Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rules conviction invalid due to racial bias in jury selection — The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Terry Pitchford, a Black man on death row in Mississippi, finding that his capital murder conviction was tainted by racial discrimination in jury selection. Prosecutors had struck four of five Black jurors, leaving a jury of 11 white and one Black juror. The trial judge failed to adequately apply the Batson challenge (the constitutional standard against race-based jury exclusion). Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion found the trial court did not give sufficient opportunity to rebut the prosecutor's race-neutral justifications for the strikes. The ruling revives a federal judge's earlier invalidation of the conviction and may allow prosecutors to retry Pitchford.

Supporting reports

• Pam Bondi scheduled to testify before House Oversight Committee on Epstein files handling — The House Oversight Committee scheduled Pam Bondi, Trump's former attorney general, to testify on May 29, 2026, regarding the government's handling of Epstein files and the wider scandal. This hearing follows the April contempt resolution filed against Bondi for initially refusing to respond to a subpoena.
• House Oversight Chair downgraded Bondi's appearance to transcribed interview — House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer downgraded Attorney General Pam Bondi's scheduled appearance from a formal deposition to a transcribed interview, eliminating the requirement that she answer questions under oath and removing videotaping of the proceedings. This procedural change reduced the formality and accountability of her testimony regarding DOJ compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Supporting reports

• Pam Bondi testifies before House committee on Epstein files handling and admits to redaction errors — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared for a transcribed deposition before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 29, 2026, to answer questions about the Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein files under her leadership. Bondi admitted to "redaction errors" in the released files but defended the department's overall compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. She stated she delegated oversight to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche rather than leading the effort herself. Democratic lawmakers reported that Bondi refused to answer questions about Donald Trump's involvement in the release or direction of redactions.
• Pam Bondi testifies before House oversight committee on DOJ's handling of Epstein files — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Oversight and Reform Committee to answer questions about the Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein case files during her tenure. Bondi testified that Todd Blanche, her deputy and Trump's nominee to replace her as attorney general, was "in charge" of the entire release of Epstein files. She acknowledged redaction errors but defended the department's commitment to transparency. Bondi also stated she had no involvement in Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer and declined to discuss conversations with Trump.
• DOJ attorney intervened to block congressional questions about Trump's role in Epstein file handling — During Bondi's appearance before the House Oversight Committee, a Department of Justice attorney sat beside the former Attorney General and personally intervened to shut down questioning whenever Democrats asked about Donald Trump's role or knowledge regarding the Epstein files. Congresswoman Stansbury (D-NM) stated that "The United States Department of Justice is intervening on behalf of Pam Bondi to stop her from answering questions about what happened in the cover-up of this case and her conversations with Donald Trump." Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) reported asking Bondi five separate times about her conversations with Trump; she refused to answer all five times due to DOJ intervention.
• Pam Bondi refused oath, filming, and questions about Trump at House Oversight Committee deposition on Epstein files — Former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 29, 2026, for a hearing on the Justice Department's handling of Jeffrey Epstein files. Bondi refused to be sworn in, refused to be filmed, and refused to answer questions about her conversations with Donald Trump regarding the Epstein investigation. A DOJ attorney sat beside her and intervened to block questions about the president. Democrats objected strenuously; Chairman James Comer (R-KY) blocked requests for oath and video recording.
• Bondi blamed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for Epstein file mishandling — During her testimony, Bondi deflected responsibility for the Justice Department's handling of Epstein files by attributing all critical decisions and failures to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. When questioned about redaction failures that exposed survivors' names while protecting Epstein's co-conspirators, and about Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer to a less secure prison facility, Bondi referred questions to Blanche and the Bureau of Prisons. The Democrats' Oversight account noted that under Bondi's tenure, one survivor's name appeared over 500 times in released documents while co-conspirators remained redacted.
• Attorney General Bondi testified on Epstein Files release compliance — Attorney General Pam Bondi testified behind closed doors before members of the House Oversight Committee regarding the Department of Justice's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi acknowledged "redaction errors" but stated the department had been "committed to accountability and transparency" since the process began. House Oversight Chair James Comer downgraded her appearance from a formal deposition to a transcribed interview, meaning she would not answer questions under oath and proceedings would not be videotaped. Bondi deflected responsibility to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in her opening statement.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration pursues Save Act requiring documentary proof of citizenship — The Trump administration has pushed for passage of the Save Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections. The bill remains stalled in the Senate. Voting rights advocates argue the measure could disenfranchise eligible voters, particularly those in low-income, rural, and minority communities who may lack easy access to required documents.

