Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1. Court Concerns of Noncompliance with Judicial Orders

Introduction

1. “Bad faith” conduct and “gleeful” boasts culminate in “willful” disobedience and probable cause for criminal contempt

2-a. Post-Supreme Court reporting orders met with non-answers and failures to comply

2-b. Expedited discovery ordered “in the face of ongoing refusal to comply,” with possible contempt proceedings reserved pending the record

2-c. “Willful and bad faith refusal” to comply with expedited discovery obligations, with DOJ “counsel stubbornly refus[ing] to provide any basis for” “non-particularized” privilege claims

2-d. Return from El Salvador achieved, but “no appetite” to restore “status quo ante,” with “defiance and foot-dragging” warranting further relief

2-e. Government “not so subtly spurns” court orders; “respect … must be reciprocated,” or “anarchy would result”

3. Government took actions that “hardly appeared to comply with the TRO Order and raised some concern about the general presumption by courts ‘that executive officials will act in good faith.’”

4. “Clearly hasn’t complied” with court order, culminating in a looming contempt finding

5. “No choice but to find that they were in violation;” “flagrant violation.”

6. After weeks of having to “wrangle the Government into compliance,” judge noted an apparent “blatant disregard” of the court’s order.

7. “Dressing their RIF in new clothes, and that they are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals.”

8. Finding of noncompliance with a federal court order; FEMA’s “covert” rebranding of an indefinite freeze

9. Agencies “actions violate the Preliminary Injunction.”

10. Government action “violated this Court’s order staying Petitioner’s removal”

11. Government counsel “make no attempt to offer any justification for their blatant lack of effort to comply;” and unrebutted claim that the government created a sui generis document as a “contrivance” to avert court ruling

12. “No dispute Defendants are in breach” of court-approved settlement agreement, court also references “Defendants’ delay in curing that breach and complying with the Court’s June 10, 2025 Order.”

13. “[I]t appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous.”

14. Defendants “have not complied with the … TRO,” efforts to “evade [the preliminary injunction’s] terms through post-hoc explanations.”

15. “Manifestly unreasonable” and “contrived” reading of injunction, “border[ing] on violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)” and “deserving of … reprimands”

16. Government at “risk [of] being held in contempt” for disregard of discovery orders, and later “failed to comply” with submitting declaration.

17. Federalizing California and Texas Guard to Portland constituted “direct contravention” and “apparent violation of the First TRO;” judge “deeply troubled” and “not inclined” to accept excuses; no contempt finding but the court “retains jurisdiction”

18. HHS termination letters to employees that “do not comply” with the preliminary injunction.

19. ICE “unequivocally ceased compliance” with 2022 court-ordered Castañon Nava settlement agreement, committing “repeated, material violations;” and parties agreed government conduct was “violation of the terms of the Consent Decree”

20. Government “ha[s] done precisely what the Memorandum and Order forbids;” “not a good faith effort to comply”

21. “[P]rofoundly concerned” order on use of force in Chicago protests not being followed

22. DHS “do not seem to have considered” the Court’s “prior rulings” in the TPS-termination case, leading to an “admonish[ment]” for re-asserting already-rejected privileges and for “glaring[ly]” “fail[ing] to make” the previously required showings.

23. Two DOJ prosecutors in Abrego Garcia criminal case “side-stepped” the court’s notify-your-client directive on extrajudicial statements

24. USDA “undermined both the intent and the effectiveness” of two orders on November SNAP payments; judge was “not inclined to excuse this noncompliance”

25. USDA’s Nov. 8 SNAP payment letter was “carefully crafted to feign compliance with” TRO

26. “Numerous, consistent declarations” of ICE noncompliance with TRO on attorney access for immigration raid detainees held in Los Angeles’ “B-18” basement

Chapter 2. Court Distrust of Government Information and Representations

Introduction

A. General

1-a. “Obscur[ing] from the Court” and “refusing to provide any helpful information” while “rapidly dispatching removal flights”

1-b. “[M]indful of the possibility … that the Government has adopted and presented its arrangement with El Salvador as a ‘ruse — and a fraud on the court’”

2. Placing attorney on leave for his compliance with “the duty of candor to the court”

3. Providing “highly misleading, if not intentionally false” sworn declaration to the court; “so disingenuous that the Court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything”

4. “Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations.”

5. Providing false sworn declarations about “hotly contested” material fact; “The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm.”

6. Providing the court with “the sorriest statement I’ve ever seen;” “This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issue on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers.”

7. “This Court takes clear offense to Respondents wasting judicial resources to admit to the Court it has no evidence;” “contradict[ing] themselves throughout the entire record;” providing “shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony.”

8-a. Solicitor General providing inaccurate information to the U.S. Supreme Court

8-b. Government submitted “underinclusive” RIF figures in response to the court’s order; three declarations claiming months of background work on potential RIF plans were deemed contrary to the “factual record”

9. “Flip-flopping—in sworn declarations—rais[ing] severe concern,” “consistently refused to give … the full story,” providing “cagey answers,” “omitting key information,” and “repeated[ ] represent[ations]” that “strain credulity.”

10. “The ‘administrative record’ submitted by the government is a sham. It does not facilitate judicial review: It frustrates it;” judge calls out government for “lie” in termination letters, and for DOJ preventing testimony because “afraid … would reveal the truth”

11-a. Military experts’ summaries “cherry-picked,” “mischaracterized,” and “misrepresented” multiple studies to support the military’s transgender ban: one summary was “inexplicably misleading,” another not drawn “in good faith”

11-b. DOJ counsel in transgender military ban warned for treating the judge “like… an idiot” and attempting to “gasli[ght]” her

12. Providing false and incomplete information concerning DOGE’s leadership and authorities

13. Failing to “to offer any explanation, let alone one supported by the record;” court saying “can’t get a straight answer from you”

14. DOJ bid to seal the entire criminal case raised concerns of pretext; “High deference is out; trust, but verify is in.”

15. Mischaracterizing the content of sealed grand jury documents in court filings

16. Making “patently incredible” claims; Government “switching arguments at will,” a “totally inconsistent” case; and Government witness “knows nothing … less than nothing”

17. Providing an “explanation [that] is riddled with inconsistencies”

18. Making representation that “does not reflect the level of diligence the Court expects from any litigant—let alone the United States Department of Justice;” “The contradiction between [Government’s] factual representations and the facts on the ground is particularly striking.”

19. Unrebutted claim that the government created a record as a “contrivance” to avert court ruling

20. Offering an “official justification … [that] is not plausible”

21. Admission of making a false statement to the court

22. ICE mask testimony deemed “disingenuous”

23. ICE statistics “concealed more than they disclosed, despite the availability … of much more illuminating data” and “gives no confidence that the defendants are seriously interested in making a full disclosure”

24-a. President’s determination to federalize National Guard to Portland “simply untethered to the facts” and not “conceived in good faith”

24-b. Key federal testimony supporting federalization of the National Guard to Portland found “inconsistent,” “speculative,” “not … reliable,” “internally inconsistent,” and not credible, permanent injunction concludes

25. The “perceptions” of three government declarants “are not reliable,” and their declarations contain “unreliable information” that reflects “a potential lack of candor” and “call[s] into question their ability to accurately assess the facts”

26. Affidavit supporting criminal complaint told a “largely fictional” story of the stop, including “blatant misstatements;” AUSA conceded the affidavit “misrepresented what was going on;”

27. DHS/ICE “inaccurately describ[ing] the facts,” advancing a “decidedly incorrect” account of events, and “‘incorrectly describ[ing] the procedural posture of the case’” in immigration detention habeas case

28. “Court does not credit” ICE official’s “assertion” of § 1225(b)(2)(A) detention because it is “contradicted by the Notice of Custody Determination.”

29. “Court cannot credit” DHS/ICE’s post-hoc “new position … raised for the first time in this litigation” asserting § 1225(b) immigration detention, given “the record is devoid of any reference to § 1225” and “indisputable” evidence of § 1226 treatment

30. “Court cannot credit” DHS/ICE’s post-hoc claim that immigration detention fell under § 1225(b)(2)(A), “despite clear indication” the detention was not under that statute

31. “Court cannot credit” DHS/ICE’s post-hoc “new position” reclassifying immigration detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) “despite clear indication” the custody did not arise under that statute.

32. ICE Deputy Field Director declaration “contradicted pretty thoroughly” by migrants

33. DOT’s “nakedly misleading characterization” of immigration-enforcement grant conditions

34. CBP Commander “admitted that he lied;” CBP/ICE/DHS portrayal of Chicago unrest lacked credibility, “belie[d]” by own evidence; “Overall, this calls into question everything that defendants say they are doing”

35. USDA’s assertion it could do “nothing more” to act “expeditiously” on November SNAP benefits “carries no weight”

36. USDA’s Nov. 8 SNAP letter calling States’ actions “unauthorized” was “untethered to the factual record” and government “conceded” notice was “erroneous on its face”

37-a. Judge skeptical of DOJ counsel’s and AG Bondi’s claimed “ratif[ication]” of interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan in the James Comey prosecution amid missing transcript pages

37-b. “Unusual series of events” involving two inconsistent Comey indictments and prosecutor Lindsey Halligan’s role “call into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings”

B. Pretext and Retaliatory Motives

38. Providing pretext for motion to dismiss indictment

39. “The Court will not apply any presumption of regularity to conduct that is so unusual and therefore irregular on its face.” Preliminary injunction granted where the government was found to be pursuing “an unconstitutional course of retaliatory conduct directed at Harvard.”

40. Executive Order terminating collective bargaining rights for federal workers enjoined as retaliatory, with court finding the presumption of regularity “has no application”

41. Executive Order targeting Jenner & Block LLP found unconstitutional

42. Executive Order targeting WilmerHale found unconstitutional

43. Preliminary injunction issued against section of EO terminating Treasury employees’ collective bargaining rights

44. Executive Order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP found unconstitutional

45. Preliminary injunction issued against section of EO terminating Department of State and USAID employees’ collective bargaining rights

46. Executive Order targeting Perkins Coie LLP found unconstitutional

47. Preliminary injunction granted where DOJ appeared to have terminated grants to ABA with retaliatory motive

48. Preliminary injunction issued where DHS appeared to have acted to punish AFGE and its members, constituting “impermissible retaliation”

49. Executive Order’s broad exclusions from collective bargaining rights for federal workers found retaliatory and pretextual, rebutting presumption of regularity

50. Preliminary injunction issued where FTC investigation of Media Matters deemed retaliatory for criticism of Musk’s X.

51. Funding freeze targeting Harvard ruled retaliatory and pretextual

52. Prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia found “presumptively vindictive”

53. “Preordained” and “pretextual;” Venezuela TPS vacatur with “entirely baseless” rationale

54. Transgender military ban “littered” and “dripping” with pretext and “bear no relation to fact”

55. DHS offered pretextual reasons for TPS termination for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua

56. HHS “invented” two pretexts to support new grant conditions stripping gender-identity content from PREP/SRAE

57. DOJ’s subpoena of gender affirming care provider “pretextual;” DOJ “abandoned good faith investigation”

58. OMB’s actions during the government shutdown found “retaliatory and partisan”

59. Denial of November SNAP benefits “entirely ‘pretextual;’” an example of “unjustifiable partisanship”

60. Habeas Cases

Chapter 3. Court Findings of “Arbitrary and Capricious” Administrative Action

Introduction

1. Judge Loren L. AliKhan (Biden appointee), National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00239 (D.D.C.)

2. Judge John D. Bates (Bush appointee), Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00322 (D.D.C.)

3. Judge Amir Ali (Biden appointee), AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State, 1:25-cv-00400 (D.D.C.)

4. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas (Biden appointee), State of New York v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01144 (S.D.N.Y.)

5. Judge William Haskell Alsup (Clinton appointee), American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Charles Ezell, 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.)

6. Judge Jamal N. Whitehead (Biden appointee), Pacito v. Trump, 2:25-cv-00255 (W.D. Wash.)

7. Judge Angel Kelley (Biden appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, 1:25-cv-10338 (D. Mass.) consolidated with Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health, 1:25-cv-10340 (D. Mass.) and Association of American Universities, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-10346 (D. Mass.)

8. Judge John James McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of New York v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00039 (D.R.I.)

9. Judge Julie R. Rubin (Biden appointee), American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. Carter, 1:25-cv-00702 (D. Md.)

10. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander (Obama appointee), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.)

11. Judge Edward M. Chen (Obama appointee), National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-01766 (N.D. Cal.)

12. Judge Mary Susan McElroy (Trump appointee), State of Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-00121 (D.R.I.)

13. Judge Mary Susan McElroy (Trump appointee), Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-00097 (D.R.I.)

14. Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan (Obama appointee), Climate United Fund v. Citibank , 1:24-cv-00698 (D.D.C.) (and consolidated cases)

15. Judge Deborah L. Boardman (Biden appointee), State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service, 1:25-cv-01363 (D. Md.)

16. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Abramowitz v. Lake, 1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.) and Widakuswara v. Lake, 1:25-cv-01015 (D.D.C.) (related cases)

17. Judge William Horsley Orrick III (Obama appointee), City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.)

18. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Radio Free Asia v. United States, 1:25-cv-00907 (D.D.C.) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks v. United States, 1:25-cv-00966 (D.D.C.) (consolidated cases)

19. Judge Victoria Calvert (Biden appointee), Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi, 1:25-cv-01998 (N.D. Ga.)

20. Judge Jeffrey S. White (Bush appointee), Doe v. Trump, 4:25-cv-03140 (N.D. Cal.) (and related cases)

21. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of Rhode Island v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00128 (D.R.I.)

22. Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Obama appointee), Association of American Universities v. Department of Energy, 1:25-cv-10912 (D. Mass.)

23. Judge Paul L. Friedman (Clinton appointee), Southern Education Foundation v. United States Department of Education, 1:25-cv-01079 (D.D.C.)

24. Judge Myong J. Joun (Biden appointee), State of New York v. McMahon, 1:25-cv-10601 (D. Mass) and Somerville Public Schools v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10677 (D. Mass.) (consolidated cases)

25. Judge Leo Theordore Sorokin (Obama appointee), Schiff v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-10595 (D. Mass.)

26. Judge Lewis J. Liman (Trump appointee), Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy, 1:25-cv-01413 (S.D.N.Y.)

27. Judge Marsha J. Pechman (Clinton appointee) American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO v. Noem, 2:25-cv-00451 (W.D. Wa.)

28. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Kingdom v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00691 (D.D.C.)

29. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Trump appointee), Angelica S. v. Dept of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-01405 (D.D.C.)

30. Judge Denise Cote (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y)

31. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of California v. United States Department of Transportation, 1:25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.)

32. Judge Myong J. Joun (Biden appointee), Victim Rights Law Center v. United States Department of Education, 1:25-cv-11042 (D. Mass.)

33. Judge Edward Milton Chen (Obama appointee), San Francisco Unified School District v. AmeriCorps, a.k.a. the Corporation for National and Community Service, 3:25-cv-02425 (N.D. Cal.)

34. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation, 1:25-cv-11231 (D. Mass.)

35. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Open Technology Fund v. Kari Lake, 1:25-cv-00840 (D.D.C.)

36. Judge Leon Schydlower (Biden appointee), Valuta Corporation, Inc. v. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 3:25-cv-00191 (W.D. Tex.)

37. Judge Tana Lin (Biden appointee), State of Washington v. Dept. of Transport, 2:25-cv-00848 (W.D. Wash.)

38. Judge Melissa R. Dubose (Biden appointee), State of New York v. Kennedy, 1:25-cv-00196 (D.R.I.)

39. Judge Brian E. Murphy (Biden appointee), Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense, 1:25-cv-11740 (D. Mass.)

40. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), RFE/RL, Inc. v. Lake, 1:25-cv-00799 (D.D.C.)

41. Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden appointee), American Gateways v. U.S. Department for Justice, 1:25-cv-01370 (D.D.C.)

42. Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich (Trump appointee), Cabrera v. Department of Labor, 1:25-cv-01909 (D.D.C.)

43. Judge Trina L. Thompson, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.)

44. Judge Jia M. Cobb (Biden appointee), Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem, 1:25-cv-00872 (D.D.C.)

45. Judge G. Murray Snow (Bush appointee), Launch Alaska v. Department of Navy, Office of Naval Research, 3:25-cv-00141 (D. Ala.)

46. Judge Michael H. Simon (Obama appointee), Oregon Council for the Humanities v. United States DOGE Service, 3:25-cv-00829 (D. Or.)

47. Judge William E. Smith (Bush appointee), Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi, 1:25-cv-00279 (D.R.I.)

48. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Trump appointee), National Endowment for Democracy v. United States, 1:25-cv-00648 (D.D.C.)

49. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein (Carter appointee), King County v. Turner, 2:25-cv-00814 (W.D. Wash.)

50. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher (Trump appointee), American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education, 1:25-cv-00628 (D. Md.)

51. Judge Rita F. Lin (Biden appointee), Thakur v. Trump, 3:25-cv-04737 (N.D. Cal.)

52. Judge Kathleen Mary Williams (Obama Appointee), Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem, 1:25-cv-22896 (S.D. Fla.)

53. Judge Brendan Abell Hurson (Biden appointee), City of Columbus v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 1:25-cv-02114 (D. Md.)

54. Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Obama appointee), President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-11048 (D. Mass.) and American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter v. United States Department Of Justice, 1:25-cv-10910 (D. Mass.) (related cases)

55. Judge William E. Smith (W. Bush appointee), Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts, 1:25-cv-00079 (D.R.I.)

56. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Revolution Wind, LLC v. Burgum, 1:25-cv-02999 (D.D.C.)

57. Judge William E. Smith (Bush appointee), State of Illinois. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1:25-cv-00206 (D.R.I.)

58. Judge William G. Young (Reagan appointee), American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, 1:25-cv-10685 (D. Mass.)

59. Judge Ann Aiken (Clinton appointee), State of Washington v. Health and Human Services, 6:25-cv-01748 (D. Or.)

60. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson (Biden appointee), State of Washington v. United States Department of Education, 2:25-cv-01228 (W.D. Wash.)

61. Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.) (related cases)

62. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.)

63. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (Clinton appointee), State of New York v. Noem, 1:25-cv-08106 (S.D.N.Y.)

64. Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. (Biden appointee), Rios v. Noem, 3:25-cv-02866 (S.D. Cal.)

65. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass.)

66. Judge Jon S. Tigar (Obama appointee), Housing Authority of the County of San Diego v. Turner, 4:25-cv-08859 (N.D. Cal.)

67. Judge Eric Komitee (Trump appointee), A.C.R. v. Noem, 1:25-cv-03962 (E.D.N.Y)

68. Judge Katherine Polk Failla (Obama appointee), Doe v. Noem, 1:25-cv-08686 (S.D.N.Y)

Introduction

The “presumption of regularity” is a judicially created doctrine with a long and contested history. The doctrine affords the executive branch a distinctive advantage not enjoyed by private litigants.^[1] It generally instructs courts to presume, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that executive officials have “properly discharged their official duties” and that government agencies have acted with procedural regularity and with bona fide, non-pretextual reasons. In practice, the presumption can preclude discovery, limit review of the facts, and truncate cases. It can constrict (or even end) civil suits challenging government action and curb criminal defendants’ ability to claim vindictive or selective prosecution, and more.

Over the decades, the scope and weight of the presumption has fluctuated. In the face of extraordinary executive misconduct or malfeasance, courts may choose (explicitly or implicitly) to narrow its scope, reduce its weight, or even potentially deem the presumption more generally forfeited, as the Trump administration is beginning to learn. Indeed, Judge Paul L. Friedman cautioned in an August 2025 opinion:

“Generations of presidential administrations and public officials have validated this underlying premise of the presumption of regularity: their actions writ large have raised little question that they act ‘in obedience to [their] duty.’ Over the last six months, however, courts have seen instance after instance of departures from this tradition. … In just six months, the President of the United States may have forfeited the right to such a presumption of regularity.” (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court itself showed the limits of the presumption during the first Trump administration upon learning that the Commerce Department had “contrived” a false rationale for reinstating the citizenship question in the national census. In Department of Commerce v. New York, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “[W]e cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given. Our review is deferential, but we are ‘not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’” That move was to the chagrin of Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued that the majority had given “lipservice” to the principle that “courts reviewing agency action owe the Executive a ‘presumption of regularity.’” We document three categories of executive branch conduct since Jan. 20, 2025 that, in Judge Friedman’s words, showed to courts “instance after instance of departures from this tradition” of public officials acting “in obedience to [their] duty.” The three categories are:

On this record, we believe more federal judges will rightfully conclude that the administration has forfeited the full protections of the presumption.

Indeed, Judge Friedman is not alone in his observations. Denying a government bid to indefinitely seal a judicial order, Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui recently responded to the government’s request for deference in sharp terms. Recounting a list of concerns across different cases in the federal courts and aberrant behavior by the Justice Department, the judge wrote: “Blind deference to the government? That is no longer a thing. Trust that had been earned over generations has been lost in weeks. … These norms being broken must have consequences. High deference is out; trust, but verify is in” (emphasis added). Other judges have raised similar concerns about the viability of the presumption in the cases before them. At a July hearing in the Abrego Garcia case, Judge Paula Xinis told government counsel, “You have taken the presumption of regularity and you’ve destroyed it in my view.” In litigation over the administration’s efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote, “the Court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything.” Concerning an executive order against a law firm, Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote that the government’s noncompliance with a temporary restraining order “raised some concern about the general presumption by courts ‘that executive officials will act in good faith.’” And when reviewing the rescission of government funds to small businesses and nonprofits, Judge Loren L. AliKhan wrote, “Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations.”

Before turning to the three categories of executive conduct, we should mention three methodological notes about our research:

1. Our account includes only government conduct that has come to the courts’ direct attention. We do not include internal executive branch actions that may also suggest the administration has undercut the premise for applying the presumption. We considered including those as well, but we focus here instead on what the courts themselves have found. Nor did we want to reinvent the wheel: a separate Tracker comprehensively documents internal administrative changes that have undermined the executive branch’s capacity to identify and address official misconduct and systemic irregularities.

2. The three categories above do not capture all of the judiciary’s expressed concerns about the administration’s conduct; the record is even more overwhelming than the cases cataloged below. For example, we exclude judges’ concerns about Department of Justice conduct involving prosecutorial decisions that do not fit our three categories. In a September hearing, for instance, Judge Faruqui—a former federal prosecutor—criticized the government’s motion to dismiss charges against a defendant after a grand jury’s refusal to indict. In an accompanying order, the court questioned whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. was still following the DOJ Manual on when to initiate a prosecution, “[g]iven that there have been an unprecedented number of cases that the U.S. Attorney dismissed in the past ten days.” The court added, “It’s not fair to say they’re losing credibility. We’re past that now. … There’s no credibility left.”

3. We take no position on the presumption’s proper scope in ordinary circumstances. The documented cases below are not intended to indicate when we think courts should apply the presumption. Well before the Trump administration, the metes and bounds of the presumption were unsettled, and its pedigree was ripe for being questioned. Some scholars trace the presumption back to the 1926 Supreme Court decision of United States v. Chemical Foundation, where the Justices presumed that a State Department official acted with knowledge of material facts when selling patents seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Paradoxically, the application of the presumption in that case worked against the Coolidge administration, which had sought to invalidate the sale as “induced by misrepresentation.” What’s more, the Court did not explain why it was appropriate to presume the regularity of a process the government itself said was irregular.

Other scholars and courts trace the presumption further back to Martin v. Mott. In that 1827 case, the Supreme Court accorded deference to the president’s determination that an “invasion” existed in calling the New York militia into federal service during the War of 1812. If the presumption belongs to that lineage of judicial deference, our study has broader implications. However, we have reason to doubt the two forms of deference – the one in Mott and the one in Chemical Foundation – are doctrinally equivalent.

In other words, we do not attempt to resolve how far back to trace the doctrine’s origins, the doctrine’s appropriate scope, or whether it has seeped into judicial decisions in underexamined or unwarranted ways. Such an analysis would need to contend, among other things, with the logical foundations of the doctrine and to which types of government actions those foundations are applicable as well as whether a president should enjoy a presumption that his or her subordinates do not.

* * *

In sum, the presumption of regularity “credits to the executive branch certain facts about what happened and why and, in doing so, narrows judicial scrutiny and widens executive discretion over decisionmaking processes and outcomes,” as an influential Harvard Law Review Note explained. But the maintenance of the presumption rests on certain foundations, and those foundations have been eroded by the Trump administration, especially the Justice Department, in the following three ways.

Chapter 1. Court Concerns of Noncompliance with Judicial Orders

Introduction

According to a foundational Supreme Court judgment, the presumption of regularity assumes that executive officials have “properly discharged their official duties.” In a landmark D.C. Circuit decision this meant, “We [the Court] cannot allow a breach of the presumption of regularity by an unwarranted assumption that the President was indifferent to the purposes and requirements of the [statute], or acted deliberately in contravention of them” (emphasis added). Insofar as the presumption rests on such considerations – i.e., that the Executive is “following the rules” – then the cardinal duty of complying with court orders is a potential test case.

The executive branch’s flagrant noncompliance with court orders may, and indeed has already, undermined judicial support for the presumption. In this Chapter, we document 26 cases in which courts have found the Executive in noncompliance with judicial orders—ranging from willful disobedience and rebranding of enjoined conduct to flagrantly slow-walking compliance, missing or ignoring court-imposed deadlines, and refusing to provide court-ordered information—often prompting show-cause orders and contempt warnings.

1. “Bad faith” conduct and “gleeful” boasts culminate in “willful” disobedience and probable cause for criminal contempt

Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (W. Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)

This class action challenged the Trump administration’s mid-March removals of Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador under the claimed authority of the Alien Enemies Act.

Following his Mar. 15 temporary restraining orders barring transfers to El Salvador and requiring the return of flights that had not deboarded in El Salvador, at an Apr. 3 show-cause hearing, Judge Boasberg said there was “a fair likelihood … the government acted in bad faith throughout that day,” questioning how officials could have “ever … operated in the way [they] did” if they believed their conduct lawful.

In his Apr. 16 memorandum opinion, Judge Boasberg formally found probable cause of criminal contempt, holding that the administration “willfully disobeyed a binding judicial decree.” He described a pattern of “increasing obstructionism” and an effort to “outrun the equitable reach of the Judiciary” by launching removal flights even during a hearing. He wrote that officials had “deliberately flouted this Court’s written Order and, separately, its oral command,” conduct amounting to “deliberate or reckless disregard” and a “willful disregard” of binding orders. The opinion also pointed to “boasts” by government officials outside the courtroom, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s repost of El Salvador President Bukele’s mocking post, “Oopsie… Too late ,” as evidence that defiance was “deliberate[ ] and gleeful[ ].” Emphasizing that the government had “ample opportunity to rectify or explain” but instead “chose to press ahead,” the court concluded there was probable cause for criminal contempt.

Update 1 (Nov. 20, 2025):

After an Aug. 8 divided D.C. Circuit panel granted the government’s mandamus petition and vacated Judge Boasberg’s Apr. 16 contempt order, the full D.C. Circuit on Nov. 14 denied rehearing en banc. Several judges, however, wrote separately criticizing the panel’s grant of mandamus and stressing that the ruling carries no precedential effect. In total, six of the court’s eleven judges (three dissenting and three writing separately while concurring in the result) suggested that they believe the panel majority erred, while also emphasizing that nothing in the panel’s order prevents Judge Boasberg from renewing his efforts to identify the responsible officials and determining whether to pursue criminal contempt. (See further commentary on the rehearing denial and its implications here.)

On Nov. 17, Judge Boasberg ordered the parties to be prepared “to discuss next steps in this Court’s contempt inquiry” at a Nov. 19 hearing already scheduled on the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and class-certification. During the Nov. 19 hearing, Judge Boasberg reportedly said he will move “promptly” with his contempt inquiry and that he intends to hear from witnesses under oath including whistleblower and former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, as well as from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign—who represented DOJ at the Mar. 15 TRO hearing—during proceedings that could begin as early as Dec. 1. The court stated, “Justice requires me to move promptly on this.”

2-a. Post-Supreme Court reporting orders met with non-answers and failures to comply

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

This case involves the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

On Apr. 10, the Supreme Court affirmed Judge Xinis’ preliminary injunction to “‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” The Justices also wrote that the government “should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”

That same day, Judge Xinis first ordered the government to report by 9:30 a.m. on Apr. 11 what steps it was taking to secure Garcia’s return. DOJ responded that the deadline was “impracticable” and sought until Apr. 15. Rejecting that position, Xinis wrote that the claim DOJ needed days to review a four-page order “blinks at reality” and reset the deadline to 11:30 a.m. DOJ again refused, stating it was “not in a position where they ‘can’ share any information requested by the Court. That is the reality.” At an Apr. 11 status conference, DOJ counsel admitted he lacked “personal knowledge of steps taken to comply,” could not answer the “very simple question … where is he?,” and offered no description of concrete steps. Judge Xinis replied that this suggested counsel had “no full and effective contact with your client,” which was “just not adding up.” In a written order later that day, Judge Xinis found DOJ had “failed to comply” with her instructions and would not answer “straightforward questions” (emphasis added).

2-b. Expedited discovery ordered “in the face of ongoing refusal to comply,” with possible contempt proceedings reserved pending the record

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

The case involved the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

At the Apr. 15 status conference, Judge Xinis explained she would not initiate contempt proceedings without a fuller record, stating: “I’m not going to issue a show cause today for contempt findings,” but any contempt finding “will be based on the record before me.” She ordered expedited discovery “to determine whether you are abiding by the court order … whether you intend to abide … And if not, is it in bad faith?” She also underscored the lack of concrete action: “I’ve gotten nothing. I’ve gotten no real response, nor have I gotten any legitimate legal justification for not answering,” and “what the record shows is nothing has been done. Nothing.” She added, “I just don’t think it’s that difficult. I think you want to make it that difficult.” That same day, Judge Xinis wrote that “Defendants … have done nothing at all;” she rejected efforts to “skirt this issue by redefining ‘facilitate;’” and found a “uniform refusal to disclose ‘what it can’” along with a “repeated refusal to provide even the most basic information.” She concluded. “Defendants have not yet complied with this Court’s directives” and ordered expedited discovery—depositions of ICE, DHS, and State officials and document production by month’s end.

On the same day, the court ordered expedited discovery. Judge Xinis wrote: [1] “Defendants therefore remain obligated, at a minimum, to take the steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and resuming his status quo ante. But the record reflects that Defendants have done nothing at all” (emphasis added). [2] “Second, and more fundamentally, Defendants appear to have done nothing to aid in Abrego Garcia’s release from custody and return to the United States to ‘ensure that his case is handled as it would have been’ but for Defendants’ wrongful expulsion of him. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.— , slip op. at 2. Thus, Defendants’ attempt to skirt this issue by redefining ‘facilitate’ runs contrary to law and logic” (emphasis added). [3] “[T]he discovery is necessary in light of Defendants’ uniform refusal to disclose ‘what it can’ regarding their facilitation of Abrego Garcia’s release and return to the status quo ante, or present any legal justification for what they cannot disclose” and “in the face of ongoing refusal to comply” (emphasis added).

2-c. “Willful and bad faith refusal” to comply with expedited discovery obligations, with DOJ “counsel stubbornly refus[ing] to provide any basis for” “non-particularized” privilege claims

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

The case involved the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

On Apr. 22, addressing DOJ’s objections to discovery, Judge Xinis wrote that its position “reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations” (emphasis added). She found that “Defendants and counsel stubbornly refuse to provide any basis for” their privilege claims—which she said were being used “as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders”—and that they relied on “boilerplate, non-particularized objections” which the court deemed “presumptively invalid” and “reflect a willful refusal to comply.” Their refusal to identify all individuals involved in Garcia’s removal and detention, she added, “reflects a deliberate evasion of their fundamental discovery obligations” and “can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance” (emphasis added).

On May 7, the court ordered the government to file a privilege log by May 12. On May 13, Judge Xinis noted that “evidently missing from Defendants’ filing is a privilege log,” directed the government to cure the “deficiency,” and warned that continued failure “will be construed as an intentional refusal to comply with this Court’s orders.” During the May 16 hearing on discovery motions, Judge Xinis underscored that “this Court has found more than once that you haven’t complied, and you haven’t in bad faith,” adding, “The whole reason we’re here is because I’ve said repeatedly you’ve done nothing, and now you tell the world you’re not going to do anything.” She further remarked that the court-ordered depositions from key officials had yielded a “goose egg.”

2-d. Return from El Salvador achieved, but “no appetite” to restore “status quo ante,” with “defiance and foot-dragging” warranting further relief

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

This case involves the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

Despite Garcia’s Jun. 6 return to the United States, during a Jul. 7 hearing, Judge Xinis refused to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case, pressed DOJ about whether the indictment and return were used to facilitate compliance with her injunction, and highlighted unresolved production gaps (including the missing arrest warrant) and incomplete compliance with her orders. In a Jul. 23 order granting emergency relief to require Garcia’s return to Maryland pending further proceedings, she noted that, over the prior three months, the government had “disregarded court orders,” displayed “defiance and foot-dragging,” and a “persistent lack of transparency,” warranting further injunctive relief. She found that, despite the first part of her April 4 preliminary injunction (to facilitate Garcia’s release from El Salvador) having been met, the government had shown “no appetite” to fulfill the second part of the injunction—“to restore Abrego Garcia to the status quo ante.” Garcia remained in U.S. Marshals’ custody in Tennessee with an ICE detainer, and the court “shared Plaintiffs’ ongoing concern” that, “absent meaningful safeguards,” he could be removed again “without having restored him to the status quo ante.” Judge Xinis maintained that she would “not hesitate to revisit” broader relief “if Defendants fail to comply with this Order or otherwise attempt to remove Abrego Garcia … without due process.”

2-e. Government “not so subtly spurns” court orders; “respect … must be reciprocated,” or “anarchy would result”

Judge Stephanie Thacker (Obama appointee), Judge Robert King (Clinton appointee), Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (Reagan appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1404 (4th Cir.)

Appeal from the district court’s Apr. 10 order directing the government to “take all available steps to facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and to report on steps taken.

On Apr. 17, the Fourth Circuit (Wilkinson, joined by King & Thacker) denied the government’s emergency stay and mandamus, stressing that “‘facilitate’ is an active verb” and that the word’s “plain and active meaning … cannot be diluted” as the government urged. Judge Wilkinson wrote that “‘[f]acilitation’ does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation … in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns.” It warned that “if today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens … ?” Emphasizing comity, the Judge Wilkinson added:

“The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.” (emphasis added).

Recalling President Eisenhower’s example—his insistence that the Executive must support and ensure enforcement of federal court decisions—Judge Wilkinson quoted: “unless the President did so, anarchy would result.”

3. Government took actions that “hardly appeared to comply with the TRO Order and raised some concern about the general presumption by courts ‘that executive officials will act in good faith.’”

Judge Beryl A. Howell (Obama appointee), Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C.)

Challenge to Executive Order 14230 directing federal agencies to take actions against Perkins Coie, including terminating government contracts, denying members of the firm access to federal employees, and suspending employees’ security clearances.

In an Apr. 25 memorandum and order, inter alia, granting leave to amend the complaint, Judge Howell addressed two compliance problems with her Mar. 12 temporary restraining order (TRO). First, the government’s March 18 status report showed agencies were told to suspend EO 14230 §§1, 3, and 5, but were not directed to notify “every recipient” that disclosure requests under §3(a) were rescinded—leaving requests by agencies beyond the seven named defendants “in place notwithstanding the Court’s explicit TRO direction to all defendants—which included the United States, as defined in the Complaint.” As Judge Howell put it:

“[T]he government has already raised the specter that the current configuration of named defendants… may lead to … those agencies not named as defendants [to] claim to be free to ignore it. …. This scenario … would open the door to a game of judicial whack-a-mole, requiring … contested contempt proceedings against non-compliant agencies. … This is not the first instance in this case that has raised the potential specter of noncompliance, which has only crystallized the seriousness of the issues raised. … Luckily, forewarned is forearmed.” (emphasis added).

Second, the government’s March 20 status report attached a Bondi/Vought memorandum that added an extra two-sentence paragraph repeating the EO’s “dishonest and dangerous” accusation—language whose “implementation and use of which had specifically been enjoined by the TRO.” Judge Howell wrote:

“This intentional additional promulgation of derogatory statements about plaintiff across all the Executive branch agencies hardly appeared to comply with the TRO Order and raised some concern about the general presumption by courts ‘that executive officials will act in good faith.’ … As government’s counsel reluctantly conceded … the extra paragraph …. went ‘beyond the minimum required’ for compliance with the Court’s order clarifying the scope of the TRO.” (emphasis added).

4. “Clearly hasn’t complied” with court order, culminating in a looming contempt finding

Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Abramowitz v. Lake, 1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.) and Widakuswara v. Lake, 1:25-cv-01015 (D.D.C.) (related cases)

These related cases challenged the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and shut down Voice of America (VOA) and its grantee networks pursuant to Executive Order 14238, which eliminated agency functions and ordered personnel reductions.

Following an Apr. 22 preliminary injunction, Judge Lamberth repeatedly found government failures to comply with his orders to restore VOA programming, giving defendants multiple opportunities across June to August to show good-faith compliance. At a Jun. 23 hearing, he “expressed … dissatisfaction with the lack of concrete evidence regarding VOA’s current operations or future plans,” and two further rounds of supplemental briefing remained conclusory and non-responsive. On Jul. 30, Judge Lamberth granted the plaintiffs’ motion to show cause why the government was not in violation of court orders, finding the government had “consistently refused to give the Court the full story,” provided “misleading and contradictory information,” and even omitted from its filings the “monumental” decision to remove Michael Abramowitz as VOA Director. At an Aug. 25 hearing, the court concluded that USAGM acting CEO Kari Lake “clearly hasn’t complied with my order,” was “stonewall[ing]” the Court, and was “on the verge of contempt.” That same day, the court gave the government “one final opportunity” and ordered depositions of Lake, USAGM adviser Frank Wuco, and VOA’s Persian broadcasts director by Sept. 15.

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

After the Aug. 25 hearing—and before the court-ordered depositions—the government pressed ahead with its reduction in force (RIF) plans. Defendants notified unions “immediately following” the hearing of an impending RIF; on Aug. 28, President Trump issued an executive order stripping USAGM employees of collective-bargaining rights; on Aug. 29, USAGM terminated the AFGE/AFSCME collective-bargaining agreements (which required 60 days’ notice for a RIF); and that evening, USAGM sent RIF notices to more than 500 employees effective Sept. 30.

In response, on Sept. 8, plaintiffs filed a joint motion to enforce prong (3) of the PI and preserve the status quo by barring the RIF pending Judge Lamberth’s compliance determination. On Sept. 29, after depositions had taken place, Judge Lamberth heard the motion to enforce and later that day issued a memorandum order. While deferring his ruling pending another round of briefing, he suspended the announced RIFs in the meantime and delivered sharp criticism of the government’s “concerning disrespect [it has] shown toward the Court’s orders,” including “obfuscat[ing]” requests for information that “disregard for [the court’s] orders to produce information would more than support a trial on civil contempt” (emphasis added). He added: “[F]ollowing the ordered depositions … the Court no longer harbors any doubt that defendants lack a plan to comply with the preliminary injunction, and instead have been running out the clock on the fiscal year” (emphasis added). Although declining to pursue contempt sua sponte, Judge Lamberth stressed that this “should not be mistaken for lenience toward the defendants’ egregious erstwhile conduct” (emphasis added).

5. “No choice but to find that they were in violation;” “flagrant violation.”

Judge Brian E. Murphy (Biden appointee), D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676, (D. Mass.)

This case involved, inter alia, the removal of O.C.G., a Guatemalan national, to Mexico allegedly without a “meaningful opportunity” to raise a fear-of-torture claim.

On May 26, Judge Murphy wrote, “Twice, well-founded allegations of non-compliance or imminent non-compliance led this Court to amend or clarify the Preliminary Injunction.” First, the court described DHS’s attempts in late April to “evade this injunction by ceding control over non-citizens or the enforcement of its immigration responsibilities to … the Department of Defense” (emphasis added). Judge Murphy later found that DHS “rac[ed] to get [eight] class members onto a plane to unstable South Sudan, clearly in breach of the law and this Court’s order,” giving him “no choice but to find that they were in violation” of the Apr. 18 preliminary injunction, but “reserve[ing] ruling on whether such a violation warranted a finding of contempt” (emphasis added). Judge Murphy wrote that the government

“maintains that ambiguity in the phrase ‘meaningful opportunity’ precipitated this controversy. Indeed, when the Court issued the Preliminary Injunction, it declined to elaborate on what constitutes a ‘meaningful opportunity,’ preferring instead to let experience show through hard cases the finer points of what is required under the Due Process Clause. To be clear, this is not one of those hard cases. … [N]o reasonable interpretation of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction could endorse yesterday’s events.”

On May 26, Murphy said that it was “hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite lack of clarity as a means of evasion. … [I]t is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim.” In fact, Judge Murphy found the government’s conduct amounted to a “flagrant violation” of his injunction (emphasis added).

On Jun. 23, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s injunction. On Jul. 3, the Supreme Court issued a second order clarifying that its earlier order fully blocks all components of the district court’s injunction that had prevented the administration from removing immigrants to third countries without an opportunity to present their claims of potential torture.

6. After weeks of having to “wrangle the Government into compliance,” judge noted an apparent “blatant disregard” of the court’s order.

Judge Mary S. McElroy (Trump appointee), Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-00097 (D.R.I.)

This case involves a challenge to the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14154, requiring a pause on funding appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)

On Aug. 8, responding to plaintiffs’ fourth compliance report for the Apr. 15 preliminary injunction, Judge McElroy noted the court and parties “had to have four status conferences over the course of three subsequent weeks to wrangle the Government into compliance” (emphasis added). Despite government assurances that HUD had “resumed processing” Green and Resilient Retrofit Program (GRRP) awards “in the ordinary course,” plaintiffs alleged “$760 million … still inaccessible.” The Court warned: “At risk of understatement, that is serious. If no ‘Comprehensive’ funding under GRRP has been processed in the nearly four months since the injunction, the Court struggles to see how HUD’s inaction can be construed as anything other than a serious violation of the Court’s order, one that exhibits blatant disregard for it” (emphasis added). Directed to “explain itself,” HUD said on Aug. 13 that some GRRP streams had resumed and that “Comprehensive” awards awaited a rule amendment moving through clearance. At a status conference later that day, Judge McElroy reportedly “called out the government for appearing to ‘slow walk’ the release of the money,” and ordered biweekly status reports.

On Aug. 27, plaintiffs reported they had “seen no indication” HUD had resumed processing “Comprehensive” awards or made “any concrete progress,” calling the update “facially insufficient,” offering “little information” on steps or timing, and leaving “little basis to conclude that HUD is not slow-walking its compliance.” In a Sept. 10 status report, the plaintiffs stated they “still have seen no indication that Defendants have resumed processing Comprehensive awards under the GRRP;” and that “a date certain for complete compliance and a clear, comprehensive timeline would aid Plaintiffs and this Court in assuring HUD is not slow-walking its compliance.

7. “Dressing their RIF in new clothes, and that they are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals.”

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama appointee), National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, 1:25-cv-00381 (D.D.C.)

The case involved the Trump administration’s en masse removal of federal employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

On Mar. 28, Judge Jackson issued a preliminary injunction stating, in part, that the government (1) “shall not terminate any CFPB employee, except for cause related to the individual employee’s performance or conduct;” and (2) “shall not issue any notice of reduction-in-force [RIF] to any CFPB employee.”

On Apr. 11, the D.C. Circuit partially stayed the preliminary injunction and modified it to permit the termination and RIFs of employees who the government determined after “a particularized assessment, to be unnecessary to the performance of defendants’ statutory duties.”

Following the DC Circuit ruling, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau quickly issued RIF notices affecting roughly 80% of its workforce. On Apr. 17, the plaintiffs submitted an emergency motion to show cause why the government had not violated the modified preliminary injunction.

The following day, Judge Jackson noted the “scope and speed” of the government’s action, “the apparent lack of consultation with the heads of the statutorily mandated agency components involved, and the troubling description of the RIF meetings,” at which one meeting Chief Legal Officer Mark Paoletta allegedly said “all that mattered was the numbers.” Judge Jackson went on to say she had:

“significant grounds for concern that the defendants are not in compliance with its Order as it was refined by the Court of Appeals. While the Chief Legal Counsel has intoned the phrase ‘particularized assessment,’ there is reason to believe that the defendants simply spent the days immediately following the Circuit’s relaxation of the Order dressing their RIF in new clothes, and that they are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals.” (emphasis added).

While the government appealed, the D.C. Circuit on Apr. 28 sua spontereinstated the original preliminary injunction’s full ban on RIFs.

