme Court review.
• Trump appeals tariff ruling to Supreme Court — A federal appeals court ruled 7-4 that Trump exceeded presidential authority by imposing tariffs on nearly every country without statutory authorization. The court found that while the president has emergency powers, none permit unilateral tariff or tax imposition. Trump has already petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, signaling the case will likely reach the conservative-majority bench.

Supporting reports

• Court decision knocked down most of Trump administration's tariffs — A court decision struck down most of the Trump administration's tariffs, raising the prospect that the government would be required to repay tariff revenue already collected. The ruling created fiscal pressure on an already-stressed U.S. budget situation and shifted market expectations regarding inflation concerns previously associated with the tariff regime.

Supporting reports

• California governor files preliminary injunction to block extended national guard deployment — Following Judge Breyer's ruling, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a preliminary injunction on September 2 seeking to block the Trump administration's extension of national guard troops' deployment in Los Angeles through the November election. Newsom argued there was no justification for continued military presence against communities. Approximately 300 troops remained deployed at the time, down from thousands sent in June.
• Federal judge rules Trump administration illegally deployed national guard in Los Angeles — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court ruled that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) by deploying thousands of national guard troops to accompany federal immigration agents on raids in Los Angeles in June 2025. The ruling, effective September 12, barred troops from conducting arrests, searches, crowd control, and other law-enforcement functions. California Governor Gavin Newsom had filed suit in June, arguing the deployment constituted militarization of domestic streets. The Trump administration vowed to appeal.
• Judge Breyer ruled Trump administration's use of military in Los Angeles violated Posse Comitatus Act — Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally when they deployed the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles. The judge found that armed soldiers set up protective perimeters, traffic blockages, and engaged in crowd control, directly violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. military to execute domestic law. The judge noted that 300 troops remain in Los Angeles and warned that Trump and Hegseth have stated their intention to deploy National Guard troops in other cities, "thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief." Breyer prohibited the defendants from deploying or using military or National Guard troops to execute laws and stayed the order until noon September 12 to allow appeal.
• Federal judge ruled Trump's LA military deployment violated Posse Comitatus Act — A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment of the military to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the army from performing domestic law enforcement actions without authorization from Congress. While the judge noted that it's legal to deploy the officials to protect federal property, he said that Trump is using the military as a "national police force with the President as its chief."
• Judge Blocks Military Deployment for Law Enforcement in Los Angeles — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer issued a ruling that prohibited the Trump administration from using military troops for law enforcement in Los Angeles, citing violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge's order prevents the deployment of National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement activities, emphasizing the need to uphold legal boundaries between military and civilian roles.
• Judge Rules Against Trump's Use of Military for Domestic Law Enforcement — On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense acted illegally by deploying the Marines and National Guard in Los Angeles to enforce domestic law, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge prohibited the use of military troops for law enforcement activities and warned against creating a national police force under presidential control.
• Judge rules Trump violated federal law in Los Angeles national guard deployment — A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that President Trump violated federal law when he deployed thousands of national guard troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer during protests against ICE operations. The ruling represents a legal challenge to Trump's authority to unilaterally deploy military forces domestically without proper statutory authorization or state consent.
• Federal judge rules Trump's military deployment to Los Angeles unlawful — A federal judge found that Trump illegally deployed thousands of military troops to Los Angeles in June and barred the Pentagon from using National Guard and Marines for police functions such as arrests and crowd control. The order takes effect September 12. The ruling upheld California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit challenging the deployment as a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military use in domestic law enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court blocked rapid deportation of Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act — A federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting Venezuelans accused of being in a gang under the Alien Enemies Act, finding there was no "invasion" or "predatory incursion" to do so, which is required under the 1798 wartime law. The ruling prevented the misapplication of a wartime statute to immigration enforcement.
• Trump authorized military strike on alleged drug boat without congressional approval — Trump authorized a military strike on a boat in the Caribbean that his administration alleges was occupied by 11 members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were transporting drugs from Venezuela. The strike, which Trump said killed all 11 on board, took place without congressional approval and may have violated international human rights and maritime law. It remains unclear under what US legal or constitutional authority Trump took action or how the military determined that the individuals aboard the vessel were Tren de Aragua members.