Supporting reports

• Bipartisan group of ex-federal judges files lawsuit challenging Trump's $1.8bn anti-weaponization fund — Thirty-five former federal judges, including conservative J. Michael Luttig and former district judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida on May 29 seeking to reopen Trump's IRS case. They argue the $1.776bn settlement fund is "a product of collusion and a fraud on the Court," claiming Judge Kathleen Williams may have been deceived before approving it on May 18. The judges contend the fund was created to distribute taxpayer dollars to Trump's political allies, including those convicted in the January 6 Capitol riot.
• Thirty-five federal judges requested Trump lawsuit reopening — Thirty-five federal judges filed a request that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopen a legal case that Trump, his oldest sons, and the Trump Organization had brought against the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Trumps had dropped the suit, the Department of Justice used it as justification for establishing the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to compensate those claiming the legal system had been "weaponized" against them for crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The judges' filing challenges the legitimacy of the fund by questioning whether the Trumps and the IRS were actually adversaries in the case.
• Thirty-five former federal judges challenge Trump IRS settlement as fraud on the court — A group of thirty-five former federal judges, appointed by members of both political parties, filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the legal case Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The judges alleged that Trump and his organization dropped the lawsuit and announced a "settlement agreement" with the Department of Justice as a pretext to justify a $1.776 billion slush fund for paying off those convicted in connection with Trump's schemes to overturn the 2020 election results. The judges characterized the lawsuit and settlement as "fraud on the Court," noting that Trump was simultaneously the plaintiff and the person in charge of the IRS, and that the settlement lacked constitutional or congressional authority.
• Florida court ordered Trump to respond to retired federal judges' filing on slush fund — A federal court in Florida ordered President Trump to respond to a filing by 35 retired federal judges who are requesting an investigation into the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the dismissal of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS. The retired judges' filing alleges possible "collusion" in the case. This represents an early procedural victory for the judges in their challenge to the fund.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge issues temporary order blocking "anti-weaponization" fund — A federal judge issued a temporary order preventing the Trump administration from establishing the nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund while a lawsuit seeking to stop it is considered. The fund, which originated from a settlement after Trump sued the IRS over disclosure of his tax returns, had been proposed to compensate individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack.
• Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's $1.8bn Anti-Weaponization Fund — US District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order on Friday barring the Trump administration from transferring money into or taking further action on a $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund." The fund was created to settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons over leaked tax returns, without the government mounting a legal defense. The order preserves the status quo pending legal arguments in a challenge brought by Democracy Forward and other plaintiffs, preventing irreversible disbursement of taxpayer funds.
• Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary order halting the Department of Justice from creating, operating, or distributing funds from the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion slush fund established by the Trump administration to compensate those convicted of crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The order prohibits the administration from transferring money to the fund, considering claims for payment, or paying out any funds. Brinkema scheduled a hearing on the case for June 12. The plaintiffs challenging the fund are people and entities prosecuted or threatened by the Trump administration who argue they are not being treated equally with Trump loyalists in compensation claims.
• Motion granted — Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) 1:26-cv-01399 — Judge Brinkema enjoined Defendants from taking any action related to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, including transferring money to the Fund, considering submitted claims, or disbursing any funds. Judge Brinkema also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited briefing and granted the Defendants' request for additional time.
• Federal Judge Brinkema temporarily blocked Trump's $1.776 billion fund for fraudsters and insurrectionists — Federal Judge Brinkema issued a temporary block on any further action involving Trump's $1.776 billion fund, preserving the status quo while litigation moves forward. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 12, 2026. The fund was characterized as being for "fraudsters and insurrectionists."
• Federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Justice from taking further action on the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded initiative. The order blocks the transfer of money to the fund, consideration of claims, and disbursement of funds while plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is pending. Judge Brinkema scheduled a hearing for June 12 to hear further arguments on the case.
• Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's $1.776 Billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from creating or operating a planned $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to compensate individuals who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the government, potentially including those Trump pardoned for Jan. 6 involvement. The order prohibits consideration of submitted claims and disbursement of funds pending a June 12 hearing.