On Aug. 15, a divided D.C. Circuit panel vacated the preliminary injunction on jurisdictional and APA grounds.

8. Finding of noncompliance with a federal court order; FEMA’s “covert” rebranding of an indefinite freeze

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of New York v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00039 (D.R.I.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s indefinite halt on wind energy project approvals and its freeze on FEMA and other federal grant disbursements pursuant to a Jan. 27 Office of Management and Budget directive.

Following a temporary restraining order, the court found on Feb. 10 that FEMA had failed to comply with its “clear and unambiguous” order, granting plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and holding that the government “continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds” in violation of the TRO’s “plain text.” (The Feb. 10 ruling reportedly marked the first case in which the administration was formally found to have failed to comply with a federal court order.) Although a preliminary injunction issued on Mar. 6 superseded the TRO and rendered the second enforcement motion moot, Judge McConnell stressed that the plaintiffs’ “unrebutted” evidence—presented after a full hearing at which the government offered “no answer, no evidence, and no counter to the States’ extensive evidence of still frozen funds”—demonstrated “irreparable and continuing harm” and expressly barred the government from reinstating the freeze “under a different name or through other means.” On Mar. 24, the plaintiffs again alleged ongoing freezes across hundreds of FEMA grant programs, and on Apr. 4 the court granted enforcement of its preliminary injunction, finding FEMA’s “manual review” process “essentially impose[d] an indefinite categorical pause on payments,” and warning that the agency could not “covertly” reinstate the freeze, ordering full compliance with the “plain text” of the injunction.

9. Agencies “actions violate the Preliminary Injunction.”

Judge Rita F. Lin (Biden appointee), Thakur v. Trump, 3:25-cv-04737 (N.D. Cal.)

This case involves a class action challenging agencies’ en masse termination (and later “suspension”) of UC research grants through form letters lacking grant-specific reasons.

On Aug. 12, Judge Lin determined that “NSF’s actions violate the Preliminary Injunction” (emphasis added). The Jun. 23 injunction had prohibited the NSF and other agencies from “giving effect to any grant termination that results in the termination of funding” of members of the class where the termination was communicated by a notice that lacked a “grant-specific explanation” and consideration of the “reliance interests at stake.” Following the injunction, NSF acted (through two letters on July 31 and Aug. 1) to purportedly “suspend” hundreds of UCLA grants, stating that the “awards no longer effectuate program goals or agency priorities” and citing campus allegations of “race discrimination,” “antisemitism,” and “bias.”

Rejecting NSF’s claim that its actions were not barred by the injunction because it suspended, rather than terminated, the grants, Judge Lin held the “‘suspensions’ were terminations by another name” and amounted to “indefinite, en masse funding cuts … without providing any avenue for the researchers to restore their funding.” She added that her injunction was “not unclear. It is not necessary for the order to describe every possible label an Agency could use to describe a research grant funding cut.” Judge Lin found that the suspension letters “suffer from the same infirmities as the letters considered in” her initial injunction as they “fail to provide a ‘grant- specific explanation’ for why the award has been terminated“ and “[fail to] provide any grant-specific explanation of NSF’s consideration of the researchers’ reliance interests.”

Accordingly, the court vacated NSF’s suspensions and ordered NSF to restore the status quo and reinstate the grants.

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

On Sept. 22, Judge Lin issued a second preliminary injunction covering a separate class of researchers whose grants had been terminated, and directed defendants to file, by Sept. 29, a status report confirming full compliance or, if not feasible, explaining why and detailing steps taken to date. On Sept. 29, the government reported it could not comply before Oct. 10 because reinstating awards is a “complicated” process, prompting Judge Lin to direct a further update on NIH’s and DoD’s compliance and grant reinstatements by Oct. 10. On Oct. 1, defendants moved for a seven-day stay due to anticipated DOJ furloughs during the impending government shutdown; Judge Lin granted the motion on Oct. 3, extending the reinstatement deadline to Oct. 17.

10. Government action “violated this Court’s order staying Petitioner’s removal”

Judges Richard J. Sullivan (Trump appointee), Alison J. Nathan (Biden appointee) and Maria Araújo Kahn (Biden appointee), Melgar-Salmeron v. Bondi, 23-7792 (2d. Cir.)

This case involves an undocumented immigrant who was removed to El Salvador despite a court order barring his removal.

On April 17, 2025, the administration moved to expedite Melgar-Salmeron’s deportation case and removal. Petitioner moved for emergency relief and requested the government be enjoined from removing him, which the Second Circuit granted on May 7.

Despite the court order barring his removal, the petitioner was placed on a flight to El Salvador 28 minutes later, which the government stated the following day was due to an administrative error. On May 12, the Second Circuit ordered the government to provide details as to the circumstances of his removal. On June 24, the court ruled that the government must facilitate the Petitioner’s return from El Salvador as soon as possible. The Court explained that the Government acknowledged that they had transferred the Petitioner, an alleged MS-13 member, to El Slavador on May 7, 2025 in defiance of a court order and despite assurances given to the court due to a “a confluence of administrative errors” in the Government’s words. The government’s action was “improper because it violated this Court’s order staying Petitioner’s removal from the United States during the pendency of this matter before this Court,” the panel wrote.

11. Government counsel “make no attempt to offer any justification for their blatant lack of effort to comply;” and unrebutted claim that the government created a sui generis document as a “contrivance” to avert court ruling

Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher (Trump appointee) J.O.P. v. DHS, 8:19-cv-01944-SA (D. Md.)

Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory (Clinton recess appointee; W. Bush appointee) and Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin (Biden appointee), No. 25-1519 (Fourth Circuit)

This case involves an individual deported to El Salvador in alleged violation of a judicially-enforced agreement that prohibited unaccompanied minors’ removal from the United States prior to the final determination of their asylum claims.

On Apr. 23, Judge Gallagher ordered the government to facilitate the return to the United States of “Cristian,” a pseudonymous member of the class covered by the agreement who had been deported to El Salvador. At the time, Judge Gallagher wrote that “Defendants have provided no evidence, or even any specific allegations, as to how Cristian, or any other Class Member, poses a threat to public safety.” On May 1, the United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) produced an “Indicative Asylum Decision” asserting that, “if Cristian were returned to the United States, it would deny his asylum application based on (1) terrorist-related inadmissibility grounds . . . and (2) as a matter of discretion.” The Department of Justice presented the document to the court as demonstrating an “adjudication on the merits” that was the “precise relief” Cristian sought.

In a May 19 order denying the government’s motion for a stay of Gallagher’s order pending appeal, the Fourth Circuit noted that “the Indicative Asylum Decision—created five days after the district court’s facilitation order was issued—was not an authentic change in factual circumstances. Cristian contends that neither ‘USCIS regulation, policy, [n]or practice’ provides for ‘Indicative Asylum Decisions,’” and that the decision was “a ‘litigation-driven’ document—a ‘contrivance’ ‘created just for this case. The Government has no response to this charge—a deafening silence” (emphasis added).

On May 28, Judge Gallagher issued an order finding that Defendants’ had “utterly disregarded this Court’s May 20, 2025 Order” which required Defendants to provide a status report “on the steps they have taken to facilitate the return of Cristian to the United States” before May 27. Judge Gallagher found that Defendants’ untimely response “is the functional equivalent of, ‘we haven’t done anything and don’t intend to’” and said that the Defendants had also shown “zero effort to comply” with the Court’s April 23 Order. “Defendants not only ignore the requirements of this Court’s Orders, ECF 254, 280, but also make no attempt to offer any justification for their blatant lack of effort to comply,” the court wrote (emphasis added).

12. “No dispute Defendants are in breach” of court-approved settlement agreement, court also references “Defendants’ delay in curing that breach and complying with the Court’s June 10, 2025 Order.”

Judge Dana M. Sabraw (Bush appointee), Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 3:18-cv-00428 (S.D. Cal.)

This case involves non-compliance with a 2023 settlement made regarding a court case filed in 2018, during the first Trump administration, where the government agreed to provide reunification and other services to a class of plaintiff parents who were separated from their children at the southwest border of the United States.

On Apr. 23, members of the plaintiff class filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, alleging that the government had refused to renew the legal services contract associated with the 2023 settlement (which committed the government to “continue to contract with an independent contractor to . . . assist Ms. L. Settlement Class members and Qualifying Additional Family Members with necessary parole and employment authorization applications”). On June 10, Judge Sabraw granted the motion to enforce on June 10, granting “the remedy of specific performance in the form of a Court order requiring Defendants to reinstate their contract with Acacia to provide the services set out in the Settlement Agreement” and stating “there is no dispute Defendants are in breach.” On June 27, Judge Sabraw filed an order following a status conference that required defendants to “set out their position on whether the Court has authority to extend the term of the Settlement Agreement given Defendants’ decisions to cancel their contracts with the previous service providers (Acacia and Seneca), the Court’s finding that Defendants are in breach of the Settlement Agreement, and Defendants’ delay in curing that breach and complying with the Court’s June 10, 2025 Order.”

Defendants responded by filing a Rule 60(b) motion seeking temporary relief from the court order, while plaintiffs filed a motion for immediate interim relief on July 23 that stated: “During this time, Defendants have made no meaningful steps to comply with the Court’s order enforcing the Agreement. The Class has been without legal services for almost three months and Defendants in breach for as long.” Judge Sabraw denied defendants’ motion on July 24, while simultaneously granting an additional motion to enforce (“Defendants did not comply with the Court’s order to reinstate the task order with Acacia.”).

In an Aug. 20 joint status report, plaintiffs stated that: “Defendants intend to impose new limitations on Acacia’s provision of legal services that are inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement. Under its previous contract, Acacia accepted referrals for legal services of pro bono screenings from any source… The new contract, however, requires that Acacia accept new referrals only from the Executive Office for Immigration Review.” On Aug. 22, Judge Sabraw found such conditions “contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Settlement Agreement and this Court’s June 10, 2025 Order granting Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to enforce that Agreement” and ordered that they “should not be part of the parties’ ongoing negotiations.”

The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, with briefing scheduled to begin on Nov. 18.

13. “[I]t appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous.”

Judge Loren L. AliKhan (Biden appointee), National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00239 (D.D.C.)

This case involves OMB’s memo requiring federal agencies to pause any activities related to President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

On Jan. 28, the court granted an administrative stay: “During the pendency of the stay, Defendants shall refrain from implementing OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards.”

On Feb. 3, Judge AliKhan granted a temporary restraining order on the memo’s implementation, stating:

“For Defendants to innocently claim that OMB’s poststay actions were merely a noble attempt to ‘end[] confusion,’ strains credulity. By rescinding the memorandum that announced the freeze, but ‘NOT . . . the federal funding freeze’ itself, it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous. Preventing a defendant from evading judicial review under such false pretenses is precisely why the voluntary cessation doctrine exists. The rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

14. Defendants “have not complied with the … TRO,” efforts to “evade [the preliminary injunction’s] terms through post-hoc explanations.”

Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden appointee) AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. USAID, 1:25-cv-00400 (D.D.C.) and Global Health Council v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00402 (D.D.C.) (related cases)

These two cases involve challenges to the Trump administration’s suspension of USAID funding.

On Feb. 20 Judge Ali granted in part the plaintiffs’ emergency motion to enforce the temporary restraining order “to the extent Defendants have not complied with the terms of the TRO,” namely, by “continu[ing] their blanket suspension of funds pending review of agreements, the very action that the TRO enjoined” and by seeking to “search for and invoke new legal authorities as a post-hoc rationalization for the en masse suspension” or to “replace their earlier implementations with ‘other directives’ to ‘suspend[], paus[e], or otherwise prevent[] the obligation or disbursement of appropriated foreign-assistance funds’” (emphasis added). The court did not make a finding of contempt, as requested by the plaintiffs, citing “Defendants’ explicit recognition that ‘prompt compliance with the order’ is required.”

On Feb. 24, plaintiffs in Global Health Council v. Trumpfiled a renewed emergency motion to enforce the TRO. At the close of the Feb. 25 hearing, Judge Ali granted the motion and adopted plaintiffs’ proposed relief, ordering by 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 26 that defendants “pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests” for work completed before the Feb. 13 TRO; “permit and promptly pay” drawdowns and reimbursements on grants and assistance agreements; and “take no actions to impede” and “take all necessary action to ensure the prompt payment of appropriated foreign assistance funds.” The court also required that the joint status report due noon on Feb. 26 confirm steps taken and that disbursements would be made by 11:59 p.m. that day, and directed defendants to provide by noon any “directives or guidance” sent since Feb. 13 concerning TRO implementation or suspensions/terminations. Noting that the record showed payments remained frozen, the court observed: “Defendants have not rebutted that evidence, and when asked today, defendants were not able to provide any specific examples of unfreezing funds pursuant to the Court’s TRO” (emphasis added).

On Jul. 21, following a Mar. 10 preliminary injunction—which ordered the government not to withhold payment for work performed before Feb. 13—the court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce. “The Court’s preliminary injunction did not include any exception for Defendants to evade its terms through post hoc explanations for terminations, and the Court has previously rejected similar attempts by Defendants,” Judge Ali said, adding that the government “must promptly take steps to come into compliance as to the awards at issue.” It otherwise denied or deferred further relief pending the D.C. Circuit’s decision of the government’s appeal.

15. “Manifestly unreasonable” and “contrived” reading of injunction, “border[ing] on violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)” and “deserving of … reprimands”

Judge Lauren King (Biden appointee), State of Washington v. Trump, 2:25-cv-00244 (W.D. Wash.)

This case involves several states suing to enjoin an Executive Order directing agencies to cut off federal research and education grants to medical institutions, including hospitals and medical schools, that provide gender-affirming care.

On Feb. 28, Judge King granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, except as to a small Section 8(a) of the Executive Order.

On Mar, 6, plaintiffs submitted a motion to hold defendants in contempt of court, alleging that the government tried to circumvent the preliminary injunction by falsely claiming actions taken to withhold funding under the enjoined EOs were actually taken pursuant to other policies.

On Mar. 17, Judge King denied plaintiffs’ motion for contempt, granted expedited discovery on the question of whether the actions were taken pursuant to the enjoined EOs, and criticized the government for its “unreasonable interpretation of the Court’s orders.” He wrote:

“The Court first addresses Defendants’ unreasonable interpretation of the Court’s orders. Defendants argue that the Court ‘enjoined enforcement of Sections 3(e) or 3(g) of the [Gender Ideology] EO only as to “gender-affirming care” as that term is used in the [Medical Services] EO’—i.e., only as to the four Listed Services. This interpretation borders on violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). … Despite Defendants’ contrived arguments to the contrary, … it is clear from the Court’s preliminary injunction order that “gender-affirming care” includes all [various forms of gender-affirming set out in the preliminary injunction]. … In sum, it was manifestly unreasonable for Defendants to ‘understand this Court’s enjoinment of Section[s] 3[(e) and (g)] of the [Gender Ideology] EO . . . to exclude . . . care other than the Listed Services.’ …

Defendants also adopt an unreasonably narrow and self-serving view of what constitutes ‘care,’ arguing that research studies categorically cannot include the provision of care. Such an interpretation appears to be deliberately ignorant: it is common knowledge that research studies frequently involve patient care. …

Defendants’ unreasonable and self-serving interpretation of the Court’s orders is certainly deserving of the above reprimands, as well as a warning that the Court may impose sanctions for any future violations of Rule 11, other Federal Rules, the Local Civil Rules, or its orders. The Court further orders counsel for Defendants to correct their unreasonable interpretation of the Court’s orders.” (emphasis added).

Granting expedited discovery, the court said, “NIH’s communications have raised substantial questions regarding whether the March 4, 2025 federal funding revocation occurred as part of enforcement of the Gender Ideology EO in contravention of the Court’s preliminary injunction.” But finding enough had not been presented to establish contempt, the court said, the “evidence raises the possibility that the March 4 revocation of grant funding was effected pursuant [the EO] for an enjoined purpose. But a mere possibility that an action violates a court order is not enough to establish contempt.”

On April 30, plaintiffs moved to compel discovery and catalogued evidence of alleged noncompliance, but by then NIH had already reinstated the terminated grant on Mar. 27, after the court authorized expedited discovery; defendants argued that reinstatement rendered the contempt-related discovery moot. On June 16, the court agreed and denied the motion to compel as moot, adding that plaintiffs’ fallback request for monetary contempt sanctions could not keep the issue live because sovereign immunity bars such awards absent an express waiver.

16. Government at “risk [of] being held in contempt” for disregard of discovery orders, and later “failed to comply” with submitting declaration.

Judge Edward M. Chen (Obama appointee), National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-01766 (N.D. Cal.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s decision to terminate temporary protected status for Venezuelans in the United States.

On May 19, Judge Chen warned the government it was at “risk [of] being held in contempt” due to their disregard for the court’s discovery orders. He wrote:

“To be clear, the Court’s discovery order requiring production today still stands. Defendants are expected to comply with that order unless and until the Court rules otherwise. The Supreme Court’s decision stayed the Court’s postponement order but did not stay the litigation on the merits. Defendants risk being held in contempt of Court if they do not comply with the Court’s discovery order.” (emphasis added).

On May 29, 2025, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion regarding alleged noncompliance with discovery orders. The court ordered the defendants to “immediately ask the 20 custodians at issue whether they used communication means outside of government email and OneDrive with respect to the TPS decisions (e.g., nongovernment email, text messaging, hard drive),” and further required that “[b]y 6/3/2025, the government shall file a declaration(s) from a person(s) with personal knowledge certifying that the inquiry was made and what the responses of each of the custodians were.” On June 4, the plaintiffs filed a notice of noncompliance with the court’s order to file declarations by June 3. On June 5, the Court ordered that the “government has failed to comply with the Court’s order and has not given a specific date by which it will comply. The Court orders the government to provide the declaration previously ordered by today, June 5” (emphasis added).

Note: Similar to National TPS Alliance v. Noem, in other cases courts have found the government did not comply with judicial orders to submit filings or other documents. See, e.g., Judge Timothy J. Kelly (Trump appointee), OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates v, Rubio, 1:25-cv-00287 (D.D.C.) (Minute order stating that “Defendants’ continuing inexplicable failure to comply with the Court’s 6 Standing Order, Defendants have not shown good cause for a further extension” (emphasis added)). Updates of new cases (nos. 17-20):

17. Federalizing California and Texas Guard to Portland constituted “direct contravention” and “apparent violation of the First TRO;” judge “deeply troubled” and “not inclined” to accept excuses; no contempt finding but the court “retains jurisdiction”

Judge Karin J. Immergut (Trump appointee), State of Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.)

This case challenges Secretary Hegseth’s Sept. 28 memorandum (“Hegseth Memorandum”) authorizing the federalization and deployment of National Guard forces to Portland (Memorandum citing President Trump’s Jun. 7 memorandum invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to authorize nationwide Guard mobilization).

On Oct. 4, Judge Immergut granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoined the Hegseth Memorandum for 14 days, finding the federal government likely lacked authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize Oregon National Guard members and that the action likely violated the Tenth Amendment. The federal government filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit the same day. In the early hours of Oct. 5, the Defense Department deployed federalized California National Guard personnel to Portland and began deploying Texas National Guard to Portland as well, prompting plaintiffs to move for a second TRO to preserve the status quo and “prevent circumvention of the first TRO.”

At the Oct. 5 hearing on the motion, Judge Immergut said the government’s deployment of federalized Guard members “appear[s] to be in direct contravention” of the TRO (emphasis added). She reportedly reminded counsel repeatedly that he was an “officer of the court”—asking, “You are an officer of the court. Aren’t defendants circumventing my order?” The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a second TRO, stating that the federal government is “temporarily enjoined from deploying federalized members of the National Guard in Oregon.”

(On Oct. 8, the Ninth Circuit granted the government an administrative stay of Judge Immergut’s Oct. 4 TRO on the federalization of the Guard, but did not stay the district court’s orders on the deployment of the federalized Guard.) 

Update 2 (Nov. 20, 2025):

Before the bench trial began on Oct. 29, Justice Department lawyers acknowledged that nine Oregon National Guard troops had been deployed to the Portland ICE facility just hours before Judge Immergut issued her TRO—and fewer than 24 hours after the TRO hearing. The troops remained there for several hours before their duty ended. Judge Immergut reportedly told counsel: “We’ll discuss later whether that’s contempt and in direct violation of my TRO, but we’re moving on.” The next day, the judge pressed the issue saying, “The government deployed that very night, knowing that I told you I would issue an opinion as quickly as I could,” adding, “Does that not seem to be in bad faith?” (emphasis added). She reportedly questioned DOJ’s explanation that it “took time” to notify personnel, observing the administration’s rapid coordination elsewhere such as within hours of the TRO, DOD flew in 200 California National Guard and prepared to fly in Texas Guard if needed. “The point is that they could have gotten the message to the guardsmen if it was important,” she stated.

On Nov. 7, Judge Immergut issued a permanent injunction barring the government from federalizing and deploying Oregon’s National Guard, holding the plan was ultra vires under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and in violation of the Tenth Amendment. She further commented on the government’s non-compliance:

“Ordinarily, this Court would be inclined to accept Defendants’ explanation for their violation of the First TRO given that ‘the first shift’ at the Portland ICE facility commenced prior to this Court’s issuance of the First TRO. However, in light of the following facts, this Court is deeply troubled by Defendants’ continued deployment of Oregon National Guardsmen at the Portland ICE facility in violation of the First TRO. In the seven hours that Defendants took to ‘convey the message’ of the First TRO ‘to people on the ground,’ Defendants simultaneously ‘convey[ed] the message’ to the U.S. Army Northern Command to send 200 of the federalized California National Guard personnel in Los Angeles to Portland. … In other words, Defendants had time to order and coordinate the transport of federalized California National Guardsmen from Los Angeles to Portland but needed more time to communicate with the Oregon National Guardsmen at the Portland ICE facility.

This Court has not issued any finding of contempt based on Defendants’ apparent violation of the First TRO. However, this Court expects Defendants will provide further explanation when ordered to do so by this Court in the future, and this court retains jurisdiction over the issue.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

18. HHS termination letters to employees that “do not comply” with the preliminary injunction.

Judge William Haskell Alsup (Clinton appointee), American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Charles Ezell, 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.)

The case involved the government’s efforts to significantly reduce the federal workforce’s probationary employees via termination letters that criticized workers’ “performance.”

On Jul. 23, Judge Alsup addressed “two compliance concerns relating to the existing preliminary injunction.” The first involved the government’s alleged failure to act in compliance with the court’s Apr. 18 preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to provide proper notice to certain HHS probationary employees who had been terminated. Second, the court ruled that the agency’s letters that had been sent “do not comply with the terms of the preliminary injunction” because they were not individually directed to each affected employee. Judge Alsup directed the parties to work together to resolve these compliance issues and scheduled a status hearing for Aug. 28.

On Sept. 12, Judge Alsup granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs but did not order reinstatement of the terminated employees or otherwise resolve the compliance concerns raised in the Jul. 23 order.

19. ICE “unequivocally ceased compliance” with 2022 court-ordered Castañon Nava settlement agreement, committing “repeated, material violations;” and parties agreed government conduct was “violation of the terms of the Consent Decree”

Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings (Biden appointee), Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security, 1:18-cv-03757 (N.D. Ill.)

This class action challenges ICE’s warrantless-arrest practices, as part of “Operation Midway Blitz,” and seeks to enforce a court-ordered settlement (consent decree) requiring compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1357(a)(2)—including policy, training, and documentation obligations—within ICE’s Chicago Area of Responsibility.

Following a court-ordered settlement agreement (the Castañon Nava settlement) in Feb. 2022—requiring ICE to conduct warrantless arrests only in compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1357(a)(2) and to document the basis for those arrests—on Oct. 7, addressing the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, Judge Cummings held that while ICE had been in substantial compliance for two-and-a-half years, the agency “unequivocally ceased compliance” by Jun. 11, 2025—as reflected in ICE’s Principal Legal Advisor’s agency-wide email and ICE’s own concessions—and found “by a preponderance of the evidence” that ICE arrested “twenty-two out of the twenty-six” claimant class members without warrants in violation of the Castañon Nava settlement and §1357(a)(2).

Update 2 (Nov. 20, 2025):

At a Nov. 12 hearing, Judge Cummings ordered the government to begin releasing hundreds of detainees, temporarily barred removals for the 615 detainees at issue, and reportedly underscored: “There would be nothing for me to do if the arrests of the people here were done in accordance with the agreement,” adding, “but in the event that there are allegations that the people are arrested in violation of this consent decree, I will react and take appropriate actions.”

Judge Cummings followed up with a written order on Nov. 13. He noted that according to the parties’ Nov. 7 status reports, “the parties have agreed—after an examination of the pertinent arrest records—that 46 class members were arrested in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree and are thus entitled to relief under the Decree.” The court added that “the majority of these class members have already been removed from the United States … and only 13 of these class members remain in detention.” Invoking § V(B)(2) of the Castañon Nava settlement, Judge Cummings reiterated his prior finding: “The Court finds, as it has found previously, … that the 46 agreed upon violations of the Consent Decree … constitute ‘repeated, material violations’” (emphasis added). The court further observed that additional violations are likely to emerge:

“Given the number of instances where the parties have agreed that the rights of class members were violated, it stands to reason that a significant number of additional violations will be uncovered as plaintiffs receive and analyze the arrest records of the remaining arrestees” (emphasis added).

20. Government “ha[s] done precisely what the Memorandum and Order forbids;” “not a good faith effort to comply”

Judge William E. Smith (Bush appointee), State of Illinois. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1:25-cv-00206 (D.R.I.) The case involved a lawsuit by twenty states and the District of Columbia suing to block the administration’s effort to condition federal emergency funding on compliance with federal immigration enforcement policy.

On Sept. 24, Judge Smith granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction stopping DHS from enforcing immigration-related conditions to federal disaster grants and emergency management programs.

On Oct. 14, Judge Smith held that the administration violated the court’s permanent injunction by including the contested conditions in award letters for required acceptance by the recipient. The new language included a disclaimer saying, “[i]f the injunction is stayed, vacated, or extinguished, the [contested conditions] will immediately become effective.” Judge Smith wrote:

“Defendants have done precisely what the Memorandum and Order forbids, which is requiring Plaintiff States to agree to assist in federal immigration enforcement or else forgo the award of DHS grants. The fig leaf conditional nature of the requirement makes little difference. No matter how confident Defendants may be of their chances on appeal, at present, the contested conditions are unlawful. Plaintiff States therefore have a right to accept the awards without regard to the contested conditions. Defendants’ new condition is not a good faith effort to comply with the order; it is a ham-handed attempt to bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make at the risk of losing critical disaster and other funding already appropriated by Congress” (emphasis added).

21. “[P]rofoundly concerned” order on use of force in Chicago protests not being followed

Judge Sara L. Ellis (Obama appointee), Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, 1:25-cv-12173 (N.D. Ill.)

This case involves a challenge to federal agents’ use of force—including tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper balls—against protesters, religious practitioners, and journalists during immigration enforcement operations in Chicago, as part of “Operation Midway Blitz.”

Following a temporary restraining order issued on Oct. 9, which, inter alia, barred the use of tear gas and other riot control munitions against protesters, journalists, and religious practitioners not posing an immediate threat, and required that dispersal warnings be given before any such force was deployed, allegations emerged that ICE agents had continued to use tear gas without proper notice.

During an Oct. 16 hearing, Judge Ellis reportedly said she was “profoundly concerned” that federal agents might have violated her order. “At least from what I’m seeing, I’m having serious concerns that my order’s being followed,” Judge Ellis said from the bench, emphasizing, “I’m not happy. I’m really not happy.” (emphasis added). Also during the Oct. 16 hearing, as a way to monitor compliance with her TRO, Judge Ellis reportedly directed the government to file proposed modifications to reflect a body-worn camera requirement she planned to impose.

During an Oct. 17 hearing, responding to government pushback on the court’s requirement that body-worn cameras be used in certain circumstances, Judge Ellis reportedly said: “Maybe I wasn’t clear yesterday. That wasn’t a suggestion,” adding, “I am modifying the [TRO] to include body-worn cameras. … It’s not up for debate.” She reportedly added, “It wasn’t a hint. It was an order. So I will enter it today, and I will expect that it will be followed.” The court modified the TRO accordingly to require body-worn cameras in specified circumstances (the body camera requirement has several limitations: it applies only to immigration agents who already have cameras and have been trained to use them; undercover agents are exempt; and agents need not activate the cameras in certain places, including jails and ports of entry). The government was given until Oct. 24 to file its policies implementing the new directive.

At the Oct. 20 hearing, Judge Ellis said: “I have a few concerns that the TRO wasn’t being followed” (emphasis added). Judge Ellis did not rule immediately on the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the TRO, instead ordering that the matter be heard on Nov. 5 during the preliminary injunction hearing.

Following a Nov. 5 evidentiary hearing that included live testimony, Judge Ellis extended her Oct. 9 temporary restraining order on Nov. 6, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction from the bench. During her oral ruling, Judge Ellis reportedly said CBP Chief Gregory Bovino did not warn protestors in Little Village before he deployed tear gas, saying, “That happened after I entered the TRO.” (The court does not appear to have addressed the plaintiffs’ later motion that the government continues to violate the TRO and preliminary injunction.)

(On Nov. 19, a Seventh Circuit panel stayed Judge Ellis’s Nov. 6 preliminary injunction as “overbroad,” pending appeal; the order did not address her earlier TRO-compliance concerns.)

22. DHS “do not seem to have considered” the Court’s “prior rulings” in the TPS-termination case, leading to an “admonish[ment]” for re-asserting already-rejected privileges and for “glaring[ly]” “fail[ing] to make” the previously required showings.

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.)

This case involves a challenge to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s decisions terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain countries.

On Oct. 16, addressing the plaintiffs’ objections to the government’s attempts to withhold TPS-related documents under the deliberative-process and attorney-client privileges, Judge Kim ordered further disclosure and criticized the government for ignoring prior rulings. She wrote:

“This is not the first time the Undersigned has reviewed documents in camera to address the parties’ disputes over Defendants’ claimed privileges. Unfortunately, Defendants do not seem to have considered the Undersigned’s prior Orders in this case and in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, No. 25-cv-01766-EMC. For example, Defendants continue to claim documents dated after Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Kristi Noem’s decisions to deprive Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) holders from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua were made or that do not contain any opinions, recommendations, or advice. In the future, Defendants are admonished to consider the Undersigned’s prior rulings when determining whether to assert the attorney-client or the deliberate process privileges.” (emphasis added).

The court further noted:

“Defendants do not provide any analysis for balancing the factors and do not explain why the Plaintiffs’ need for the materials and the need for accurate fact-finding should not override Defendants’ interest in non-disclosure. In light of the Undersigned’s previous orders requiring the disclosure of similar materials, Defendants failure to make this showing is particularly glaring. Nor do Defendants do not address the Court’s prior determinations and, thus, make no effort to show how the documents currently before the Court for in camera review differ from those documents the Undersigned previously ordered disclosed.” (emphasis added).

On Oct. 21, clarifying her Oct. 16 order, Judge Kim wrote that

“[t]hat Order should not have been surprising to any party because it was in line with what the Court has previously ordered. At no point has the Court determined that any document may actually be withheld based on the deliberative process privilege.” (emphasis added).

After defendants sought de novo review of the magistrate judge’s order, the District Judge directed them to resubmit the challenged documents for another in camera review. On Oct. 31, the court found that while a few portions arguably contained deliberative material, the government had “[a]gain … fail[ed] to address” the balancing factors and had made no effort to show how these documents differed from the ones the court had previously ordered disclosed.

(After repeatedly seeking emergency relief from Magistrate Judge Kim’s privilege orders, the government’s third motion was denied and Judge Thompson affirmed Judge Kim’s rulings and ordered production of the documents.) 

23. Two DOJ prosecutors in Abrego Garcia criminal case “side-stepped” the court’s notify-your-client directive on extrajudicial statements

Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. (Obama appointee), United States v. Abrego Garcia, 3:25-cr-00115, (M.D. Tenn.)

This case involves the federal government’s criminal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia following his filing of a legal challenge to his removal to El Salvador.

On Jul. 31, after weeks of public statements by senior officials and DHS posts that the defense said risked tainting the jury pool, the court held that for those before it, compliance with LCrR 2.01(a)(1) and (a)(4) is “not discretionary,” and that “all counsel” must ensure any proper public communications state the indictment contains only allegations and that the defendant is presumed innocent. As relevant here: LCrR 2.01(a)(1) bars any extrajudicial statement likely to be disseminated that has a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding; LCrR 2.01(a)(2)(B) lists categories “more likely than not” to be prejudicial (e.g., prior record/character, plea talks, tests, witness credibility, expected evidence, the fact of charge without a presumption-of-innocence qualifier, opinions on guilt/evidence, and inadmissible information). And LCrR 2.01(a)(4) applies the rule to “law firm(s) and government agencies or offices, and the partners and employees of such firms, government agencies or offices.”

On Sept. 26, the court ordered each counsel of record to report what they had done to comply; the government’s counsel of record—U.S. Attorneys Robert E. McGuire and Jason M. Harley—first submitted a joint filing. The court construed that as McGuire’s report and directed Harley to file his own by Oct. 15; he did so on Oct. 15 .

On Oct. 27, ruling (see also here) on the defense motion for an order requiring DOJ and DHS officials to refrain from making prejudicial statements (ECF 118), the court granted relief to the extent that the government and its employees must comply with LCrR 2.01(a)(4). Judge Crenshaw ruled that “implicit in” subsection (a)(4) is counsel’s duty to notify their agencies of the (a)(1)–(2) restrictions, and that:

“It does not appear those agency employees have been notified by counsel of record about those employees’ obligation to adhere to the Local Rule. Mr. McGuire and Mr. Harley side-stepped the Court’s Order to report what they had done to comply with Local Rule 2.01(a)(4).” (emphasis added).

The court ordered McGuire and Harley to provide the order and memorandum to all DOJ and DHS employees within two days, including the Attorney General and the DHS Secretary, and those employees were put on notice of the prohibitions and potential sanctions.

24. USDA “undermined both the intent and the effectiveness” of two orders on November SNAP payments; judge was “not inclined to excuse this noncompliance”

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.)

This case involves a challenge to the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), allegedly as a result of the government shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025.

At an Oct. 31 virtual hearing, Judge McConnell granted the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, finding them substantially likely to succeed on their APA claim because USDA’s decision to withhold SNAP funding was “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious,” and ordering the agency to distribute funds “as soon as possible.” On Nov. 1, Judge McConnell issued a written TRO offering the government two compliance paths to address the irreparable harm the court had identified the day before—harm that “would occur if millions of people were forced to go without funds for food” during the funding lapse. Per the court’s order, first, the government could fully fund November SNAP by Nov. 3 using Section 32 and/or contingency funds—if not, the decision had to “be made in accordance with the APA” and not be “arbitrary or capricious.” Second, the government could use contingency funds to make a partial payment by Nov. 5, in which case the government had to “expeditiously resolve the administrative and clerical burdens” of doing so. The government chose the partial-payment option.

After reviewing the government’s status reports on compliance and considering the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the TRO and for a further TRO, Judge McConnell issued a Nov. 6 oral ruling from the bench granting the motion and ordering USDA to fully fund November SNAP benefits by Nov. 7. As to the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, Judge McConnell explained in a written order later that day, “The record is clear that the Defendants … neither” acted “expeditiously” in resolving the administrative burdens of making partial payments nor ensured that such payments were actually disbursed by Nov. 5. “Far from being expeditious, the record suggests quite the opposite. As of the date of this decision [Nov. 6], SNAP recipients still have not received their benefits,” Judge McConnell wrote, further rejecting the government’s assertion that there was nothing more it could do to act “expeditiously” as “carr[ying] no weight” (emphasis added). As the court described it:

“Even before this Court’s order was entered, the Defendants were fully aware of the delay and potential errors that such a partial payment would involve … [T]he Defendants ‘could have begun working to resolve the administrative hurdles once the lapse in appropriations occurred, or even before.’ … This plainly makes clear that this is a problem that could have been avoided. The Defendants knew that, at the time they chose Option 1, they would be prolonging implementation and frustrating the very purpose of the TRO … They instead proceeded, fully aware that Option 2 provided a faster and more practical means of compliance.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)

Judge McConnell observed that the President had “stated his intent to defy the Court’s order” on social media and found the government’s noncompliance inexcusable, emphasizing that “compliance is achieved when Americans are fed.” The court concluded:

“[T]he Defendants have undermined both the intent and the effectiveness of this Court’s October 31st oral order and its November 1st written order that the Defendants act ‘expeditiously.’ … The Court is not inclined to excuse this noncompliance, particularly where the obstacles the Defendants now invoke are the foreseeable result of their own choices.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)

Further, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new TRO on the basis that the government had not complied with the prior TRO’s requirement that any decision not to provide full SNAP payments be made in accordance with the APA and not be arbitrary or capricious: “The Court has already determined that irreparable harm is substantially likely to occur—harm that only increased due to the Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s prior order,” Judge McConnell said (emphasis added).

On Nov. 9, the First Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay the enforcement portion of Judge McConnell’s Nov. 6 order, holding that the government had not met the stay factors—particularly its burden to show a likelihood of success in challenging the district court’s noncompliance determination. The panel noted that the record showed USDA knew early on that partial payments would be technically difficult and took no preparatory steps, and further observed that the government’s briefing failed to meaningfully address the district court’s finding that it was aware partial payments would not satisfy the TRO’s requirements. At the same time, the court stayed the separate Nov. 6 TRO “so long as” the enforcement order remains in effect.

(On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court entered an administrative stay of the Oct. 31 and Nov. 6 orders, and later extended the stay. On Nov. 13, after the government shutdown ended, the government withdrew its request for a stay in the Supreme Court, with the Solicitor General explaining that the bill ending the shutdown “fully funds SNAP through the end of the fiscal year.” The defendants also filed a notice advising the district court that Congress had restored full FY 2026 SNAP funding and that USDA had directed state agencies to “take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”)

25. USDA’s Nov. 8 SNAP payment letter was “carefully crafted to feign compliance with” TRO

Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass.)

This case involves a challenge to the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), allegedly as a result of the government shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025.

On Nov. 12, in granting a temporary restraining order directing USDA to ensure prompt November SNAP payments, Judge Talwani found that USDA had “confused the record” by issuing—and never rescinding—a Nov. 7 notice stating that USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) was “working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the November 6, 2025 order” and that “[l]ater today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor.” Judge Talwani added, “Indeed, in retrospect, it appears that the statement was carefully crafted to feign compliance with” the TRO Judge McConnell issued in Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.) (emphasis added).

(On Nov. 13, after the government shutdown ended, the defendants filed notices advising that Congress had restored full FY 2026 SNAP funding and that USDA had directed state agencies to “take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”)

26. “Numerous, consistent declarations” of ICE noncompliance with TRO on attorney access for immigration raid detainees held in Los Angeles’ “B-18” basement

Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong (Biden appointee), Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal.)

This case involves a class action brought on behalf of five individuals detained in the basement of 300 North Los Angeles Street, known as “B-18,” as part of immigration-raid tactics in Los Angeles, alleging intimidation, violence and anonymity, racial profiling, warrantless arrests, denial of counsel, and inhumane conditions of detainment.

On Jul. 11, Judge Frimpong granted a temporary restraining order, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claims. The TRO required Defendants to permit legal visitation at B-18 “seven days per week, for a minimum of eight hours per day on business days (Monday through Friday), and a minimum of four hours per day on weekends and holidays,” and to provide “individuals detained at B-18 with access to confidential telephone calls with attorneys, legal representatives, and legal assistants at no charge to the detainee.” The Court further ordered that when “exigent circumstances require closure for the safety of human life or the protection of property, the Defendants must notify Access/Detention Plaintiffs as soon as practicable and certainly within four (4) hours to make alternative arrangements for legal visitation and/or notice to affected detainees and attorneys, legal representatives, and legal assistants.”

On Nov. 13, granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Frimpong found extensive, ongoing violations of the TRO, emphasizing that “Plaintiffs have provided numerous, consistent declarations about specific statements and events that show Access/Detention Plaintiffs are still regularly being denied access to detainees such that Access/Detention Plaintiffs are unable to effectively provide meaningful legal services to the detainees.” She wrote that “lawyer visiting hours have been closed down repeatedly without letting lawyers know,” contrary to the TRO; that “officers insist on keeping the door open during lawyer visits;” that “officers sometimes will not let lawyers meet with clients;” and that individuals in B-18 are not receiving the “free, confidential phone calls with their lawyers” that the government itself says are required. At times, detainees were moved “to another location which does not allow lawyer visits at all.” The court reiterated: “once again, the Court is ordering the federal government to stop—this time for the rest of this lawsuit” (emphasis added).

Judge Frimpong further found by a preponderance of the evidence that the government had repeatedly violated the TRO by: closing B-18 “without explanation” on four occasions; providing “no notice” of closures on at least three occasions; failing to provide facilities that “allow for meaningful private communication;” and “prevent[ing] detainees from meeting “prospective clients.” The government also “moved detainees between B-18 and Santa Ana … without notice,” hindering attorney-client visitation when counsel could not locate clients.

The court emphasized that the government “continue to refuse” attorney access during regular hours, provided only “partial compliance,” and that “Defendants still are not fully in compliance with the TRO Order” (emphasis added). The court also stated that the administration “only started providing such notice after” plaintiffs filed the preliminary injunction motion, allowing the court to infer that compliance was “encouraged” by the motion, and that “a preliminary injunction may be necessary to ensure Defendants continue to provide detainees the protections stated in the TRO Order.”

Chapter 2. Court Distrust of Government Information and Representations

Introduction

A core aspect of executive officials “properly discharg[ing] their official duties,” and thus being entitled to a presumption of regularity, is those officials telling judges the truth. Accordingly, if the government evinces an extensive inability to provide courts with accurate explanations and truthful information, the application of the presumption accordingly loses the basis for its support. In this Chapter, we document over 60 cases in which courts have identified serious defects in the government’s explanations and representations—pretextual rationales (including retaliatory motives masked by pretext), false sworn statements, contradictions with the record, refusals or inability to answer basic questions, and litigation-driven “contrivances”—prompting judges to discount government submissions, compel expedited discovery, and withhold the presumption.

A. General

1-a. “Obscur[ing] from the Court” and “refusing to provide any helpful information” while “rapidly dispatching removal flights”

Chief Judge James Boasberg (W. Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

On Apr. 3, Judge Boasberg repeatedly asked the government’s counsel for information on the flights the administration was using to transport alleged gang members to El Salvador, and was told that the DOJ had no additional information. In an Apr. 16 memorandum opinion finding probable cause for criminal contempt, Boasberg wrote that he believed “that the Government might be rapidly dispatching removal flights in an apparent effort to evade judicial review while also refusing to provide any helpful information.” He added, “Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share.”

1-b. “[M]indful of the possibility … that the Government has adopted and presented its arrangement with El Salvador as a ‘ruse — and a fraud on the court’”

Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)

The case involved the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

In a Jun. 4 preliminary injunction, Judge Boasberg held that the plaintiffs had not yet provided “robust evidence” disproving the government’s claim that El Salvador was responsible for the CECOT detainees, but he nevertheless expressed serious doubt about the Government’s account and the consistency of its representations.

“[t]he Court must therefore at this point accept the Government’s representations as to the nature of the CECOT Plaintiffs’ ongoing detention, despite their incongruity with multiple public statements made by both Salvadoran and U.S. officials …

The Court is nonetheless mindful of the possibility, raised by Plaintiffs, that the Government has adopted and presented its arrangement with El Salvador as a ‘ruse — and a fraud on the court — designed to maintain control over the detainees beyond the reach of the writ.’ …

The Court nonetheless reminds the Government that any official who makes knowingly false statements in a sworn declaration subjects himself to perjury prosecution.” (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

2. Placing attorney on leave for his compliance with “the duty of candor to the court”

Judge Stephanie Thacker (Obama appointee), Judge Robert King (Clinton appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1345 (4th Cir.)

This case challenged the Trump administration’s acknowledged wrongful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

In an Apr. 7 order, the Fourth Circuit noted that the government attorney in the district court hearings, in accordance with his duty of candor to the court, acknowledged parts of the administrative record not in the government’s favor, but, as a result, the Justice Department placed him on administrative leave.

“Consistent with this reality, the Government attorney appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case,” the Fourth Circuit wrote. The judges also noted that the Government attorney conceded, consistent with an ICE official’s Declaration, that Abrego Garcia should not have been removed from the United States due to a immigration court order prohibiting his transfer to El Salvador.

The Fourth Circuit made an unusual statement in writing: “in response to the candid responses by the Government attorney to the district court’s inquiry, that attorney has been put on administrative leave, ostensibly for lack of ‘zealous[] advocacy.’ . . . But, the duty of zealous representation is tempered by the duty of candor to the court, among other ethical obligations, and the duty to uphold the rule of law, particularly on the part of a Government attorney.”