Supporting reports

• Rep. Adelita Grijalva won special election but was not sworn in during government shutdown — Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) won her special election in September 2025 and was the 218th required signature for the Epstein Files Transparency Act discharge petition. However, Speaker Johnson kept the House out of session during a 40+ day government shutdown, preventing her from being sworn in and signing the petition. She was finally sworn in on November 12, 2025, and signed the petition within minutes.

Supporting reports

• Alexander Acosta testifies to House oversight committee on Epstein plea deal rationale — Former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta testified before the House oversight committee in September 2025 (transcript released October 17) defending the 2008 non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta argued that a federal trial would have been a "crapshoot" due to victim reluctance to testify and inconsistencies in their accounts. He stated prosecutors prioritized securing Epstein's incarceration and sex-offender registration over risking acquittal. Acosta denied Trump involvement in the deal. Separately, Rep. Robert Garcia demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi end obstruction of the committee's Epstein investigation.

Supporting reports

• DC Circuit Court of Appeals upholds FTC firing block — The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 2-1 decision affirming Judge AliKhan's ruling that blocked Trump's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The appellate court upheld the statutory "for cause" removal protections and rejected the administration's constitutional challenge.

Supporting reports

• Federal court ruling on CDC probationary employee terminations — In September 2025, a federal judge ruled that the CDC's February terminations of probationary employees "went too far," finding them illegal. Some employees were reinstated and placed on administrative leave. However, the same judge's ruling, which specifically prohibited reorganization or termination of affected employees, was violated when those same employees received RIF notices in October.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary injunction protecting journalists from DHS dispersal — A federal judge issued a temporary injunction in September ruling that DHS officers cannot legally disperse anyone "they know or reasonably should know is a journalist" without probable cause to believe the person committed a crime unrelated to failing to obey a dispersal order. The judge stated that federal agents had "endangered large numbers of peaceful protesters, legal observers and journalists" under the guise of protecting the public.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court overturned federal court order halting ICE racial profiling in Los Angeles — In July 2025, a federal court ordered federal agents to halt indiscriminate raids and racial profiling in Los Angeles. In September 2025, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling. The ACLU and immigrant rights groups have since submitted an amended legal complaint challenging the decision. The reversal left communities without judicial protection against profiling tactics.
• Supreme Court rules against racial profiling challenge in immigration enforcement case — In September 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority sided against Los Angeles-area plaintiffs challenging "roving" ICE immigration patrols. The plaintiffs alleged that stops based on race, language, employment status, or location violated Fourth Amendment protections. The ruling effectively legalized racial profiling in immigration enforcement, according to critics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion asserted that people with legal status would only be "briefly" questioned, a characterization contradicted by subsequent reporting of traumatic detentions of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
• Supreme Court ruling permits race and ethnicity as enforcement factors in immigration stops — In September 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing immigration enforcement agents in southern California to interrogate anyone they suspected of being in the country illegally, explicitly noting that perceived race or ethnicity can be a relevant factor in such determinations. Legal experts note this ruling may complicate challenges to racial profiling under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Supporting reports

• American Oversight files lawsuit to compel Epstein files disclosure — The non-partisan watchdog organization American Oversight filed suit in September 2025 to compel the Trump administration's disclosure of records related to its review of Epstein files. The organization sought an emergency order to force the release of these records in advance of Bondi's congressional testimony, citing the Justice Department's repeated failure to meet EFTA deadlines and allegations of document withholding.

Supporting reports

• DOJ announces it will not release additional Epstein files despite campaign promises — Over the summer, the Trump administration's justice department announced it would not release any additional files related to Jeffrey Epstein, despite Trump's campaign promises to do so. The decision sparked bipartisan outrage and accusations of a "cover-up" from both sides of the political aisle. The announcement contradicted Trump's pre-election commitments on transparency regarding the Epstein case.

Supporting reports

• IRS granted tax-exempt status to Trump Mount Rushmore memorial charity — In September 2025, the IRS granted tax-exempt status to the Donald Trump Mount Rushmore Memorial Legacy, designating it as a charity that can accept tax-free donations. The move allows the creation of a tax-advantaged vehicle for raising funds ostensibly for a memorial to Trump on Mount Rushmore, while Trump controls the IRS.