Supporting reports

• Judge Christopher Cooper ordered removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center — U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia ordered the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to remove Trump's name from the building, all official materials, and signage within fourteen days. Cooper also blocked the Kennedy Center's plan to close for two years. The judge affirmed that Congress, not the Trump administration, has authority over the Kennedy Center's name and operations. Cooper found that the Kennedy Center's board had agreed to the closure without legal counsel and that the executive director had proposed the shutdown within minutes of assuming the role.
• Judge Cooper issued ruling requiring Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — On May 29, 2026, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Trump's name must be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, finding that Congress alone has authority to change the center's name and that the board's renaming violated statutory restrictions on memorials. Cooper set a midnight June 12 deadline for removal of all signage, merchandise, and related materials bearing Trump's name.
• Federal judge ordered Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center — U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., declared that the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees lacked authority to rename the facility for President Trump. The judge ruled that only Congress can change the Center's official name under federal statute (20 U.S.C. 76h-76s), and voided the Board's December 18, 2025 resolution to rename it the "Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center." The court found the defendants violated the Kennedy Center's organic statute by installing signage, altering the website, and issuing materials bearing Trump's name.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed in Angye v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement — A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The case docket is 3:26-cv-01515. No further details on the claims or parties are available at this time.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — American Nurses Association et al. v. United States Department of Education — The American Nurses Association and co-plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging actions by the U.S. Department of Education. The case is docketed as 1:26-cv-12443. No further details on the substantive claims or relief sought are available at this time.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — DC Preservation League v. Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center (D.D.C.) 1:26-cv-00981 — Judge Cooper denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that DC Preservation League had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on its APA, ultra vires, or mandamus claims challenging the Kennedy Center's planned renovation. Judge Cooper noted that the Plaintiffs did not carry their burden for preliminary relief, but their challenges may be revisited if the scope of construction changes.

Supporting reports

• Summary judgment ruling — Beatty v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-04480 — Judge Cooper issued an opinion and order granting Rep. Beatty's motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that the Board's renaming of the Center the “Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” violated the Center's organic statute and permanently enjoined Defendants from naming the Center for anyone other than President Kennedy absent an Act of Congress. The court also sua sponte granted summary judgment to Beatty on her voting-rights claim, holding that the May 2025 bylaw amendment stripping ex officio trustees of the right to vote is void, and denied Defendants' cross-motion as to those claims. Finally, the court granted in part Beatty's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding her likely to succeed in showing that the Board breached its fiduciary duty of prudence in voting to close the Center, and enjoined Defendants from implementing the March 16 closure vote, though the injunction permits the OBBBA-funded capital repairs to proceed and does not bar the Board from voting to close anew after prudent deliberation.

Supporting reports

• Judge Emmet Sullivan set June 16 hearing on Katie Phang's motion for preliminary injunction on Epstein files release — Judge Emmet Sullivan scheduled a June 16, 2026, hearing on MeidasTouch host Katie Phang's motion for a preliminary injunction demanding the Trump administration release additional Epstein files. The motion seeks to compel the Department of Justice to act on the release of documents related to the Epstein investigation.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses charges against Chicago protest defendants due to prosecutorial misconduct — U.S. District Judge April Perry dismissed charges against six people, including a Democratic congressional candidate, who were indicted for interfering with a federal agent and conspiring to interfere with a federal agent at a protest at a detention facility. Judge Perry discovered that prosecutors had conducted ex parte communications with individual grand jurors, removed jurors who refused to indict, overstated evidence strength, and then redacted transcripts to hide these actions. Perry stated she had never witnessed such prosecutorial behavior in hundreds of grand jury transcripts.

Supporting reports

• Alabama appeals federal court's map ruling to Supreme Court — Alabama's state leadership has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the federal district court's decision blocking the 2023 congressional map. The appeal seeks to overturn the lower court's finding of intentional racial discrimination and would allow the state to eliminate the second majority-Black congressional district. The appeal signals Alabama's refusal to accept the court's determination of unlawful vote dilution.
• Federal court blocks Alabama's 2023 congressional map for intentional racial discrimination — A federal district court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map was tainted by intentional race-based discrimination against Black voters, violating the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court ordered Alabama to continue using the court-ordered map from the 2024 election cycle, which resulted in the election of Rep. Shomari Figures in the new congressional District 2. Alabama has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, seeking to eliminate the second majority-Black district.

Supporting reports

• Trump refiles $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein letter story — Donald Trump's legal team refiled a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo over a July 2025 article alleging Trump sent a "bawdy" letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. A Florida judge had dismissed the original case in April without prejudice, finding Trump's team had not adequately demonstrated actual malice. The amended complaint, seven pages longer, reiterates that no authentic letter exists and claims the Journal published despite knowing the story was false or with serious doubts.
• Trump refiles $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Wall Street Journal — Trump refiled a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over its publication of an article describing a card allegedly from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. Trump claims the article damaged his reputation and that the card is fake, though it originated from Epstein's estate and was later provided by the estate to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles had dismissed the original lawsuit last month, finding Trump came "nowhere close" to establishing actual malice, but permitted amendment and refiling.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice argued for unlimited presidential firing power — Karen Lesperance, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, told Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the government's position is that the President has the power to fire anyone, even if doing so for political reasons. The statement was made in the case of Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. When Judge Furman asked whether there were any limits to presidential firing power—such as whether the President could fire people to create an "all-white executive branch" or "all-Black" executive branch—Lesperance avoided answering the question. Comey's lawyer characterized the Justice Department's position as a "novel and breathtaking theory about the scope of" presidential power.