3. Providing “highly misleading, if not intentionally false” sworn declaration to the court; “so disingenuous that the Court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything”

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama appointee), National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, 1:25-cv-00381 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In a March 28 opinion granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Jackson scolded the government for a false sworn declaration:

“This rosy depiction of events, designed to assuage the Court, was accompanied by the February 24, 2025 Declaration of Adam Martinez, the Chief Operating Officer of the CFPB, First Martinez Decl., which was a carefully worded and highly selective account that was immediately contradicted by a second series of declarations and exhibits submitted by the plaintiffs. The defendants’ witness was then placed in the awkward position of submitting another declaration, in which he acknowledged the accuracy of the facts set forth by plaintiffs’ declarants, including their accounts of his own statements, but he still voiced the assurance that the agency was complying with its statutory obligations.” (emphasis added).

Jackson concluded:

“It is now clear to the Court that the omissions from the first declaration rendered it to be highly misleading, if not intentionally false. Defendants’ initial effort to persuade the Court in their opposition that employees were hard at work on their statutory duties even after they were ordered to stand down on February 10 has been shown to be unreliable and inconsistent with the agency’s own contemporaneous records, and the defendants’ eleventh hour attempt to suggest immediately before the hearing that the stop work order was not really a stop work order at all was so disingenuous that the Court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything.” (emphasis added).

4. “Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations.”

Judge Loren L. Alikhan (Biden appointee), National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00239-LLA (D.D.C.)

This case involves a memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requiring federal agencies to pause any activities implicated by executive orders.

On Feb. 3, Judge Alikhan granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the administration from implementing the directives in the OMB memorandum and requiring the administration to provide written notice to all relevant agencies. In the order, stated:

“Defendants claim that they have ended any allegedly unlawful activity by retracting memorandum M-25-13. Even taking the rescission at face value, however, Defendants have not convincingly shown that they will refrain from “resum[ing] the challenged activity” in the future. As evidenced by the White House Press Secretary’s statements, OMB and the various agencies it communicates with appear committed to restricting federal funding. If Defendants retracted the memorandum in name only while continuing to execute its directives, it is far from ‘absolutely clear’ that the conduct is gone for good. …

Defendants … protest that such a conclusion ‘would be contrary to the presumption of good faith that courts routinely accord the government when assessing voluntary cessation.’… Here, Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations.”

5. Providing false sworn declarations about “hotly contested” material fact; “The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm.”

Judge Brian E. Murphy (Biden appointee), D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

This case involved, inter alia, the removal of O.C.G., a Guatemalan national, to Mexico without a “meaningful opportunity” to raise a fear-of-torture claim.

In opposing plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief, DOJ submitted a sworn declaration by an assistant field office director for ICE’s Phoenix Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), stating that on or about Feb. 21—just prior to O.C.G.’s removal—ERO officers verbally asked whether he feared return to Mexico, and that O.C.G. “stated he was not afraid.” DOJ counsel repeated this claim in briefing opposing the motion for a preliminary injunction. As a result, in its Apr. 18 order, the court declined to direct O.C.G.’s return—citing a “hotly contested” factual dispute between the government’s “hearsay” declaration and O.C.G.’s sworn account (that he was never asked and begged to speak to his attorney)—and ordered expedited discovery.

However, on May 16, 2025—during the course of that discovery, and just hours before the ICE official who submitted the declaration was scheduled to be deposed—DOJ filed a “Notice of Errata” retracting the declaration and admitting that it could not “identify any officer who asked O.C.G. whether he had a fear of return to Mexico[, nor could it identify] the officer who O.C.G. states ‘told [him] that he was being deported to Mexico.’” The government acknowledged that its prior misrepresentation was based not on direct communication but on a data entry in ICE’s ENFORCE Alien Removal Module database.

In its May 23, 2025 order granting a preliminary injunction directing the government to “take all immediate steps … to facilitate the return of O.C.G. to the United States,” the court censured the Government in strong terms: “Finally, it must be said that, while mistakes obviously happen, the events leading up to this decision are troubling. The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm” (emphasis added).

(O.C.G. was subsequently able to return to the United States.)

6. Providing the court with “the sorriest statement I’ve ever seen;” “This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issue on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers.”

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema (Clinton appointee), Sanchez Puentes v. Charles, 1:25-cv-00509 (E.D. Va.)

The case involved a habeas challenge by a Venezuelan couple, whom ICE detained in March 2025 (while they held Temporary Protected Status) based on allegations that they were members of Tren de Aragua.

At a Mar. 28, 2025 hearing granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Judge Brinkema criticized the affidavit of an ICE assistant director—the government’s only evidence offered to justify detention on the basis that the couple were alleged Tren de Aragua members—stating:

“[I]t is the sorriest statement I’ve ever seen. First of all, it’s pure hearsay. … This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issue on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers. No agent should do this type of editorializing, not when people’s liberty is at stake. I expect more from the government than this kind of very shoddy work. This is assumptions and putting words in people’s mouths. … I was shocked when I saw it.” (emphasis added).

7. “This Court takes clear offense to Respondents wasting judicial resources to admit to the Court it has no evidence;” “contradict[ing] themselves throughout the entire record;” providing “shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony.”

Judge David Briones (Clinton appointee), Sanchez Puentes v. Garite, 3:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Tex.)

This case also involves a habeas corpus challenge by a Venezuelan couple whom the government alleged to be Tren de Aragua members.

On Apr. 21, denying the government’s motion to extend time to respond to the petitioners’ amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Judge Briones said:

“To date, Respondents have not provided this Court with a single reason as to why Petitioners have been designated as Alien Enemies. To date, Respondents have not provided this Court with a single reason as to whether Petitioners’ ‘circumstances have materially change[d]’ which would warrant rearrest and incarceration by ICE. To date, Respondents have not provided the Court with any information that would be materially helpful in determining whether Petitioners are being unlawfully detained in violation of their TPS protections during the appeal period. Respondents have known about the instant habeas petition for at least six days. Respondents could have filed their response, which was due on April 21, 2025, providing the Court with even a reason or two as two (sic) why Petitioners’ habeas petition should be denied, while also requesting an extension of time, but rather than putting in the slightest bit of effort, Respondents instead just asked for more time. To date, Respondents have not provided the Court with anything useful.”

On Apr. 25, granting the petitioners petition for amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Judge Briones wrote:

“Respondents declare, without providing this Court with a single piece of meaningful evidence, that ‘Petitioners are members of Tren de Aragua.’ … Of great concern to this Court is that Respondents contradict themselves throughout the entire record. … [T]he April 23, 2025 Habeas Corpus hearing in this Court, Respondents and the Government based the entirety of their case on multiple levels of hearsay, hidden within declarations of declarants who have no personal knowledge about the facts they are attesting to. … What is astonishing is that these declarants cannot even so much as identify what government official did receive the alleged information directly. Respondents ask this Court to accept their claims, going off of nearly nothing, to substantiate their mammoth claims. … The Court would not accept this evidence even in a case where only nominal damages were at stake, let alone what is at stake here. Beyond these shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony, Respondents haven’t provided ‘membership’ at all as it relates to Petitioner Sanchez Garcia … This Court takes clear offense to Respondents wasting judicial resources to admit to the Court it has no evidence, yet seek to have this Court determine Petitioner Sanchez Puentes is ‘guilty by association.’ This Court found no need to even allow closing arguments as to Petitioner Sanchez Puentes at the April 23, 2025 Habeas Corpus Hearing. … It is this Court’s finding that Respondents’ Response and testimony was replete with conclusions, declarations, and accusations, completely and wholly unsubstantiated by anything meaningful in the record.” (emphasis added).

8-a. Solicitor General providing inaccurate information to the U.S. Supreme Court

Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.)

The case involved a challenge to the administration’s reductions in force across several departments and agencies.

On Jul. 28, in an unusual step, the district court judge submitted a statement to the Ninth Circuit explaining that the U.S. Solicitor General had presented overstated figures to the U.S. Supreme Court in a stay application in the litigation. The government had claimed that the district court injunction prohibiting reductions in force of government employees included several agencies and positions that were not actually subject to the injunction. Judge Illston called the discrepancy “not insignificant,” and said it underscored the need for accurate fact-finding overriding any deliberative-process privilege.

8-b. Government submitted “underinclusive” RIF figures in response to the court’s order; three declarations claiming months of background work on potential RIF plans were deemed contrary to the “factual record”

Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.) (related cases)

These related cases involve challenges to the administration’s reductions in force (RIFs) of federal employees across several departments and agencies, including RIFs planned in connection with the government shutdown.

Following Judge Illston’s Oct. 15 temporary restraining order (modified on Oct. 17 and Oct. 22), which addressed OMB’s Sept. 24 “Lapse Memorandum” and OPM’s Sept. 28 shutdown guidance and directed defendants to file “an accounting of all RIFs, actual or imminent, that are enjoined by this TRO,” the government submitted agency declarations on Oct. 17. Granting a preliminary injunction on Oct. 28, Judge Illston observed that “[t]he full scope of the RIFs that have been planned or administered remains unclear based on the declarations defendants have filed.” She further explained that the agency declarations “generally do not describe other RIFs planned or administered by the defendant agencies and they do not account for the ‘north of 10,000’ people OMB Director Vought stated on Oct. 15 that he expected would be RIF’d during the shutdown.” Accordingly, the court concluded that “the figures provided below are likely underinclusive of the total number of RIFs that have been planned or administered in response to the shutdown” (emphasis added). Further, the court dismissed the government’s claim, repeated in three separate declarations, that it had spent months developing potential RIF plans, explaining that “the factual record reveals otherwise.” Judge Illston wrote:

“Finally, defendants state that the factual record refutes plaintiffs’ contention that RIFs were unduly hasty. … The Court does not agree. … Instead, here agencies are rapidly laying off thousands of public employees during a temporary lapse in funding. Defendants argue that they took sufficient time considering whether to administer RIFs, citing three agency declarations that state they have been working on potential RIF plans for months. … The factual record reveals otherwise. RIF notices are going out with errors in them; they are being sent to employees’ work e-mail addresses, which furloughed employees have been told they may not check; they are being issued in error and rescinded shortly after; they are being issued by Human Resources staff called back to work on RIFs and then ordered to RIF themselves. … In sum, it has been a tumultuous process pervaded by errors and uncertainty.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

9. “Flip-flopping—in sworn declarations—rais[ing] severe concern,” “consistently refused to give … the full story,” providing “cagey answers,” “omitting key information,” and “repeated[ ] represent[ations]” that “strain credulity.”

Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Abramowitz. v. Lake,1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.) and Widakuswara. v. Lake, 1:25-cv-01015 (D.D.C.) (related cases)

These cases involve the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the firing of journalists from the Voice of America (VOA) media outlet.

In a Jul. 30 show-cause order addressing both cases, Judge Lamberth wrote that the government had

“consistently refused to give the Court the full story regarding personnel actions. … the defendants continue to provide cagey answers and omit key information. … And perhaps more shockingly, on July 8—the day this Court ordered a second round of supplemental briefing, and a full ten days before the defendants filed the second supplemental memorandum—the defendants informed Plaintiff Michael Abramowitz that he would be removed from his position as Director of VOA. … However, the defendants made no mention of this monumental personnel decision in their filings to this Court.” (emphasis added).

Lamberth further wrote that the government was

“providing misleading and contradictory information … The defendants’ descriptions of their activities are cryptic and even misleading … And troublingly, the crumbs of data provided suggest the defendants are ignoring several statutory mandates. … [T]he defendants have also made contradictory representations to the Court. … This sort of flip-flopping—in sworn declarations— raises severe concern and provides yet another basis for entering a show cause order for the defendants to provide a truthful, accurate, and detailed plan regarding VOA’s ongoing operations.”

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

In a Sept. 29 memorandum order addressing enforcement of the Apr. 22 PI, Judge Lamberth wrote that defendants and DOJ counsel “repeatedly represented”—both on paper and at the Aug. 25 hearing—that any reduction in force (RIF) was only a “possibility” and subject to “uncertainty.” Given what followed, he concluded those representations “strain credulity.”

10. “The ‘administrative record’ submitted by the government is a sham. It does not facilitate judicial review: It frustrates it;” judge calls out government for “lie” in termination letters, and for DOJ preventing testimony because “afraid … would reveal the truth”

Judge William Alsup (Clinton appointee) American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States Office of Personnel Management, 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.)

This case involves the government’s efforts to significantly reduce the federal workforce’s probationary employees via termination letters that criticized workers’ “performance.”

In a Mar. 13 hearing in which Judge Alsup issued an injunction from the bench, the court criticized the administration, calling the letters a “gimmick” and saying, “It is sad – a sad day – when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie. … That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.” In a subsequent memorandum opinion, the court elaborated that the OPM’s template termination letter claiming performance problems “was an obvious pretext intended to obstruct appeal and avoid statutory and regulatory reduction-in-force procedures (for example, the honoring of veteran preferences in the order of retention).” At the Mar. 13 hearing, responding to the government’s apparent gamesmanship—namely, submitting OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell’s sworn declaration that asserted OPM did not direct the firings, then withdrawing it and refusing to produce him for court-ordered cross-examination—Judge Alsup admonished DOJ, saying, “You can’t just say, ‘Here’s the declaration. You have to accept it without question’ whenever there is a question.” He continued:

“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth. … This is the U.S. District Court. Whenever you submit declarations, those people should be submitted to cross-examination, just like the plaintiffs’ side should be. … [T]hen we get at the truth of whether that’s what — your story is actually true. I tend to doubt it. I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth whenever we hear all the evidence eventually. … And you withdrew his declaration rather than do that? Come on. That’s a sham. Go ahead. I’m — it upsets me. I want you to know that. I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years, and I know how we get at the truth. And you’re not helping me get at the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents. All right. I’m getting mad at you and I shouldn’t. You’re trying to do your best, and I apologize.” (emphasis added).

On Sept. 12, the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court wrote:

“The ‘administrative record’ submitted by the government is a sham. It does not facilitate judicial review: It frustrates it. …

The ‘quote’ proffered by government counsel James D. Todd Jr. is a fabrication. … The result: A statement concerning OPM authored and approved exemption categories becomes, by brackets, ellipses, and government counsel’s chicanery, a shot through the heart of plaintiffs’ case. Counsel’s ersatz evidence fails to persuade.” (emphasis added).

11-a. Military experts’ summaries “cherry-picked,” “mischaracterized,” and “misrepresented” multiple studies to support the military’s transgender ban: one summary was “inexplicably misleading,” another not drawn “in good faith”

Judge Ana Reyes (Biden appointee), Talbott v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00240 (D.D.C.)

The case involved the Trump administration’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, and to dishonorably discharge currently serving transgender service members.

During a March hearing, Judge Reyes pressed government counsel on the military’s transgender ban, repeatedly questioning whether the military experts behind the policy had “cherry-picked” and “mischaracterized” the underlying studies and reports cited in support, had “grossly, misleadingly—whether intentionally or unintentionally—mischaracterized” them, or had “grossly misquote[d] and misuse[d]” portions of those materials. For example, she criticized how the Justice Department invoked a 2021 AMSARA report, a Department of Defense accession research study that appeared in DoD’s own Action Memo but did not support the government’s asserted justifications. Judge Reyes asked DOJ counsel, “Should I defer to the military experts who cherry-picked one part of this study, misrepresented even that and ignored the rest of it, and ignored the obvious import of it?” (emphasis added). She noted the study was actually used to support the Biden-era policy of including transgender personnel. Judge Reyes further said that “the two things that were quoted in the Hegseth policy were taken way out of context and mischaracterized even in the quotations that they had.”

During the hearing, Judge Reyes also expressed disbelief that government counsel had not read any of three key reports the Hegseth policy cited.

“THE COURT: Okay. Have you not read that report? 

MR. MANION: I have not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So my clerk, Guillermo, and I had a conversation on Monday, because I had said, you know what, we should send out a minute order saying that I want counsel to be prepared to discuss the Mattis policy, the AMSARA report, and the 2025 Literature review. And there were a couple other things that we wanted you to be able to answer. And we looked at each other on Monday and was like we don’t have to do that. Of course they’re going to be prepared. The Hegseth policy cites three reports, I mean, of course, they’re going to know what those reports are. But you don’t — you didn’t read the reports.

MR. MANION: I have not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you think it’s important, when the Court is reviewing the only three reports that the Hegseth policy cites, to understand whether those reports actually say what the Hegseth policy quoted?” (emphasis added).

In a Mar. 18 preliminary injunction, Judge Reyes further underscored the government’s Action Memo had misrepresented several studies to justify the transgender military ban. The court said its summary of the AMSARA report was “inexplicably misleading,” since the data actually showed transgender troops performing “similar or better” in 10 of 11 categories (emphasis added). Likewise, its summary of the 2025 Medical Literature Review was so distorted that “no one summarizing the Review in good faith could draw these conclusions” (emphasis added). On cost, the court rejected reliance on a bare number “devoid of any context or analysis,” warning that if such reasoning were accepted “courts would have to accept any cost amount the military cites to justify any policy.”

Judge Reyes also refused to “blindly” defer to military judgment, writing:

“Yes, the Court must defer. But not blindly. The President issued EO14183 within seven days of taking office, and Secretary Hegseth issued the Policy thirty days later. There is no evidence that they consulted with uniformed military leaders before doing so. Neither document contains any analysis nor cites any data. They pronounce that transgender persons are not honorable, truthful, or disciplined—but Defense counsel concedes that these assertions are pure conjecture.” (emphasis added)

11-b. DOJ counsel in transgender military ban warned for treating the judge “like… an idiot” and attempting to “gasli[ght]” her

Judge Ana Reyes (Biden appointee), Talbott v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00240 (D.D.C.)

The case involved the Trump administration’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, and to dishonorably discharge currently serving transgender service members.

During a Mar. 21 hearing, Judge Reyes reportedly admonished government counsel for asserting that the ban was focused on people with gender dysphoria, stating: “I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public—what they really mean to the public—and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I’m an idiot,” emphasizing, “I am not an idiot” She reportedly said, “The idea that you all can just come in here and pretend that what’s happening isn’t actually happening is totally unacceptable,” in addition to saying, “The court is not going to be gaslit” (emphasis added).

12. Providing false and incomplete information concerning DOGE’s leadership and authorities

Judge Theodore D. Chuang (Obama appointee), J. Doe 4 v. Musk, 8:25-cv-00462 (D. Md)

Judge Tanya Chutkan (Obama appointee), New Mexico v. Musk, 1:25-cv-00429 (D.D.C.)

Judge Kollar-Kotelly (Reagan appointee; Clinton appointee), Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent, 1:25-cv-00313 (D.D.C.)

These cases involve challenges to DOGE’s activities and, at the time, Elon Musk’s constitutional authority. Across different cases, judges critiqued the Trump administration for its failure to provide straightforward answers regarding DOGE’s leadership and authority.

Feb 17: False claim that Musk was not head of DOGE, and false claim that DOGE did not have authority over personnel actions:

On Feb. 17, Joshua Fisher, the Director of the White House Office of Administration, stated in a sworn declaration in New Mexico v. Musk that Elon Musk was a Senior Advisor to the President and was not employed by or the administrator of DOGE. Fisher also stated that Musk’s role gave him “no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.” In an accompanying notice, the Department of Justice asserted that they were “not aware of any source of legal authority granting” DOGE “the power to order personnel actions at any of the agencies” in question, and that “[n]either of the President’s Executive Orders regarding ‘DOGE’ contemplate—much less furnish—such authority.”

In a Feb. 18 opinion denying a motion for a temporary restraining order against DOGE, Judge Tanya Chutkan implicitly rejected Fisher’s declaration, noting that “Elon Musk directs the work of DOGE personnel but is formally classified as a ‘special government employee.’” In a footnote, Chutkan further wrote that the “plain text” of the DOGE Executive Orders “‘contemplates’ DOGE’s authority over personnel actions. Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court” (emphasis added).

In a separate case, Judge Theodore D. Chuang would also go on to more directly reject the Fisher sworn declaration in favor of the plaintiffs’ evidence finding that “Musk was, at a minimum, likely the official performing the duties and functions of the USDS Administrator.”

Feb. 24: Inability or refusal to inform court who was head of DOGE at the time:

On Feb. 24, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly asked Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys who was the head of DOGE while it was a component of the Office of Management and Budget and whether that person was a Schedule C government employee. Humphreys repeatedly said that he did not know the answer. Humphreys also said that he could not answer what Musk’s role was in DOGE, who was the current administrator of DOGE, or even whether there was a person acting as DOGE administrator.

Feb 28: Inability or refusal to inform court who was head of DOGE before Gleason:

On Feb. 28, after the administration had identified Amy Gleason as the head of DOGE, Judge Theodore Chuang asked a government attorney to identify who had led DOGE before Gleason and to clarify Musk’s role with the government. The government attorney repeatedly said he could not answer Judge Chuang’s question.

Judge Chuang: Who was the head of DOGE before Amy Gleason?

Government counsel: I can’t answer that, I don’t know.

Judge Chuang: I mean, that seems like a knowable fact, doesn’t it?

Government counsel: I’m sure it is knowable; I just don’t know it. …

Judge Chuang: Have you asked anyone?

Government counsel: I have not asked …. Actually, strike that. I have asked previously, and I was not able to get [an] answer.

During the hearing, Judge Chuang said, “The plaintiffs are saying Musk was the head of DOGE. You’re saying he wasn’t, but we can’t tell you who was, which admittedly is highly suspicious . . . I’m not saying that you’re not being candid, but the whole operation raises questions.”

In a May 27 memorandum opinion denying the administration’s motion to dismiss charges against DOGE and Musk in New Mexico v. Musk, Judge Chutkan also rejected the government’s representations regarding DOGE’s leadership. In the order, Judge Chutkan wrote that the government had “unsuccessfully attempt[ed] to minimize Musk’s role, framing him as a mere advisor without any formal authority,” and that the “States have sufficiently pleaded that [Musk’s] position qualifies as ‘continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary.”

13. Failing to “to offer any explanation, let alone one supported by the record;” court saying “can’t get a straight answer from you”

Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden appointee), AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State, 1:25-cv-00400 (D.D.C.) and Global Health Council v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00402 (D.D.C.)

These cases involve the Trump administration’s freeze on Congressionally-allocated humanitarian assistance and other foreign aid. Following the court’s Feb. 13 TRO, Judge Ali voiced frustration at apparent noncompliance, telling the government: “I don’t know why I can’t get a straight answer from you.” In a Mar. memorandum opinion granting in part a preliminary injunction requiring the administration to pay for aid work already completed by contractors and foreign assistance groups, Judge Ali wrote that the government had “yet to offer any explanation, let alone one supported by the record, for why a blanket suspension . . . was a rational precursor to reviewing programs.” Ali wrote that the government had “not proffered any evidence” to support their assertion that waivers offered by the Department of State “provided any meaningful relief from the blanket freeze.

14. DOJ bid to seal the entire criminal case raised concerns of pretext; “High deference is out; trust, but verify is in.”

Judge Zia Faruqui (appointed by D.D.C.), In re: Search of One Device and Two Individuals, 25-sw-82 (D.D.C.)

This case involves efforts to unseal documents related to a search warrant for a defendant’s phone and cloud-based data.

In a May 29 order denying the government’s attempt to keep the entire case under seal, Judge Zia Faruqui doubted the government’s explanation (suggesting it was a pretext): “Given how weak the government’s argument of harm to the investigation is, the Court cannot help but ask if there are other reasons animating its request. Perhaps the government is embarrassed about trying to forcibly search an innocent [redaction] or having a warrant rejected given how rare that is?” Judge Faruqui also rejected the claim that courts should be highly deferential to the government’s determination that unsealing would impede the investigation, in which he wrote: “High deference is out; trust, but verify is in.”

The judge also doubted the government’s claim of urgency to search the individual’s phone: “On April 24, 2025, the government claimed there was great urgency surrounding its request to search [redacted] phone. But its actions reflect otherwise. Over a month has passed, and the government still has not filed an appeal of the May 6 Order denying the request to search [redacted] phone.”

15. Mischaracterizing the content of sealed grand jury documents in court filings

Paul Engelmayer (Obama appointee), United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 1:25-cv-00429 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s efforts to unseal grand jury transcripts and exhibits in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of five felonies stemming from her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking conspiracy.

On Aug. 11, Judge Engelmayer denied the motion to unseal exhibits. In the opinion accompanying the order, Engelmayer wrote that the government’s “invocation of special circumstances” justifying unsealing the documents “fails at the threshold.” Engelmayer wrote that “[t]he Government’s submissions” supporting the motion “were telling” in that they “belied the Government’s claim, in its motion to unseal, that the Maxwell grand jury materials contained significant, undisclosed information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes, or the investigation into them.” Specifically, the submissions indicated that, contrary to the administration’s assertions, the grand juries “were not used for investigative purposes” and that the evidence before them “is today, with only very minor exceptions, a matter of public record.” Engelmayer concluded that, “[i]nsofar as the motion to unseal implies that the grand jury materials are an untapped mine lode of undisclosed information about Epstein or Maxwell or confederates, they definitively are not that,” and that someone seeking new information, as the government suggested, “would come away feeling disappointed and misled.”

Judge Engelmayer’s opinion suggested the victims may have been misled by the mischaracterization of the grand jury materials in the government’s motion to unseal:

“The victims’ interest in reviewing the grand jury materials appears to be premised on the understandable but mistaken belief that these materials would reveal new information. The Government had, after all, publicly portrayed these as ‘critical pieces of an important moment in our nation’s history.’ Motion to Unseal at 3. Had the Government’s motion made clear that these records are redundant of the evidence at Maxwell’s public trial, the victims’ responses to the motion to unseal might well have been different.” (citation omitted)

16. Making “patently incredible” claims; Government “switching arguments at will,” a “totally inconsistent” case; and Government witness “knows nothing … less than nothing”

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee),Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

The case involved the administration’s admission that it unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

In a Jul. 23 memorandum opinion granting an emergency motion for an order directing the government to facilitate the plaintiff’s release from El Salvador, Judge Xinis said she had convened an evidentiary hearing to “get straight answers from the government,” but said that “when pressed for detail on the removal proceedings, counsel merely articulated what Defendants could do. Not what they would do,” and that although counsel said the government’s “present intent” was third-country removal, they could not identify “what third country,” insisting no decision would be made until Abrego García was in ICE custody, a stance she called “patently incredible.” With witness testimony offering only “minimal insight on the process” under the DHS memorandum, the court was “left with no meaningful information” and ordered production of the ICE detainer—which “raised more questions than it answered.” Judge Xinis cited the detainer’s claim of “ongoing removal proceedings” despite defendants’ admission there were none, calling the detainer “thin cover” for taking Abrego García into custody in Tennessee and transferring him elsewhere, and concluding it “confirmed” the government had no intention of returning him to supervision in Maryland to commence lawful proceedings.

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

During an Oct. 10 evidentiary hearing on the government’s asserted removal plans for García—including why the government had not pursued the Costa Rica option and whether it may continue detaining him—Judge Xinis signaled sharp distrust of the government’s information and representations. She reportedly observed that the government seemed to be “switching arguments at will” to prolong detention, producing a “totally inconsistent” case, and told DOJ lawyers: “You’re not even close… we’re getting to ‘three strikes and you’re out’” (emphasis added). She also reportedly faulted the government’s witness preparation and factual showing, noting she “had very specific directions for what that witness should be prepared to testify about.” Addressing DOJ counsel, she reportedly said: “You came here today with a witness who knows nothing about Costa Rica—I mean, less than nothing,” adding, “Help yourself dig out of this hole,” and, “This is a joke for anyone who’s listening” (emphasis added). The court also reportedly described as “very troubling” the government’s claim that Abrego told an immigration judge he feared persecution in Costa Rica, which was contradicted by the IJ’s record.

17. Providing an “explanation [that] is riddled with inconsistencies”

Judge Jeanette A. Vargas (Biden appointee), State of New York v. Trump, 25-cv-01144 (S.D.N.Y.)

This case involves a challenge to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s authority to access Treasury Department systems containing personally identifiable and financial information.

Judge Vargas, granting a preliminary injunction, found DOJ counsel’s claim that the President’s Executive Orders required immediate DOGE access to Treasury’s BFS systems was “riddled with inconsistencies,” noting the E.O. itself allowed 30 days and the new, untrained DOGE hires were not needed to implement the pauses.

“When asked at the preliminary injunction hearing the reason for this accelerated process, counsel for the Government pointed to the urgency sparked by the President’s Executive Orders. PI Hearing Tr. at 18:20-19:14. This explanation is riddled with inconsistencies. … the Court finds this explanation lacks credibility … artificial sense of urgency engendered by the Government’s imposition of time limits on itself.” (emphasis added)

18. Making representation that “does not reflect the level of diligence the Court expects from any litigant—let alone the United States Department of Justice;” “The contradiction between [Government’s] factual representations and the facts on the ground is particularly striking.”

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton appointee), League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of The President, 1:25-cv-00946 (D.D.C.), Democratic National Committee v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00952 (D.D.C.), and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00955 (D.D.C.) (consolidated cases)

These cases involve challenges by nonpartisan voting rights organizations and Democratic Party committees to President Trump’s Executive Order 14,248, including Section 2(a), which directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to “take appropriate action” within 30 days to require “documentary proof of United States citizenship” on the national mail voter registration form and to have states record detailed information about the citizenship document used.

On Apr. 24, granting the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions as to Section 2(a) of the EO, Judge Kollar-Kotelly rejected the government’s timing argument—what the court described as “a critical factual representation”—that the suits were premature because Section 2(a) “has not even begun to be implemented” and implementation “may never occur.” The argument was advanced in their oppositions, supported by a declaration from EAC Executive Director Brianna Schletz, and repeated by DOJ counsel at the hearing on the motion. The court explained that the record showed the opposite: three days before DOJ filed its oppositions, EAC Executive Director Brianna Schletz had sent a letter to state election officials quoting from Section 2 and asking how they would implement those requirements “if required,” thereby confirming that the EAC had already begun acting on Section 2(a). As the court wrote:

“The letter reveals that—contrary to Defendants’ representations to the Court—the EAC has, in fact, already begun to implement Section 2(a). The letter further reveals that—contrary to Defendants’ arguments in their Oppositions—the EAC is not interpreting Section 2(a) as an open-ended suggestion to consider including a documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement of an unknown form. Instead, the EAC, like the Court and Plaintiffs, reads Section 2(a) as an ‘instruction’ to adopt the precise documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement outlined in the Executive Order.” (emphasis added).

Notably, the court criticized Executive Director Schletz’s declaration and DOJ’s diligence, writing:

“The contradiction between Defendants’ factual representations and the facts on the ground is particularly striking because Executive Director Schletz authored a declaration supporting Defendants’ Oppositions that was filed three days after she sent the letter to the States. … When pressed, counsel for Defendants asserted that he ‘had no knowledge of the letter.’ … Indeed, even after receiving a copy of the letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel, counsel for Defendants appeared to be operating under the ‘understanding that the letter is dated three days after we submitted our opposition.’ … When the Court explained to counsel that he had the dates exactly backwards, he replied: ‘Fair enough.’ … The Court is not currently of the mind that counsel for Defendants intentionally misrepresented the facts by failing to mention a letter authored by a declarant with whom he surely consulted. But the Court must remark that this exchange does not reflect the level of diligence the Court expects from any litigant—let alone the United States Department of Justice.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)

19. Unrebutted claim that the government created a record as a “contrivance” to avert court ruling

Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher (Trump appointee) J.O.P. v. DHS, 8:19-cv-01944-SA (D.Md.)

Chief Judge Roger Gregory (W. Bush appointee) and Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin (Biden appointee), J.O.P. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 8:19-cv-01944 (4th Cir.)

The case involved an individual deported to El Salvador in alleged violation of a judicially-enforced agreement that prohibited unaccompanied minors’ removal from the United States prior to the final determination of their asylum claims.

On Apr. 23, Judge Stephanie Gallagher (Trump appointee) ordered the government to facilitate the return to the United States of “Cristian,” a pseudonymous member of the class covered by the agreement who had been deported to El Salvador. At the time, Gallagher wrote that “Defendants have provided no evidence, or even any specific allegations, as to how Cristian, or any other Class Member, poses a threat to public safety.”

On May 1, the United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) produced an “Indicative Asylum Decision” asserting that, “if Cristian were returned to the United States, it would deny his asylum application based on (1) terrorist-related inadmissibility grounds . . . and (2) as a matter of discretion.” The Department of Justice presented the document to the court as demonstrating an “adjudication on the merits” that was the “precise relief” Cristian sought.

In a May 19 order denying the government’s motion for a stay of Gallagher’s order pending appeal, the Fourth Circuit noted that “the Indicative Asylum Decision—created five days after the district court’s facilitation order was issued—was not an authentic change in factual circumstances. Cristian contends that neither ‘USCIS regulation, policy, [n]or practice’ provides for ‘Indicative Asylum Decisions,’” and that the decision was “a ‘litigation-driven’ document—a ‘contrivance’ ‘created just for this case. The Government has no response to this charge—a deafening silence.”

20. Offering an “official justification … [that] is not plausible”

Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Trump appointee), National Endowment for Democracy v. United States, 1:25-cv-00648 (D.D.C.)

The case involved the administration’s withholding congressionally appropriated funds from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

On Aug. 11, Judge Friedrich granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on their APA claims, including that the government violated the NED Act:

“[R]ecord evidence clearly shows that the defendants are withholding funding for impermissible policy reasons. The State Department’s full-year spending plan—the sole document in the administrative record not created for purposes of this litigation—explicitly states that the withheld funds are being ‘subject to review for alignment with Administration priorities.’ … Around that time, the Director of OMB urged the Senate to entirely defund the Endowment because of its alleged support of media organizations critical of the President and his allies. … An affidavit from the Director of the Bureau of Budget Planning at the State Department highlights that the withholding decision was made ‘in consultation with OMB.’ … Taken as a whole, that evidence leaves little doubt as to the defendants’ motivations—the Endowment’s work does not align with ‘Administration priorities.’ …

The defendants’ official justification for that withholding—preserving the Endowment’s funding stability for the coming year—is not plausible. … These actions vitiate any inference that the defendants’ concern has been to “ensure” the Endowment’s “level of funding in the coming fiscal year.” … Indeed, counsel for the State Department provided that rationale to the Endowment for the first time in a June 11 email, well after this litigation began. … In light of the defendants’ repeated maneuvers to impede the Endowment’s flow of funds, the Court does not find credible an explanation offered in the shadow of pending litigation.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

21. Admission of making a false statement to the court

Judge Timothy James Kelly (Trump appointee), L.G.M.L v. Noem, 1:25-cv-02942 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the administration’s plan to repatriate more than 600 unaccompanied Guatemalan minors in custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.

On Aug. 31, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan (Biden appointee) issued a temporary restraining order blocking immediate removals after reports that children were being placed on planes over Labor Day weekend.

On Sept. 10, Judge Kelly held a preliminary injunction and class certification hearing. At that hearing, the government reportedly acknowledged it had no evidence to support earlier statements it had made that the children’s parents had requested their return and that those claims had been contradicted by a review by the Guatemalan government. (At a prior hearing, the DOJ attorney had told the court, “All of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return.”) The DOJ attorney did not contest evidence raised by the plaintiff that the Guatemalan government had been unable to locate many of the children’s parents; and said the DOJ’s initial claims should be considered “withdrawn.”

22. ICE mask testimony deemed “disingenuous”

Judge William G. Young (Reagan appointee), American Association of University Professors v. Rubio 1:25-cv-10685 (D. Mass)

This case involves a challenge to the Trump administration’s deportation policy, under Executive Orders 14,161 and 14,188, which allegedly authorizes sweeping arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty participating in pro-Palestinian protests or related forms of expression and association.

On Sept. 30, following a nine-day bench trial, Judge Young held that the administration violated the First Amendment in efforts to deport non-citizens involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests. The court specifically addressed the government’s testimony—provided by defendant Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE, and by the masked ICE agents who seized student Mehmet Öztürk—which claimed that agents wore masks for legitimate operational and safety reasons. Judge Young wrote that the court “rejects this testimony as disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable” and found that ICE uses masks to intimidate people into “quiescence.”

23. ICE statistics “concealed more than they disclosed, despite the availability … of much more illuminating data” and “gives no confidence that the defendants are seriously interested in making a full disclosure”

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (Clinton appointee), Barco Mercado v. Noem, 1:25-cv-06568 (S.D.N.Y.)

This case involves a class action, brought by a detainee at ICE’s 26 Federal Plaza, alleges overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and denial of access to counsel.

On Sept. 17, granting a preliminary injunction and provisionally certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of all immigration detainees held 12+ hours in ICE’s 26 Federal Plaza hold rooms, Judge Kaplan criticized the government’s evidentiary showings. The court wrote that declarations by the assistant field office director at ERO’s New York City field office, “in substantial measure avoided the thrust of plaintiff’s factual showing and offered unpersuasive statistics that concealed more than they disclosed despite the availability to defendants of much more illuminating data” (emphasis added). He added, “The response to the motions thus gives no confidence that the defendants are seriously interested in making a full disclosure of conditions in the 26 Fed Hold Rooms” (emphasis added).

24-a. President’s determination to federalize National Guard to Portland “simply untethered to the facts” and not “conceived in good faith”

Judge Karin J. Immergut (Trump appointee), State of Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.)

This case challenges Secretary Hegseth’s Sept. 28 memorandum (“Hegseth Memorandum”) authorizing the federalization and deployment of National Guard forces to Portland (Memorandum citing President Trump’s Jun. 7 memorandum invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to authorize nationwide Guard mobilization).

On Oct. 4, Judge Immergut granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoined the Hegseth Memorandum for 14 days, finding the federal government likely lacked authority under § 12406 to federalize Oregon’s National Guard. The court rejected the government’s reliance on § 12406(3) (allowing federalization when the President is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States”). Assessing whether the President had invoked § 12406(3) based on “a colorable assessment of the facts” at the time of the invocation, Judge Immergut found that the President did not have a “colorable basis” to federalize the National Guard because “the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal law enforcement officers to execute federal law. … The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts” (emphasis added). While “the President is certainly entitled [to] ‘a great level of deference’” (citation omitted), the court emphasized that such deference “is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground.” Further, judge Immergut found that “the President’s own statements … support that his determination was not ‘conceived in good faith’ or ‘in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance” (emphasis in original).

On Oct. 8, the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the Oct. 4 TRO’s block on federalizing the National Guard, but left in place the TRO’s block on the deployment of the Guard to Portland.

24-b. Key federal testimony supporting federalization of the National Guard to Portland found “inconsistent,” “speculative,” “not … reliable,” “internally inconsistent,” and not credible, permanent injunction concludes

Judge Karin J. Immergut (Trump appointee), State of Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.)

This case challenges Secretary Hegseth’s Sept. 28 memorandum (“Hegseth Memorandum”) authorizing the federalization and deployment of National Guard forces to Portland (Memorandum citing President Trump’s Jun. 7 memorandum invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to authorize nationwide Guard mobilization).

On Nov. 2, following a bench trial, Judge Immergut issued a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the Hegseth Memorandum federalizing and deploying Oregon’s National Guard pending a final merits decision. Even affording the President a “great level of deference,” the court found no “colorable” basis and no action “conceived in good faith … directly related to the quelling of the disorder,” and concluded—based on the “facts on the ground”—there was “no credible evidence” that protests impeded federal law enforcement or amounted to a “rebellion” or danger of a rebellion.

On Nov. 7, the court issued a permanent injunction—holding the government’s conduct was ultra vires under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and in violation of the Tenth Amendment—and again crediting state and local evidence over federal accounts. Indeed, the court repeatedly found the federal account lacked credibility and was contradictory and inconsistent. The court noted that government “witnesses and the contemporaneous reports of federal agencies paint an uneven picture” (emphasis added). Instead, the court credited “all” Portland Police Bureau (PPB) witnesses as “credible.”

For example, on crowd-size disputes, Judge Immergut found “the PPB reporting more credible;” “[t]here was no credible evidence that an organization coordinated the movement or actions of ICE facility protesters;” “no credible evidence” that a protestor-counterprotestor altercation impeded federal protection of the building; and “no credible evidence that protest activities at the ICE facility created more than a minimal interference with Defendants’ ability to enforce Title 8 immigration laws.” The court also rejected Federal Protective Service’s (FPS) claims that PPB failed to respond to calls for help: “The Court does not find this testimony to be credible. FPS did call PPB for help, and PPB routinely responded.”

The court found parts of ICE/ERO Field Office Director Wamsley’s account of damage to the facility to be “not … reliable,” extended that unreliability to her testimony on the alleged breach of the facility as “inconsistent with every other piece of evidence,” and noted her “general lack of reliability” (emphasis added).The court noted Commander W.T.’s testimony was “internally inconsistent,” and Major General Rieger had “no personal knowledge” of, nor was briefed on, “conditions at the ICE Facility” when he issued his Sept. 27 memo requesting federalization—his information came from “news and social media,” a Truth Social post, and the court’s TRO. Further, FPS Director R.C.’s “testimony regarding how PPB will respond to very large protests in the future” was “speculative and inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial,” the court said (emphasis added).

Judge Immergut also said that she found the administration’s explanation for leaving several National Guard members at the Portland ICE facility unconvincing, stressing that while the court would “ordinarily … be inclined to accept” such an account, here it was “deeply troubled” by their “continued deployment … in violation of the First TRO.”

Of note, Judge Immergut pointed out that the government gave conflicting numbers to different courts—what it told the Ninth Circuit versus what it disclosed in discovery before her court:

“Among other information, the response suggested that the number of FPS officers diverted to the Portland ICE facility ranged from 20 to 31 between June 16, 2025, and October 5, 2025, … contrary to the Ninth Circuit majority’s reliance on Defendants’ earlier representation that’ 115 FPS officers—nearly 25% of FPS officers nationwide—were diverted to Portland.’” (citations omitted).

(Note: On Oct. 27, in the Ninth Circuit, DOJ said that it “wish[ed] to correct a factual discrepancy” it had made to the court, clarifying the earlier “115 FPS officers” figure reflected deployments and that the number of “individual FPS officers” was in fact “86.” But a government declaration filed days before in district court said only “20 to 31” FPS officers were diverted to the Portland ICE facility between Jun. 16-Oct. 5 (emphasis added).)

25. The “perceptions” of three government declarants “are not reliable,” and their declarations contain “unreliable information” that reflects “a potential lack of candor” and “call[s] into question their ability to accurately assess the facts”

Judge April M. Perry (Biden appointee), Illinois v. Trump, 1:25-cv-12174 (N.D. Ill.)

This case involves a challenge to the federalization and deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, alongside Tenth Amendment and Posse Comitatus claims.

On Oct. 9, Judge Perry issued a temporary restraining order after finding that the government’s version of facts were not credible. In an Oct. 10 opinion, the court said it “cannot conclude that Defendants’ declarations are reliable,” citing omissions and inaccuracies that “demonstrat[e] a potential lack of candor by these affiants” and “call into question their ability to accurately assess the facts,” as well as a “troubling trend” of equating peaceful protest with riotous conduct and “bias and a lack of objectivity” (emphasis added). For example, two DHS/CBP declarants referenced arrests from Sept. 27 but failed to disclose that federal grand juries declined to indict, calling into question their factual assessments. A third declaration claimed the Federal Protective Service had requested a federalized Guard to protect the federal courthouse—an “incendiary” assertion the court found inaccurate, after which the Government submitted a corrected declaration. The court concluded all three declarations contained “unreliable information” (emphasis added).The court also noted that internal DHS emails to the Illinois State Police tracked more closely with state and local accounts than with DHS’s own declarations, and that the Government’s affidavits overstated violence and were “impossible to align” with on-the-ground accounts (emphasis added). “Ultimately, this Court must conclude that Defendants’ declarants’ perceptions are not reliable,” the court wrote (emphasis added).

26. Affidavit supporting criminal complaint told a “largely fictional” story of the stop, including “blatant misstatements;” AUSA conceded the affidavit “misrepresented what was going on;”

Judge Xavier Rodriguez (W. Bush appointee), United States v. Jaime Alberto Quintanilla-Chavez, 5:25-CR-388 (W.D. Tex.)

This case involves a challenge to an indictment for assaulting a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)–(b), arising from a vehicle stop and ensuing encounter.

On Oct. 20, Judge Rodriguez dismissed the indictment, finding that the government advanced “ever-shifting positions” and after-the-fact rationales for the stop (emphasis added). The court noted that a sworn affidavit by a special agent “tells a very different—and largely fictional—story” of the stop, describing the agents’ account as reflecting “blatant misstatements about the basis for the stop” (emphasis added). The court pointed out that at the Aug. 25 hearing, the prosecutor “conceded” the affidavit “misrepresented what was going on” once body-camera footage was reviewed (emphasis added). Further, the footage showed no agents or bystanders in front of the vehicle when it moved, undercutting the officer-safety rationale and testimony the court deemed “not credible.”

27. DHS/ICE “inaccurately describ[ing] the facts,” advancing a “decidedly incorrect” account of events, and “‘incorrectly describ[ing] the procedural posture of the case’” in immigration detention habeas case

Judge Leo T. Sorokin (Obama appointee), Shinwari v. Hyde, 1:25-cv-12021 (D. Mass.)

This case involves a habeas challenge to DHS/ICE’s decision to treat his current immigration custody as mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which would allow him to seek a bond hearing.

On Oct. 20, denying the government’s motion to reconsider the court’s Oct. 3 order allowing the amended petition and directing a bond hearing, Judge Sorokin faulted the government for “inaccurately describ[ing] the facts” about a warrant, “‘incorrectly describ[ing] the procedural posture of the case,’” and offering “their different (and decidedly incorrect) recitation of the events” (emphasis added).

28. “Court does not credit” ICE official’s “assertion” of § 1225(b)(2)(A) detention because it is “contradicted by the Notice of Custody Determination.”

Judge Julia E. Kobick (Biden appointee), Gomes v. Hyde, 1:25-cv-11571 (D. Mass.)

This case involves a habeas challenge to DHS/ICE’s decision to treat his current immigration custody as mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which would allow him to seek a bond hearing.

On Jul. 7, Judge Kobick, granting Gomes’s habeas petition and ordering that he receive a bond hearing under § 1226(a), rejected the government’s new assertion that he was detained under § 1225(b)(2). Addressing an ICE official’s declaration, she wrote:

“In his declaration, ICE Assistant Field Office Director Keith M. Chan asserts that ‘[o]n May 29, 2025, ICE detained [Gomes] pursuant to its authority [under] 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).’ … The Court does not credit this assertion. The assertion is in the nature of a legal conclusion, not a fact, and in any event is contradicted by the Notice of Custody Determination completed by the ICE officer who ordered Gomes detained.” (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

29. “Court cannot credit” DHS/ICE’s post-hoc “new position … raised for the first time in this litigation” asserting § 1225(b) immigration detention, given “the record is devoid of any reference to § 1225” and “indisputable” evidence of § 1226 treatment

Judge Dale E. Ho (Biden appointee), Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 1:25-cv-05937 (S.D.N.Y.)

This case involves a habeas challenge to DHS/ICE’s decision to treat his current immigration custody as mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which would allow him to seek a bond hearing.

On Aug. 13, having searched the record, Judge Ho found it “devoid” of any evidence that the mandatory statute was ever applied to the petitioner–not during his initial 2023 arrest or even during his most recent warrant and arrest by ICE agents. Judge Ho therefore “decline[d] to credit Respondents’ position that Mr. Lopez Benitez is … is thus subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b),” writing that “it is indisputable” that the government

“have consistently treated Mr. Lopez Benitez as subject to § 1226, and that they most recently detained him last week pursuant to that statute. Indeed, the record is devoid of any reference to § 1225 in connection with Mr. Lopez Benitez’s arrest and detention until they filed their Opposition to his Petition. … The Court cannot credit Respondents’ new position as to the basis for Mr. Lopez Benitez’s detention, which was adopted post hoc and raised for the first time in this litigation.” (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Judge Ho also said that he would not “credit” DOJ counsel’s “speculation” that when Lopez was first arrested in 2023 he could have initially been designated under § 1225 as “[n]othing in the 2023 documents authorizing Mr. Lopez Benitez’s arrest and subsequent release suggest anything to that effect.”

30. “Court cannot credit” DHS/ICE’s post-hoc claim that immigration detention fell under § 1225(b)(2)(A), “despite clear indication” the detention was not under that statute

Judge Brandy R. McMillion (Biden appointee), Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 2:25-cv-12486 (E.D. Mich.)

This case involves a habeas challenge to DHS/ICE’s decision to treat his current immigration custody as mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which would allow him to seek a bond hearing.

On Aug. 29, rejecting the government’s post-hoc claim that § 1225(b)(2)(A) governed detention, Judge McMillion wrote:

“It was not until Lopez-Campos requested a custody redetermination hearing (bond hearing) that Respondents claimed his detention was under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court cannot credit this new position that was adopted post-hac [sic], despite clear indication that Lopez-Campos was not detained under this provision.” (emphasis added).

31. “Court cannot credit” DHS/ICE’s post-hoc “new position” reclassifying immigration detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) “despite clear indication” the custody did not arise under that statute.

Judge Brandy R. McMillion (Biden appointee), Santos Franco v. Raycraft, 2:25-cv-13188 (E.D. Mich.)

This case involves a habeas challenge to DHS/ICE’s decision to treat his current immigration custody as mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which would allow him to seek a bond hearing.

In an Oct. 21 order addressing Franco’s habeas petition, Judge McMillion rejected the government’s post-hoc assertion that his current detention was properly classified under § 1225(b)(2)(A) rather than § 1226(a), writing:

“Notably, Respondent previously released Santos Franco and the Government does not cite to anything to support its new interpretation that his current arrest is under 1225(b)(2)(A). And the Court is not persuaded that Petitioner’s five-year-pending application for cancellation of removal is enough to constitute ‘seeking admission.’ To hold otherwise, would allow the Government to sweepingly apply a provision of the INA that is inapplicable, and the Court is not willing to do that. Three years after having initially released Santos Franco, and following his rearrest on August 16, 2025, Respondent now claims his detention was under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). … The Court cannot credit this new position that was adopted post-hac [sic], despite clear indication that Santos Franco was not detained under this provision when he was first encountered in 2016.” (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

32. ICE Deputy Field Director declaration “contradicted pretty thoroughly” by migrants

Judge Robert W. Gettleman (Clinton appointee), Moreno Gonzalez v. Noem, 1:25-cv-13323, (N.D. Ill.)

The case involves allegations of “mass constitutional violations” at the Broadview ICE facility, including inhumane and overcrowded conditions, denial of access to counsel, and coercion of detainees to sign rights-waiving immigration forms

During a Nov. 4 emergency TRO hearing, Judge Gettleman reportedly said that a declaration submitted by DOJ lawyers from ICE Deputy Field Director Shawn Byers regarding conditions at Broadview “has been contradicted pretty thoroughly” by hours of testimony from five undocumented migrants.

33. DOT’s “nakedly misleading characterization” of immigration-enforcement grant conditions

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of California v. United States Department of Transportation, 1:25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.)

This case involves a challenge by twenty States to the Department of Transportation’s “Immigration Enforcement Condition” (IEC), which predicates federal transportation grants on state cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement.

On Nov. 4, Judge McConnell granted the States’ motion for summary judgment and denied DOT’s cross-motion, holding that the IEC violated the APA and the Spending Clause, vacating the condition from all DOT grant agreements, and permanently enjoining the government from conditioning transportation funding on state cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. The court emphasized that the government’s “core counterargument against the merits of the States’ APA claim [was] its repeated insistence that the IEC merely asks the States to certify compliance with federal law, and that it cannot be arbitrary or capricious for DOT to ensure this compliance.” Judge McConnell described this “gimcrack defense” as a “nakedly misleading characterization of what the IEC requires” (emphasis added).

34. CBP Commander “admitted that he lied;” CBP/ICE/DHS portrayal of Chicago unrest lacked credibility, “belie[d]” by own evidence; “Overall, this calls into question everything that defendants say they are doing”

Judge Sara Lee Ellis (Obama appointee), Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, 1:25-cv-12173 (N.D. Ill.)

This case involves challenges by protestors and journalists to the deployment of federal law enforcement officers including ICE and CBP agents in the city of Chicago.

Following a Nov. 5 evidentiary hearing that included live testimony, Judge Ellis extended her Oct. 9 temporary restraining order on Nov. 6, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction from the bench. Reports describe her as sharply questioning the government’s credibility and portrayal of unrest in Chicago. According to those accounts, she said that “I don’t find defendants’ version of events credible,” and added, “I find the government’s evidence to be simply not credible,” and thattheDOJ’s claims “lack credibility.”

After reviewing the video evidence offered by the government, the court rejected the administration’s portrayal of unrest in Chicago: “I watched the defendants’ videos. This, and hours and hours and hours of bodycam video and video from helicopters, was the best they could provide,” adding,

“The government would have people believe … that the Chicagoland area is in a vise hold of violence, ransacked by rioters and attacked by agitators. That simply is untrue, and the government’s own evidence in this case belies that assertion.” (emphasis added)

Judge Ellis reportedly focused in particular on the testimony and deposition of CBP Commander Gregory Bovino. She recounted how Bovino had claimed a protester hit him with a rock before he threw a tear gas canister into a crowd in Little Village, but then backed away from that story when video evidence failed to support it. “Defendant Bovino admitted that he lied,” Judge Ellis said, adding, “He admitted that he lied about whether a rock hit him before he deployed tear gas in Little Village” (emphasis added). She continued: “Mr. Bovino and the Department of Homeland Security claimed that he had been hit by a rock in the head before throwing the tear gas, but video evidence disproves this. And he ultimately admitted he was not hit until after he threw the tear gas.” Judge Ellis also noted that Bovino denied using force on a man he was filmed tackling to the ground. “In one of the videos, Bovino obviously attacks and tackles the declarant, Mr. Blackburn, to the ground,” she said, adding, “But Mr. Bovino, despite watching this video [in his deposition] says that he never used force.”

She reportedly raised similar concerns about U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Kristopher Hewson, who testified on Nov. 5 that footage of him and his officers interacting with protesters captured him saying only, “get ’em.” Judge Ellis disagreed with that characterization the following day, stating: “Clearly, what he said was ‘hit them.’”

Summing up her concerns about the government’s credibility, Judge Ellis concluded:

“Overall, this calls into question everything that defendants say they are doing in their characterization of what is happening either at the Broadview facility or out in the streets of the Chicagoland area during law enforcement activities.” (emphasis added).

(On Nov. 19, a Seventh Circuit panel stayed Judge Ellis’s Nov. 6 preliminary injunction as overbroad, while noting that her “voluminous and robust factual findings” may support a “more tailored” injunction.)

35. USDA’s assertion it could do “nothing more” to act “expeditiously” on November SNAP benefits “carries no weight”

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.)

This case involves a challenge to USDA’s October 2025 suspension of November SNAP benefits during the FY 2026 shutdown and its early termination of existing ABAWD work-requirement waivers, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside those actions and to compel the release of available contingency/Section 32 funds to pay November benefits and reinstate the waivers.

On Nov. 6, granting enforcement of the prior temporary restraining order, Judge McConnell rejected the government’s claim that “there is nothing more USDA could do” to act “expeditiously” in resolving the administrative burdens of making partial payments, stating that contention “carries no weight.” He emphasized that USDA already knew partial payments would entail delays and errors, that they “could have begun working to resolve the administrative hurdles once the lapse in appropriations occurred, or even before,” and that by choosing the partial-payment path they “would be prolonging implementation and frustrating the very purpose of the TRO,” even though the other option “provided a faster and more practical means of compliance.” Beyond the speed requirement, the court identified a “$600 million discrepancy” in USDA’s contingency-fund math.

(On Nov. 7, the defendants also filed a notice advising the district court that Congress had restored full FY 2026 SNAP funding and that USDA had directed state agencies to “take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”)

36. USDA’s Nov. 8 SNAP letter calling States’ actions “unauthorized” was “untethered to the factual record” and government “conceded” notice was “erroneous on its face”

Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass.)

This case involves a challenge to the November 2025 suspension of SNAP benefits by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), allegedly as a result of the government shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025.

On Nov. 12, granting a TRO directing USDA to ensure prompt November SNAP payments, Judge Talwani found “USDA’s assertion—that the States took ‘unauthorized’ action when they were complying with a court order that had not yet been stayed and with the USDA’s own directive—untethered to the factual record” (emphasis added). Judge Talwani noted that “Defendants have conceded that the November 4 directive regarding 50% partial SNAP payments was erroneous on its face,” adding, “Notably, USDA has never provided any basis for setting the contingency fund payments at 50%, a figure that appears to have been pulled out of thin air” (emphasis added). She further stated that USDA had not “adequately explained” why its systems could not release contingency funds and offered only assertions “without reference to any affidavit.”

Judge Talwani also noted DOJ’s inconsistent positions: telling the court any vacatur would be “nationwide,” then telling the First Circuit states could not rely on the Rhode Island order because they were not parties, before later conceding here that Rhode Island “ordered the government to pay the States.” The court further found that USDA had “confused the record” by issuing—and never rescinding—a Nov. 7 notice stating that FNS was “working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the November 6, 2025 order,” a communication that, in retrospect, “appears” to have been “carefully crafted to feign compliance with the D.R.I. Temporary Restraining Order” even though USDA “intended to do no such thing,” before reversing course in the Nov. 8 letter.

(On Nov. 13, after the government shutdown ended, the defendants filed a notice advising that Congress had restored full FY 2026 SNAP funding and that USDA had directed state agencies to “take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”)

37-a. Judge skeptical of DOJ counsel’s and AG Bondi’s claimed “ratif[ication]” of interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan in the James Comey prosecution amid missing transcript pages

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie (Clinton appointee), United States v. James Comey, 1:25-cr-00272 (E.D. Va.) and United States v. Letitia James, 2:25-cr-00122 (E.D. Va.)

These cases involve the criminal prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, which they both challenge on the basis that, inter alia, Lindsey Halligan’s interim appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

During the Nov. 13 oral argument on Comey’s and James’s challenges to Halligan’s appointment, Judge Currie reportedly flagged a “missing” portion of the Comey grand jury transcript, noting that no court reporter was present after 4:28 p.m., even though the indictment was not returned until more than two hours later—leaving no witness who could testify that Halligan did not continue speaking with the grand jury. Further, Judge Currie reportedly rejected DOJ counsel’s assertion—which echoed an Oct. 31 statement submitted to the court and signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi—that Bondi had reviewed the grand jury materials and retroactively “ratif[ied]” Halligan’s actions. Noting the missing portions of the record, Judge Currie reportedly said, “It became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript presented by Ms. Halligan” since they “did not exist” when Bondi signed her statement. (The full transcripts became available on Nov. 5.)

37-b. “Unusual series of events” involving two inconsistent Comey indictments and prosecutor Lindsey Halligan’s role “call into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings”

Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick, United States v. James Comey, 1:25-cr-00272 (E.D. Va.)

This case involves the criminal prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey.

In a Nov. 17 memorandum opinion ordering disclosure of grand-jury materials, Judge Fitzpatrick described an “unusual series of events” surrounding the grand jury’s consideration of two inconsistent indictments in the Comey prosecution. As the court explained, the grand jury was first presented with a three-count indictment and declined to indict on Count 1, after which interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan prepared a second, two-count indictment omitting Count 1. Both indictments, fully executed by the foreperson and Halligan, were presented to the magistrate judge, who accepted the “second signed indictment,” but the court now notes that it “may not have” actually been presented to or considered by the grand jury.

The court observed that the short time between the grand jury’s vote and the return of the second indictment “could not have been sufficient” for Halligan to draft a new indictment, present it to the grand jury with legal instructions, and allow deliberation and a vote. “If the prosecutor is mistaken about the time she received notification of the grand jury’s vote on the original indictment, and this procedure did take place, then the transcript and audio recording provided to the Court are incomplete;” if instead the transcript and audio are complete, then “the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury,” Judge Fitzpatrick wrote. He added:

“Either way, this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor’s declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings, and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment.” (emphasis added).

(At the Nov. 19 hearing on Comey’s motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution, Halligan reportedly informed Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff that although the full grand jury had voted on the original indictment, the final revised indictment was never presented to the full panel—only to the foreperson and one other juror.)

B. Pretext and Retaliatory Motives

38. Providing pretext for motion to dismiss an indictment

Judge Dale Ho (Biden appointee), United States v. Adams, 1:24-cr-00556 (S.D.N.Y.)

This case involves the Department of Justice’s effort to dismiss its own indictment of Mayor Eric Adams.

On Apr. 2, Judge Ho wrote that the government’s stated rationale (that there was an appearance of impropriety in bringing the case) was “unsupported by any objective evidence” and “appears pretextual.” Instead, the court concluded the true rationale appeared to be a quid pro quo. Judge Ho wrote: “Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.”

39. “The Court will not apply any presumption of regularity to conduct that is so unusual and therefore irregular on its face.” Preliminary injunction granted where the government was found to be pursuing “an unconstitutional course of retaliatory conduct directed at Harvard.”

Judge Allison D. Burroughs (Obama appointee), President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-11472 (D. Mass.)

This case involved the Department of Homeland Security’s revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which would have the effect of blocking current and future international students from attending Harvard.

On Jun. 20, Judge Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction halting the administration’s proclamation to suspend entry for any international students studying at Harvard. Judge Burroughs wrote in her accompanying memorandum and order:

“[T]he Proclamation must be enjoined because it is part of an unconstitutional course of retaliatory conduct directed at Harvard in response to its exercise of its First Amendment rights. …

Far from rebutting a finding of retaliation, the Administration’s concerted campaign entirely supports such a finding. …

As a last gasp, Defendants argue that the Proclamation should get the ‘presumption of regularity’ of government activity. … [But] the use of that text here is hardly regular. As Harvard notes, it has never been used to target the conduct or actions of domestic entities. … And it has never been used to completely eliminate a legitimate university’s ability to host international students. … Thus, the Court will not apply any presumption of regularity to conduct that is so unusual and therefore irregular on its face.” (emphasis added).

40. Executive Order terminating collective bargaining rights for federal workers enjoined as retaliatory, with court finding the presumption of regularity “has no application”

Judge James Donato (Obama appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03070 (N.D. Cal.)

This case involved challenges to an Executive Order terminating federal employees collective bargaining protections.

On Jun. 24, Judge James Donato granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which enjoined the defendants from implementing the EO against the plaintiffs and their members. In his opinion, Judge Donato finds “serious questions under the First Amendment” and expressly notes that “Plaintiffs have adduced evidence that a serious question may be asked whether the agency exclusions in EO 14251 are retaliation for protected speech.” emphasis added). In short, he found sufficient evidence to suggest “‘that there was a nexus between the defendant’s actions and an intent to chill speech.’” Rejecting the government’s invocation of the presumption of regularity, Judge Donato wrote that “the presumption of regularity … does not necessarily save the day,” since “plaintiffs have shown a sufficient likelihood that they will prevail on the argument that the presumption has no application because there is an ‘actual irregularity in the President’s factfinding process or activity,’ and the opposite conclusion is warranted that ‘the President was indifferent to the purposes and requirements of the Act, or acted deliberately in contravention of them.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On Jul. 10, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

41. Executive Order targeting Jenner & Block LLP found unconstitutional

Judge John D. Bates (Bush appointee), Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C.)

This case involves President Trump’s Mar. 25 Executive Order (EO) terminating government contracts, denying members of the firm access to federal employees, and suspending employees’ security clearances.

On Mar. 28, Judge Bates granted a temporary restraining order. On May 23, he granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and found the EO to be “an unconstitutional act of retaliation,” enjoining the EO’s “operation in full.” Judge Bates wrote:

“Like the others in the series, this order—which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block—makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not ‘use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’ … More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy. This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like[.] …

Jenner’s primary claim—and its most straightforward winner—is the First Amendment retaliation claim. …

Usually, figuring out whether retaliation would chill a speaker of ordinary firmness—and ascertaining just how much a speaker would have to trim her advocacy to avoid reprisal—requires some guesswork. Not here. The serial executive orders targeting law firms have produced something of an organic experiment, control group and all, for how firms react to the orders and how they might escape them. Over the course of that experiment, several firms of (presumably) ordinary firmness have folded rather than face similar executive orders. …

[W]hereas retaliation usually punishes once and moves along, the retaliation here is ongoing and avoidable. In this context, retaliation amounts to something akin to the impermissible ‘scheme of informal censorship’ that arises when government actors use the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech.’ …

In short, the order raises constitutional eyebrows many times over. It punishes and seeks to silence speech ‘at the very center of the First Amendment,’ … does so via the most ‘egregious form of content discrimination— viewpoint discrimination,’ … all in an unacceptable attempt to ‘insulate the Government’s laws from judicial inquiry’ …

… On the merits, there’s no doubt that the President ordered the Jenner-specific process in retaliation for Jenner’s protected speech.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

42. Executive Order targeting WilmerHale found unconstitutional

Judge Richard J. Leon (Bush appointee), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of President, 1:25-cv-00917 (D.D.C.)

This case involves President Trump’s Mar. 27 Executive Order terminating WilmerHale’s government contracts, restricting access to federal employees, and suspending its employees’ security clearances.

On Mar. 28, Judge Leon granted a temporary restraining order enjoining implementation and enforcement of Sections 3 and 5 of the EO, stating, inter alia, “The retaliatory nature of the Executive Order at issue here is clear from its face”. On May 27, Judge Leon granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs on its claim that the EO violated their First Amendment protections against retaliation. In his opinion, Judge Leon noted that:

“The WilmerHale Order is, on its face, retaliation for the firm’s protected speech. Indeed, § 1 outlines the motivations of the Order, including WilmerHale’s pro bono practice, ‘obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,’ and involvement in immigration and election litigation. …

The Order goes on to impose a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct! …

The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished! …

In sum, WilmerHale has both alleged and shown that the Order is retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment.” (emphasis added).

43. Preliminary injunction issued against section of EO terminating Treasury employees’ collective bargaining rights

Judge Paul L. Friedman (Clinton appointee), National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00935 (D.D.C)

This case was brought by the National Treasury Employees Union following President Trump’s Mar. 27 Executive Order (EO) terminating multiple departments’ employees’ statutory collective bargaining rights.

On Apr. 28, Judge Friedman granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Section 2 of the

EO. Judge Friedman held that the plaintiffs overcame the presumption of regularity—thus allowing for judicial review of its ultra vires claims—with “clear evidence” showing the President’s § 7103(b)(1) invocation was not a bona fide “national security” determination, and that the President “‘was indifferent to the purposes and requirements of the [FSLMRS], or acted deliberately in contravention of them.’” The court reached its conclusion for three reasons:

“(1) the Executive Order and the Administration’s surrounding statements are at odds with Congress’s findings in the FSLMRS; (2) the White House Fact Sheet reflects retaliatory motive; and (3) the Administration’s guidance related to the Executive Order – specifically, the OPM Guidance – suggests that the invocation of Section 7103(b)(1) was in furtherance of unrelated policy goals rather than based on the statutory criteria.”

Judge Friedman further wrote:

“In the instant case, the evidence rebutting the presumption of regularity is a significant reason to believe NTEU will prevail on its claim. The scope of the Executive Order when compared with the intent of Congress in passing the FSLMRS, coupled with the surrounding statements in the Fact Sheet and OPM Guidance – which strongly suggest that President Trump’s invocation of Section 7103(b)(1) was mere pretext for retaliation and for accomplishing unrelated policy objectives – are persuasive reasons to believe NTEU likely will be successful on the merits of its claim.” (emphasis added).

On May 16, the D.C. Circuit stayed the preliminary order pending appeal. As currently scheduled, briefing runs through the end of October.

44. Executive Order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP found unconstitutional

Judge Loren L. AliKhan (Biden appointee), Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of President, 1:25-cv-01107 (D.D.C.)

This case involves Susman Godfrey’s challenge to an Executive Order suspending its employees’ security clearances, restricting government contracts and engagement, and barring agency hiring.

On Jun. 27, Judge Loren Alikan granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on, inter alia, “Counts I and II of Susman’s complaint [which] allege that the firm was subjected to unfavorable treatment in retaliation for and on the basis of its protected speech.” Issuing a permanent injunction, Judge AliKhan said, inter alia:

“The government’s departure from the well-trodden path of individualized determination in favor of wholesale revocation—without even an ounce of supporting evidence for the court to evaluate—raises red flags and leads the court to believe that the only plausible motivation for Section 2 is retaliation. …

[B]ecause Defendants have offered no plausible explanation for the extraordinary action contemplated by Section 5—which, on its face, could go as far as banning Susman lawyers from courtrooms, post offices, and military bases—the court determines that the record can only support the conclusion that Section 5 was motivated by retaliatory intent. …

The court concludes that the Order constitutes unlawful retaliation against Susman for activities that are protected by the First Amendment, including its representation of certain clients, its donations to certain causes, and its expression of its beliefs regarding diversity.”

45. Preliminary injunction issued against section of EO terminating Department of State and USAID employees’ collective bargaining rights

Judge Paul L. Friedman (Clinton appointee), American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01030 (D.D.C.)

This case was brought by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) following President Trump’s March 27 Executive Order (EO) terminating the Foreign Service’s statutory collective bargaining rights.

On May 14, Judge Friedman issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing Section 3 of the Executive Order, which would exclude subdivisions of the Department of State and USAID from coverage under the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Judge Friedman previously enjoined Section 2 of the same EO in the National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00935 (D.D.C). The court clarifies (at n.8) that the preliminary injunction was not based on AFSA’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Because the court found AFSA likely to succeed on its ultra vires claims, it did not reach whether AFSA satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction on the retaliation theory. Notwithstanding, in his opinion, Judge Friedman stated:

“AFSA has rebutted the presumption [of regularity] by clear evidence. … [T]he Court concluded in Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Trump that the Executive Order – specifically, its unprecedented scope that seemingly conflicts with Congress’s intent – coupled with the contemporaneous statements contained in the White House Fact Sheet and OPM Guidance reflected that the President was either indifferent to or acted in contravention of the requirements of the FSLMRS. … The analysis is identical here, because this case implicates the exact same Executive Order, White House Fact Sheet, and OPM Guidance. …

AFSA provides further argument and evidence that demonstrates a retaliatory motive for the Executive Order. …For example, AFSA highlights the fact that the Executive Order – despite excluding two-thirds of the federal workforce from coverage of the statutes – does not strip collective bargaining rights from the United States Customs and Border Protection (‘CBP’), whose union ‘endorsed the President in last year’s election.’ …

AFSA points to the Secretary of Veterans Administration Doug Collins’s recent decision to restore collective bargaining rights … ‘not to particular subdivisions [of the Department of Veterans Affairs], but to particular unions in the Department.’ … In justifying the decision, VA Press Secretary Pete Kasperowicz stated that the decision to restore the statutory protections to certain unions was based on the fact that those unions ‘have filed no or few grievances against VA and [ ] have not proved an impediment to the department’s ability to effectively carry out its mission . . . .’” …

The additional evidence and argument provided by AFSA bolsters the Court’s earlier conclusion … that the White House Fact Sheet and other contemporaneous evidence ‘reflects retaliatory motive towards certain unions.’” (citations omitted).

On June 20, the D.C. Circuit stayed the preliminary order pending appeal. As currently scheduled, briefing runs through the end of October.

46. Executive Order targeting Perkins Coie LLP found unconstitutional

Judge Beryl A. Howell (Obama appointee), Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C.)

This case involves President Trump’s Mar. 6 Executive Order terminating government contracts, denying members of the firm access to federal employees, and suspending employees’ security clearances.

On May 2, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction, Judge Howell ruled the Executive Order unconstitutional and condemned it as an “unprecedented attack” on the “foundational principles” of the judicial system, holding that:

“That plaintiff’s protected activities are the only reasons provided by the Order itself to justify the actions directed is strong evidence that the Order retaliates against plaintiff for engaging in those protected activities. Analysis of each section of the Order, as well as the context surrounding its issuance, only adds reasons to confirm this conclusion and further shows that the legal infirmity of retaliation permeates every section and sentence of EO 14230. …

Again, particularly given that President Trump has confirmed the Order was motivated by ‘the conduct of a specific member of this firm,’ the targeting of all the Firm’s employees for such access and hiring restrictions simply cannot be explained by any legitimate governmental purpose, leaving only retaliation as the obvious reason for the First Amendment protected speech and other activities with which EO 14230 takes issue. …

President Trump’s multi-year history of lodging public attacks critical of plaintiff, his promises during the 2024 campaign to act on his displeasure toward plaintiff if he won, and the subsequent issuance of EO 14230—which repeats many of the same attacks on plaintiff—further demonstrates that EO 14230 was issued to seek retribution against plaintiff for the Firm’s representation of clients in political campaigns or litigation, about which President Trump expressed disapproval, dating back to 2017. This purpose amounts to no more than unconstitutional retaliation for plaintiff’s First Amendment protected activity. …

The government’s briefing reveals the true motivation lurking behind the façade of discrimination allegations: the administration’s disapproval of plaintiff’s speech in favor of diversity. This revelation makes clear the pretextual nature of EO 14230’s cited reason regarding plaintiff’s purported discrimination. …

Thus, again, this record firmly supports the finding that EO 14230 serves no legitimate government interest, but only the interest of retaliation. Our Constitution leaves no room for the exercise of ‘purely personal and arbitrary power.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

47. Preliminary injunction granted where DOJ appeared to have terminated grants to ABA with retaliatory motive

Judge Christopher R. Cooper (Obama appointee), American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice, 1:25-cv-01263 (D.D.C.)

This case concerns the DOJ’s termination of grants to the ABA Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, which the ABA contends was intended as retaliation for its support of law firms targeted by the Executive Orders.

On May 14, Judge Cooper granted a preliminary injunction on the First Amendment retaliation claim arising from the termination of grants, stating:

“The ABA has made a strong showing that Defendants terminated its grants to retaliate against it for engaging in protected speech. …

[T]he ABA’s allegations, accepted as true, plausibly plead that the government’s proffered justification for terminating the grants is pretextual, and that the real reason was retaliation. The Blanche Memo explicitly spells out how DOJ will be changing its approach toward the ABA in light of the ABA’s lawsuit against the United States. And the temporal proximity between the Blanche Memo and the termination of the ABA’s grants is probative of Defendants’ retaliatory motive. …

The government claims that it had a nonretaliatory motive for terminating the grants: They no longer aligned with DOJ’s priorities. But the government has not identified any nonretaliatory DOJ priorities, much less explained why they were suddenly deemed inconsistent with the goals of the affected grants. And the government’s different treatment of other grantees suggests this justification is pretextual.” (emphasis added).

48. Preliminary injunction issued where DHS appeared to have acted to punish AFGE and its members, constituting “impermissible retaliation”

Judge Marsha J. Pechman (Clinton appointee) American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Noem 2:25-cv-00451 (W.D. Wash.)

This case involves DHS’ announcement that it was ending collective bargaining for the TSA’s Transportation Security Officers.

On Jun. 2, Judge Pechman issued a preliminary injunction blocking DHS secretary Kristi Noem from ending collective bargaining rights and rescinding the 2024 union contract for Transportation Security Officers, finding (in part) that the action was likely retaliatory. Judge Pechman stated:

“AFGE has demonstrated a strong likelihood that the Noem Determination constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration’s assault on federal workers. …

The Noem Determination appears to have been undertaken to punish AFGE and its members because AFGE has chosen to push back against the Trump Administration’s attacks to federal employment in the courts. The First Amendment protects against retaliation for engaging in litigation and public criticism of the government. And the Noem Determination’s threadbare justification for termination of the CBA exposes the retaliatory nature of the decision.” (emphasis added).

49. Executive Order’s broad exclusions from collective bargaining rights for federal workers found retaliatory and pretextual, rebutting presumption of regularity

Judge Paul Friedman (Clinton appointee),Federal Education Association v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01362 (D.D.C.)

This case involves President Trump’s Executive Order (EO 14251), which excludes most federal workers from collective bargaining rights under the Civil Service Reform Act citing national security concerns.

On Aug. 14, Judge Friedman granted a preliminary injunction which rejected the government’s argument that DoDEA has a “primary national security” function due to the recruitment and retention aspect of educating servicemembers children, and held that the evidence supports the argument that the exclusions set out in the EO were intended as retaliation against labor organizations that have opposed President Trump or in furtherance of unrelated policy goals, thus rebutting the presumption of regularity. Judge Friedman held:

“There are at least two reasons to reject the government’s argument and to conclude that the Court should look to the entirety of the Executive Order’s exclusions. First, the evidence rebutting the presumption of regularity suggests that the Executive Order should be viewed in its entirety. As discussed at length in NTEU and AFSA, contemporaneous evidence surrounding the Executive Order demonstrates that the entire Executive Order likely was motivated by considerations outside of those identified in the statute: the exclusions were intended as retaliation against labor organizations that have opposed President Trump or in furtherance of unrelated policy goals. … As the Union Plaintiffs argue, evidence of these improper motives ‘infect every one of [the Executive Order’s] myriad exclusions,’ … which negate any presumption that an individualized determination was made as to each of the excluded agencies and subdivisions. For the Court to analyze individual exclusions thus appears at odds with the evidence suggesting that the action as a whole was ‘irregular.’ The fact that the presumption of regularity is rebutted therefore may be ‘decisive here,’ and warrants considering the Executive Order as a whole.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On Sept. 2, the D.C. Circuit administratively stayed the district court’s preliminary injunction pending further order of the court.

50. Preliminary injunction issued where FTC investigation of Media Matters deemed retaliatory for criticism of Musk’s X.

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan (Biden appointee), Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, 1:25-cv-01959 (D.D.C.)

This case involves Media Matters’ challenge to an FTC investigation, alleging it was retaliation for its reporting on Elon Musk’s platform “X”.

On Aug. 15, Judge Sooknanan granted a preliminary injunction, finding “that Media Matters is likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim. … Media Matters engaged in quintessential First Amendment activity when it published an online article criticizing Mr. Musk and X. And the Court finds that the FTC’s expansive CID [(civil investigative demands)] is a retaliatory act.” In making this determination, she noted that the government offered “no declaration explaining why they have decided to investigate Media Matters” until after the present lawsuit commenced. For this reason, she concluded, “given the comments by Chairman Ferguson and his colleagues about Media Matters, the timing of the CID, and evidence of pretext, Media Matters is likely to show that retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of the FTC’s CID.” (emphasis added).

51. Funding freeze targeting Harvard ruled retaliatory and pretextual

Judge Allison D. Burroughs (Obama appointee), President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-11048 (D. Mass.) and American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter v. United States Department Of Justice, 1:25-cv-10910 (D. Mass.) (related cases)

This case involves the federal government freezing billions of dollars in funds to Harvard following the university’s refusal to comply with the government’s demands.

On Sept. 3, Judge Burroughs held that the administration’s freeze and termination of Harvard’s funding were retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment and granted Harvard summary judgment on its First Amendment retaliation claim; she also enjoined further funding actions taken in retaliation for Harvard’s protected speech. Judge Burroughs stated:

“Based on this administrative record, the Court is satisfied that Harvard’s protected conduct was a substantial and motivating factor in the Freeze Orders and Termination Letters. Defendants contend, however, that Harvard’s retaliation claim nonetheless fails because ‘the agencies’ terminations are explained by a nonretaliatory purpose: opposing antisemitism,’ … such that the government “would have terminated” the grants irrespective of Harvard’s viewpoints[.] This argument does not carry the day. Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show they acted with a non-retaliatory purpose for several reasons. …

[T]he Court is satisfied that Harvard is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for First Amendment retaliation on the face of the administrative record. The Court would be remiss, however, if it did not note that the summary judgment record also contains numerous exhibits and undisputed facts that go beyond the administrative record that speak to Defendants’ retaliatory motive in terminating Harvard’s funding. Although Defendants now contend that Harvard’s April 14 rejection and subsequent lawsuit had nothing to do with their decision to cut its funding, numerous government officials spoke publicly and contemporaneously on these issues, including about their motivations, and those statements are flatly inconsistent with what Defendants now contend. These public statements corroborate that the government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism. …

The fact that Defendants’ swift and sudden decision to terminate funding, ostensibly motivated by antisemitism, was made before they learned anything about antisemitism on campus or what was being done in response, leads the Court to conclude that the sudden focus on antisemitism was, at best (and as discussed infra), arbitrary and, at worst, pretextual” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

52. Prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia found “presumptively vindictive”

Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. (Obama appointee), United States v. Abrego Garcia, 3:25-cr-00115, (M.D. Tenn.)

This case involves the federal government’s criminal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia following his filing of a legal challenge to his removal to El Salvador.

On Aug. 19, Abrego Garcia moved to dismiss the criminal case for alleged vindictive and selective prosecution (or, in the alternative, to order discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his claims). He argued that the government’s May 21 indictment of him for transporting undocumented aliens was retaliatory, including to “punish him for challenging his removal, to avoid the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct, and to shift public opinion around Mr. Abrego’s removal, including ‘mounting concerns’ with the government’s compliance with court orders.”

On Oct. 3, Judge Crenshaw granted Garcia’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, holding that—considering the “totality of events”—Garcia made a prima facie showing of a “realistic likelihood” of vindictiveness. The court applied the presumptive-vindictiveness framework and found both factors present, noting the government’s “significant stake” in deterring Garcia’s Maryland suit, the “significant burden on and embarrassment to the Executive Branch” caused by Garcia’s case, and the potential unreasonableness of its actions. The court highlighted Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s televised remarks tying the decision to investigate Abrego to an adverse Maryland court ruling, as possible direct evidence of “actual vindictiveness” (while reserving any finding on that issue at this stage). The court also stated, “Even assuming the individual motive of Acting U.S. Attorney McGuire was pure, others’ motives, like fruit from a poisonous tree, may taint this prosecution.”

53. “Preordained” and “pretextual;” Venezuela TPS vacatur with “entirely baseless” rationale

Judge Edward M. Chen (Obama appointee), National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-01766 (N.D. Cal.)

This case challenges DHS’s 2025 Temporary Protected Status actions—vacating the prior Venezuela extension/redesignation, terminating Venezuelans’ TPS, and partially vacating Haitians’ TPS.

On Sept. 5, Judge Chen granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and denied the government’s motions to dismiss. The Court held that Secretary Noem’s Venezuela action vacating TPS status of Venezuelans was “preordained” and “pretextual:”

“Finally, the Secretary’s decision to vacate was arbitrary and capricious because it was pretextual—i.e., it was not animated by a concern about, e.g., novelty or confusion as professed, nor was it otherwise the result of reasoned agency decision making. Instead, the Secretary—acting with unprecedented haste and in an unprecedented manner—issued the vacatur for the preordained purpose of expediting termination of Venezuela’s TPS.”

Judge Chen emphasized that the asserted rationale was “entirely baseless,” that “there is no evidence of any reasoned decision making behind Secretary Noem’s vacatur,” and that the “highly unusual and unprecedented” failure to consult with other agencies reinforced the pretextual nature of the decision.

As to Haiti, the court deemed the termination necessarily unlawful because it rested on the unlawful partial vacatur, and further held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged pretext—pointing to DHS’s “directly contradictory” explanations (a June 7 press release invoking improved conditions and national interest vs. a July 1 Federal Register notice relying only on national interest and describing ongoing instability), and noting that pretext may also be inferred from other evidence presented.

On Oct. 3, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion for a stay of the district court’s Sept. 11 order as it applied to Venezuelan TPS.

54. Transgender military ban “littered” and “dripping” with pretext and “bear no relation to fact”

Judge Ana Reyes (Biden appointee), Talbott v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00240 (D.D.C.)

The case involved the Trump administration’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, and to dishonorably discharge currently serving transgender service members.

On Mar. 18, granting a preliminary injunction against the administration’s transgender military ban, Judge Reyes found that the administration’s stated justifications were pretextual, writing that the Military Ban is “littered with animus and pretext” and “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,” its language “unabashedly demeaning, … and its conclusions bear no relation to fact” (emphasis added). The court further expressed “considerable doubt” that the ban was needed to ensure fitness, emphasizing that the policy’s “‘breadth’ [over targeting anyone considered affected by gender dysphoria] ‘so far removed’ from military health concerns, it is ‘impossible to credit’ Defendants’ justifications’” (citation omitted).

55. DHS offered pretextual reasons for TPS termination for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.)

This case challenges DHS’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

On Aug. 21, Judge Kim granted the plaintiffs’ request for extra-record discovery on their APA and Equal Protection claims. The court held that the plaintiffs made a Department of Commerce v. New York–type showing of bad faith/pretext, expressly relying on District Judge Trina L. Thompson’sJul. 31 order that found the TPS terminations were “based on a preordained determination … rather than an objective review of the country conditions,” and quoting Judge Thompson’s discussion of statements “stereotyping the TPS program and immigrants as invaders.” Judge Kim then added that these statements “suggest [the Secretary’s] decisions were based on racism, not country conditions” and stated that “plaintiffs have demonstrated that the reasons offered by the agency are pretextual.”

Additionally, for materials the government withheld under the deliberative-process privilege, the court held that the presumption of regularity “does not apply” because plaintiffs showed both that “the decision memoranda were improperly categorized as deliberative” and that agency decisionmakers acted with bad faith, misconduct, or impropriety. The court further noted that deliberative materials may be relevant where the agency’s stated reasons are “pretextual.”

56. HHS “invented” two pretexts to support new grant conditions stripping gender-identity content from PREP/SRAE

Judge Ann Aiken (Clinton appointee), State of Washington v. Health and Human Services, 6:25-cv-01748 (D. Or.)

The case challenges new HHS grant conditions that require states to remove all references to gender identity from federally funded sexual health education programs under the PREP and SRAE statutes

Granting a preliminary injunction on Oct. 27, Judge Aiken found that the government’s explanations were “absurd” and that it had offered at least two pretextsfor its actions. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that

“the real reason behind HHS’s Gender Conditions is to ‘erase’ transgender and gender diverse people from the program materials consistent with ‘this administration’s overtly hostile comments regarding transgender people.’ … That is, Plaintiff States contend that the real reason behind HHS’s Gender Conditions is to implement the administration’s policy objectives as set out in E.O. 14,168. The Court agrees.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

HHS initially directed Plaintiff States to submit curricula for a “medical accuracy review,” but then “change[d] course” and refrained from conducting that review. The court said:

“On this record, the Court infers that, in imposing the Gender Conditions, what HHS really seeks is to implement the administration’s policy preferences. The ‘medical accuracy review’ was mere pretext.” (emphasis added).

The court further added that

“after HHS discovered that curricula materials that reference gender identity would survive a medical accuracy review, it then invented a second pretext—that “gender ideology is outside the scope of the authorizing statute.” (emphasis added).

“In sum, HHS fails to show that the new grant conditions are reasonable, let alone offer any reasonable explanation, other than pretext, for its action,” Judge Aiken concluded.

57. DOJ’s subpoena of gender affirming care provider “pretextual;” DOJ “abandoned good faith investigation”

Judge Jamal N. Whitehead (Biden appointee), QueerDoc, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Justice, 2:25-mc-00042 (W.D. Wash.)

This case concerns the Department of Justice’s issuance of an administrative subpoena to QueerDoc, a small telehealth provider of gender-affirming care.

In quashing a Department of Justice subpoena directed at QueerDoc, Judge Whitehead found on Oct. 27 that the Justice Department’s pursuit of the subpoena reflected an “improper purpose” and a “pretextual nature,” and that the Department had “abandoned good faith investigation in favor of policy enforcement through prosecutorial coercion” (emphasis added).

Rejecting the Justice Department’s contention that the subpoena was tied to potential violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or False Claims Act, the court found instead that “this is not speculation about hidden motives—it is the Administration’s explicit agenda.” The record demonstrated that the DOJ sought “the intended effect of its Executive Orders and these subpoenas to ‘downsize or eliminate’ all gender-affirming care.” The court concluded: “No clearer evidence of improper purpose could exist than the Government’s own repeated declarations that it seeks to end the very practice it claims to be merely investigating.”

The order underscored the “pretextual nature” of the subpoena, noting that “[t]he Attorney General directed investigations of ‘manufacturers and distributors engaged in misbranding’ and providers submitting false insurance claims. QueerDoc is neither.” The court explained that “this mismatch is not just a technicality. It suggests that the DOJ issued the subpoena first and searched for a justification second” (emphasis added). Demanding thousands of patient records from an entity “that cannot, by definition, commit the violations being investigated” confirmed that QueerDoc was targeted “for what it does (provide gender-affirming care) rather than how it does it (through any unlawful means)” (emphasis added).

Judge Whitehead also struck down DOJ’s attempt to supplement its case via an improper “praecipe,” noting that even if considered, the declaration only “further demonstrate[d] the pretextual nature of the subpoena”—showing the government had devoted “substantial national investigation” resources, including “multiple FBI agents,” to pursue a small telehealth provider with no link to the violations ostensibly under investigation (emphasis added).

58. OMB’s actions during the government shutdown found “retaliatory and partisan”

Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.) (related cases)

This case involves a challenge to OMB’s Sept. 24 “Lapse Memorandum” and OPM’s Sept. 28 updated shutdown guidance and “Special Instructions”—which authorized agencies to administer RIFs during the federal government shutdown beginning Oct. 1—as unlawful and beyond their authority.