Supporting reports

• Department of Justice sues four states over undercover license plate policies — The Department of Justice filed lawsuits against Maine, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts on May 28, 2026, challenging state policies that deny confidential license plates to federal law enforcement agents. The DOJ alleged the policies are unconstitutional, threaten agent safety, and undermine federal operations including immigration enforcement. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated the policies are discriminatory and obstructionist. The Civil Division was instructed to identify additional state and local laws impeding federal operations.

Supporting reports

• Cases consolidated — Doe v. Noem (S.D.N.Y.) 1:26-cv-02103 — Judge Ho stayed the consolidated cases, finding good cause for a partial stay pending the Supreme Court's resolution of two other TPS cases, Trump v. Miot , No. 25-1084 and Noem v. Dahlia Doe , No. 25-1083. Briefing on class certification is exempted from the stay and its previously scheduled deadlines remain in place, and the parties must file a joint status letter within three days of the Supreme Court's decision.
• Cases consolidated — Doe v. Noem (S.D.N.Y.) 1:26-cv-02280

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Gill v. United States Department of Justice — Allison M. Gill, a former Department of Veterans Affairs employee, filed a complaint in the Southern District of California challenging the DOJ's establishment of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," created by settlement of Trump v. IRS on May 18, 2026. The Fund, authorized to distribute $1.776 billion from the Judgment Fund to individuals claiming harm from "Lawfare" or "Weaponization," was established without notice-and-comment rulemaking. Gill alleges the Fund Establishment Order and DOJ Notice violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to publish notice in the Federal Register or afford interested parties an opportunity to comment. She seeks declaration of APA violation, vacatur of the orders, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring implementation pending APA-compliant rulemaking, and temporary relief to prevent depletion of the Fund's corpus.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court releases opinion in Fernandez v. United States (24-556) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Fernandez v. United States. Docket number(s): 24-556.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (24-935) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock. Docket number(s): 24-935.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Pitchford v. Cain (24-7351) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Pitchford v. Cain. Docket number(s): 24-7351.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Rutherford v. United States (24-820) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Rutherford v. United States. Docket number(s): 24-820.

Supporting reports

• Became Law: Medal of Sacrifice Act — Congress enacted the Medal of Sacrifice Act (Public Law 119-94) on May 28, 2026. The legislation establishes or modifies protocols for awarding the Medal of Sacrifice, likely recognizing military personnel or civilians who made extraordinary sacrifices in service. The enactment reflects legislative action to formalize honors and recognition within the federal honors system.
• Became Law: Capitol Police Retirement Age Amendment — Congress enacted Public Law 119-95, amending chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code to authorize an increase in the retirement age for members of the Capitol Police. The measure passed both chambers and was signed into law, modifying federal retirement provisions specific to the Capitol Police workforce.

Supporting reports

• Federal appeals court temporarily blocks re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay blocking the re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a 31-year-old Palestinian-American activist and US green card holder, pending supreme court review. Khalil was detained by ICE in March 2025 for 104 days; the government argued his pro-Palestinian activism constituted a threat to US foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited concerns about antisemitism and Jewish student safety. The temporary block gives Khalil reprieve as his legal team prepares a supreme court petition.

Supporting reports

• Florida court allows new Republican-friendly congressional map to remain in place despite gerrymandering lawsuit — Judge Joshua Hawkes of Florida's Second Judicial Circuit ruled that voting rights groups challenging the state's new congressional map had not sufficiently proven partisan intent, allowing the map to remain in effect during the 2026 midterm elections. The map, drawn by DeSantis aide Jason Poreda, eliminates Democratic-held districts in south Florida, Tampa Bay, and Orlando, reducing Democratic-favored seats from eight to four of Florida's 28 districts. The judge cited election timing and public interest in certainty over judicial intervention.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed in Mauldin v. Blanche — A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Docket 1:26-cv-01814) challenging actions by a Trump administration official or agency. The case summary and operative allegations are not yet available in the public record.