On Oct. 28, issuing a preliminary injunction, Judge Illston credited the plaintiffs’ showing that the President and OMB “explicitly direct[ed] agencies to use RIFs to punish Democrats by targeting programs perceived as having a certain political affiliation,” rejecting the government’s rebuttal that the dispute turned on proof of individuals being targeted and was merely about “policy priorities.” She pointed to agency RIF notices and OMB’s Lapse Memorandum indicating that programs “not in alignment with the President’s priorities” were treated as “Democrat-oriented,” underscoring the partisan framing. The court concluded that

“the agencies sharply depart from historical practice, unilaterally acting out President Trump’s and OMB Director Vought’s retaliatory and partisan ‘policy goal’ of punishing Democrat-oriented agencies amid a government shutdown.” (emphasis added).

59. Denial of November SNAP benefits “entirely ‘pretextual;’” an example of “unjustifiable partisanship”

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.)

This case involves a challenge to USDA’s October 2025 suspension of November SNAP benefits during the FY 2026 shutdown and its early termination of existing ABAWD work-requirement waivers, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside those actions and to compel the release of available contingency/Section 32 funds to pay November benefits and reinstate the waivers.

On Nov. 6, Judge McConnell granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a second TRO and ordered USDA to make full November SNAP payments by Nov. 7 using Section 32 and/or contingency funds, holding that the administration’s decision not to fully fund payments was likely “arbitrary and capricious” because, inter alia, it was “entirely ‘pretextual’” and undertaken for “partisan political purposes” (emphasis added).

He grounded that conclusion in two strands of evidence. First was USDA’s own public messaging: its website banner declared that “the well has run dry,” even though USDA’s 2019 guidance acknowledged that contingency funds can be used during a shutdown, and the banner was quietly removed after the Oct. 31 TRO. Second were President Trump’s statements, which shifted from saying it would “be my honor” to fund SNAP if directed by the court to insisting that “SNAP BENEFITS … will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government … and not before!” Judge McConnell concluded:

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations. … Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes. Such ‘unjustifiable partisanship’ has infected the USDA’s decision-making.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

The court also emphasized in the introductory discussion of its order:

“While the President of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it serves, the government’s actions tell a different story. Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, it chose the latter—an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers. Such conduct is more than poor judgment; it is arbitrary and capricious. One cannot champion the public interest while simultaneously adopting policies that frustrate it. Discretion exercised in this manner ceases to be discretion at all—it becomes obstruction cloaked in administrative formality.” (emphasis added).

(The defendants also filed a notice advising the district court that Congress had restored full FY 2026 SNAP funding and that USDA had directed state agencies to “take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”)

60. Habeas Cases

These cases involve habeas corpus challenges arising from the Trump administration’s efforts to combat antisemitism and protest activity, together with broader matters involving immigration detention and removal 

1) Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford (Obama appointee), Mahdawi v. Trump, 2:25-cv-00389 (D. Vt.)

On Apr. 30, Judge Crawford granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the petitioner released on his personal recognizance during the pendency of his habeas proceeding. The judge stated that “[the] evidence is sufficient for Mr. Mahdawi’s present purpose of raising a ‘substantial claim’ of First Amendment retaliation.”

On May 9, the Second Circuit denied the government’s appeal.

2) Judge Angel Kelley (Biden appointee), Ercelik v. Hyde, 1:25-cv-11007 (D. Mass.)

On May 8, ordering the petitioner’s immediate release, Judge Kelley found that “detention is contrary to the Government’s own policy initiatives” because the petitioner had proven not to be a flight risk in criminal proceedings and had bought an airline ticket to leave the country voluntarily. “It rises to the level of near absurdity that Respondents are working to deport many people quickly and at minimal expense to the American taxpayer, but absent an improper purpose, intend to extend Petitioner’s detention,” the court wrote. “The facts leading to Petitioner’s arrest point to a likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment retaliation claim,” Kelley concluded.

3) Judge Katherine M. Menendez (Biden appointee) Aditya Harsono v. Trump, 0:25-cv-01976 (D. Minn.)

On May 14, Judge Menendez granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, stating:

“[O]n this record, and with the showing made by Petitioner, it … likely indicates pretext, while the true reason for taking him into custody and detaining him during the ongoing removal proceedings is retaliation for his public expression of support for Palestinian human rights. … Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. H has shown that he is in custody in violation of the First Amendment and is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus for his immediate release. … [T]he Court concludes that Mr. H prevails on his First Amendment retaliation claim.” (emphasis added).

4) Judge Michael E. Farbiarz (Biden appointee) Khalil v. Joyce, 2:25-cv-01963 (D.N.J.)

On May 28, Judge Farbiarz ruled in Mahmoud Khalil’s favor on the ground that removal for his political activity was unconstitutional, but also ruled that Khalil had not yet sufficiently disputed the second ground for his removal on failure to disclose information in his 2024 legal permanent resident application. “To prevail on a First Amendment–retaliation claim, the Petitioner would presumably need to show that the effort to remove him based on his alleged failure to disclose was caused by his First Amendment–protected activity,” the court wrote.

On Jun. 11, Farbiarz found:

“[I]t is overwhelmingly likely that the Petitioner would not be detained based solely on the lawful-permanent-resident application charge. Rather, the Court finds, the Petitioner’s detention almost surely flows from the charge that is based on the Secretary of State’s determination.” (emphasis added).

5) Judge Jerry W. Blackwell (Biden appointee) Mohammed H. v. Trump, 0:25-cv-01576 (D. Minn.)

On Jun. 17, Judge Blackwell granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, stating:

“Petitioner supplie[d] evidence of what caused the change in treatment: targeted speech retaliation in accordance with the Trump administration’s policies… these events appear to be reverse-engineered justifications for speech-based targeting and enforcement.” (emphasis added).

The court further noted:

“The record reflects a coordinated series of executive actions—retaliatory in focus, opaque in their justification, and deficient in process.” (emphasis added).

6) Judge Kymberly K. Evanson (Biden appointee), E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 2:25-cv-01192 (W.D. Wash.)

On Aug. 19, granting a habeas petition and ordering the petitioner’s release after he was arrested by ICE agents immediately following an immigration-court hearing, Judge Evanson rejected the government’s post-hoc attempt to justify the arrest as based on alleged Alternatives to Detention (ATD) violations, noting that although the government “now asserts that ICE became aware of Petitioner’s alleged ATD violations (which occurred months earlier) a few hours before his immigration hearing,” the government’s attorney “did not raise the violations, nor argue that Petitioner should be detained for any reason” at that hearing, and that the petitioner was then given “multiple inconsistent justifications for his arrest,” such that, considering the timing and the government’s earlier decisions in his favor, these circumstances “raise concerns that Petitioner’s arrest was not in fact motivated by his ATD violations” (emphasis added).

Note: The above list excludes cases in which courts found the government engaged in unlawful retaliation but did not involve a judicial finding of pretextual rationale. Such cases include: Associated Press v. Budowich, 1:25-cv-00532 (D.D.C.) (Judge Trevor N. McFadden (Trump appointee)), stay granted in part by No. 25-5109 (D.C. Cir.); Ozturk v. Hyde, 2:25-cv-00374 (D. Vt.) (Judge William K. Sessions III (Clinton appointee); Suri v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00480 (E.D. Va.) (Judge Patricia T. Giles (Biden appointee)).

Chapter 3. Court Findings of “Arbitrary and Capricious” Administrative Action

Introduction

The opposite of following the rules and acting with procedural consistency—behavior that undergirds the presumption of regularity—is arbitrary and capricious decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). In other words, since the presumption of regularity is based on the notion that agencies generally follow regular procedures, what happens if the baseline order of business is different? What if arbitrary and capricious conduct was instead widespread or pervasive? The application of the presumption would lose the basis for its support.

In this Chapter, we document 68 cases in which courts have held that the administration likely engaged in arbitrary and capricious conduct since Jan. 20, 2025. Although some readers might wonder whether, in theory, findings of arbitrary and capricious conduct may not always suggest agency irregularity in the relevant sense for the presumption of regularity, the excerpted court opinions below allow one to gauge the nature and gravity of these judicial findings.

Notably, this catalog of cases reflects only a subset of instances in which courts have found the government violated required administrative procedures. In other cases, courts have set aside administrative actions that were “not in accordance with law” or that occurred “without observance of procedure required by law.” See 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) & (D). In other words, the list below is arguably a conservative estimate of court findings of government wrongdoing.

The following list is in chronological order.

1. Judge Loren L. AliKhan (Biden appointee), National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, 1:25-cv-00239 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: OMB memo M-25-13 instituting a “temporary pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs (memo cited a variety of relevant EOs).

On Feb. 3, Judge AliKhan granted plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order to prevent OMB memo M-25-13 from having effect; on Feb. 25, Judge AliKhan entered a preliminary injunction. In the Feb. 3 TRO, she wrote:

“Defendants have offered no rational explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance—with less than twenty-four-hours’ notice—to ‘safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.’ … Rather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision. To say that OMB ‘failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’ would be putting it mildly.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

In the Feb. 25 preliminary injunction, Judge AliKhan offered substantially similar reasoning, concluding:

The arbitrary-and-capricious review at this stage of the litigation remains largely unchanged from the court’s earlier opinion. The touchstone of this inquiry is rationality, and Defendants’ actions flunk that test. Defendants still cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance in less than a day to ‘safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.’ …

In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. … Defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Pending the government’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the district court stayed its preliminary injunction; under the current schedule, the appellant’s brief and appendix are due Sept. 19, the appellee’s brief is due Oct. 20, and the reply brief is due Nov. 10.

2. Judge John D. Bates (Bush appointee), Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-00322 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Removal of information from HHS websites under Executive Order on “Gender Ideology Extremism“ (Executive Order 14168)

On Feb. 11, Judge Bates granted a temporary restraining order, stating:

“The Court agrees that DFA has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as to this claim. By removing long relied upon medical resources without explanation, it is likely that each agency failed to ‘examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made’. Hand in hand with the lack of explanation, it is also likely that the agencies ‘failed to consider’ the ‘important’ issue of the substantial reliance by medical professionals on the removed webpages. Ramachandran and Liou attest that they ‘rely on webpages and datasets’ from the CDC and FDA ‘to do [their] work’ … Medical providers’ widespread and routine reliance on information is an identified and adequately alleged reliance interest. DFA has thus shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to its claims that CDC, HHS, and FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in removing the webpages.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

After the TRO expired on Feb. 25, plaintiffs filed an expedited motion for summary judgment (with a preliminary-injunction request) to secure merits relief on the legality of the OPM Memo and HHS Guidance—the same directives at the heart of the TRO. Granting in part the motion for summary judgment (and denying as moot the preliminary injunction request), Judge Bates wrote:

“Considering the scant administrative record, the answer here is clear: neither the OPM Memo nor the HHS Guidance was the product of reasoned decisionmaking. … The E.O. itself thus does not provide a reasoned explanation for these specific actions by the agencies. …

But common sense dictates there are numerous ways to remove an offending word or statement without rescinding the entire webpage. Why did the agencies choose this route? The OPM Memo, HHS Guidance, and administrative record are again silent. Similarly, although the defendants stated an intent to modify some of the removed webpages, there is silence as to why the agencies chose to remove the webpages pending mere modification. …

The defendants have not explained their decisionmaking, and from the sparse administrative record it cannot ‘reasonably be discerned.’ …

The defendants engendered the plaintiffs’ substantial reliance on the webpages and datasets. The APA thus required the defendants to weigh that reliance against competing policy concerns before adopting removal policies. … Because the defendants admittedly failed to do so, the OPM Memo and HHS Guidance were yet again arbitrary and capricious. …

The defendants’ actions were ill-conceived from the beginning. Rather than taking a measured approach to harmonizing the HHS defendants’ public-facing webpages with the Gender Ideology E.O., considering their other statutory obligations, and ascertaining and weighing the obvious reliance interests—which the E.O. left the agencies time to do—the defendants instead adopted policies of ‘remove first and assess later’ that failed to consider multiple important aspects of the situation. … In fact, the administrative record is devoid of reasoning generally, save a handful of references to the E.O. and the OPM Memo. The APA requires more. … A court must consider whether the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did, … and here the evidence did not. For these reasons, the OPM Memo and HHS Guidance were arbitrary and capricious and thus violated the APA. (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

3. Judge Amir Ali (Biden appointee), AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State, 1:25-cv-00400 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Dismantling of USAID (Executive Order 14169) (State Dept stop-work order)

On Feb. 13, Judge Ali issued a temporary restraining order, stating:

“There has been no explanation offered in the record, let alone a ‘satisfactory explanation … including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,’ as to why reviewing programs—many longstanding and taking place pursuant to contractual terms— required an immediate and wholesale suspension of appropriated foreign aid. Plaintiffs have also shown that implementation of the blanket suspension is likely arbitrary and capricious given the apparent failure to consider immense reliance interests, including among businesses and other organizations across the country. No aspect of the implemented policies or submissions offered by Defendants at the hearing suggests they considered and had a rational reason for disregarding the massive reliance interests of the countless small and large businesses that would have to shutter programs or shutter their businesses altogether and furlough or lay off swaths of Americans in the process. In their implementation of the blanket suspension of foreign aid, Defendants accordingly appear to have ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.’”(emphasis added).

On Mar. 10, the court granted in part a preliminary injunction, reaffirming its TRO conclusion that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA challenge to the original blanket suspension. Judge Ali wrote that it “continues to be true with respect to the original implementing directives” that “Defendants’ implementation of a blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid pending review was arbitrary and capricious.” He continued:

“Defendants have yet to offer any explanation, let alone one supported by the record, for why a blanket suspension setting off a shockwave and upending reliance interests for thousands of businesses and organizations around the country was a rational precursor to reviewing programs. …

Despite pointing to the possibility of waivers again in their preliminary injunction briefing, Defendants have not proffered any evidence to rebut the showing Plaintiffs made at the TRO stage. …

Because the current record does not include ‘a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made’ and indicates Defendants ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,’ Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their APA claims as they relate to the original directives implementing a blanket suspension of aid.” (emphasis added).

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

On Sept. 3, Judge Ali issued a new order granting a preliminary injunction after plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 2. He stated:

“The Court previously concluded in granting a TRO and later a preliminary injunction that Defendants’ blanket determination to freeze foreign aid funds was likely arbitrary and capricious. … The same is true of the agency Defendants’ decision to simply not spend billions of dollars in congressionally appropriated foreign aid across numerous categories and instead let those funds expire. Defendants have not offered any explanation for the decision to ignore billions of dollars in appropriated funds rather than obligate them in a manner that aligns with both Congress’s stated purposes and the Executive’s priorities. Nor do Defendants appear to have considered the reliance interests of Plaintiffs and other organizations, or the beneficiaries of their services, who have relied on the agencies’ longstanding policies and practices.” (emphasis added).

After both Judge Ali and the D.C. Circuit denied stays of the Sept. 3 PI, the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision on Sept. 26, granted the administration’s application to stay the PI pending the D.C. Circuit appeal, finding that “at this early stage, [the government] has made a sufficient showing that the Impoundment Control Act precludes respondents’ suit, brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, to enforce the appropriations at issue here.”

4. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas (Biden appointee), State of New York v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01144 (S.D.N.Y.)

Executive Action: Disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE

On Feb. 21, Judge Vargas issued a preliminary injunction, stating:

“Based upon the factual record developed to date, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will more likely than not succeed in establishing that the agency’s processes for permitting the Treasury DOGE Team access to critical BFS payment systems, with full knowledge of the serious risks that access entailed, was arbitrary and capricious.” (emphasis added).

5. Judge William Haskell Alsup (Clinton appointee), American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Charles Ezell, 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: Large-scale reductions in force / Termination of probationary employees (Executive Order 14210)

On Feb. 28, Judge Alsup issued an amended temporary restraining order, finding:

“Plaintiffs are also likely to show that the OPM directive was an arbitrary and capricious action. . . . The key fact here is that the template letters sent from OPM to the directed agencies stated: ‘[T]he Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest.’ First, it is unlikely, if not impossible, that the agencies themselves had the time to conduct actual performance reviews of the thousands terminated in such a short span of time. It is even less plausible that OPM alone managed to do so. In at least one instance, a terminated scientist had received a glowing review… five days before he was terminated ‘for [his] performance.’ ‘Reliance on facts that an agency knows are false at the time it relies on them is the essence of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On Mar. 13, Judge Alsup granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, stating: “OPM’s ultra vires directive is likely to constitute an unlawful final agency action that is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,’ ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,’ and ‘without observance of procedure required by law.’” Defendants filed an ex parte motion to stay the injunction pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but Judge Alsup denied the motion, and the Ninth Circuit further denied the request for an administrative stay on Mar. 17. However, on Apr. 8, the Supreme Court granted the requested stay on the basis of standing. On Apr. 18, Judge Alsup granted another preliminary injunction, applying the original preliminary injunction to new union plaintiffs, under an unspecified provision of the APA (“OPM’ directive constituted an ultra vires act that infringed upon all impacted agencies’ statutory authority to hire and fire their own employees… No statute — anywhere, ever — has granted OPM the authority to direct the termination of employees in other agencies”).

On Jun. 5, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, leading defendants to also cross-move for summary judgment on Jul. 3. On Sept. 12, Judge Alsup granted plaintiffs’ motion, holding:

“The OPM directive was arbitrary and capricious: It directed the termination of over 25,000 probationers across the federal government ‘based on [their] performance’ pursuant to Sections 315.803 and 315.804 without any consideration of actual performance or conduct, or any ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ The record contains repeated, unequivocal direction to agencies that ‘agencies must identify performance or conduct deficiencies in the notice terminating a probationer’. The record does not contain a single

mention of any performance deficiency on the part of any probationer terminated pursuant to

OPM’s directive. Even where OPM granted agencies’ pleas for exemptions, it provided ‘no explanation at all’ for doing so… OPM lacked the authority to direct other agencies to terminate their probationary employees and violated the APA when it did so.”

6. Judge Jamal N. Whitehead (Biden appointee), Pacito v. Trump, 2:25-cv-00255 (W.D. Wash.)

Executive Action: Suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (Executive Order No. 14163) and Refugees Funding Suspension (Dept. of State Notice)

On Feb. 28, Judge Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction preventing the suspension of the Refugee Admissions Program:

“The Agency Defendants provided no explanation whatsoever for these substantive expansions of the USRAP EO. They did not, as is required under arbitrary-and-capricious review, acknowledge, let alone meaningfully consider, the reliance interests of refugees, U.S. citizens, and resettlement nonprofits harmed by their actions. Nor did they articulate any consideration of alternative options—such as the implementation of a case-by-case admissions system at the discretion of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security—that might mitigate the harms of the Agency Suspension. Instead, they merely cite the USRAP EO as a justification for their actions. But the USRAP EO—which is itself unlawful—cannot, on its face, explain the Agency Defendants’ discretionary expansions of the USRAP EO.

The Refugee Funding Suspension likewise went far beyond the text of the Foreign Aid EO that it purported to implement. … [The] EO calls only for a pause in ‘foreign development assistance’ and says nothing about USRAP, refugee case processing, or refugee services. Nevertheless, the Agency Defendants, with no explanation, construed the Foreign Aid EO as requiring the total suspension of all funding for USRAP operations— including, contrary to reason, funding for domestic refugee resettlement support. …

As with the Agency Suspension, the Agency Defendants provided no reasoned explanation for the Refugee Funding Suspension. … Secretary Rubio issued the Suspension Notices because USRAP-related funding ‘is appropriated under the ‘Migration and Refugee Assistance’ (MRA) heading of title III of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (SFOAA)”—which was paused in response to the Foreign Aid EO. This is no explanation at all. Defendants effectively concede that Secretary Rubio discretionarily halted USRAP funding yet give no insight into the reasons for that decision. Nor did the Agency Defendants apparently consider reasonable alternatives. …

Additionally, the State Department did not acknowledge the apparent deviation from its own regulations implementing the Refugee Act… Those regulations expressly provide that ‘[p]ayments for allowable costs must not be withheld … unless required by Federal statute, regulations, or’ if ‘[t]he recipient … has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Federal award’ or ‘is delinquent in a debt to the United States.’ None of those conditions appear to be met here.

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to prove that the Agency Suspension and the Refugee Funding Suspension are arbitrary and capricious and must therefore be set aside under the APA.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On March 24, the Judge Whitehead granted the plaintiffs’ supplemental preliminary injunction after the State Department responded to the Feb. 28 PI by issuing one-page notices terminating the resettlement agencies’ cooperative agreements as “no longer effectuat[ing] agency priorities.” In granting that relief, Judge Whitehead found the mass terminations—which dismantled USRAP infrastructure—lacked any reasoned explanation and were likely arbitrary and capricious, and it enjoined the terminations and ordered the agreements reinstated. Judge Whitehead wrote:

“The Court finds strong evidence that the Funding Termination is arbitrary and capricious. Most fundamentally, DOS provided no factual findings or bases for its termination decisions, making it impossible to ‘articulate[] a rational connection between the facts [it] found and the choice [it] made.’ … This marks the Funding Termination as arbitrary and capricious because it constitutes a shift in agency policy without any reasoned explanation. 

The Government has failed to show that the Agency Defendants ever assessed the reliance interests they engendered through their longstanding USRAPinfrastructure and standard USRAP practices. Nor has the Government shown that the Agency Defendants ‘weigh[ed] any such interests against competing policy concerns,’ … or that they considered alternatives to the Funding Termination that fell ‘within the ambit of existing [policy].’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

7. Judge Angel Kelley (Biden appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, 1:25-cv-10338 (D. Mass.) consolidated with Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health, 1:25-cv-10340 (D. Mass.) and Association of American Universities, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-10346 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Reduction of indirect cost reimbursement rate for research institutions (NIH Guidance) (DOE Rate Cap Policy, Apr. 11, 2025)

On Mar. 5, Judge Kelley ruled that a preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent the reduction, stating:

“[T]he explanations for the cap of 15% on ICRs are insufficient, and thus the Rate Change Notice is arbitrary and capricious, for two reasons.

First, the explanations are conclusory. … As described above, NIH failed to provide any reasoning, rationale, or justification at all. It claims that more funds will go to direct research but fails to address how the money will actually be directed to cover direct costs and how that research will be conducted absent the necessary indirect cost reimbursements provided by the federal government. This is particularly true considering the number of universities and associations that have made clear that research will have to be cut, as other funding sources will not be able to make up the shortfall. … NIH asserts the Rate Change Notice will bring the ICRs in line with private foundations, providing no explanation for this choice in light of the fact that private organizations, like the Gates Foundation, are ‘more expansive than NIH in defining direct costs, meaning some overhead payments are wrapped in with the grant.’ … The failure to provide any type of reasoning renders the Rate Change Notice arbitrary and capricious. … 

Second, NIH’s proffered ‘reasons’ fail to grapple with the relevant factors or pertinent aspects of the problem and fails to demonstrate a rational connection between the facts and choice that was made. … As the reasons in the Rate Change Notice are both conclusory and fail to grapple with the necessary factors, facts, and pertinent aspects of the problem demanded by this change from the existing ICR negotiation process, the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claims that the Rate Change Notice is arbitrary and capricious.” (emphasis added)

After the Mar. 5 PI, defendants—with the plaintiffs’ assent—moved to convert that order into a permanent injunction, telling the court there were no remaining factual or legal disputes and that conversion would allow prompt appellate review. Judge Kelley granted the motion on Apr. 4, entered a nationwide permanent injunction and vacated the NIH Guidance (finding the guidance unlawful, including as arbitrary and capricious).

The defendants appealed the permanent injunction on April 8, with oral argument currently scheduled for Nov. 5.

8. Judge John James McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of New York v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00039 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: “Temporary Pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs

On Mar. 6, Judge McConnell issued a preliminary injunction on the executive freeze of federal funds, stating:

“The Court finds that the Defendants have not provided a rational reason that the need to ‘safeguard valuable taxpayer resources’ is justified by such a sweeping pause of nearly all federal financial assistance with such short notice. Rather than taking a deliberate, thoughtful approach to finding these alleged unsubstantiated ‘wasteful or fraudulent expenditures,’ the Defendants abruptly froze billions of dollars of federal funding for an indefinite period. It is difficult to perceive any rationality in this decision—let alone thoughtful consideration of practical consequences—when these funding pauses endanger the States’ ability to provide vital services, including but not limited to public safety, health care, education, childcare, and transportation infrastructure. … Thus, the States have substantiated a likelihood of success of proving that the Agency Defendants’ implementation of the funding freeze was arbitrary and capricious.” (emphasis added)

9. Judge Julie R. Rubin (Biden appointee), American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. Carter, 1:25-cv-00702 (D. Md.)

Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors and grantees (Executive Order 14168, Executive Order 14151, Executive Order 14173)

On Mar. 17, Judge Rubin issued a preliminary injunction on the ban, stating:

“[The grant termination decisions] are likely to be provenarbitrary and capricious, because the Department’s action was unreasonable, not reasonably explained, based on factors Congress had not intended the Department to consider (i.e., not agency priorities), and otherwise not in accordance with law.”

On Apr. 10, the 4th Cir. granted a stay of the PI pending the government’s appeal. 

10. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander (Obama appointee), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.)

Executive Action: Disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE

On Mar. 20, Judge Hollander issued a temporary restraining order preventing DOGE from accessing SSA system data, writing:

“As discussed, defendants have not provided the Court with a reasonable explanation for why the DOGE Team needs access to the wide swath of data maintained in SSA systems in order to root out fraud and abuse. … [D]efendants disregarded protocols for proper hiring, onboarding, training, and access limitations, and, in a rushed fashion, provided access to a massive amount of sensitive, confidential data to members of the DOGE Team, without any articulated explanation for the need to do so. …

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on a claim that the conduct at issue was unreasonable and capricious. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim.”

Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim.”

On Apr. 17, she further issued a preliminary injunction preventing DOGE team members from accessing data, stating reasoning very similar to her TRO:

“As discussed, defendants have not provided the Court with a reasonable explanation for why the entire DOGE Team needs full access to the wide swath of data maintained in SSA systems in order to undertake the projects. … [D]efendants ran roughshod over SSA protocols for proper hiring, onboarding, training, and, most important, access limitations and separation of duties. …

SSA hastily provided access to an enormous quantity of sensitive, confidential data to members of the DOGE Team, without meaningful explanation for why these members needed access to PII to perform their duties. Indeed, the Administrative Record is rife with examples of ambiguous explanations for why DOGE Team members sought access to PII. Not once did Dudek inquire further into why this access is needed. Nor did he ever reject any request for access. …

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on a claim that the conduct at issue was unreasonable and capricious. Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on their arbitrary and capricious claim under the APA.”

On June 6, the Supreme Court stayed Judge Hollander’s preliminary injunction pending appeal, and on Aug. 13, the district court stayed further proceedings while the Fourth Circuit considered the appeal.

11. Judge Edward M. Chen (Obama appointee), National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-01766 (N.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: DHS Revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

On Mar. 31, Judge Chen granted the plaintiffs’ § 705 motion to postpone. The court found the vacatur of Venezuelan TPS likely arbitrary and capricious because (1) it rested on “legal (as well as factual) error”—the Mayorkas extension was not “novel,” caused no undue confusion, and complied with § 1254a; (2) DHS failed to consider obvious alternatives “within the ambit of the existing policy,” including simply de-consolidating the registration and keeping the 2021 and 2023 tracks separate; and (3) the record—including the government’s admissions at argument—showed the real aim was to undo the Mayorkas extension rather than to alleviate “confusion.”

On May 19, the Supreme Court stayed that order while the government appealed. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed Judge Chen’s preliminary order.

On Sept. 5, Judge Chen granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and denied the government’s motions to dismiss. The court held that the Secretary lacked (and, in any event, exceeded) statutory authority to vacate prior TPS extensions/redesignations—specifically the Venezuela vacatur and the Haiti partial vacatur—and that those vacaturs were arbitrary and capricious because, inter alia, they were “preordained,” undertaken without meaningful inter-agency consultation or contemporaneous country-conditions review, and supported by rationales that failed to demonstrate reasoned agency decision-making or any factual or legal basis. As to the termination of Venezuela’s TPS, the court held the action was unlawful because it rested on the unlawful vacatur and was arbitrary and capricious for failure to engage in meaningful consultation and to explain the reversal of established DHS practice.

Regarding the Venezuela vacatur, Judge Chen wrote:

“[T]here is no factual or legal support for the Secretary’s asserted reason for the vacatur. …

[T]he Secretary failed to consider alternatives short of vacatur when she revoked the Mayorkas extension. … And the context demonstrates she had no interest in doing so. …

According to Plaintiffs, this action was arbitrary and capricious because the Secretary failed to consider reliance interests, interests which the panel in this case recognized. The Court agrees. …

Finally, the Secretary’s decision to vacate was arbitrary and capricious because it was pretextual – i.e., it was not animated by a concern about, e.g., novelty or confusion as professed, nor was it otherwise the result of reasoned agency decision making. Instead, the Secretary – acting with unprecedented haste and in an unprecedented manner – issued the vacatur for the preordained purpose of expediting termination of Venezuela’s TPS. …

The pretextual nature of Secretary’s asserted rationale for the vacatur is demonstrated by the fact that her criticism of Secretary Mayorkas’s extension and the alleged confusion it caused was entirely baseless as noted above. And there is no evidence of any reasoned decision making behind Secretary Noem’s vacatur. The failure to consult with agencies in regard to the termination decision which ensued immediately after the vacatur – a failure which was highly unusual and unprecedented (as discussed below) – further evinces the pretextual nature of Secretary Noem’s purported rationale for the vacatur.”

“The Secretary lacked the authority to partially vacate and/or exceeded her authority to vacate. Even if she had statutory authority to vacate, the decision to partially vacate was arbitrary and capricious.”

Regarding the termination of Venezuelans’ TPS, Judge Chen wrote:

“[D]emonstrates not only a failure to engage in a meaningful consultation with government agencies but also a failure to conduct a meaningful country conditions review, a rudimentary element of the consultation contemplated by the statute. …

Furthermore, Secretary Noem’s decision-making was arbitrary and capricious because it reversed DHS’s established practices for TPS decision-making, as described in the 2020 GAO TPS Report, without providing any explanation for that reversal. …

Here, Secretary Noem has not provided any explanation for her reversal of established practices on TPS decision-making. …

[N]o genuine dispute that her subsequent decision to terminate was unlawful and/or arbitrary and capricious because the Secretary failed to engage in a meaningful consultation with government agencies or explain her reversal of well-established agency practice.”

The court also found the Secretary’s partial vacatur of Haiti’s TPS designation arbitrary and capricious because, inter alia, the stated rationales do not “reflect reasoned agency decision making”; the vacatur was “preordained without any meaningful analysis and review” and “made without consultation with government agencies or country conditions review;” there was “no contemporaneous country conditions report” for the Haiti partial vacatur—only a Biden-era report that “supported the Mayorkas extension/redesignation.” “Simply put,” the court wrote, “in deciding to partially vacate the TPS extension, Secretary Noem had no regard for the facts and actual conditions.”

On Oct. 3, the Supreme Court stayed Judge Chen’s Sept. 5 order insofar as it set aside the Venezuela vacatur and termination, pending resolution of the government’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

12. Judge Mary Susan McElroy (Trump appointee), State of Colorado v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-00121 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: Termination of public health grants

On Apr. 5, Judge McElroy granted the plaintiffs’ request for a TRO, stating:

“For starters, the mass termination of funding was likely not substantively reasonable. … As the States explain, Congress had already rescinded plenty of COVID-era public health spending in 2023. … But ‘Congress chose not to rescind the funding for the grants and cooperatives agreements at issue in this case.’ …

It is well-established that in the interpretation of statutes, the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of others. … So Congress’s decision to eliminate some COVID-era public health measures but leave alone the funding at issue here presumably signals its intent to continue that funding. … With that in mind, the Court struggles to see how HHS, an agent of the Executive, can exercise discretion to eliminate ten billion dollars’ worth of it summarily. …

Nor does it seem that the mass terminations were reasonably explained. The Court struggles to see the requisite ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ … The States had no reason to expect that the already-allocated grant money would suddenly be terminated, and they relied on this funding to support their public health programs and initiatives. Of course, agencies ‘are free to change their existing policies,’ but they must ‘provide a reasoned explanation for the change,’ ‘display awareness that [they are] changing position,” and consider ‘serious reliance interests.’ … The termination notices provided to the States on March 24 and 25 failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the sudden change in its position or consider the States’ reliance interests, which are substantial under the circumstances.

The States have thus demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that these terminations were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On May 16, Judge McElroy granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating:

“Merely relying on a conclusory explanation that the funds are no longer necessary because the pandemic is over does not demonstrate a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ … The Government’s determination was unreasonable in light of Congress’s direction that the appropriations at issue be used beyond the pandemic and to better prepare for future public health threats. …

Given Congress’s clear intent to keep the appropriations at issue intact, the Court cannot say HHS provided any rational basis to justify its decision to terminate the funds based on the end of the pandemic. That is sufficient to end the analysis, but to be thorough, the Court will address additional “arbitrary and capricious” arguments. …

[T]he determination that funding appropriated by Congress is no longer necessary requires an assessment of the grantees’ compliance with the agreements, which HHS declined to do. … And based on its own interpretations, HHS may terminate awards “for cause” when a party has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant under § 75.372(a). There is no evidence that happened here. …

While HHS acknowledged its change of position, it provided no explanation to the States as to why it did so suddenly and contrary to Congress’s will that certain COVID-era spending was needed beyond the immediate public health emergency that ended in May 2023. …

HHS’ Public Health Funding Decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the States’ reliance interests on the funds and the devastating consequences that would result from abruptly terminating critical public health appropriations. … Indeed, it appears HHS gave no consideration to the programs and services that would be impacted by these terminations when it decided the funds were no longer necessary based on the end of the pandemic. …

The Court agrees that HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it applied ‘for cause’ terminations here because contrary to statutory and regulatory authority, HHS never claimed any failure on part of the States to comply with their grant agreements. …

Once again, the States have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that these terminations were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

13. Judge Mary Susan McElroy (Trump appointee), Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-00097 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: Unleashing American Energy (Exec. Order No. 14154); Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Executive Order 14151); Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Cost Efficiency Initiative (Executive Order 14222)

On April 15th, Judge McElroy granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs

“have adequately shown at least three ways that the sudden, indefinite freeze of all already awarded IIJA and IRA money was arbitrary and capricious: it was neither reasonable nor reasonably explained, and it also failed to account for any reliance interests. …

The Court finds that the Government failed to provide a rational reason that the need to ‘safeguard valuable taxpayer resources’ justifies a sweeping pause of all already-awarded IIJA and IRA funds with such short notice. …

‘The APA requires a rational connection between the facts, the agency’s rationale, and the ultimate decision.’ … Here, there is none. …

The Government also ignored significant reliance interests. … Nothing from OMB, the NEC Director, or the five Agency Defendants shows that they considered the consequences of their broad, indefinite freezes: projects halted, staff laid off, goodwill tarnished. … Instead, they ‘essentially adopted a ‘freeze first, ask questions later’ approach.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

14. Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan (Obama appointee), Climate United Fund v. Citibank , 1:24-cv-00698 (D.D.C.) (and consolidated cases)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

On Apr. 15, Judge Chutkan granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. An Apr. 16 accompanying memorandum opinion stated:

“Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims because EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to explain its reasoning and acted contrary to its regulations in suspending and terminating Plaintiffs’ grants. …

The court finds that EPA failed to set forth the reasons for its decision because it did not say anything about its decision, for weeks. …

Though repeatedly pressed on the issue, EPA offers no rational explanation for why it suspended the grants and then immediately terminated the entire NCIF and CCIA grant programs overnight. Nor has EPA offered any rational explanation for why it needed to cancel the grants to safeguard taxpayer resources, especially when it had begun examining the grant programs to add oversight mechanisms, or why it needed to cancel every single grant to review some aspects of the GGRF program with which it was concerned. …

In the letters terminating the grant programs, EPA provided no individualized reasoning as to anything Plaintiffs themselves did—instead referencing generalized and unsubstantiated reasons for termination—’substantial concerns regarding program integrity, the award process, programmatic fraud, waste, and abuse, and misalignment with the Agency’s priorities.’ …

EPA Defendants’ actions defy the plain language of the regulations that govern its decision-making in grant funding—it can only terminate a federal award on this basis pursuant to the terms and conditions of the federal award.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On Sept. 2, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded, holding that the APA/regulatory challenges—including the district court’s “arbitrary and capricious” rationale—are “essentially contractual” and must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. Notwithstanding, the PI formally remains in place until the mandate issues; the D.C. Circuit has withheld the mandate through the rehearing deadline (Oct. 17, 2025) and for seven days thereafter (Oct. 24, 2025), unless a timely petition is filed.

15. Judge Deborah L. Boardman (Biden appointee), State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service, 1:25-cv-01363 (D. Md.)

Executive Action: Dismantling AmeriCorps (Executive Order 14222 – Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency“ Cost Efficiency Initiative) (Goodson Memorandum and cover note Apr. 15, 2025)

On Jun. 5, Judge Boardman granted a preliminary injunction restoring AmeriCorps programs, finding:

“The termination of AmeriCorps grants and programs, the exiting of AmeriCorps members, and the removal of NCCC members constitute ‘significant changes to . . . service delivery.’ By law, the agency could only make those changes through public notice-and-comment rulemaking. Because the agency did not do so, the States have shown a likelihood of success that the agency actions were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and without observance of procedures required by law, in violation of the APA.”

16. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Abramowitz v. Lake, 1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.) and Widakuswara v. Lake, 1:25-cv-01015 (D.D.C.) (related cases)

Executive Action: Governance and Defunding Global Media and Global Internet Freedom (Executive Order 14238 – Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy)

On Apr. 22, Judge Lamberth granted in part a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara—which also applied to the related Abramowitz case. He wrote:

“In short, the defendants had no method or approach towards shutting down USAGM that this Court can discern. They took immediate and drastic action to slash USAGM, without considering its statutorily or constitutionally required functions as required by the plain language of the EO, and without regard to the harm inflicted on employees, contractors, journalists, and media consumers around the world. It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the Defendants’ actions here.” (emphasis added).

In May, defendants appealed prongs (1) and (2) of the injunction; the D.C. Circuit later dissolved its stay of prong (2) but left prong (1) stayed pending appeal. Oral argument took place on Sept. 22.

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

In his Sept. 29 memorandum order enforcing the preliminary injunction, Judge Lamberth found that defendants had “thumb[ed] their noses at Congress’s commands” and offered answers “dripping with indifference to their statutory obligations,” and that some of Kari Lake’s responses during her deposition testimony were “the height of arbitrariness.” The court further noted that “the defendants still have not provided the Court a non-arbitrary justification for the proposed reduction in force. Instead, the record remains ‘a total explanatory void’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

17. Judge William Horsley Orrick III (Obama appointee), City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: Immigration Policy on sanctuary cities and states (Executive order 14159)

On Apr. 24, Judge Orrick granted a preliminary injunction, holding that “the Bondi Directive’s order to freeze all DOJ funds is likely arbitrary and capricious.”

On May 3, the court issued a further order regarding its Apr. 24 preliminary injunction, stating that it was setting out its reasoning in greater detail, confirming the injunction’s scope, and explaining why the challenged directives likely violate the APA as arbitrary and capricious:

“[T]he Bondi Directive fails to offer a reasonable explanation of the breadth of funding withheld or the basis for withholding funds that Congress has already appropriated. …

The Government has not offered a plausible reason for why a total freeze on all DOJ funding is necessary to advance the 2025 Executive Orders. Nothing in the record before me suggests that the Attorney General considered the Cities and Counties’ reliance on the threatened federal funding before issuing the freeze, their expectation of reimbursement for funds already appropriated, or their need for clarity about what funding will be available in the future to support critical services and infrastructure; all this is required given the Bondi Directive’s reversal of prior DOJ policy that ‘engendered serious reliance interests.’ … This is enough for the plaintiffs to show they are likely to prevail on the merits of their APA claim, at least to the extent that they allege defendant Attorney General Bondi violated 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

18. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Radio Free Asia v. United States, 1:25-cv-00907 (D.D.C.) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks v. United States, 1:25-cv-00966 (D.D.C.) (consolidated cases)

Executive Action: Governance and Defunding Global Media and Global Internet Freedom (Executive Order 14238 – Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy)

On Apr. 25, the district court held that the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits” for “substantially the same reasons raised in Plaintiffs’ memoranda,” which included a claim of arbitrary and capricious conduct.

On May 3, the D.C. Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Oral argument is set for Sept. 22. 

[See also Judge Lamberth’s Apr. 22 opinion explicating his views on arbitrary and capricious conduct in Abramowitz. v. Lake, 1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.) and Widakuswara v. Lake, 1:25-cv-01015 (D.D.C.)]

19. Judge Victoria Calvert (Biden appointee), Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi, 1:25-cv-01998 (N.D. Ga.)

Executive Action: ICE modified plaintiffs’ SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records

On May 2, Judge Calvert granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on modifications to their SEVIS status, stating:

“Defendants have not been able to articulate, clearly or otherwise, any reason why Plaintiffs’ SEVIS records were terminated beyond the vague language provided in the notice given through SEVP. When asked whether Defendants could provide the Court with any additional information about what actually happened with Plaintiffs’ SEVIS records, Defendants conceded that they could not complete the necessary factfinding to determine what took place as to each individual Plaintiff, or even as to the entire group of Plaintiffs. Further, Defendants’ briefing fails to identify any regulation to support DHS’s ability to terminate Plaintiffs’ SEVIS record in the manner it was done here.

Defendants have altogether failed to suggest any lawful grounds for termination of Plaintiffs’ SEVIS record. … Defendants’ failure to provide a single plausibly lawful explanation for its action is the exact circumstance contemplated by the arbitrary and capricious standard. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the claim that the agency action is arbitrary and capricious for failing to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. …

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to show that DHS’s authority to terminate F-1 student status is narrowly circumscribed by regulation to three circumstances … And since none of those conditions are applicable here, Plaintiffs are likely to show that Defendants’ termination of their SEVIS records and F-1 status was not in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(d) and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

20. Judge Jeffrey S. White (Bush appointee), Doe v. Trump, 4:25-cv-03140 (N.D. Cal.) (and related cases)

Executive Action: ICE modified plaintiffs’ SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records

On May 22, Judge White, in granting a preliminary injunction, stated:

“In the record before the Court, Mr. Watson’s testimony and the brief email exchange about the Student Criminal Alien Initiative reflect the sum and substance of Defendants’ reasons for terminating Plaintiffs’ SEVIS records. Based on Mr. Watson’s representations, the only individualized assessment made was whether an individual identified who had a positive result in the NCIC database was an individual listed within the SEVIS database. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the decision to terminate their SEVIS records was arbitrary and capricious because the decision was not based on a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”

21. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of Rhode Island v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00128 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: Museums and Public Libraries (Executive Order 14238)

On May 6, Judge McConnell issued a preliminary injunction preventing the execution of EO 14238 to the extent it applies to IMLS/MBDA/FMCS. He held:

“This Executive Order violates the Administrative Procedures Act (‘APA’) in the arbitrary and capricious way it was carried out. …

Here, there is an absence of any reasonable explanation from IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS. The Reduction EO—with which these agencies sought to comply through their challenged policies—stated that the ‘non-statutory components and functions’ of IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS shall be ‘eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.’ But the Defendants have not shown that any analysis was conducted to determine which components and functions of IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS are statutorily required, and which are not. …

IMLS has also offered no further explanation for the termination of thousands of its grants other than stating that the grants are ‘no longer consistent with the agency’s priorities[.]’ …

Here, the “rational connections” are absent, as IMLS’s, MBDA’s, and FMCS’s justifications for eliminating programs, terminating grants, and implementing large-scale employee RIFs have been couched in mere conclusory statements—most of which merely defer to the Reduction EO. There is no explanation about why the targeted programs or grants fell within the ambit of “non-statutory” functions or components. Such conclusory explanations, ‘devoid of data or any independent explanation, [are] grossly insufficient and fall[] far short of reasoned analysis.’ …

Additionally, ILMS, MBDA, and FMCS have failed to indicate that they considered any of the significant reliance interests of their program beneficiaries or grantees such as libraries, museums, business centers, contractors, labor unions, states, and local governments.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

22. Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Obama appointee), Association of American Universities v. Department of Energy, 1:25-cv-10912 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Reduction of indirect cost reimbursement rate for research institutions (NIH Guidance) (DOE Rate Cap Policy, Apr. 11, 2025)

On May 15, Judge Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction, finding that:

“Because the Rate Cap Policy does not offer more than conclusory policy goals, the Court need go no further: Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success in demonstrating that the Rate Cap Policy is arbitrary and capricious and therefore runs afoul of the APA. …

Missing from the Rate Cap Policy’s purported recognition of the indisputable reliance interest is a ‘reasoned explanation . . . for disregarding [that understanding, which was] engendered by the prior policy,’ and, notably, any acknowledgement of the potential consequences of the policy change. … As such, the Rate Cap Policy ‘f[alls] short of [DOE’s] duty to explain why it deemed it necessary to overrule its previous position,’ and Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the Rate Cap Policy is arbitrary and capricious for this reason as well.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

23. Judge Paul L. Friedman (Clinton appointee), Southern Education Foundation v. United States Department of Education, 1:25-cv-01079 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors and grantees (Executive Order 14168, Executive Order 14151, Executive Order 14173)

On May 21, Judge Friedman issued a preliminary injunction, holding:

“[T]he Department’s Termination Letter provides no reasoned explanation for the grant termination. In fact, the Termination Letter’s list of possible bases ‘is so broad and vague as to be limitless; devoid of import, even.’ For these reasons, the Court finds that SEF has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of Count One [that the Department’s termination of the EAC-South grant was arbitrary and capricious]”. (citations omitted).

24. Judge Myong J. Joun (Biden appointee), State of New York v. McMahon, 1:25-cv-10601 (D. Mass) and Somerville Public Schools v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10677 (D. Mass.) (consolidated cases)

Executive Action: Dismantling/Restructuring of the Department of Education 14242 (Executive Order of Mar. 20, 2025)

On May 22, Judge Joun granted a preliminary injunction, stating that:

“As Defendants concede, the Secretary’s March 14 letter sent a few days after the announcement of the RIF also ‘includes only a cursory explanation.’ …

None of these statements amount to a reasoned explanation, let alone an explanation at all. Indeed, the March 11 Directive contains two contradictory positions. … Defendants have not shown how the RIF furthers its goals of ‘efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed’ to ‘parents, students, and teachers.’ … For instance, Defendants have not attempted to demonstrate that cutting a certain program in half has somehow made that program more efficient or returned necessary resources to the States. There is no indication that Defendants conducted any research to support why certain employees were terminated under the RIF over others, why certain offices were reduced or eliminated, or how any of those decisions further Defendants’ purported goals of efficiency or effectiveness of the Department. … I ‘cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.’ …

Additionally, Consolidated Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Agency Defendants ‘failed to consider . . . important aspect[s] of the problem.’ … The Agency Defendants ‘entirely failed to grapple with the potential disruption to operations and interference with statutory and non-statutory functions a sudden elimination of nearly 50% of the Department’s entire workforce would cause.’ … Nothing in the record indicates a consideration of the ‘substantial harms and reliance interests for students, educational institutions, Plaintiffs, and others.’ … Defendants do not dispute this.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On July 14, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to grant a stay of the May 22 preliminary injunction that had blocked the administration’s plans to dismantle the Department of Education and fire thousands of department employees. The majority did not provide any reasoning. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned that the Court’s order enables the executive branch to functionally “abolish” an entire department “by executive fiat.”

On Aug. 11 the district court issued an indicative ruling that it would vacate the preliminary injunction if the First Circuit remands, and on Aug. 27 the First Circuit stayed briefing while it decides whether to remand.

25. Judge Leo Theordore Sorokin (Obama appointee), Schiff v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-10595 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Removal of information from HHS websites under Executive Order on “Gender Ideology Extremism“ (Executive Order 14168)

On May 23, Judge Sorokin issued a preliminary injunction on the removal of information from HHS websites, holding:

“[T]he plaintiffs are likely to prevail for reasons they carefully explain in their papers … detailing why agency action at issue was arbitrary and capricious in that it lacked rational explanation and why OPM Memo was ultra vires given language of statute invoked[ ]. The Court makes two further observations. …

OPM’s Director acted well outside the boundaries of the power allocated to his agency by Congress and by the President when he issued the Takedown Directive. …

[T]he time and manner in which the defendants implemented the EO belies any plausible claim that the agencies acted in anything but an arbitrary and capricious way.”

26. Judge Lewis J. Liman (Trump appointee), Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy, 1:25-cv-01413 (S.D.N.Y.)

Executive Action: Rescission of approval for New York City congestion pricing plan

On May 28, Judge Liman issued a preliminary injunction, holding that:

“Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their argument that the February 19 Letter exceeded the FHWA or Secretary’s authority to terminate the VPPP Agreement. …

An agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it takes actions that are not justified by its stated bases. … Plaintiffs show a likelihood of success on the merits of their argument that the Secretary’s decision to terminate the VPPP Agreement because the statute does not authorize cordon pricing programs was arbitrary and capricious. …

One other erroneous legal conclusion prompted the Secretary to determine that the VPPP did not permit authorization of the Tolling Program: the Secretary’s conclusion that the VPPP does not authorize tolls that are “calculated based on considerations separate from reducing congestion or advancing other road-related goals.” … Congress thus has affirmatively stated that the tolling revenues may be used for other purposes; it has not stated that the tolling rates must be calculated exclusively on the basis of congestion-related considerations. … It was thus arbitrary and capricious for Defendants to act on the basis of that legal conclusion. …

Defendants’ belated attempts to reframe the motivating considerations as policy determinations rather than conclusions of illegality are unavailing both as post hoc rationalizations and because termination is not available on the grounds of shifting agency priorities. …

Plaintiffs show a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to their argument that the Secretary and the FHWA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to adequately consider Plaintiffs’ reliance interests.”

27. Judge Marsha J. Pechman (Clinton appointee) American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO v. Noem, 2:25-cv-00451 (W.D. Wa.)

Executive Action: Rescission of Collective Bargaining and Other Labor Rights (Sec. Noem Memorandum Feb. 27, 2025, DHS Statement Mar. 7, 2025, Executive Order of Mar. 27, 2025)

On Jun. 2, Judge Pechman issued a preliminary injunction against the Noem determination, stating:

“[Plaintiffs are] likely to succeed in showing the Noem Determination is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly given its complete disregard for the 2024 CBA [Collective Bargaining Agreement] and its mischaracterization of AFGE’s [American Federation of Government Employees] role.”

28. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Kingdom v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00691 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Housing of transgender inmates (Executive Order 14168)

On Jun. 3, Judge Lamberth granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, noting:

“To be sure, agency action is not arbitrary and capricious merely because it is bad for some identifiable population. New policies nearly always have uneven effects on different groups; that is part and parcel of living within a democratic system. But the APA does require an agency to take actions that are rationally and demonstrably related to its stated goals, explain why it treats similarly situated people differently, and give consideration to the reliance interests of those who may be harmed by a new policy. Based on the limited information now before the Court, it appears that the implementing memoranda do none of these things, nor does the Executive Order on which they rely for their own justification. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims.” (emphasis added).

29. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Trump appointee), Angelica S. v. Dept of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-01405 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Policy on Unaccompanied Minors

On Jun. 9, Judge Friedrich granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that “it is substantially likely that ORR acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not providing adequate justification for its new sponsor documentation requirements.”

30. Judge Denise Cote (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management, 1:25-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y)

Executive Action: Disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE

On Jun. 9, Judge Cote granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent OPM from disclosing records to DOGE agents, holding:

“The plaintiffs have also shown that the OPM Defendants violated the APA by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. OPM’s decision to give DOGE agents administrative access to multiple OPM systems containing PII was a gross departure from its obligations under the Privacy Act as well as its longstanding cybersecurity practices. The onboarding process was rushed and many of the relevant individuals did not complete required training before OPM gave them access to its systems. The DOGE agents’ wide-ranging administrative access, which they were given without any credible need for access, violated the principles of least privilege and separation of duties.”

31. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of California v. United States Department of Transportation, 1:25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: “Temporary Pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs

On Jun. 19, Judge McConnell granted a preliminary injunction, holding:

“The IEC, backed by the Duffy Directive, is arbitrary and capricious in its scope and lacks specificity in how the States are to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for Congressionally appropriated transportation dollars–grant money that the States rely on to keep their residents safely and efficiently on the road, in the sky, and on the rails.”

Update 1 (Nov. 20, 2025):

On Nov. 4, Judge McConnell granted the States’ motion for summary judgment and denied the Department of Transportation’s cross-motion, declaring the immigration enforcement condition (IEC) unlawful under the APA and the Spending Clause, vacating the condition from all DOT grant agreements, and permanently enjoining the government from conditioning transportation funding on state cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. He found the government’s actions arbitrary and capricious, explaining that its “core counterargument against the merits of the States’ APA claim [was] its repeated insistence that the IEC merely asks the States to certify compliance with federal law, and that it cannot be arbitrary or capricious for DOT to ensure this compliance.” “Depriv[ing]” the government of its “gimcrack defense” of offering a “nakedly misleading characterization of what the IEC requires,” Judge McConnell concluded that the government’s “imposition of the IEC is patently arbitrary and capricious” (emphasis added). The court explained:

“Of particular weight to this finding is the Supreme Court’s guidance that agency action is arbitrary and capricious when the agency ‘has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.’ … The Court has determined that Congress could not have intended to vest DOT with the authority to impose such sweeping immigration-related conditions on federal transportation funding. It was as such impermissible for Defendants to consider factors related to State cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement in determining conditions for federal transportation funding. The other facts cited by the States-particularly their reliance interests and the ambiguity of the extent of the IEC’s requirements-lend support to the Court’s finding that Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in imposing the IEC across the entirety of federal transportation funding programs.” (citation omitted).

32. Judge Myong J. Joun (Biden appointee),Victim Rights Law Center v. United States Department of Education, 1:25-cv-11042 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Dismantling/Restructuring of the Department of Education (Executive Order of Mar. 20, 2025)

On Jun. 18, Judge Joun issued a preliminary injunction against the RIF dismantling the Department of Education, stating:

“Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the RIF is arbitrary & capricious under the APA. …

The June 3rd Statement does not provide a reasoned explanation under the APA. For instance, the June 3rd Statement does not set forth the Department’s reasoning as to why or how the mass terminations ‘strengthen[] oversight’ of civil rights laws, and Defendants have not submitted any evidence as to how ‘reorganize[ing] personnel by specialized topics,’ as well as a ‘dedicated task force for Title IX investigations’ is permitting the OCR to actually fulfill its statutory obligations. …

Further, to the extent that the agency believes OCR will meet its statutory functions by simply reducing its caseload by only addressing cases that align with the new administration’s policies, that is arbitrary and capricious. …

Finally, there is no indication on the record that Defendants considered the ‘important aspect of the problem.’ … There is no record evidence in the form of data, research, or even meeting minutes that may indicate that Defendants discussed or considered “the likelihood that the RIF would severely undermine OCR’s capacity to investigate and resolve its growing backlog of civil rights complaints and deliver on its statutory and regulatory mandates.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

33. Judge Edward Milton Chen (Obama appointee), San Francisco Unified School District v. AmeriCorps, a.k.a. the Corporation for National and Community Service, 3:25-cv-02425 (N.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: Dismantling AmeriCorps (Executive Order 14222) (Goodson Memorandum and cover note Apr. 15, 2025)

On Jun. 18, Judge Chen granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating:

“Plaintiffs also demonstrate a likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the AmeriCorps Directive and the new grant conditions violate the APA because they are arbitrary and capricious because AmeriCorps failed to provide a justification for its reversal of policy, and in so doing ignored significant reliance interests. It also failed to consider alternatives to imposing such an expansive and ill-defined ban on programmatic activity. …

At bottom, AmeriCorps offers no substantive reasons justifying its radical change of course other than its rote recitation of the need to implement the Executive Orders.” (emphasis added).

34. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation, 1:25-cv-11231 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

On Jun. 20, Judge Talwani granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement, holding:

“[B]ecause the court cannot discern from the Policy Notice how NSF concluded the 15% Indirect Cost Rate would further NSF’s stated goals, the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is arbitrary and capricious. …

The 15% Indirect Cost Rate is also arbitrary and capricious because it ignores important aspects of the problem, namely NSF’s statutory directive to ‘support basic scientific research and programs to strengthen scientific research potential and scientific education programs.’

Further, the Policy Notice offers insufficient explanation because it fails to meaningfully address Plaintiffs’ reliance interests. …

Plaintiffs offer a host of additional reasons why the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is arbitrary and capricious: it departs from the NSF’s policy against mandatory cost sharing, it rests upon unexplained factual findings that contradict those behind the NSF’s prior policy, it fails to explain why the auditing process would not achieve government efficiency, and it singles out universities without explanation. … These are all examples of the overarching problem: Defendants have not sufficiently explained why they concluded capping indirect cost rates for IHEs at 15% will further the objectives stated in the Policy Notice.” (emphasis added).

35. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Open Technology Fund v. Kari Lake, 1:25-cv-00840 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Governance and Defunding Global Media and Global Internet Freedom (Executive Order 14217; Executive Order 14238; Executive Order 14290)

On Jun. 20, Judge Lamberth granted Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, holding:

“For substantially the same reasoning as explained in the Widakuswara PI, OTF is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The defendants’ continuous withholding of congressionally appropriated funds, month after month, with no explanation, is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).”

[See also Judge Lamberth’s Apr. 22 opinion explicating his views on arbitrary and capricious conduct in Abramowitz. v. Lake, 1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.) and Widakuswara v. Lake, 1:25-cv-01015 (D.D.C.)]

36. Judge Leon Schydlower (Biden appointee), Valuta Corporation, Inc. v. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 3:25-cv-00191 (W.D. Tex.)

Executive Action: Border enforcement

On Jun. 24, Judge Schydlower issued a temporary restraining order on the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s issuance of a border geographic targeting order, stating:

“Plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on their claim that the geographic targeting order published at 90 Fed. Reg. 12106 (the “Border GTO”) is arbitrary and capricious. … Here, the administrative record reflects that the government either failed to consider or offered an unsubstantiated conclusion on at least two important aspects of the problem: (1) there are simple measures that cartel members can take to render the Border GTO completely toothless, and (2) innocent businesses can be profoundly disadvantaged if they are located on the ‘wrong’ side of an El Paso street, and thus within a covered zip code, vis-a-vis their competitors across the street in an uncovered zip code.”

37. Judge Tana Lin (Biden appointee), State of Washington v. Dept. of Transport, 2:25-cv-00848 (W.D. Wash.)

Executive Action: Unleashing American Energy (Exec. Order No. 14154); Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Executive Order 14151); Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Cost Efficiency Initiative (Executive Order 14222)

On Jun. 24, Judge Lin granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the defendants’ action effort to block federal funds related to electric vehicle infrastructure that Congress already approved was likely arbitrary and capricious:

“Defendants’ rescission of the NEVI Formula Program guidance and revocation of State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants attempt to rely on two paragraphs in the Biondi Letter to satisfy their burden under the APA but fall far short of adequately explaining their actions. …

It is not evident that FHWA considered relevant factors that informed its decision. …

Indeed, the Biondi Letter does not articulate any facts at all and instead provides only an implication that the current NEVI Formula Program guidance does not ‘align with current U.S. DOT policy and priorities.’ … The Biondi Letter does not explain how the current guidance is out-of-step with current policy and, therefore, does not explain why it needs to be rescinded.

Further, the Biondi Letter does not demonstrate that FHWA considered the serious reliance interests engendered by the old policy—namely, the administrative, economic, and infrastructural arrangements that the states had made based on FHWA’s approval of prior State Plans. Indeed, the Biondi Letter is again completely silent as to any reliance issues it considered (if any). …

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants’ action was likely arbitrary and capricious, and that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their second cause of action.” (emphasis added).

38. Judge Melissa R. Dubose (Biden appointee), State of New York v. Kennedy, 1:25-cv-00196 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: Large-scale reductions in force / Termination of probationary employees (Executive Order 14210)

On Jul. 1, Judge Dubose granted a preliminary injunction, finding:

“Instead of undertaking an intentional and thoughtful process for weighing the benefits and drawbacks of implementing the sweeping policy change, the Defendants hastily restructured the sub-agencies and issued RIF notices. The Defendants have failed to demonstrate how the workforce terminations and restructurings made the sub-agencies more efficient, saved taxpayer dollars, or aligned with HHS’s priority of ‘ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness, by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins.’ … In fact, the record is completely devoid of any evidence that the Defendants have performed any research on the repercussions of issuing and executing the plans announced in the Communiqué. Without a modicum of evidence to the contrary, the record shows that the Defendants did not consider the “substantial harms and reliance interests” of the States and the devastating consequences that would be felt by the populations served by these critical public health programs. …

Unable to perceive any rational basis for the Agency’s actions, the Court concludes that HHS’s actions in implementing the March 27 Communiqué were both arbitrary and capricious.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

On Sept. 17, the First Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay of the Jul. 1 preliminary injunction pending appeal, finding that the government had “not met its burden to make a ‘strong showing’ that it will succeed on appeal in overturning the district court’s arbitrary-and-capricious ruling.” The government did not “meaningfully engage” with Judge Dubose’s analysis of the plaintiffs’ APA claims: it failed to “put forth any argument that HHS ‘examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a . . . rational connection between the facts found and the choice made;’” and it did not “refute the district court’s explicit findings that there was no such ‘exam[ination of] the relevant data’ or ‘rational connection’ here” (citations omitted). The appellate briefing schedule currently runs through December.

39. Judge Brian E. Murphy (Biden appointee), Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense, 1:25-cv-11740 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Reduction of indirect cost reimbursement rate for research institutions (DOD Rate Cap Policy, May 14, 2025)

On Jul. 18, Judge Murphy granted a preliminary injunction, stating:

“[T]he underlying idea for the Policy—that indirect costs are ‘waste’ and ‘bureaucratic fat,’ Hegseth Memo at 2, that are less worthy of funding than direct costs—is at least conceptually irrational and ignores the realities of research, as demonstrated by the record evidence. The record is clear that indirect costs support critical resources and infrastructure, without which the research cannot proceed. …

Embarrassingly, it is not obvious that Defendants are even fully aware of what constitutes an indirect cost ….”

“The Rate Cap Policy assumes a one-to-one relationship between direct costs and actual research that is just fundamentally wrong. In the absence of any contrary explanation, the Court cannot conclude that the Policy has a rational basis.”

40. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), RFE/RL, Inc. v. Lake, 1:25-cv-00799 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Governance and Defunding Global Media and Global Internet Freedom (Executive Order 14217; Executive Order 14238; Executive Order 14290)

On Jul. 18, Judge Lamberth granted plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction, stating:

“As far as this Court is aware, it is unprecedented for an agency to demand that entirely new terms govern its decades-old working relationship with a grantee entity and then stop responding, particularly when the agency is statutorily obligated to grant yearly congressional appropriations to that specific entity by name. Clearly, USAGM has fallen short of its duty to ‘articulate a satisfactory explanation’ for its final grant agreement because it has offered no explanation at all. And without any explanation from USAGM to justify its new grant agreement, the Court cannot discern any reasonable basis to explain USAGM’s drastic change in course. …

[W]hen USAGM changed course with the presentation of the FY 2025 agreement, it never once referred to any [] federal statutes. Failure to invoke any of the governing statutes in taking such drastic action to alter the parties longstanding grantmaking relationship further confirms that the defendants’ action was arbitrary and capricious and must be ‘set aside.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

41. Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden appointee), American Gateways v. U.S. Department for Justice, 1:25-cv-01370 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Access of Lawyers to Immigrants in Detention (Executive Order 14159)

On Jul. 21, Judge Ali issued a memorandum opinion accompanying a preliminary injunction on the Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s rescission of the National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP), which stated:

“Plaintiffs have developed a substantial, unrebutted record that termination of the policy was arbitrary and capricious. …

The record before the Court shows the Acting Director terminated the policy of providing representation without considering any of the substantial interests at stake, including those that explicitly motivated the agency policy in the first place. The record shows no consideration of the interests of people found mentally incompetent to represent themselves by immigration courts—that is, people who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings they are in—who will likely lose their current representation and, following the Acting Director’s decision, have no representation going forward. … The record also shows no consideration of the integrity of the immigration process and the ‘unique challenges’ immigration judges face in adjudicating the deportation or detention of such people, which the agency recognized in adopting the NQRP. … And the record shows no consideration of the abrupt termination’s impact on organizations that provide services to the affected population, which had organized their operations around the policy and are in the midst of these representations in court proceedings across the country. …

On this record, the Court can only conclude that the Acting Director ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’ by abruptly ending the NQRP.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

42. Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich (Trump appointee), Cabrera v. Department of Labor, 1:25-cv-01909 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Dismantling Job Corps

On Jul. 25, Judge Friedrich granted a preliminary injunction, stating:

“Turning to the statute itself, the WIOA requires DOL to engage in certain procedures—including a period of notice and comment—before closing any Job Corps center. … The Department failed to comply with these statutory requirements. …

The agency suspended operations at all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers without any expectation of future reopenings. … DOL failed to conduct an individualized assessment or develop a performance improvement plan for any of the 99 centers. … It instead suspended all operations based on the perceived failures of the Job Corps program as a whole.

Because DOL unlawfully ‘closed’ all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers, in violation of the WIOA, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims”. (emphasis added).

43. Judge Trina L. Thompson,National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: DHS Revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

On Jul. 31, Judge Thompson granted a motion to postpone the administration’s termination of TPS designations for nationals of Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. She wrote:

“Plaintiffs provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Secretary’s TPS Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua terminations were based on a preordained determination to end the TPS program, rather than an objective review of the country conditions. …

In addition to the Secretary’s statements, the Secretary has a history of systematically attempting to limit TPS. …

Given this prior practice of providing a six-month transition after termination, the Court finds that the Honduran, Nepal, and Nicaragua TPS Terminations change existing policy by only providing a 60-day transition. …

Because these notices fail to explain how a 60-day transition period is consistent with the agency’s twenty-two year practice of providing at least a 6 month transition period, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will likely succeed on the merits of their second ADA claim as to Honduras and Nicaragua. …

The Court finds that the Secretary’s footnote alluding to ‘certain other TPS designations [being] terminated without allowing for an extended transition period’ failed to acknowledge the twenty-two year practice of providing at least a 6 month transition period and did not provide sufficient explanation for departure.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)

44. Judge Jia M. Cobb (Biden appointee), Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem, 1:25-cv-00872 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: DHS Revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

On Aug. 1, Judge Cobb granted a motion to stay the administration’s expedited deportation practices for immigrants who are paroled into the United States, holding that the government’s “Challenged Actions do indeed fail even the ‘fundamentally deferential’ standard of arbitrary-and-capricious review. … [Its] scattershot legal explanations suffice to render them likely arbitrary and capricious in this preliminary posture.” (citations omitted).

45. Judge G. Murray Snow (Bush appointee), Launch Alaska v. Department of Navy, Office of Naval Research, 3:25-cv-00141 (D. Ala.)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

On Aug. 5, Judge Snow granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that they “provide[d] sufficient evidence to suggest that ONR’s termination of its grant was done in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Judge Snow noted that the government’s blanket cancellation of all DEI programs “failed to consider any facts specific to Launch Alaska in concluding that Launch Alaska’s grant was ‘not aligned with DoD priorities’ … Consequently, ONR failed to provide ‘a rational connection between any facts found,’ of which there were none, and ‘the choice made.’” (citations omitted).

46. Judge Michael H. Simon (Obama appointee), Oregon Council for the Humanities v. United States DOGE Service, 3:25-cv-00829 (D. Or.)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

On Aug. 6, Judge Simon granted a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 and granted in part a preliminary injunction, blocking the administration from terminating the plaintiffs’ federal grants and prohibiting the administration from spending the appropriated money elsewhere. Judge Simon noted:

“None of these [termination] letters set out any factual findings or reasoned bases for the NEH Defendants’ termination decisions, much less provided the Councils with any explanation. The emails contain only conclusory statements and provide no indication of reasoned decision-making. …

Adding to the arbitrary and capricious nature of the actions taken by the NEH Defendants is that the grant reductions ‘were likely performed en masse, without individualized analysis.’ … As discussed, no such reasoned explanation was provided. …

Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the NEH Defendants acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in terminating the grants.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

47. Judge William E. Smith (Bush appointee), Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi, 1:25-cv-00279 (D.R.I.)

Executive action: Denial of federal grants

On Aug. 8, Judge Smith granted a preliminary injunction, halting the administration from imposing additional conditions on grants involving domestic violence programs. In granting the injunction, Judge Smith found:

“[T[he Office’s decision to impose the challenged conditions in such a vague and haphazard manner to be arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). …

[O]n the present record, the Court can only conclude that the Office engaged in a wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary process. The Office provides, as the only basis for its decision, a single declaration by an Office supervisory official. … While helpful, that declaration is not a substitute for an administrative record. The Lyons Declaration likewise fails to speak to any Office considerations outside of presidential executive orders and a memorandum from the Attorney General. …

[T]he Office appears to have ‘entirely failed to consider’ many of the impacts of its decision, especially to the extent that the vague and confusing language in the challenged conditions would cause significant adverse effects on the Coalitions and the vulnerable populations that they serve.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

48. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Trump appointee), National Endowment for Democracy v. United States, 1:25-cv-00648 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Denial of State Department Funds

On Aug. 11, Judge Friedrich granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the government’s asserted justification for its withholding funds were “neither reasoned nor rational.” Judge Friedrich explained:

“The defendants fail to explain how funds falling 30% short of the Endowment’s anticipated budget could be ‘sufficient’ to meet its operational needs, … or ‘enable’ it ‘to carry out its purposes[.]’ … They do not address why it is ‘the most efficient and economical’ result … for the Endowment to default on current financial obligations to grantees. … Nor does the record show that the defendants weighed, assessed, or displayed any awareness of the Endowment’s reliance interests on the historical practice of routinely disbursing annual appropriations in full. …

Because the defendants’ ‘conclusory and unreasoned’ assertions … are entirely insufficient to justify their actions, the Endowment is also likely to succeed on its claim that withholding the $95 million in appropriated funds was arbitrary and capricious.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

49. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein (Carter appointee), King County v. Turner, 2:25-cv-00814 (W.D. Wash.)

Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors and grantees

On Jun. 3, Judge Rothstein granted the plaintiffs’ first two motions for a preliminary injunction, holding:

“The Court concludes that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the new funding conditions were the result of ‘reasoned decisionmaking,’ let alone have been ‘reasonably explained.’ In fact, they have not been explained at all. The CoC Program Grant Agreements and the new DOT agreements proffer no explanation for adoption of the new conditions. … For this reason, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Defendants’ insistence on the new funding conditions was arbitrary and capricious”.

On Aug. 12, Judge Rothstein additionally granted the plaintiffs’ third motion for a preliminary injunction, stating:

“Defendants do not dispute that they have not offered contemporary, reasoned explanations for the imposition of the challenged funding conditions; rather, they argue that they are not required to do so because the conditions are not subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. Defendants are mistaken. …

At most, the Defendants rely on reference to the Trump Administration’s executive orders to justify the imposition of the challenged funding conditions, but as this Court previously stated ‘rote incorporation of executive orders—especially ones involving politically charged policy matters that are the subject of intense disagreement and bear no substantive relations to the agency’s underlying action—does not constitute ‘reasoned decisionmaking.’ … Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merit of their claim that Defendants’ imposition of the challenged funding conditions is arbitrary and capricious, which is an independent ground for setting aside those conditions.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

50. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher (Trump appointee), American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education, 1:25-cv-00628 (D. Md.)

Executive Action: Department of Education “Dear Colleague Letter” banning DEI-related programming (Dear Colleague Letter)

On Apr. 24, 2025, Judge Gallagher granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction:

“Perhaps unsurprisingly, every reason Plaintiffs argue the Letter is arbitrary and capricious ultimately ties back to government’s failure to recognize that the Letter went beyond merely restating settled principles of civil rights law. Because the government insists that the Letter required no particular process, and has created no administrative record underlying it, it failed to consider a number of required factors. To affect the kind of policy change the Letter does, the government was required to carefully consider the choice it was making, the evidence underlying it, and the interests it might impact. …

The Letter also marks a significant change in position in DOE’s interpretation of SFFA. … The change in position is not explained. …

This Court is most concerned by DOE’s change in position regarding its authority to regulate curriculum, and its decision to prospectively categorize content as discriminatory. It has not acknowledged that the change occurred or explained the reasoning for that change. The agency was required to demonstrate self-awareness where it changed positions and to explain the reasons for those changes in position. It did not. This supports a finding that the Letter is arbitrary and capricious. …

The government has clarified that there is no administrative record underlying the Letter. … The Letter does not contain any factual citations or references to any facts supporting its assertions. … The Letter provides no line at all distinguishing viewpoint from binding policymaking. This too supports a finding that the Letter is arbitrary and capricious. …

[The administration] is not entitled to misrepresent the law’s boundaries, and must at a minimum acknowledge and consider the relevant legal framework as it is. It cannot blur the lines between viewpoint and law. This also supports the notion that the Letter is likely arbitrary and capricious. …

The government argues that DOE could not possibly have considered reliance interests that were not raised to it. The problem with that is, of course, that DOE did not ask for input. School districts, schools, and teachers had no opportunity to comment on the Letter before it became effective. And their reliance interests, including but not limited to existing programs, curricula, contractual obligations, and departmental structures, were not considered. Partially, perhaps, because the government seems blind to the magnitude of the change in policy the Letter announced, it failed to account for how disruptive it would be to stakeholders. The direct prohibitions on teaching certain content paired with other vague and overbroad terms raise reasonable views that broad swaths of content might be legally suspect to this administration. The government’s failure to consider reliance interests, too, counsels toward a finding that the Letter is likely arbitrary and capricious. …

Because the government has failed to acknowledge its change in position, or to promulgate the Letter using the processes necessary for a rule that effects a substantive change in policy, it failed to consider a number of factors required by the APA. Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Letter is arbitrary and capricious.” (emphasis added).

On Aug. 14, Judge Gallagher issued a memorandum opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part, finding that:

“No reasoned bases for the government’s decisions are apparent from the very sparse record, and this Court cannot provide them. …

There is no administrative record underlying either the Letter or the Certification Requirement. … Neither document contains any factual citations nor references any facts supporting its assertions. …

The Letter and Certification provide no line at all distinguishing viewpoint from binding policymaking. They either make factual assertions without support, or fail to consider facts at all. …

In promulgating the Letter and Certification, the government announced large-scale policy changes without considering whether they were appropriate based on existing facts and law, or the extent to which they would disrupt schools and teachers’ status quo to the detriment of students’ learning. Both the Letter and Certification are arbitrary and capricious for failing to account for facts, law, baseline conditions, or reliance interests.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

51. Judge Rita F. Lin (Biden appointee), Thakur v. Trump, 3:25-cv-04737 (N.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: Actions Toward Universities (Executive Order 14188, Pause or termination of Grants, Columbia Letter of demands, Harvard Letter of demands, Harvard Proclamation on student visas)

On Jun. 23, Judge Lin issued a preliminary injunction barring the EPA, NEH, and NSF from terminating UC researchers’ grants, finding:

“Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on their claims that the en masse terminations via form letter were arbitrary and capricious. The law requires administrative agencies to provide reasoned explanations for their decisions, particularly when changing a longstanding practice and abruptly upending years of planning and work. The form termination letters here appear to be in blatant violation of that requirement. …

The record reflects that the challenged grant terminations were likely performed en masse, without individualized analysis, and without providing grantees with reasoned explanation for the terminations. …

Agency Defendants do not contest that the termination letters represent the sum-total of their ‘reasoned explanation,’ and none of the evidence Defendants have produced supplements the reasoning in the form letters. …

This guesswork is made even more difficult by the inconsistencies in the existing record. … Plaintiffs and the Court should not be left to guess at Agency Defendants’ true reasons for terminating Plaintiffs’ funding. …

Agency Defendants’ characterization of their grant termination process as ‘individualized review’ is belied by the rest of the record. … The pace of the review and the resulting large waves of terminations via form letters further suggests a likelihood that no APA-compliant individualized review occurred. These are precisely the kinds of concerns that the APA’s bar on arbitrary-and-capricious agency decisionmaking was meant to address. …

Plaintiffs have reliance interests in the research they were conducting based on the multi-year funding grants, and Defendants have not introduced any evidence that they considered those interests prior to terminating the grants. …

Defendants have had the opportunity to introduce evidence showing that they considered Plaintiffs’ reliance interests prior to terminating their grants, but have not done so. …

Similarly, Defendants have not introduced any evidence indicating that they considered other important factors, including the waste that would result from projects halted before completion, or the loss to the public of critical research that will go unpublished.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On Aug. 21, the 9th Cir. denied the government’s motion for a partial stay pending appeal, stating:

“The letter does not explain which rationale applies to the recipient of the form letter. Nor does it explain how research projects that were selected to receive federal funding after a competitive process now fail to exhibit merit, or describe what the research duplicates, or provide any specific evidence supporting the allegation that any researcher acted abusively, fraudulently, or wastefully. …

The rest of the record also provides little explanation for the termination decisions. …

On this limited record, we agree with the district court that the recipients of the form letter and the public were left to guess at the reasons for these terminations. …

Because the letters left the recipients guessing as to the agencies’ rationale, and there is no evidence that the agencies considered reliance interests before terminating the grants, the government has not ‘made a strong showing’ that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that the termination of grants by form letters was likely arbitrary and capricious.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On Sept. 4, the government moved for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of the panel’s denial of its motion to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Update 1 (Oct. 15, 2025):

On Sept. 22, the court granted a further preliminary injunction, extending relief to DoD, DoT, and HHS/NIH grants in addition to the agencies already enjoined. In her order, Judge Lin stated:

“Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA arbitrary and capricious claim against DoD, DoT, and HHS-NIH, largely for the same reasons described in the PI Order. …

With respect to DoD, the standardized termination letters state, with only slight variations, that the ‘grant award no longer effectuates [] program goals or DoD priorities.’ … That language again reflects ‘that the challenged grant terminations were likely performed en masse, without individualized analysis, and without providing grantees with reasoned explanation for the terminations.’ …

With respect to DoT, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their arbitrary and capricious claim because the two-page form letters terminating Plaintiffs’ grants include a brief discussion of supposedly grant-specific reasons for the termination. … However, DoT offers no explanation as to why the research at issue [constituted a DEI initiative inconsistent with DoT priorities]. … Furthermore, one of the letters appears to reference research activities of an entirely different UTC grantee (C2SMARTER) as the basis for termination, raising serious questions regarding the extent to which individualized consideration occurred. …

Moreover, DoT acknowledges that it “did not explicitly consider reliance interests.” … And nothing in the record suggests that DoT considered other important factors, such as waste of taxpayer money resulting from mid-stream funding cuts, or the public’s loss of important research. …

For similar reasons, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that HHS and NIH’s immediate and indefinite grant suspensions were arbitrary and capricious.” (citations omitted).

52. Judge Kathleen Mary Williams (Obama Appointee), Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem, 1:25-cv-22896 (S.D. Fla.)

Executive Action: Immigration Detention Facilities

On Aug. 21, the court, granting in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, suggested an arbitrary and capricious standard under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and found:

“Here, there weren’t ‘deficiencies’ in the agency’s process. There was no process. The Defendants consulted with no stakeholders or experts and did no evaluation of the environmental risks and alternatives from which the Court may glean the likelihood that the agency would choose the same course if it had done a NEPA-compliant evaluation.” (emphasis added).

On Sept. 4, the D.C. Circuit stayed the district court’s August 21 preliminary injunction and stayed the underlying case pending appeal. On Sept. 8, the plaintiffs/appellees moved for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its stay of the district court proceedings.

53. Judge Brendan Abell Hurson (Biden appointee), City of Columbus v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 1:25-cv-02114 (D. Md.)

Executive Action: Access to Health Care

On Aug. 22, Judge Hurson granted a stay of certain provisions of the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Rule, which were to take effect on Aug. 25, 2025.

On the “Actuarial Value Policy,” Judge Hurson found:

“Such ‘[n]odding to concerns raised by commenters only to dismiss them in a conclusory manner is not a hallmark of reasoned decisionmaking.’ … Thus, the Court finds that Defendants provided an insufficient and conclusory rationale for altering the de minims variation, and Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Regarding the special enrollment period’s eligibility verification requirements, Judge Hurson said:

“The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ principal argument that ‘CMS offered no good reason to impose this burden on enrollees.’ … As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on their claim that instituting SEP pre-enrollment verification procedures was arbitrary and capricious.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Regarding “Income Verification When Data Shows Income Below 100 Percent of FPL”, Judge Hurson said:

“At the hearing, the Court asked counsel for Defendants how it could not be considered arbitrary and capricious for the agency to continue to rely on a report to justify its action after the author of that report indicated that the conclusions in the report do not support the agency’s action. … In response, counsel conceded, ‘[t]hat is something difficult to address,’ and noted that ‘[he] [was] not familiar with the precise facts of what the Agency was using, the proposition for which the Agency was using the study compared to what the author was disagreeing with.’ …

Against this backdrop, the Court concludes that HHS failed to meaningfully address the comments pointing out potential flaws in the data contained in the Paragon report, despite continuing to rely on such data to justify the provision in the Rule. …

In short, the agency refused to meaningfully engage with challenges to the data and reports used to justify the Rule, which began at the time of promulgating the final Rule and continues through this litigation. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that CMS acted arbitrarily by instituting additional verification requirements without sufficient data justifying the need to do so.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Finally, on “Income Verification When Tax Data is Unavailable”, Judge Hurson said:

“After reviewing the agency’s reasoning in the Rule, the Court finds that CMS concluded in a conclusory fashion that program integrity benefits would outweigh the administrative burden on applicants. … The circular reasoning and conclusory statements offered to justify the policy change are not indicative of reasoned decision-making. … Given the lack of sufficient data to justify the rule, and the agency’s lack of meaningful explanation for the provision, the Court finds that this provision was not ‘reasonable and reasonably explained.’” (emphasis added).

54. Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Obama appointee), President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services, 1:25-cv-11048 (D. Mass.) and American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter v. United States Department Of Justice, 1:25-cv-10910 (D. Mass.) (related cases)

Executive Action: Actions Toward Universities (Executive Order 14188, Pause or termination of Grants, Columbia Letter of demands, Harvard Letter of demands, Harvard Proclamation on student visas)

On Sept. 3, Judge Burroughs ruled, in part, that the administration’s attempt to condition Harvard University’s federal funding on changes to its campus policies violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court found:

In sum, the Freeze Orders, on their face, purport to explain the decision to terminate funding as based on Harvard’s failure to address antisemitism or uphold civil rights laws. It is difficult, however, if not impossible, for this Court to view that explanation as ‘reasoned’ when the administrative record reflects that, before freezing nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants, the agencies considered little, if any, data regarding the antisemitism problem at Harvard, disregarded the substantial policy and other changes Harvard had taken and was continuing to take to address the issue, and failed to weigh the importance of any particular grant or to evaluate whether a particular grant recipient had engaged in antisemitic behavior before cutting off critical research. … It is that rational connection between the grant terminations and the fight against antisemitism that is wholly lacking here. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to their arbitrary and capricious claims regarding the Freeze Orders, and Defendants’ corresponding motions are DENIED.” (emphasis added).

55. Judge William E. Smith (W. Bush appointee), Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts, 1:25-cv-00079 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors and grantees (Executive Order 14168)

On Sept. 19, Judge Smith issued an order granting and denying in part the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, and finding that the NEA’s final decision regarding its implementation of EO 14168 (“Final Notice”) was arbitrary & capricious under the APA. He wrote:

“The NEA’s only explanation for its decision to categorically disfavor applications that promote gender ideology is that it will ‘serve the public by . . . furthering the current administration’s priorities as provided in the [EO],’ … The administrative record — which consists of the NFAHA, ‘a smattering of cases,’ the EO, the NEA’s grant application guidelines, and the Final Notice — is devoid of reasoned policy analysis … There is no examination of relevant data, there are no findings of fact, and there is zero explanation of what it means for a project to ‘promote gender ideology,’ let alone how that concept relates to artistic merit, artistic excellence, general standards of decency, or respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public. …

Because the NEA has failed to explain its action outside of complying with the EO, the Court concludes that the Final Notice is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

56. Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Revolution Wind, LLC v. Burgum, 1:25-cv-02999 (D.D.C.)

Executive Action: Department of the Interior (DoI) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) “Stop Work Order” halting construction on offshore wind project

On Sept. 22, Judge Lamberth granted a stay and preliminary injunction of BOEM’s Aug. 22 stop work order halting construction on Revolution Wind’s two-year offshore wind project intended to provide energy to the New England region. In a bench ruling, Judge Lamberth reportedly called the administration’s decision the “height of arbitrary and capricious action” (emphasis added).

57. Judge William E. Smith (Bush appointee), State of Illinois. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1:25-cv-00206 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: “Temporary Pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs

On Sept. 24, Judge Smith granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction for 20 states and the District of Columbia, finding the DHS’s attachment of immigration-related conditions to federal disaster grants and emergency management programs was arbitrary and capricious. Judge Smith wrote:

“DHS made no attempt to claim that it examined the relevant data or articulated a fact-based reason for its actions.

Based on the limited justifications offered in Defendants’ papers and exhibits to this Court, the Court can only conclude that DHS engaged in a wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary process. Defendants provide, as nearly the only basis for their decision, that DHS is tasked with homeland security and that many of the grants, as well as the overarching objective of DHS, are designed to prevent and potentially respond to acts of terrorism, and ‘that mission includes immigration enforcement.’ … But such platitudes cannot substitute for an actual explanation of why it is necessary to attach sweeping immigration conditions to all the grants at issue here, regardless of their statutory purpose or programmatic objectives. The indiscriminate application of these conditions across the entire spectrum of DHS-administered grants demonstrates the absence of tailoring and the failure to consider whether such conditions are appropriate for particular programs. …

The failure to even consider reasons to not impose the contested conditions highlights the arbitrariness of the process. Moreover, DHS did not meaningfully evaluate the states’ reliance interests, even though the record shows that states have structured their budgets and emergency preparedness planning for decades around consistent federal support. …

The combination of overbreadth, disregard for reliance interests, and failure to consider public safety and possible alternatives makes it clear that DHS’s decision does not comply with the APA. … The contested conditions are arbitrary and capricious and, thus, violate the APA.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

58. Judge William G. Young (Reagan appointee), American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, 1:25-cv-10685 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Habeas Corpus and Immigration Removal of Protestors (Executive Orders 14161 and 14188)

On Sept. 30, following a nine-day bench trial, Judge Young ruled that the administration violated the First Amendment in efforts to deport non-citizens involved in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. The court also found the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, stating:

“The policy is also arbitrary or capricious because it represents an unexplained reversal of the agencies’ position without accounting for reliance interests. …

Although … ‘[t]he agency retains the discretion and authority to change its position — even abruptly — in any specific case because a change in its policy does not affect the legal norm,’ here it is the legal norm itself that has been changed — pure political speech has never before been grounds for adverse immigration action — and, ‘when “bizarre” interpretations are made out of “regulatory zeal,” deference is not appropriate.’ …

The Public Officials not only do not explain this policy; they deny that it exists. Thus, the agencies have engaged in quintessential arbitrary action: an abrupt reversal of course, using statutes in new and constitutionally suspect ways, with no explanation.” (emphasis added).

59. Judge Ann Aiken (Clinton appointee), State of Washington v. Health and Human Services, 6:25-cv-01748 (D. Or.)

Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors and grantees (Executive Order 14168)

On Oct. 27, granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Aiken wrote:

“In sum, HHS fails to show that the new grant conditions are reasonable, let alone offer any reasonable explanation, other than pretext, for its action. HHS provides no evidence that it made factual findings or considered the statutory objectives and express requirements, the relevant data, the applicable anti-sex- discrimination statutes and its own regulations or Plaintiff States’ reliance interests.

On this record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff States are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim that Defendants’ actions are arbitrary and capricious.”

60. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson (Biden appointee), State of Washington v. United States Department of Education, 2:25-cv-01228 (W.D. Wash.)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

On Oct. 27, granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Evanson wrote:

“The Court finds that Plaintiff States have met their burden to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim that the discontinuation decisions are arbitrary and capricious in at least two ways. …

First, … there is no evidence the Department considered any relevant data pertaining to the Grants at issue and it is undisputed that it provided no Grant-specific explanation of the application of the Department’s new “best interest” criteria. In the absence of any findings, the Court cannot determine whether the Department’s decision bears a rational connection to the facts. Rather, the discontinuation decisions are wholly conclusory, which prevents meaningful judicial review. …

Beyond an unsupported assertion that the decisions were ‘reasonable and reasonably explained’ …, Defendants make no effort to analogize the discontinuation decisions or the process by which the decisions were reached to the cases they cite. … Indeed, Defendants’ counsel admitted at oral argument that he had no information about how the Department decided which Grants to discontinue, and that the record contains none. … Because the Court agrees with Plaintiff States that the discontinuation decisions are unexplained and conclusory, the Court finds that Plaintiff States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claim on this basis. …

[Second,] there is no evidence before the Court that Defendants considered any reliance interests (as Defendants conceded at oral argument…).” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

61. Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.) (related cases)

Executive Action: Large-scale reductions in force / Termination of probationary employees (Executive Order 14210)

Granting a temporary restraining order on Oct. 15, Judge Illston wrote:

“If what plaintiffs allege is true, then the agencies’ actions in laying off thousands of public employees during a government shutdown —and in targeting for RIFs those programs that are perceived as favored by a particular political party— is the epitome of hasty, arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking. The many snafus that plaintiffs detail in their papers, some of which are outlined above, are testament to this.” (emphasis added).

On Oct. 28, granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Illston repeated the above. She noted that the government had failed to address the plaintiffs’ allegations of arbitrary and capricious conduct at the TRO stage and devoted only three pages to the issue in its preliminary-injunction briefing. The court wrote:

“Review of the OMB Memorandum, the OPM Guidance and Special Instructions, and the declarations provided by defendants do not reveal reasoned decisionmaking. The RIFs at issue here, planned and administered during a government shutdown, are likely arbitrary and capricious: they are explicitly intended for the purpose of political retribution and have been rolled out haphazardly, with no evidence of reasoned decisionmaking or consideration of the federal employees’ reliance interests. Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unavailing.” (emphasis added).

The court further said that the government’s “vague and limited articulations do not justify agency defendants’ drastic, out of the ordinary actions during a government shutdown,” described statements by President Trump as “partisan motivation [which] exemplifies arbitrary and capricious agency action,” and called out “a tumultuous process pervaded by errors and uncertainty.” Judge Illston concluded:

“The Court further agrees with plaintiffs that OMB’s directive to implement RIFs during the lapse in appropriations departs from longstanding policies without providing a reasoned explanation for doing so. It is longstanding practice for Presidents to act in concert with Congress when undertaking large-scale RIFs. … However, here, the agencies sharply depart from historical practice, unilaterally acting out President Trump’s and OMB Director Vought’s retaliatory and partisan ‘policy goal’ of punishing Democrat-oriented agencies amid a government shutdown. Unable to discern any reasoned basis for the agency defendants’ actions, the Court concludes that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their arbitrary and capricious claim under the APA.” (emphasis added).

62. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

On Oct. 31, Judge McConnell held a virtual hearing in which he granted the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. As he later said:

“Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiffs were substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim because the USDA’s decision to cut off SNAP funding was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The Court reasoned that the contingency funds for SNAP are appropriated funds that are necessary to carry out the program’s operation, and that USDA provided no explanation as to why the contingency funds could not be used even though the agency had previously acknowledged in 2019, during the first Trump administration, that such funds could be used during a government shutdown.”

In Judge McConnell’s Nov. 1 written TRO, the government was given two paths to avert a lapse in November SNAP benefits: (1) fully fund payments by Nov. 3 using Section 32 and/or contingency funds; or (2) make partial payments by Nov. 5, but only if it “expeditiously” resolved the administrative and clerical burdens associated with partial disbursements. The court added that any decision not to fully fund must be made “in accordance with the APA” and could not be “arbitrary or capricious.” The government chose to make partial payments.

On Nov. 6, Judge McConnell granted, inter alia, the plaintiffs’ motion for a second TRO, concluding that the plaintiffs’ claim that the USDA’s decision to opt for partial November SNAP payments was likely to succeed as being arbitrary and capricious on four grounds. (Judge McConnell also reportedly said during the earlier Nov. 6 hearing that “USDA arbitrarily and capriciously created this problem by ignoring the congressional mandate for contingency funds and failing to timely notify the states.”)

First, USDA failed to “account for the practical consequences” or consider the “increased harm that will befall these recipients” by attempting to issue partial payments. The court said it found “it astounding that the Defendants would even choose to go down this path if they were aware of all the difficulties and delays that such partial payment of SNAP benefits would entail.”

Second, USDA misapprehend[ed] its statutory authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2257 and congressional intent by “conflat[ing] Section 32 funds with the Child Nutrition Programs to make it seem as though they go in tandem,” claiming that Section 32 funds must be used “exclusively” to fund those programs and that using them for other purposes would “stray from Congressional intent.”

Third, the court held that USDA’s reasoning for refusing to access the Section 32 fund was “so contrary to the evidence” and “so implausible” as to be arbitrary and capricious. It found it “highly unlikely that USDA’s transfer of Section 32 funds would lead to immediate and permanent gaps in Child Nutrition Program funding, as the Defendants suggest,” emphasized that “USDA does not know how Congress will use its power of the purse, so it cannot rest on the assumption that Congress will simply do nothing,” and concluded that “it defies belief that the Defendants would prioritize a hypothetical disruption in child food assistance, projected to occur no sooner than May of 2026 (if at all), over the very real and immediate risk of children being deprived of their food assistance today” (emphasis in original).

Finally, USDA’s decision was “entirely ‘pretextual’” and undertaken for “partisan political purposes” (emphasis added). Judge McConnell concluded:

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations. … Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes. Such ‘unjustifiable partisanship’ has infected the USDA’s decision-making.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

The court also emphasized in the introductory discussion of its order:

“While the President of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it serves, the government’s actions tell a different story. Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, it chose the latter—an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers. Such conduct is more than poor judgment; it is arbitrary and capricious. One cannot champion the public interest while simultaneously adopting policies that frustrate it. Discretion exercised in this manner ceases to be discretion at all—it becomes obstruction cloaked in administrative formality.” (emphasis added).

(On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court entered an administrative stay of the Oct. 31 and Nov. 6 orders, and later extended the stay. On Nov. 13, after the government shutdown ended, the government withdrew its request for a stay in the Supreme Court, with the Solicitor General explaining that the bill ending the shutdown “fully funds SNAP through the end of the fiscal year.”)

63. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (Clinton appointee), State of New York v. Noem, 1:25-cv-08106 (S.D.N.Y.)

Executive Action: Immigration Policy – punishment of sanctuary cities and states (Executive order 14159) (DOJ “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives“ (Feb. 5, 2025))

On Nov. 6, Judge Kaplan granted a permanent injunction, holding that DHS and FEMA’s decision to reallocate roughly $34 million in Rail and Transit Security Grant Program funding from New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) based on New York City’s “sanctuary city” policies was unlawful. DHS had initially allocated the funds to the MTA through its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), but FEMA later reallocated the funds to other recipients. Directing the government to release the funds to the MTA, Judge Kaplan found the reallocation to be arbitrary and capricious.

Judge Kaplan wrote:

“The government counters that it provided an explanation for its decision in the NOFO, which states that ‘[a]n immigration term and condition, including those in the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions, may be material to the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to make this grant award.’ This justification is arbitrary and capricious for at least three independent reasons.

First, the statute governing the award of TSGP funds requires that the DHS Secretary ‘select the recipients of grants based solely on risk.’ Congress’s use of the word ‘solely’ makes clear beyond any doubt that the Secretary may not consider factors unrelated to risk. The government concedes, and the Court finds, that the Reallocation Decision was not based on risk. Instead, the government argues that ‘[e]nsuring that recipients enforce federal immigration laws and policies is a rational reason in support of the agency’s denial of federal funds.’ Regardless of whether this constituted a ‘rational reason’ for the Reallocation Decision, the decision nonetheless was arbitrary and capricious because FEMA’s reliance on a non-risk factor constituted reliance on a factor proscribed by statute.

The government argues also that ‘[w]hile Congress cannot regulate the States, its constitutional powers . . . do allow it to fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States.’ The government is correct that Congress may fix terms on the disbursement of federal money to the States. But here, Congress did not authorize the DHS Secretary to fix immigration-related terms or conditions on the disbursement of TSGP funds. To the contrary, Congress prohibited DHS from imposing such terms by requiring the selection of grant recipients to be ‘based solely on risk.’ Accordingly, the asserted basis for the Reallocation Decision — the implication that the MTA, the State, or the City was not in compliance with immigration-related grant conditions — was arbitrary and capricious because Congress precluded DHS from imposing, and in any case did not authorize it to impose, such conditions on TSGP funds. 

Second, … [the] blanket statement [in the NOFO] did not ‘reasonably explain[]’ the Reallocation Decision. It did not specify any particular term that might be material nor any particular term the MTA allegedly did not comply with. It did not state that the MTA might be held responsible for New York City’s status as a sanctuary jurisdiction — the basis for the decision asserted by a FEMA official in this litigation. And it did not explain what, if anything, changed with respect to compliance with immigration terms and conditions between the publication of the $33,898,500 target allocation and the Reallocation Decision. Accordingly, the Reallocation Decision was arbitrary and capricious because the government did not provide a reasonable, contemporaneous explanation for the decision. 

Third, even if the enforcement of immigration-related conditions were statutorily authorized and had been given as a contemporaneous explanation for the Reallocation Decision, the government’s application of that justification exclusively to the MTA was wholly arbitrary. …

Even accepting Mr. Arnold’s purported rationale at face value, it would not reasonably explain the Reallocation Decision because that decision increased grants to some sanctuary cities or entities based in or serving them while eliminating any such grant to the MTA. Accordingly, the Reallocation Decision was arbitrary and capricious because it ‘runs counter to the evidence before the agency’ and ‘is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

64. Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. (Biden appointee),Rios v. Noem, 3:25-cv-02866 (S.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: Other Habeas and Removal Actions

On Nov. 10, granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus against the petitioner’s re-detention and possible removal to a third country, Judge Simmons explained the court “need not reach” the Administrative Procedure Act claims because it granted relief on due process grounds, but he found the APA supplies “adequate and independent” grounds for the writ: Respondents offered no “rational connection” for revoking supervised release and attempted a third-country removal to Mexico without notice. The court wrote:

“[T]he record here shows that Respondents did not articulate a satisfactory explanation including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made’ for the change to Petitioner’s status. …Respondents also do not show any consideration of the ‘serious reliance interests’ that they have engendered in Petitioner by granting him supervised release prior to their change in policy. … Because Respondents revoked Petitioner’s supervised release and detained him without any rational individualized fact-finding or consideration of the effects of altering their prior decisions, Respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA.

Respondents effectively admit to having failed to follow their own procedures in their attempt to remove Petitioner to a third country. In light of that troubling revelation, the Court is persuaded that Respondents did not engage in rational decision making regarding Petitioner’s case or the effects of their policy change on his interests before attempting to effectuate his third country removal. … Thus, Respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously in attempting to remove Respondent to a third country without notice.

Respondents’ violation of the APA in their decision to revoke Respondent’s supervised release and their attempt to remove him to Mexico constitute adequate and independent grounds by which his confinement is unlawful. This Court also GRANTS Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on this basis.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

65. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass.)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

In a Nov. 12 order granting a temporary restraining order staying enforcement of USDA’s Nov. 8 letter asserting that States took “unauthorized” action regarding November SNAP funds, Judge Talwani found the agency’s position “untethered to the factual record” and arbitrary and capricious. The court wrote:

“USDA’s November 8 Letter asserting that States’ issuances of the full payment files were unauthorized fails to account for, or even acknowledge in much detail, the events immediately before the letter’s issuance. … Defendants, as their position is articulated in the November 8 Letter, would first have States ignore the D.R.I. District Court’s Temporary Restraining Order, even while those orders were not stayed. As noted, these orders directed Defendants to make the full SNAP benefits available to the States. States acted in reliance of these orders when they submitted payment files for full November benefits.

Further, USDA itself confused the record by issuing and not rescinding a notice on November 7, 2025, stating that FNS ‘is working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the November 6, 2025 order’ and that ‘[l]ater today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor’ … (emphasis added). This statement provided no indication that Defendants were appealing and seeking a stay of the district court’s orders. Indeed, in retrospect, it appears that the statement was carefully crafted to feign compliance with the D.R.I. Temporary Restraining Order when the USDA intended to do no such thing.And, even after receiving an administrative stay on November 7, Defendants delayed a full day before issuing the November 8 Letter that departed from statements the agency itself made just the day before.

In light of this record, the court finds that USDA’s assertion—that the States took ‘unauthorized’ action when they were complying with a court order that had not yet been stayed and with the USDA’s own directive—untethered to the factual record. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to success [sic] on the merits of their claim that the November 8 Letter is arbitrary and capricious agency action.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

66. Judge Jon S. Tigar (Obama appointee), Housing Authority of the County of San Diego v. Turner, 4:25-cv-08859 (N.D. Cal.)

Executive Action: Denial of federal grants

On Nov. 14, granting a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) newly imposed funding conditions on multiple grant programs administered to city and county public-housing agencies, Judge Tigar wrote:

“Plaintiffs do not argue that the agency’s reasoning was irrational or omitted relevant considerations. Rather, they argue that the agency erred by providing no reasoning at all to support the imposition of the challenged grant conditions. In a letter to grantees and stakeholders, HUD Secretary Turner explained that the challenged conditions were imposed to ‘effectively implement’ and ‘ensure . . . complian[ce]’ with the President’s executive orders. … But this is no explanation at all. … An agency cannot change position solely based on compliance with an EO without further explanation. …

The government’s implication is that an agency acts lawfully any time it orders its grantees to certify compliance with Executive Orders. As the discussion above makes clear, that isn’t true. And even if imposing grant conditions to certify compliance with Executive Orders were an unremarkable aspect of agency practice—which is not the Court’s conclusion—those agencies would still be required to explain themselves. … Defendants have failed in that task.

The challenged grant conditions are arbitrary and capricious.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

67. Judge Eric Komitee (Trump appointee), A.C.R. v. Noem 1:25-cv-03962 (E.D.N.Y)

This proposed class action challenges DHS’s termination of its 2022 deferred action program for young people in Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS-DA), which provided them with deportation protection and eligibility for work authorization while awaiting visas.

On Nov. 19, Judge Komitee granted partial preliminary relief and a § 705 stay of DHS’s rescission of the SIJS-DA program, holding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious where USCIS failed to consider serious reliance interests and reasonable alternatives, and relied instead on post hoc litigation rationales not found in the administrative record. The court wrote:

“USCIS failed to consider reliance interests and reasonably obvious alternatives here, likely rendering its decision to rescind SIJS-DA arbitrary and capricious. …

First, an agency must always consider serious reliance interests, even when it concludes an earlier policy was unlawful. …

While USCIS may ultimately conclude that ‘reliance interests in benefits that it views as unlawful are entitled to no or diminished weight,’ … it must still consider them. And it failed to consider reliance on SIJA-DA. …

Second, Plaintiffs have identified reliance interests that USCIS made no attempt to contend with. … 

The government does not claim that it considered these – or any other – reliance interests. … It argues only that it did not have to. … In the government’s view, any reliance interests were per se unreasonable because SIJS-DA had only existed for three years, was temporary, and was subject to a change in executive priorities. … Once more, Regents forecloses this argument.

Furthermore, the government points to no part of the administrative record to support its argument about petitioners’ reliance interests. Nowhere in either of the USCIS memos does the agency say there are no serious reliance interests at stake. Indeed, the word ‘reliance’ never appears in the two USCIS documents. And a court ‘cannot affirm based on a post hoc litigation rationalization pressed by agency counsel.’ … USCIS’s failure to consider serious reliance interests was likely arbitrary and capricious.

USCIS’s omission to consider alternatives to rescinding the 2022 Policy Alert in its entirety was also likely arbitrary and capricious under Regents. …

‘[I]n rescinding a prior action, an agency cannot simply brand it illegal and move on.’ … Rather, it first must consider reliance interests and alternatives. … Because USCIS failed to do so, its rescission of SIJS-DA was likely arbitrary and capricious.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

68. Judge Katherine Polk Failla (Obama appointee), Doe v. Noem, 1:25-cv-08686 (S.D.N.Y.)

Executive Action: DHS Revocation of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) 

This case involves a proposed class action challenge to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to terminate Syria’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation on 60 days’ notice, alleging violations of the TPS statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee.

On Nov. 19, Judge Failla granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and, pursuant to Section 705 of the APA, postponed DHS’s termination of TPS for Syrians (set to go into effect on Nov. 21) pending further order, reportedly finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that, inter alia, the termination was arbitrary and capricious.

Delivering her reasoning from the bench, Judge Failla reportedly stated that plaintiffs had “presented a wealth of evidence” of impropriety and error surrounding the TPS terminations for Syria and other countries; criticized Secretary Kristi Noem for “taking a hatchet to the TPS system” rather than following statutory procedures; concluded that “this court cannot find the secretary engaged in a good faith and objective review of country conditions in Syria;” and observed that the Syria termination appeared part of a coordinated effort to end TPS designations, with “coordinated” rationales, “virtually identical” procedural errors, and terminations “of a piece with a stated policy to reduce immigrant populations” (emphasis added). “On this record, it confounds logic that as to a group of disparate countries with disparate bases of designation in different parts of the world, that in a few months, all of them could resolve troubles that were so severe as to warrant TPS designation in the first instance, and have them … immediately resolved, such that termination is appropriate for all of them,” Judge Failla reportedly said, adding, “And that is because that is not the case.”

– – – – – – – – – –

Table of Updates: Updates in the November 2025 Edition

This edition includes the following updates to the Presumption of Regularity report:

1. New Cases Added

Chapter 1 (Noncompliance with Court Orders):

• 21. Judge Sara L. Ellis (Obama appointee), Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, 1:25-cv-12173 (N.D. Ill.)
• 22. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.)
• 23. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. (Obama appointee), United States v. Abrego Garcia, 3:25-cr-00115, (M.D. Tenn.)
• 24. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.) 
• 25. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass.)
• 26. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong (Biden appointee), Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal.) 

Chapter 2 (Government Misinformation):

General 

• 26. Judge Xavier Rodriguez (W. Bush appointee), United States v. Jaime Alberto Quintanilla-Chavez, 5:25-CR-388 (W.D. Tex.)
• 27. Judge Leo T. Sorokin (Obama appointee), Shinwari v. Hyde, 1:25-cv-12021 (D. Mass.)
• 28. Judge Julia E. Kobick (Biden appointee), Gomes v. Hyde, 1:25-cv-11571 (D. Mass.)
• 29. Judge Dale E. Ho (Biden appointee), Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 1:25-cv-05937 (S.D.N.Y.)
• 30. Judge Brandy R. McMillion (Biden appointee), Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 2:25-cv-12486 (E.D. Mich.)
• 31. Judge Brandy R. McMillion (Biden appointee), Santos Franco v. Raycraft, 2:25-cv-13188 (E.D. Mich.)
• 32. Judge Robert W. Gettleman (Clinton appointee), Moreno Gonzalez v. Noem, 1:25-cv-13323, (N.D. Ill.)
• 33. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), State of California v. United States Department of Transportation, 1:25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.)
• 34. Judge Sara Lee Ellis (Obama appointee), Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, 1:25-cv-12173 (N.D. Ill.)
• 35. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.) 
• 36. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass.)
• 37-a. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie (Clinton appointee), United States v. James Comey, 1:25-cr-00272 (E.D. Va.) and United States v. Letitia James, 2:25-cr-00122 (E.D. Va.) 
• 37-b. Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick, United States v. James Comey, 1:25-cr-00272 (E.D. Va.)

Pretext and Retaliatory Motives 

• 54. Judge Ana Reyes (Biden appointee), Talbott v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00240 (D.D.C.) 
• 55. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.)
• 56. Judge Ann Aiken (Clinton appointee), State of Washington v. Health and Human Services, 6:25-cv-01748 (D. Or.) 
• 57. Judge Jamal N. Whitehead (Biden appointee), QueerDoc, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Justice, 2:25-mc-00042 (W.D. Wash.)
• 58. Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.) (related cases)
• 59. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.) 
• 60-(6). Judge Kymberly K. Evanson (Biden appointee), E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 2:25-cv-01192 (W.D. Wash.)

Chapter 3 (Arbitrary and Capricious): 

• 43. Judge Trina L. Thompson, National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.)
• 59. Judge Ann Aiken (Clinton appointee), State of Washington v. Health and Human Services, 6:25-cv-01748 (D. Or.)
• 60. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson (Biden appointee), State of Washington v. United States Department of Education, 2:25-cv-01228 (W.D. Wash.)
• 61. Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.) (related cases)
• 62. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (Obama appointee), Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1:25-cv-00569 (D.R.I.) 
• 63. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (Clinton appointee), State of New York v. Noem, 1:25-cv-08106 (S.D.N.Y.)
• 64. Judge James E. Simmons, Jr.  (Biden appointee), Rios v. Noem, 3:25-cv-02866 (S.D. Cal.)
• 65. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama appointee), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture, 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass.) 
• 66. Judge Jon S. Tigar (Obama appointee), Housing Authority of the County of San Diego v. Turner, 4:25-cv-08859 (N.D. Cal.) 
• 67. Judge Eric Komitee (Trump appointee), A.C.R. v. Noem 1:25-cv-03962 (E.D.N.Y)
• 68. Judge Katherine Polk Failla (Obama appointee), Doe v. Noem, 1:25-cv-08686 (S.D.N.Y.)

2. Cases Removed Since Last Update

Chapter 2 (Government Misinformation): 

• 9. (in Oct. 15 update): Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

Chapter 3 (Arbitrary and Capricious): 

• 16. (in Oct. 15 update): Judge Julia E. Kobick (Biden appointee), Orr v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass.)

3. New Sub-Entries in Existing Cases

Chapter 2 (Government Misinformation): 

• 1-b. Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.) 
• 8-b. Judge Susan Illston (Clinton appointee), American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.) (related cases)
• 11-b. Judge Ana Reyes (Biden appointee), Talbott v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00240 (D.D.C.) 
• 24-b. Judge Karin J. Immergut (Trump appointee), State of Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.)

4. Expanded or Updated Material in Existing Case Entries

Chapter 1 (Noncompliance with Court Orders):

• 1. Chief Judge James E. Boasberg (Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)
• 17. Judge Karin J. Immergut (Trump appointee), State of Oregon v. Trump,  3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.)
• 19. Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings (Biden appointee), Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security, 1:18-cv-03757 (N.D. Ill.)

Chapter 2 (Government Misinformation): 

• 11-a. Judge Ana Reyes (Biden appointee), Talbott v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00240 (D.D.C.) 
• 18. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton appointee), League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of The President, 1:25-cv-00946 (D.D.C.), Democratic National Committee v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00952 (D.D.C.), and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00955 (D.D.C.) (consolidated cases)
• 60-(5). Judge Jerry W. Blackwell (Biden appointee) Mohammed H. v. Trump, 0:25-cv-01576 (D. Minn.)

5. Status and Other Updates 

Chapter 2 (Government Misinformation): 

• 38. Judge Dale Ho (Biden appointee), United States v. Adams, 1:24-cr-00556 (S.D.N.Y.) – Previously in Chapter 2.A (Distrust – General); now in Chapter 2.B (Distrust – Pretext)

The post The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration Litigation appeared first on Just Security.

A curated weekday guide to major news and developments over the last 24 hours. Here’s today’s news:

U.S. CARIBBEAN AND PACIFIC OPERATIONS 

Senior Trump administration officials—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and a White House Office of Legal Counsel representative—told lawmakers in a classified briefing Wednesday that the administration is not planning strikes inside Venezuela and currently lacks a legal basis for attacking land targets, according to four sources familiar with the meeting. During the briefing to leadership from both chambers, as well as the top Republicans and Democrats on key committees, administration officials said the nonpublic “OLC opinion” authorizes only the September maritime campaign against suspected drug-smuggling boats and, per one source, lists 24 Latin America–based cartels and criminal organizations the administration is authorized to target; the campaign’s “execute order” likewise does not reach land targets. Officials didn’t rule out future options, noting they’re exploring a separate DOJ opinion that could justify land strikes without new congressional authorization, but no decision has been made. Natasha Bertrand, Jennifer Hansler,  Katie Bo Lillis, Zachary Cohen, and Kylie Atwood report for CNN, noting, “In several briefings to Congress, including the one on Wednesday, administration officials have acknowledged that they do not necessarily know the individual identities of each person on board a vessel before they attack it. Strikes are instead conducted based on intelligence that the vessels are linked to a specific cartel or criminal organization, sources said. Administration officials walked through the process they use to identify and target the vessels and discussed the types of intelligence they had connecting the vessels to cartels during Wednesday’s briefing, one of the sources said.”

The Senate yesterday rejected, 49–51, a joint resolution requiring congressional approval before President Donald Trump could take military action against Venezuela, following the classified briefing by administration officials. Introduced in mid-October by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) with 15 co-sponsors, the measure drew Republican support from Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The resolution “directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.” Connor O’brien and Joe Gould report for POLITICO; Filip Timotija reports for The Hill.

Lawmakers briefed by administration officials Wednesday delivered mixed reactions, with top Democrat Senate Intelligence Vice Chair Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) backing the intelligence but pressing for more transparency. Warner said “our intelligence assets are quite good” and the administration has “visibility” into drug movements, but warned that conducting “kinetic strikes” without interdictions to show boats “are carrying drugs and … full of bad guys” undermines public confidence. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) said he doesn’t doubt “some connection of these boats to trafficking,” but questioned whether safeguards match counterterrorism standards to avoid harming innocents. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he didn’t know the identities of everyone aboard but cited “high reliability” that crews were cartel-linked rather than “haphazardly on a boat.” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said he heard “nothing” to convince him of the strikes’ legality; he added that lawmakers reviewed the nonpublic OLC memo. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pushed for an all-senators briefing, saying, “What we heard isn’t enough.” Alison Main, Morgan Rimmer, Manu Raju, Jennifer Hansler, and Kylie Atwood report for CNN.

U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is set to announce sweeping reforms to the Pentagon’s weapons procurement system today, aiming to accelerate the military’s acquisition of new technology amid rising global threats. Speaking at the National War College, Hegseth will outline changes mandated by an April executive order from President Donald Trump, according to a draft memo seen by Reuters. The overhaul targets what officials call “unacceptably slow” procurement caused by fragmented oversight and misaligned incentives. The plan establishes Portfolio Acquisition Executives with direct authority over major weapons programs—streamlining decision-making by removing intermediate approval layers—and requires at least two qualified suppliers for key components through early production. Jack Queen and Dietrich Knauth report for Reuters.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)—the Republican chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees—wrote Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday, urging an investigation into anonymous federal judges who criticized the Supreme Court in a New York Times questionnaire, citing potential ethics violations. They argued judges must “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence” and “not make public comment” on pending matters, saying descriptions of a “war zone” relationship and claims the Court is “undermining the lower courts” erode trust. They asked Roberts to report back on whether he had ordered an inquiry or cautioned judges. Karoun Demirjian reports for the New York Times.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit yesterday ordered District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to more closely assess how the Supreme Court’s July 2024 presidential immunity ruling bears on Trump’s New York falsified-business-records case—after Hellerstein ruled in September 2024 against removing the case to federal court because the case involved private conduct and Trump waited too long to seek removal. On remand, the appeal panel said the court should “consider the factors relevant to determining good cause,” which “presumably would entail closely reviewing the three categories of evidence that Trump claims relate to official acts and determining whether … the State’s use of such evidence means that his prosecution relates to acts taken under color of the Presidency as contemplated by Trump v. United States.” If so, the district court must assess “whether Trump has a colorable federal defense and whether he diligently sought removal,” and also decide “whether removal under § 1442(a)(1) and § 1455(b)(1) is even available at this stage of the state court proceedings.” The panel left procedure to Judge Hellerstein—“whether to solicit further briefing … or hold a hearing”—and emphasized it does “no more than direct the District Court to consider the motion anew,” adding it “neither rule[s] nor impl[ies]” any particular outcome. “If Mr. Trump is unsuccessful, he will continue a more conventional appeal, which will proceed through state court, a process that could take years. The president’s lawyers filed their formal appeal papers last week,” Jonah E. Bromwich reports for the New York Times. Kara Scannell and John Fritze report for CNN.

A suspected foreign actor breached the Congressional Budget Office’s network in recent days, potentially exposing communications between congressional offices and nonpartisan researchers, as well as internal email and chat logs, sources told the Washington Post and CNN. Congressional staffers were notified earlier this week via an email from the Senate Sergeant at Arms, who did not name a suspect but said the hacking incident was “ongoing” and that staffers should avoid clicking on links sent from CBO accounts because the accounts may still be compromised, CNN reported. A CBO spokesperson said in an official statement yesterday that the office “has identified the security incident, has taken immediate action to contain it, and has implemented additional monitoring and new security controls to further protect the agency’s systems going forward,” adding that “work for the Congress continues.” Four sources told the Post that “an adversary or one of” CBO’s “digital proxies” was to blame, while a U.S. official told CNN Chinese state-backed hackers are suspected of being behind the breach. One source told the Post that CBO officials told lawmakers they believe they detected the intrusion early, and another source said some Hill offices paused emailing CBO over cybersecurity concerns. The CBO is the nonpartisan scorekeeper that produces economic projections and “scores” every bill. Jacob Bogage and Riley Beggin report for the Washington Post; Sean Lyngaas reports for CNN.

A “suspicious package” containing an unknown white powder was delivered to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland yesterday, and opened in a building that houses the Air National Guard Readiness Center, sickening several people who were taken to the base medical center, sources said. The center and an adjoining facility were evacuated and a cordon established; first responders found “no immediate threats” and turned the scene over to the Office of Special Investigations, with an inquiry ongoing. An initial HAZMAT field test did not detect anything hazardous, and the team cleared the scene yesterday evening, sources said. Investigators are also reviewing political propaganda included in the envelope, and the extent of any illnesses remains unclear. Haley Britzky and Josh Campbell report for CNN.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta warned that Trump could use federal power to interfere with the 2026 midterm elections, citing a “disturbing pattern” of attempts to undermine trust in ballot security and disrupt state voting systems, referencing Trump’s 2020 subversion efforts. Bonta said his office is preparing for extreme scenarios, including potential deployment of the National Guard near polling places or misuse of the Postal Service to “undermine vote-by-mail ballots.” “We’ve thought about different types of intimidation and voter suppression, and, you know, [voter] roll purging,” he said, adding, “We’re going to do everything in our power to protect elections in California … and make sure they’re not improperly interfered with by the federal government.” Kyle Cheney reports for POLITICO.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee want former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to sit for an interview as part of their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, seeking “to uncover the identities of Mr. Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers and to understand the full extent of his criminal operations,” according to a letter addressed to Andrew dated yesterday. Gregory Svirnovskiy reports for POLITICO.

SYRIA

The United States is preparing to establish a military presence at an airbase in Damascus to support the U.S.-brokered Israel–Syria security pact, six sources said, including two Western officials and a Syrian defense official. The base sits at the “gateway” to parts of southern Syria expected to form a demilitarized zone under a non-aggression pact; at the request of U.S. officials, Reuters withheld the base’s name and precise location for operational security reasons. Planning has accelerated over the past two months, including several Pentagon reconnaissance missions to the base that concluded the long runway is ready for immediate use, a Western military official said. A Syrian defense official said Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft were sent to verify the runway, and a guard at one entrance said American aircraft were landing as part of “tests.” Technical talks have focused on using the site for logistics, surveillance, refueling, and humanitarian operations while Syria retains full sovereignty over the base, two Syrian military sources said. The move was discussed during CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper’s Sept. 12 visit to Damascus, where he and U.S. envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack met President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a person familiar with the talks said. Suleiman Al-Khalidi, Timour Azhari, and Feras Dalatey report for Reuters.

The U.N. Security Council adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution yesterday lifting sanctions on Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Interior Minister Anas Khattab, with 14 votes in favor and China abstaining. China’s U.N. ambassador Fu Cong cited counterterrorism and Syria’s security situation in explaining the abstention; Russia supported the measure, saying it reflected the aspirations of the Syrian people. Damascus called the vote a message of support for Syrians. Michelle Nichols reports for Reuters.

U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The United States approved the sale of sniper rifles last year to Brazil’s elite police unit BOPE—linked to last week’s raid that killed 121 people—despite objections from U.S. diplomats, including the ambassador, who warned the weapons could be used in extrajudicial killings, three current and former officials told Reuters. “Reuters could not establish whether the U.S.-made sniper rifles were used by BOPE in last week’s raid. BOPE also purchased accompanying suppressors for the rifles, which were produced by Wisconsin-based Griffin Armament, but the suppressor shipment was initially blocked by the U.S. government, according to the documents and sources. Reuters could not determine if the suppressors were ultimately sent at a later date, though the State Department implied that they were not,” Gram Slattery and Fabio Teixeira report for Reuters.

Iran has asked about lifting U.S. sanctions, President Donald Trump said yesterday, and he’s “open to” hearing the request, while offering no decision or timeline, Reuters reports.

Kazakhstan will join the Abraham Accords to normalize ties with Israel, Trump said yesterday on Truth Social following a call with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. Kazakhstan’s government said the matter is in the final stage of negotiations, and Trump said a signing ceremony is forthcoming. “But there is a twist: Kazakhstan already has full diplomatic relations with Israel. The move shows how countries are finding creative ways to hand Mr. Trump political victories at a low cost to themselves,” Anton Troianovski reports for the New York Times; Matt Spetalnick, Simon Lewis, and Steve Holland report for Reuters.

Trump yesterday hosted the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan at the White House, emphasizing critical minerals as a “key priority” and pledging to deepen U.S. partnerships in the resource-rich region. The meeting — part of the C5+1 framework — focused on securing U.S. access to uranium, copper, gold, and rare earths amid competition with Russia and China. Jarrett Renshaw and Nandita Bose report for Reuters.

TECHNOLOGY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 

The European Commission plans to pause parts of its AI Act amid U.S. and Big Tech pressure. A draft slated for Commission adoption on Nov. 19 would soften enforcement—granting firms a one-year “grace period” on high-risk AI rules—though details could still change and it would still need approval by a majority of E.U. member states and the European Parliament. Barbara Moens reports for the Financial Times.

OpenAI yesterday released a “Teen Safety Blueprint,” a framework it says artificial intelligence (AI) companies can adopt to protect teen users—and a practical starting point for policymakers—while committing to collaborate with experts and policymakers on public policy. The Blueprint seeks to establish standards so teens can use “safe and trustworthy” AI, saying ChatGPT should “meet them where they are” (e.g., respond differently to a 15-year-old than to an adult), and sets out five planks: (1) identify teen users with privacy-preserving age estimation; (2) adopt under-18 safety policies with age-appropriate defaults; (3) default to an under-18 experience when age is uncertain; (4) empower families with accessible parental controls; and (5) design for well-being with research-informed features and crisis supports. OpenAI also says it is “not waiting for regulation to catch up” and is already putting the framework into practice—pointing to the late-September parental controls rollout, proactive notifications, and work toward an age-prediction system to tailor ChatGPT for under-18s. Ashley Gold reports for Axios.

OpenAI also released “AI progress and recommendations” yesterday, calling for near-term, industry-led steps—without waiting for regulation—to steer frontier AI toward public accountability, privacy protections, and national-security safeguards. It proposes: shared safety standards and research-sharing among frontier labs; oversight and accountability “commensurate with capabilities,” including coordination with executive-branch safety institutes on biosecurity and control evaluations; building an AI “resilience ecosystem” (standards, monitoring, incident response); ongoing impact reporting by labs and governments; and user-empowering design that protects rights.

Chinese AI developer DeepSeek made its first public appearance since February yesterday, with senior researcher Victor Chen Deli warning in Wuzhen that AI’s long-term social impact could be “negative[ ]” despite near-term benefits. Speaking at the government-organized World Internet Conference alongside China’s “six little dragons,” including Unitree and BrainCo, Chen said AI may start displacing jobs within 5–10 years and could take over most human work in 10–20 years, urging tech firms to act as societal “defenders.” Liam Mo and Brenda Goh report for Reuters.

Meta internally projected that about 10% of its 2024 revenue came from scam and banned-goods ads, earning roughly $7 billion annually from “high-risk” advertisements shown an estimated 15 billion times per day, according to internal documents reviewed by Reuters. The records show Meta has for at least three years failed to stem widespread fraudulent ads across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, involving fake investments, illegal casinos, and banned medical products — sometimes even charging rogue marketers premium rates and compiling reports on the “Scammiest Scammers.” Smaller advertisers were allowed up to eight fraud violations before suspension, while major “High Value Accounts” could rack up over 500 strikes. One set of four scam campaigns generated $67 million in monthly ad revenue. The documents show Meta aims to reduce its reliance on illicit ad income but has warned internally that cutting such “violating revenue” too quickly could hit financial targets. The company also expects regulatory fines of up to $1 billion over scam ads, one document said. Jeff Horwitz reports for Reuters

OTHER GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS 

Egyptian mediators have proposed that Hamas fighters remaining in the Israeli-held Rafah area of Gaza surrender their weapons to Egypt in exchange for safe passage to other parts of the enclave, two sources told Reuters. An Egyptian security official said the plan would also require Hamas to provide information on tunnel networks in the area so they can be destroyed. Israel and Hamas have not yet accepted the proposal, though a third source confirmed that talks on the issue are ongoing.  Nidal Al-Mughrabi reports for Reuters.

A top German military official warned yesterday that Russia could mount a “small, quick, regionally limited” strike on NATO territory “as early as tomorrow,” though any move would depend on Western allies’ posture. Lt. Gen. Alexander Sollfrank—head of Germany’s Joint Operations Command since 2024 and former chief of NATO’s logistics command (JSEC) in Ulm—said Russia is too tied down in Ukraine for a large attack but still has enough tanks and retains significant air, nuclear, and missile strength. Sabine Siebold reports for Reuters.

Israel carried out heavy airstrikes on southern Lebanon yesterday, targeting areas it said Hezbollah was using to rebuild military infrastructure, despite a year-old ceasefire. The strikes followed evacuation orders issued by Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee on X for several southern villages, including Aita al-Jabal, Al-Tayyiba, and Tayr Debba, with residents told to stay 500 meters from designated sites. Two additional evacuation orders followed later in the day. The airstrikes began about an hour after the orders, sending thick plumes of smoke over the area. Lebanon’s health ministry said one person was killed and another wounded, while civil defense teams assisted in evacuations. Reuters reports.

Pirates attacked a Malta-flagged tanker off Somalia yesterday, firing on the vessel and launching a rocket-propelled grenade, maritime security sources said. The Hellas Aphrodite—en route from India to South Africa carrying gasoline—was boarded by pirates in a skiff, while all 24 crew members took refuge in the ship’s fortified safe room. The EU’s naval force said one of its assets was moving in to respond. The assault marks the most significant escalation in Somali piracy since December 2023, when the Maltese-flagged Ruen was hijacked and later freed by Indian naval forces. Armed assailants launched two suspected Somali piracy attacks this week, the first such incidents since 2024. Jonathan Saul, Renee Maltezou, and Yannis Souliotis report for Reuters.

Thousands marched in Latvia’s capital, Riga, yesterday to oppose the country’s potential withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention—a Council of Europe treaty on preventing and combating violence against women, including domestic violence—after parliament voted last week to leave but President Edgars Rinkēvičs vetoed the move and sent it back for further debate. More than 10,000 gathered in Cathedral Square for the “Let’s Protect Mother Latvia” rally—one of the country’s largest demonstrations in recent years—with additional protests planned in other cities and outside Latvian embassies abroad. DPA reports; Gavin Blackburn reports for EU News

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION INVESTIGATIONS

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., has been investigating “for months” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser for potential bribery or campaign-finance violations tied to Qatar-funded travel by her and senior staff, people familiar with the probe told the New York Times. The inquiry stems from an April WJLA report about a 2023 U.N. climate-conference trip: Bowser’s office first said the D.C. Chamber of Commerce paid, then the U.S. Conference of Mayors, but records later showed Qatari officials covered more than $61,000 to bring Bowser and staff to Doha, and the conference group paid only part—prompting an ethics complaint by the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, which was once led by Matthew G. Whitaker. Prospects are uncertain amid DOJ turmoil: the FBI agent leading the inquiry was fired this week, and D.C.’s public-corruption unit has been depleted by dismissals and resignations, raising doubts about whether the case will move forward. “It is unclear whether the mayor’s office did anything for the Qatari government,” a key element for any bribery charge, and any campaign-finance case would need proof that misstatements were intentional rather than clerical errors, Alan Feuer, Devlin Barrett, and Michael S. Schmidt report for the New York Times.

Justice Department prosecutors in Florida are preparing to issue a series of grand jury subpoenas in their ongoing investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan and on the CIA and FBI investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election—part of an inquiry first reported in the Summer by Fox news, and now under the supervision of Jason Reding Quiñones, in consultation with senior DOJ officials in Washington. Ken Dilanian reports for MSNBC.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION

District Judge Karin Immergut is expected to issue a ruling today on whether the Trump administration violated federal law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, following a three-day bench trial. The decision could mark the first to permanently bar the government from using federal troops to suppress protests against immigration authorities. Jack Queen and Dietrich Knauth report for Reuters.

District Judge Sara Ellis yesterday granted class-action certification and issued a preliminary injunction, finding that federal immigration officials “lacked credibility” and were likely violating protesters’ constitutional rights in Chicago. Ellis said from the bench that officials had lied about the nature of demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, citing body camera and aerial footage that “directly contradicted” agents’ testimony. She found that federal agents’ use of tear gas and pepper balls against protesters, journalists, and clergy had chilled free speech, assembly, and religious exercise in violation of the First Amendment. Ellis ordered Border Patrol and immigration agents to give at least two warnings with a “reasonable opportunity” to disperse before deploying riot-control weapons, and declined to stay the injunction pending appeal. A written preliminary injunction followed. The court further ordered that defendants file by today a verification confirming that Commander Gregory Bovino was issued a body-worn camera on Oct. 31, completed required training, and is currently using the device in compliance with the preliminary injunction. Bill Kirkos and Priscilla Alvarez report for CNN.

Maryland and Prince George’s County yesterday sued the Trump administration after the Justice Department, the FBI, and General Services Administration scrapped the previously selected Greenbelt, Maryland, site for a new FBI headquarters and pivoted in July 2025 to the Ronald Reagan Building (RRB) in downtown D.C. The complaint alleges the administration is unlawfully “sabotaging” the Greenbelt site and defying Congress’s instructions to pick among three suburban sites (Greenbelt, Landover, or Springfield), and that the agencies then tried to steer money away from the FBI-HQ project to the RRB—via an FBI “reprogramming” of roughly $555 million (including $323 million appropriated for DOJ HQ) and a GSA transfer of about $843.8 million within the Federal Buildings Fund. On the law, the complaint claims the agencies: (1) violated appropriations law by using funds for a purpose Congress didn’t authorize (31 U.S.C. § 1301(a)) and by attempting an unlawful transfer (31 U.S.C. § 1532); (2) acted outside their siting and project-approval authorities under the federal public-buildings statutes (40 U.S.C. §§ 3301–3318 and related provisions) and implementing regulations (e.g., 41 C.F.R. § 102-83.85); and (3) violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the reversal from Greenbelt to the RRB and the funding maneuvers were “arbitrary and capricious.” The suit seeks to vacate the RRB decision and the funding moves, to bar the obligation of Greenbelt-designated funds for other purposes, and to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief. Nate Raymond reports for Reuters. Glenn Thrush reports for the New York Times.

District Judge John McConnell yesterday ordered the Trump administration to fully fund November SNAP benefits by today, granting plaintiffs’ motion to enforce last week’s temporary restraining order and issuing a second TRO. In last week’s order, Judge McConnell gave the government two paths: either use Section 32 Agricultural Adjustment Act amendments of 1935, contingency funds, or both to pay benefits in full by Nov. 3, or use contingency funds to make partial payments by Nov. 5 only if it “expeditiously” resolved the administrative and clerical burdens. The administration chose the partial-payment option but, the court found, failed to act “expeditiously,” granting the motion to enforce. “Far from being expeditious, the record suggests quite the opposite,” Judge McConnell found, adding, the government has “undermined the intent and effectiveness” of the court’s prior orders. “not inclined to excuse this noncompliance.” Separately, the court held USDA’s refusal to fully fund SNAP was “arbitrary and capricious,” calling the rationale “pretextual” and “for political purposes” that furthered “unjustifiable partisanship”, and noting “children are immediately at risk of going hungry.” DOJ has appealed both yesterday’s order and last week’s, leaving it uncertain whether SNAP benefits will be fully paid out on Friday as Judge McConnell directed. Devan Cole and Tami Luhby report for CNN. Nate Raymond reports for Reuters. Tony Romm reports for the New York Times.

A Supreme Court majority, 6–3, yesterday allowed the Trump administration to temporarily enforce its rule requiring passport applicants to list their sex as designated on their birth certificate, staying a district court order that had allowed applicants to choose M, F, or X and had been left in place by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In an unsigned order, the Court wrote, “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.” The stay of U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick’s April order—which found that the Trump administration’s policy likely discriminates on the basis of sex and is rooted in “irrational prejudice” toward transgender Americans in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee, and further violates the Administrative Procedure Act—will remain in effect through the First Circuit appeal and any petition for certiorari. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Abbie VanSickle reports for the New York Times. Nina Totenberg reports for NPR.

In Boston yesterday, three unions representing federal workers filed suit against the Office of Personnel Management and Director Scott Kupor, targeting the Merit Hiring Plan’s required essay asking applicants how they would “help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities,” which is reviewed by political appointees, and amounts to a “loyalty question,” according to the complaint. The complaint alleges the policy violates the First Amendment, is “not in accordance with law” under the Privacy Act because it collects/uses political-view records barred by statute, and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to vacate the MHP’s loyalty question and bar agencies from using or retaining responses. Nate Raymond reports for Reuters.

The post Early Edition: November 7, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

A curated weekday guide to major news and developments over the weekend. Here’s today’s news:

The post Early Edition: October 22, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

Accounts of the survivors of these crimes were frequently discounted or disbelieved, and their fundamental interests were often sidelined. But their actions and perseverance finally brought some justice.

This timeline focuses on public records, especially court filings and government documents. The aim is light, not heat—clear facts over indignation—to show, with as much precision as possible, how systems entrusted with protection failed children and young women, and what those failures reveal about power, class, gender, and justice.

Here’s what’s known from the public record.

Table of Contents

1. Maria Farmer reported Epstein’s abuse to the FBI twice on or around late August 1996, but the Bureau did not open an investigation until May 23, 2006—almost a decade later

2. Virginia Giuffre said Epstein/Maxwell effectively said, “We own the police”

3. May 2006: FBI opens an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein (“Operation Leap Year”)

4. DOJ/FBI mischaracterization and victim-blaming: Treating children as ‘prostitutes’ and failing to understand child sexual abuse

5. In 2007, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida stops the investigation of Epstein before its completion

6. 2005–2007: Federal failures to identify and investigate Ghislaine Maxwell

7. The terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA): Prelude to the “deal of a lifetime”

8. NPA negotiated in secret—then buried: prosecutors hid NPA talks from victims

9. Prosecutors misled victims about the investigation’s status—assuring them that the Epstein case was “currently under investigation” despite agreeing to the NPA

10. Prosecutors sought to hide the Florida state court plea hearing from the victims

11. Kept off the judge’s radar: NPA terms and timing withheld from the Florida state court

12. Before litigation, prosecutors represented to victims and defense that CVRA protections would ensure victim communications; after litigation started, they reversed that stance

13. The plea agreement: the “deal of a lifetime”

14. Epstein flew domestically, internationally, and to the Virgin Islands despite being a registered sexual offender

15. Failure to further investigate Epstein/Maxwell before November 2018 despite revelations in several court cases

16. Failure to further investigate/indict Epstein post-2007 NPA and before 2018-19, despite tips to the FBI and Treasury Department, including from JPMorgan

17. Federal law enforcement failed to investigate after 2007; trafficking persisted through at least 2017, and evidence seized in July 2019 indicates continued criminal conduct including child sexual abuse material (CSAM)

18. Deficiencies in the 2020 OPR report

19. Blocking DOJ Inspector General from investigating failures

20. Executive Branch handling of the Epstein file and Maxwell imprisonment in 2025

21. Congressional handling of the Epstein file and Maxwell imprisonment in 2025

1. Maria Farmer reported Epstein’s abuse to the FBI twice on or around late August 1996, but the Bureau did not open an investigation until May 23, 2006—almost a decade later

After contacting the NYPD’s Sixth Precinct on Aug. 29, Maria Farmer was advised to reach out to the FBI; NYPD provided her with the FBI’s phone number. She contacted the FBI twice, and on at least one occasion the FBI agent allegedly hung up on her. Neither call was followed up.

(a) Farmer v. United States, 1:25-cv-01709, (D.D.C.) Complaint (May 29, 2025)

“On August 29, 1996, she reported Epstein and Maxwell to law enforcement. … The NYPD explained that they could only address the local fire threats [made by Epstein] and that she needed to report her additional allegations to the FBI. They gave her the FBI’s telephone contact information[.] … Following the NYPD’s instructions … Maria promptly contacted the FBI, making at least two calls to two different offices. … Without notice or explanation, while Maria was in mid-sentence, the FBI abruptly hung up on her. … The FBI made no effort to meet with Maria or otherwise follow up.” ¶¶ 112–22 (emphasis added).

(b) NYPD Police Report Complaint #1996-0067241 (08/29/96) (Exhibit 1)

(c) Maria Farmer entry in her personal journal (1997) (Maria Farmer Complaint (May 2025), ¶ 125)

(d) FBI’s Nov. 14, 2006 interview notes record Farmer’s statement that, in 1996, NYPD’s Sixth Precinct told her to contact the FBI (p. 35).

According to Maria Farmer’s attorney and her civil complaint, FBI agents arrived unannounced at her North Carolina home on November 11, 2006, stated they were aware of her 1996 FBI complaint about Epstein, and told her they had tracked her down because of that earlier report.

(a) Maria Farmer Complaint (May 2025), ¶¶ 176-77

(b) Maria Farmer attorney Jennifer Freeman letter to FBI Director Wray, DOJ IG Horowitz, and AG Garland calling for a full investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Epstein case (May 2, 2023), pp. 5-6.

2. Virginia Giuffre said Epstein/Maxwell effectively said, “We own the police”

“Jeffrey and Ghislaine’s way of keeping us under his thumb, under his rule, under their control, were invisible chains. And it was that constant: ‘We own the police. You can’t run. You can’t tell anybody. We’ll never be held accountable for this.’” (NBC News video interview (2019) part 2, at 05:14 – 05:36)

3. May 2006: FBI opens an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein (“Operation Leap Year”)

May 23, 2006 — Federal investigation formally opened. Following initial discussions between FBI and AUSA Ann Marie Villafaña in early 2006, and a May meeting with the lead Palm Beach PD detective, Villafaña prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. The investigation, codenamed “Operation Leap Year,” was formally initiated that day with supervisory approval.

Source: Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, November 2020, pp. 16-18.

4. DOJ/FBI mischaracterization and victim-blaming: Treating children as ‘prostitutes’ and failing to understand child sexual abuse

(a) Maria Farmer Complaint (May 2025), ¶ 12:

“In addition, in violation of various federal laws, federal law enforcement denigrated victims, calling them ‘child prostitutes,’ and failed to provide notices of criminal processes or offer them victim services or protection.”

(b) In re Courtney Wild, No. 19-13843 (11th Cir. argued Dec. 3, 2020) (oral argument, at 35:38 – 35:47).

During the Eleventh Circuit oral argument on Dec. 3, 2020, a judge asked whether the government had affirmatively acknowledged that Courtney Wild was not a prostitute and invited Assistant U.S. Attorney Jill Steinberg to apologize for any contrary suggestion in the non-prosecution agreement. Steinberg agreed that “she’s not [a] prostitute” and that “minors cannot consent to sex,” noting “that’s the department policy” and “that’s the law,” but she did not offer the apology the judge requested.

(c) Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story (New York: HarperCollins, 2021), p. 76:

“Lawyers representing the victims said that federal prosecutors didn’t seem to understand how to build a sensitive case involving someone who had power and money. ‘The prosecutors didn’t need two dozen girls to testify; all they needed was one or two,’ said lawyer Spencer Kuvin.

Kuvin said the FBI only interviewed one of his clients, and there were two other victims who would have helped their case.

‘What these girls were really looking for was for the criminal justice system to do what it was supposed to do,’ Kuvin said. ‘Every one of my clients wanted Epstein to go to jail.’ Some of the victims were even intimidated by the FBI agents and prosecutors, who at times seemed to treat the girls as if they had done something wrong. Prosecutors did little to help ease victims’ anxieties, pointing out that testifying against Epstein would be difficult on them and their families, who would likely be pulled into the spotlight in the event of such a high-profile prosecution. Ultimately, most of the victims were never formally interviewed by the FBI or federal prosecutors. And some of those who were interviewed were too uncomfortable to share all the details of Epstein’s abuse.

‘We knew the whole story had not been told,’ said Adam Horowitz, another one of the civil attorneys representing victims. ‘We knew there were many more victims and girls who had not yet contacted a lawyer.’

‘It was clear that prosecutors were uninformed about how to deal with victims of sex crimes,’ said Marci Hamilton, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on crimes against children. ‘They clearly had no awareness about sex trafficking, how it starts and how it flourishes. Epstein was not engaging in individual sex abuse; he was creating an entire system.’ The FBI agents tailored their questions so narrowly that it seemed as if they didn’t want to know how deep the crimes were, and who was involved.

‘The FBI agents told them, “We just want the facts. We don’t want hearsay and opinions,” Kuvin said.

Jessica Arbour, a young lawyer who was hired by victims’ lawyer Jeffrey Herman to help with the case, said she spent most of her time fielding calls from the victims at all hours of the day and night. At the time, she was around the same age as the victims, and tried to act as a bridge between them and the legal system.

The girls were very distrustful of the FBI, she said, because they showed up without any warning, knocking on their doors and questioning them in front of their parents and spouses. In some cases, the girls couldn’t even tell whether the agents were working for the government or whether they had been sent by Epstein.”

(d) Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story (New York: HarperCollins, 2021), p. 38:

“I found that the prosecutors in the case didn’t seem to understand the psychology behind childhood sexual abuse. Because some of the girls had returned and others had even fallen in love with Epstein, the state and federal prosecutors, for the most part, had dismissed them as willing partners, or even prostitutes.

What society wants is a victim who is a sweet, adorable, innocent angel that God sent from heaven—and an offender who is this evil horrible sexual predator, a “dirty old man in a wrinkled raincoat,” that’s what we prefer, but that’s not reality,’ [Kenneth] Lanning [a former FBI agent with two decades in the Behavioral Science Unit specializing in child sexual abuse] said. The Epstein case, he explained, was complicated by the fact that the girls, the victims, didn’t fit into the comfortable mold that the criminal justice system prefers. ‘The prosecutors who were looking at the case were saying “that’s not what she said, she changed her story” and the children, they look like adults. But they are mentally and emotionally immature, so it is normal for them to give differing accounts of the trauma they experienced. In fact, it would have been abnormal for them to tell the same story with the same exact details every single time. The child’s brain doesn’t work that way unless they are coached.”

(e) “Everyone Heard About Jeffrey Epstein’s Enablers. Few Listened to His Victims”, Fresh Air, NPR radio broadcast (July 20, 2021) (interview with Julie K. Brown).

Julie K. Brown: “You know, a number of the victims told me that. They said that they – when I was questioned not by the Palm Beach police – they weren’t in this category – but by prosecutors and the FBI agents, they said that – they said, look, I almost felt like I had done something wrong. And they were very scared because … the FBI was making them feel like they perhaps had broken the law. … And at the time that this case happened … there was still law on the books in Florida … that child prostitution was illegal … not on the part of … the pimps but the girls that were involved and the boys … What they were doing was illegal. So part of the thing that the prosecutors used to excuse the fact that they weren’t going after the case was they would tell the girls, look. You understand that what you did was illegal. And in a way, they sabotaged their own case because they made the victims feel like they could get in trouble. They didn’t want to cooperate as much as they would”

(f) Julie K. Brown, “How a Future Trump Cabinet Member Gave a Serial Sex Abuser the Deal of a Lifetime”, Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018).

“Despite substantial physical evidence and multiple witnesses backing up the girls’ stories, the secret deal allowed Epstein to enter guilty pleas to two felony prostitution charges. Epstein admitted to committing only one offense against one underage girl, who was labeled a prostitute, even though she was 14, which is well under the age of consent — 18 in Florida.

‘She was taken advantage of twice — first by Epstein, and then by the criminal justice system that labeled a 14-year-old girl as a prostitute,’’ said Spencer Kuvin, the lawyer who represented the girl.

‘It’s just outrageous how they minimized his crimes and devalued his victims by calling them prostitutes,’ said Yasmin Vafa, a human rights attorney and executive director of Rights4Girls, which is working to end the sexual exploitation of girls and young women.

‘There is no such thing as a child prostitute. Under federal law, it’s called child sex trafficking — whether Epstein pimped them out to others or not. It’s still a commercial sex act — and he could have been jailed for the rest of his life under federal law,’ she said.”

(g) Barry Levine, The Spider: Inside the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (Crown: 2020), p. 163:

“The FBI’s behavior was not above reproach either. One victim, Dainya Nida, was introduced to Epstein in June 2003 when she was a sixteen-year-old student at John I. Leonard High School, ten miles from Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion. Nida would later comment that neither FBI agents nor federal prosecutors seemed interested in her plight. The agents would come to where she was working to question her, making it appear as if she was the one who had done something wrong.” (citing Jane Musgrave, “Jeffrey Epstein Victim Goes Public: I Want to Know Why,” Palm Beach Post, January 31, 2020)

5. In 2007, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida stops the investigation of Epstein before its completion

(a) Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) 2020 report faulted the US Attorney Alex Acosta for having “resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed.” p. x, 284.

“The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had residences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under the circumstances of this case.” p. 171

“OPR concludes that Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. … [T[he NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. … he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed.” pp. x, 284 (emphasis added).

(b) The OPR report states that the failure to complete the investigation meant investigators “did not know the full scope of Epstein’s conduct … or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders”:

“Yet, Acosta made the decision to resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein’s defense attorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta’s decision, the USAO did not know the full scope of Epstein’s conduct; whether, given Epstein’s other domestic and foreign residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafaña planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.” p. 175 (emphasis added).

“Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafaña identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that the USAO extended the terms of its offer, there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals’ cooperation against Epstein.” (p. 175 n.252)

(c) The OPR report (pp. 175-79) includes a detailed analysis of the DOJ’s responsibility in failing to obtain Epstein’s computers and hard drives before stopping the investigation and entering the non-prosection agreement.

“There was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant — and potentially critical — information; and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed. Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did, or that there was any significant consideration of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers. Instead, the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that could have significantly changed Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges. By agreeing to postpone the litigation, the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much earlier and on terms more favorable to the government. The USAO ultimately agreed to a term in the NPA that permanently ended the government’s ability to obtain possible evidence of significant crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost.” p. 178 (emphasis added).

6. 2005–2007: Federal failures to identify and investigate Ghislaine Maxwell

By 1996—and certainly by 2006—law enforcement had notice of Ghislaine Maxwell’s connection to Epstein and her potential involvement in exploitation and abuse. The FBI was told directly about Maxwell’s role in 1996 and again in 2006; and Palm Beach authorities (PBPD/State Attorney) documented her central involvement in their 2005 files, including contemporaneous interviews.

(a) Maria Farmer Complaint (May 2025), ¶¶ 112-19, 180, 185.

In 1996, Maria Farmer reported to NYPD (Complaint #1996-0067241) and then the FBI that both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell had sexually abused her and others. She described an ongoing child-exploitation scheme (including explicit images kept in a safe), putting law enforcement on clear notice of Maxwell’s role. In 2006, during an FBI home visit in North Carolina, she again identified Maxwell’s direct role—stating (at ¶ 180) that “Maxwell would frequently ‘go get girls’ for Epstein’s sexual desires.”

(b) Sworn Statement of Juan P. Alessi (Epstein’s house manager of Palm Beach mansion), Nov. 21, 2005 (Palm Beach Police Department)

Alessi referenced Maxwell several times including saying she was always with Epstein. He confirmed that Maxwell was Epstein’s “girlfriend” and that during his 11 years as house manager it was Maxwell that he would communicate with regarding Epstein and Maxwell visiting the Palm Beach mansion and making any arrangements (p. 6). He stated that “most of the time it was Ms. Maxwell that traveled with him all the time” (p. 8). Alessi described her as Epstein’s “boss, girlfriend” and said she was the house staff’s “immediate superior” (pp. 8–9). He observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters (pp. 10–11). He further explained that the “standard” procedure when cleaning up sex toys often left on Epstein’s sink was to store them “in a basket inside Ms. Maxwell’s closet” (pp. 12–13).

(c) Det. Joseph Recarey’s 2006 PBPD notes tie Maxwell directly to recruitment/coordination through interviews with women who provided massages and/or reported sexual abuse:

One of the victims, Johanna Sjoberg said “Ghislaine Maxwell…approached her…[saying] they needed some girls to work at the house,” and that she “would be notified by Maxwell” when Epstein came to Palm Beach.

Another victim, Christina Venero said she met “Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein” through a friend; she “only provided massages and that was it” and “never was approached for anything else;” while she massaged Epstein’s “guests and assistants,” it is unclear whether Maxwell received a massage, though “Maxwell and Epstein have commented negatively about her tattoos previously when she has provided massages”—which suggests Maxwell was at least present in the room during some of those massage sessions.

(d) PBPD and Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office (SAO) files (here, pp. 60, 66-70; here, pp. 93-95) includes Colonial Bank/“DDA Statement” bank records naming “JEFFREY E EPSTEIN OR GHISLAINE MAXWELL” and a “GHISLAINE MAXWELL OR ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ — HOUSEHOLD ACCOUNT,” showing late-2004/early-2005 activity: $10,000 incoming wires and repeated teller-cashed checks ($1,000–$5,000) annotated “Petty Cash” and “To J.E.” These records place Maxwell as a co-holder on a household account used for cash withdrawals and payments tied to Epstein—documentary evidence PBPD/SAO had by early 2005.

(e) OPR report: DOJ acknowledged Maxwell but excluded her as a co-conspirator

“Villafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein’s longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to Villafaña, in 2007, they ‘didn’t have any specific evidence against her.’ Accordingly, Villafaña believed that the only ‘co-conspirators’ of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.” p. 167.

“The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epstein’s conduct, but the conduct involving the then minor did not occur in Florida.” p. 167 n.239.

The FBI failed to question victims about Ghislaine Maxwell in 2007, and DOJ now admits it was not aware of her involvement at the time of the NPA.

(a) The Department of Justice has stated that “the government was not even aware of [Maxwell’s] role in Epstein’s scheme at that time” of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Government made this statement most recently in the U.S. Solicitor General’s written submission to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 14, 2025:

“But there is no evidence that the parties to the NPA intended for the coconspirators clause to benefit petitioner. […] The government was not even aware of petitioner’s role in Epstein’s scheme at that time.” p. 15.

(b) Carolyn Andriano, one of the victims, testified that in her 2007 FBI interview, she was never asked about Maxwell (pp. 1553-54; pp. 127-8 of Exhibit):

“Q. In 2007, were you interviewed by the FBI about Jeffrey Epstein?
A. Yes.
Q. During that interview, did you tell the FBI that you noticed an older lady with short black hair and an accent at Epstein’s residence the first time you went there with
Virginia?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that?
A. Maxwell.
Q. During your interview with the FBI in 2007, did you mention the other details of your interactions with Maxwell?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I wasn’t asked about Maxwell.”

As early as 2000, major outlets publicly flagged Epstein’s close relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell—some of which featured in the Palm Beach investigators’ case files. These accounts flagged a close Epstein-Maxwell partnership and social circles of very young women, and hinted at her facilitation role years before the 2005–2007 investigations.

(a) New York Post (Page Six) (December 2000) reported that Epstein “likes the company of attractive young women” and that Maxwell was “on some kind of retainer,” adding she’d been “very good about introducing him to some of her pals.” (See PBPD/PB County State Attorney’s 2005 file clipping, p. 49).

(b) The Evening Standard (January 2001) detailed Maxwell’s and Prince Andrew’s close relationship and her role as his “fixer” including introducing him to Epstein and the three of them taking five breaks together over the past 12 months.

(c) New York Magazine (October 2002) reported that Epstein had “for more than ten years…been linked to…Ghislaine Maxwell,” noting gossip-column speculation about “the true nature of his relationship” with her and quoting a society journalist who called them “soul mates” who “serve each other’s purposes.” (See PBPD/PB County State Attorney’s 2005 file clipping, p. 49).

(d) Vanity Fair (March 2003) portrayed Maxwell as Epstein’s “most public companion of the last decade” and “best friend,” describing her summoning young women to Epstein’s townhouse and hosting parties (incl. one with Prince Andrew) filled with young Russian models—scenes some guests found “horrified.” (See PBPD/PB County State Attorney’s 2005 file clipping, p. 31).

7. The terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA): Prelude to the “deal of a lifetime”

(a) The NPA included the following elements highly favorable to Epstein:

• Government to give Epstein’s attorney a victim list after sentencing (Term 7, p. 4)

“The United States shall provide Epstein’s attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced.”

• Keep the NPA out of public record; FOIA notice to Epstein (Term 13, p. 5)

“The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.”

• Epstein to approve and pay for attorney for victims (Term 7, p. 4; Term 7C, Addendum to Term 7)

“Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein’s counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons [the victims], who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein’s counsel may contact the identified individuals [the victims] through that representative.”

“Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative[.] … This provision … shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation … if … an attorney representative elects to file a contested lawsuit … the … obligation … to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs such as those contained in § 2255, shall cease.”

• Victims must proceed exclusively under § 2255 (Civil remedy for personal injuries; waiving other damages) to trigger Epstein’s capped no-contest on jurisdiction, liability, and damages; non-admission preserved (Term 8, p. 4)

“If any of the individuals [the victims] referred to in paragraph (7) … elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (Civil remedy for personal injuries), Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida… and waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed … so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages … Notwithstanding this waiver … [these] waivers … are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability.”

• Co-conspirator immunity (named and unnamed individuals) (post-terms paragraph, p. 5)

“[I]f Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.”

• Suspend the federal grand-jury investigation; hold subpoenas in abeyance (post-terms paragraph, p. 5)

“[U]pon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney’s Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. … Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn.”

(b) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision, addressing the NPA’s victim-handling provisions described these terms as:

“An odd set-up—and one that, it seems to us, was likely calculated to quickly and quietly resolve as many victim suits as possible.” (In re Courtney Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. en banc 2021), p. 5 n.1. (emphasis added).

(c) OPR report:

“[Acosta] agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances.” p. x (emphasis added).

“This broad provision promising not to prosecute ‘any potential co-conspirators’ is troubling and … OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co-conspirators.” p. 168 (emphasis added).

“[T]he USAO did not have a sufficient investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not be developed implicating others. Prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties. The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification for the provision.” pp. 185-86.

8. NPA negotiated in secret—then buried: prosecutors hid NPA talks from victims

(a) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision, in 2021, described months of secrecy and defense-coordinated negotiations designed to keep victims uninformed and the finalized NPA concealed. (In re Courtney Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc)).

“Worse, it appears that prosecutors worked hand-in-hand with Epstein’s lawyers—or at the very least acceded to their requests—to keep the NPA’s existence and terms hidden from victims.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, p. 5) (emphasis added).

“[A]t approximately the same time that the sides concluded the NPA, they began negotiating about what prosecutors could (and couldn’t) tell victims about the agreement. Seemingly in deference to Epstein’s lawyers’ repeated requests, the government held off—for nearly an entire year—on notifying Epstein’s victims of the NPA’s existence.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, pp. 5-6) (emphasis added).

“[T]he government’s efforts appear to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, p. 6) (emphasis added).

“If secrecy was the goal, it seems to have been achieved—there is no indication that any of Epstein’s victims were informed about the NPA or his state charges until after he pleaded guilty.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, p. 6) (emphasis added).

“But it wasn’t until July 2008—during the course of this litigation—that petitioner learned of the NPA’s existence, and until August 2008 that she finally obtained a copy of the agreement.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, pp. 6-7)

“U.S. Attorney’s Office secretly engaged in discussions with Epstein’s defense team regarding the forthcoming federal criminal charges. (dissenting opinion by Judge Branch, p. 101) (emphasis added).

“As the Agreement was being signed, Epstein’s attorney Jay Lefkowitz e-mailed AUSA Villafaña, requesting: ‘Marie – Please do whatever you can to keep this [Agreement] from becoming public.’ (emphasis added by judge). AUSA Villafaña assured Lefkowitz that the Agreement would be kept confidential.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Branch, p. 103 n.6)

“Instead, for nine months after the September 2007 execution of the Agreement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office continued to negotiate with Epstein’s defense team about the extent of crime victim notifications—a course of action which the U.S. Attorney’s Office now admits is a deviation from the government’s standard practice.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Branch, pp. 103-04) (emphasis added).

(b) The Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel opinion mirrored—word for word—many of the en banc criticisms and also offered further observations. (In re Courtney Wild, 955 F.3d 1196, 1220 (11th Cir. 2020), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 967 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2020))

“[A]s already explained, the undisputed facts show … federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida negotiated ‘a secret non-prosecution agreement” with Epstein, and that ‘[f]rom the time that the FBI began investigating Epstein through the consummation of the secret NPA, the Government never conferred with Epstein’s victims about the NPA [or] even told them that such an agreement was under consideration.’” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, p. 15) (emphasis added).

“Shockingly though, the [U.S. Attorney’s] Office then (1) conducted many days of extensive plea negotiations with Epstein’s attorneys and secretly entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (‘NPA’), granting Epstein federal immunity in return for his plea to two state prostitution-solicitation charges, (2) never conferred one minute with the victims about the NPA or told the victims that such an agreement was under consideration, (3) worked closely with Epstein’s lawyers to keep the NPA’s existence and terms hidden from the victims, … and (5) never informed the victims about the NPA until after Epstein pled guilty in State Court and the secret sweetheart deal was done.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, pp. 60-1) (emphasis added).

“Pre-charge, the [U.S. Attorney’s] Office spent days conferring and negotiating with Epstein’s defense team, but had not a minute for the victims.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 64) (emphasis added).

“[T]he [U.S. Attorney’s] Office cleverly entered into a sweetheart plea deal with Epstein.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 62)

“[T]he parties made great efforts to keep that secret from the victims and the public, too.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 71) (emphasis added).

“[T]he [U.S. Attorney’s] Office misrepresented to the victims that ‘this case’ was still under investigation, advised them ‘to be patient,’ and never disclosed the government’s NPA with Epstein.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 74)

“[T]he Office admitted that it was a deviation from the government’s standard practices to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 75) (emphasis added).

(c) OPR report:

“[T]he lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims … reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the Department’s mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.” pp. x-xi, (emphasis added).

9. Prosecutors misled victims about the investigation’s status—assuring them that the Epstein case was “currently under investigation” despite agreeing to the NPA

(a) In re Courtney Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc):

“[O]nly to be left in the dark—and, so it seems, affirmatively misled—by government attorneys.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, p. 2) (emphasis added).

“And to be clear, the government’s efforts appear to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation. In January 2008, for example, approximately four months after finalizing and executing the NPA, the government sent a letter to Ms. Wild stating that Epstein’s case was ‘currently under investigation,’ explaining that ‘[t]his can be a lengthy process,’ and ‘request[ing her] continued patience while [it] conduct[ed] a thorough investigation.’ The government sent a similar letter to another victim in May 2008, some eight months after inking the NPA.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, p. 6) (emphasis added) (italics in original)

“[A]dding insult to an already grievous injury, government prosecutors (by their own admission) affirmatively misled Ms. Wild— and dozens of others like her—regarding the status of their criminal investigation. Shameful all the way around. The whole thing makes me sick.” (majority opinion by Judge Newsom, p. 68) (emphasis added).

“[T]he U.S. Attorney’s Office affirmatively misled victims for months concerning the Agreement and the resolution of the federal case. For example, … on January 31, 2008, Wild met with AUSA Villafaña, FBI agents, and another federal prosecutor, provided additional details of Epstein’s sexual abuse of her, and expressed her hope that Epstein would be prosecuted. During that meeting, however, the federal prosecutors and FBI agents still did not disclose the Agreement to Wild. Then, in mid-June of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Wild and several of Epstein’s other victims, discussed with AUSA Villafaña the possibility of federal charges being filed against Epstein in the future. AUSA Villafaña failed to mention the Agreement or its terms.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Branch, pp. 104-05) (emphasis added).

“Given the OPR Report, it is hardly surprising the victims continue to pursue this civil suit to discover and unravel the mystery of why the prosecutors … signed such a sweetheart plea … in secret and then for nearly a year took great efforts to hide the Agreement by affirmative misrepresentations to the victims and their counsel too.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 182 n.10) (emphasis added).

“[T]his case is about how the U.S. prosecutors fell short on Epstein’s evil crimes. Mysteries remain about how Epstein escaped federal prosecution and why, for nearly a year, the government made affirmative misrepresentations to the Florida victims of his serious sex crimes and to the victims’ counsel.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 184) (emphasis added).

(b) OPR report, p. xi:

The letters sent by an FBI agent to victims after the NPA had been signed “risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein’s victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims.” (emphasis added).

10. Prosecutors sought to hide the Florida state court plea hearing from the victims

OPR report:

“Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.” p. xi, 285 (emphasis added).

“[T]he failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims’ attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims’ feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. … After examining the full scope and context of the government’s interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government’s lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein’s counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects’ anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. … In sum, OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department.” p. xi, 286 (emphasis added).

11. Kept off the judge’s radar: NPA terms and timing withheld from the Florida state court

In re: Courtney Wild, No. 19-13843 (11th Cir.) (Apr. 14, 2020): 955 F.3d 1196

“AUSA Villafana responded: ‘A non-prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file.’” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 71) (emphasis added).

“In an e-mail to Lefkowitz, dated September 16, 2007, AUSA Villafana suggested strategies to conceal portions of the plea deal from the courts, stating that a prosecutor had ‘recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn’t obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes.’ AUSA Villafana added: ‘I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention “co-conspirators,” but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge.’” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 71 n. 4) (emphasis added).

“To this date, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has presented no evidence that it or anyone else told the State Court, either before or during Epstein’s state hearing, about the secret consideration Epstein had negotiated with the federal government—federal immunity for him and all co-conspirators—if the State Court accepted his state plea.” (dissenting opinion by Judge Hull, p. 76) (emphasis added).

12. Before litigation, prosecutors represented to victims and defense that CVRA protections would ensure victim communications; after litigation started, they reversed that stance

(a) In re Courtney Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc). p. 4; pp. 100–01 (communicating Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) protections to victims); p. 104 (prosecutor–defense communications).

(b) In re Courtney Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2020), vacated on reh’g en banc, 967 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2020). p. 68 (communicating CVRA protections to victims); pp. 77–78 (prosecutor–defense communications); see also pp. 65, 81–82.

13. The plea agreement: the “deal of a lifetime”

Despite extensive evidence supporting federal sex-trafficking charges, DOJ leaders instead negotiated what became known as the “deal of a lifetime.”

By May 2007, the lead federal prosecutor Ann Marie Villafaña prepared a 82-page prosecution memo and 60-count draft indictment alleging that Epstein committed numerous federal sex crimes. Her boss, the US Attorney for SDFL, Alex Acosta, instead overruled her proposed charges and personally approved an agreement reducing Epstein’s exposure to just two state crimes for soliciting prostitution and a recommendation of 18 months in county jail.

“Marie broke her back trying to do the right thing, but someone was always telling her to back off. We never really knew who it was, we just thought it was very odd,” a prosecutor told the reporter Julie K. Brown.

Epstein served less than 13 months in a minimum-security Palm Beach County facility, which included a work release program that allowed him to spend 12 hours a day purportedly working at a Foundation he had recently incorporated. “Villafaña learned, just days after Epstein was sentenced, that he was going on work release—and strenuously objected,” according to Brown’s book.

The Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office instructed deputies assigned to watch Epstein during his work release that “Inmate Epstein is responsible for his own transportation.” “Almost every day, Epstein’s security guard and valet, Igor, picked him up at the jail each morning in a black SUV,” according to Brown’s book. Epstein reportedly made “at least sixty-nine visits in six months to doctors, sometimes for two appointments in one day. He would also travel as often as three times a week to a chiropractor in Lake Worth, records show.” An internal email of the sheriff’s department referred to Epstein as a “client.” “The officers assigned to Epstein’s work release detail were directed to dress in suits and ties, not in uniform,” according to Brown’s book. Local news obtained internal Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office emails showing that “sheriff’s officials … made the work-release even more lenient, approving Epstein leaving his office each day in July 2009 and going back to his mansion.”

Victims have alleged Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with them while he was on work release including at his mansion and at his Foundation. Attorney Brad Edwards also alleged that Epstein propositioned women between the ages of 18 and 20 at the Foundation office while he was on work release.

[In November 2018, the Miami Herald published a major exposé by Julie K. Brown. The series detailed the “deal of a lifetime,” and included interviews with many of the victims. At the time, Acosta was Secretary of Labor. He was compelled to resign in disgrace.]

14. Epstein flew domestically, internationally, and to the Virgin Islands despite being a registered sexual offender

Federal law enforcement apparently failed to monitor, verify, and act on Epstein’s travel obligations—allowing a registered sex offender with a private jet to move freely, including internationally, despite concrete leads and readily available tools to scrutinize or curtail his movements.

As a registered sex offender (Florida – see also here; later classified in January 2011 as Level-3 in New York), he was required under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 2011 rules and International Megan’s Law (IML) (2016) to give authorities 21 days’ advance notice of any foreign travel.

Despite this, as detailed below, supervision and enforcement remained reactive: SDNY did not refer him to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) IML unit for suspected non-reporting until Jan. 8, 2019, and the USMS profile explicitly records “International Lookout Placed[:] No.”

By March 2019, his USVI Sex Offender Registry notice listed only “France,” while flight and FAA data showed additional flights to Vienna and Monaco, prompting a §2250(b) non-reporting probe. By his July 2019 pretrial detention litigation, the Government admitted that in the prior 18 months Epstein had taken more than 20 international flights by private jet (Epstein’s own attorney confirmed that he “traveled extensively,” including outside the United States, between November 2018 and July 2019); and he was arrested on July 6, 2019 after landing at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey from Paris.Taken together, authorities knew—or should have known—that a registered offender was repeatedly crossing borders, but they did not proactively verify or enforce his reporting obligations.

These lapses occurred despite the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida investigating Epstein in 2006–07 for trafficking offenses, including interstate and potential international transportation of minors. (Prosecutors explored Mann Act/§ 2423 theories and reviewed flight logs, though the OPR Report (see e.g., p. 17) later stated that they lacked proof of cross-border transport at that time.)

(a) Pre-investigation travel: Reactive rather than preventative oversight. SDNY began its Epstein investigation in November 2018, and did not refer him to the USMS International Megan’s Law unit until Jan. 8, 2019 for suspected failures to report foreign travel. No lookout or other preventive measures appear in the case file. He continued flying internationally until his July 6, 2019 arrest on arrival from Paris.

“Jeffrey EPSTEIN was referred to the USMS IML Unit by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as … [someone who] travels frequently Internationally and may have not reported all his International travel as required by International Megan’s Law.
….
Investigation reveals EPSTEIN travels Internationally quite frequently using private planes and may have failed to report all his International travel. Based upon this information, a MS04 investigation has been initiated to determine if EPSTEIN is in Violation of Title 18 Section 2250(b) regarding his failure to report International travel.” (p. 66)

(b) During investigation travel: a March 2019 non-disclosure wasn’t acted on promptly. Epstein’s undisclosed international travel in March 2019 was not acted upon for nearly 12 weeks. His USVI Sex Offender Registry notified the USMS that Epstein had traveled internationally only to France from March 19 through March 29, 2019, but flight and FAA data showed he also traveled to additional countries (Austria and Monaco) during that same period in late March 2019. The USMS did not appear to initiate an investigation until June 13. Investigators took their first documented step toward MLATs over a month later, on July 17, when the USMS Senior Investigator raised submitting MLAT requests to France, Monaco, Austria, and Morocco with an Assistant US Attorney, who said he would subsequently do so. Investigators submitted a search warrant to SDNY for Epstein’s international phone records on July 22; and they received FAA flight details on August 5.

“On 3/19/2019 the USMS received notification from the US Virgin Islands Sex Offender Registry that EPSTEIN was traveling to France from 3/19/2019 through 03/29/2019 via his private jet (N212JE). No other countries are listed on the notification form. According to a public website that tracks flight activity EPSTEIN traveled on March 22, 2019 to Vienna, Austria and on March 27, 2019 to Monaco. These countries are not listed on the notification form. Based on the above information, an MS04 investigation has been initiated to determine if EPSTEIN is in violation of 18 USC 2250 (b) regarding his failure to report international travel.” (p. 62)

“ – On July 17, 2019 SI [USMS Senior Inspector] ████ spoke with the AUSA ████ in regards to submitting an MLAT request to the countries of France, Monaco, Austria, and Morocco. AUSA ████ stated he would submit the requests.

– On or about July 19, 2019 SI ████ and ████ spoke with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in regards to obtaining flight logs and records for EPSTEINs private plane. CBP stated these could be obtained through the pilots themselves or maybe the FAA.

– On July 22, 2019 SI ████ submitted a search warrant to AUSA ████ for EPSTEINs phone number that he listed he can be reached on during international travel. SI ████ is hoping to gain historical information that may provide insight to countries EPSTEIN visited while on international travel.

– On August 5, 2019 SI ████ received information from the FAA in regards to flight plan histories. This information reveals numerous more Countries of international travel by EPSTEINs jet. It will be investigated further.

The investigation continues.” (p. 63)

15. Failure to further investigate Epstein/Maxwell before November 2018 despite revelations in several court cases

The DOJ and FBI failed to investigate after 2007 despite explosive revelations of a wider criminal conspiracy, including the role of Ghislaine Maxwell, in news reports and several civil lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Florida.

(a) Maria Farmer, Notice of Claim Under the Federal Tort Claims Act to FBI (2023):

“Federal Law Enforcement’s Failures for More than Another Decade
The FBI did virtually nothing to stop the Epstein sex trafficking conspiracy for more than another decade and took further substantive action only:

• after Claimant (and other survivors, including Sarah Ransome) complaint to federal law enforcement and actively engaged with non-FBI law enforcement;

• after lengthy prosecution of federal civil litigation alleging the NPA violated the Crime Victims Rights Act guarantees, leading to a judicial determination that the government’s failure to notify victims of the settlement and the NPA itself violated the ACT – e.g., Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

• after numerous journalists reported the story; and

• after numerous other private lawsuits and other efforts brought this conspiracy to light and still do so – e.g., Doe v. Epstein, (2009) (579 F. Supp. 3d) (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 1-15-cv-07433-LAP (S.D.N.Y. complaint filed 2015); and Jane Doe 1 v. Deutsche Bank et al., 22-cv-10018 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).”

(b) Victims brought several lawsuits, including by reputable law firms, that involved detailed allegations of the wider sex trafficking conspiracy and specifically identified Ghislaine Maxwell as a key part of the alleged criminal conspiracy.

Barry Levine, The Spider: Inside the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (Crown: 2020), p. 290:

“At the time [in 2019], one of the great mysteries in the Epstein saga was why Maxwell had never been charged with any crimes. From the time of her arrival in New York until Epstein’s incarceration in Florida in 2008, Ghislaine Maxwell had been by many accounts an active participant—or even a proactive lieutenant—in the financier’s international child sex trafficking ring. She had been implicated by dozens of victims as an accomplice to abuse and even a perpetrator of it in suits filed against her.”

A sample of those civil lawsuits is below. Several of the lawsuits led to large amounts of discovery, depositions and other court filings, which provided further information about Maxwell’s alleged conduct for the public at large and federal criminal investigators in particular.

2009:

Doe No. 101 v. Epstein, 9:09-cv-80591, (S.D. Fla.): Amended complaint (May 1, 2009) (Maxwell named as Epstein co-conspirator)

• Civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging violations of: § 2422(b) (coercion/enticement of minor to engage in prostitution or sexual activity), § 2423(b) (travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct), § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children), § 2252(a)(1) (transport of visual depiction of minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct), § 2252A(a)(1) (transport of child pornography), § 2252A(g) (engaging in a child exploitation enterprise). The suit alleges that at age 17, in the spring of 2003, plaintiff was recruited by one of Epstein’s agents and abused at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, where assistants arranged transport/scheduling and paid $200 per “massage.” Beyond extensive sexual abuse, the complaint described Epstein’s attempt to have her procure other minors, hidden cameras and nude photos of minors in the mansion (alleging that lewd images of plaintiff may have been taken and transported interstate), and identified Ghislaine Maxwell—not a defendant—as Epstein’s “socialite friend/partner” who conspired with others to further the scheme and help Epstein evade police detection.

Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, 9:09-cv-80656, (S.D. Fla.): Complaint (May 4, 2009) (Maxwell named as Epstein co-conspirator)

• Civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging violations of: § 2422(b) (coercion/enticement of minor to engage in prostitution or sexual activity), § 2423(a) (transportation of minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity), §§ 2423(b) and 2421 (travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, § 2422(a) (coercion and enticement to engage in prostitution or sexual or activity), § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children), § 2252(a)(1) (transport of visual depictions of minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct), § 2252A(a)(1) (transport of child pornography), and § 2252A(g) (engaging in a child exploitation enterprise). The suit alleges that Epstein sexually abused and trafficked Virginia Giuffre beginning at age 15, after she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago in 1998; alleges repeated abuse across Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, Los Angeles, Europe, the Caribbean, and Africa, with Maxwell facilitating grooming, transport, and direct sexual assaults, including instructing plaintiff to undress and “assaulting, battering, exploiting, and abusing Plaintiff.”

2010:

M.J. v. Epstein and Sarah Kellen, 9:10-cv-81111, (S.D. Fla.) in SDFL: Complaint (September 17, 2010) and statement (Maxwell named as part of an alleged civil RICO conspiracy with Epstein and Kellen)

• Claims include battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Epstein; conspiracy to commit tortious assault/battery against Kellen; twenty counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 premised on alleged violations of § 2422(b) (knowingly conspiring with others to entice Kellen and other minor females to engage in prostitution), § 2423(b) (travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct), conspiracy under § 2423(e) (alleged incidents occurred every month between Aug. 2002–Mar. 2004); plus Florida Civil RICO under Fla. Stat. §§ 772.103(3)-(4). Plaintiff alleges that at age 16 she was escorted by Sarah Kellen into Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, where Espstein abused her at least 20 times between the summer of 2002 and spring of 2004, and pressured her to recruit other minors; the enterprise used code words “work”/“massage,” targeted underprivileged minors, and engaged in witness intimidation/obstruction and post-2008 asset-hiding to thwart victims’ recovery; the RICO Statement identifies Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, and Nadia Marcinkova (along with Kellen) as enterprise participants—Maxwell allegedly recruited minors, helped provide a “modeling” cover, and participated in sexual abuse.

2011:

Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, 9:08-cv-80736, (S.D. Fla.): Motion (Maxwell named as co-conspirator in motion for finding violations Crime Victims Rights Act with non-prosecution agreement; subsequent motion in 2015 listed Maxwell as one of three people allegedly benefited by non-prosecution agreement)

• Motions brought under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, seeking enforcement of victims’ rights to confer with prosecutors and be treated with fairness during pre-indictment negotiations; alleges that, while negotiating the 2007 NPA, the FBI and USAO-SDFL recognized an active “case” against Epstein but entered into a secret agreement deferring federal charges, concealed its terms from victims for months, and issued incomplete and misleading notices; discovery filings further allege that an AUSA, at the defense’s request, added a co-conspirator immunity clause to the NPA despite acknowledging this was atypical, took steps to prevent the NPA from becoming public, and failed to inform victims that it would block federal prosecutions; Maxwell was described as part of the larger enterprise in which Epstein acted “in concert … with others” to procure minors and a beneficiary of the non-prosecution immunity clause.

2014:

Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, 9:08-cv-80736, (S.D. Fla.): Motion (Maxwell named as a “primary co-conspirator” of Epstein)

• Motion by Jane Does 3 & 4 (December 30, 2014) to join the 2011 suit (above) alleged that Maxwell recruited Jane Doe #3 at age 15, participated in abuse, and took sexually explicit photos shared with Epstein; that Doe #3 was trafficked domestically and internationally to Prince Andrew and Jean-Luc Brunel (using a “modeling” cover and obtaining passports), and that the government knew of Doe #3 (listed in 2007 NPA); cites the court’s earlier ruling that CVRA rights apply pre-indictment and frames joinder as relevant to the court’s evaluation of an alleged prosecutor–Epstein conspiracy to secure the NPA; Maxwell is described as “one of the main women whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme.” Maxwell and her agent’s responses to the press about these allegations in January 2015 led Giuffre to file a defamation suit against Maxwell in September 2015.

2017:

Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, Natalya Malyshev, 1:17-cv-00616, (S.D.N.Y.): Amended complaint (Maxwell named as co-conspirator)

• Trafficking Victims Protection Act suit under 18 U.S.C. § 1595—predicates alleged violations include § 1591 (sex trafficking of children), § 1592 (unlawful conduct with respect to Plaintiff’s passport and associated immigration documents), § 1593A (knowingly benefitting from participating in the alleged Epstein sex trafficking venture enterprise), § 1594(a) (for attempting to violate § 1591), and § 1594(b) and(c) (for conspiring to violate §§ 1591 and 1592, respectively) ). Plaintiff alleges that around Oct. 2006–May 2007, she (a South African living in New York) was recruited through fraudulent promises of career help and transported for commercial sex acts in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Maxwell is described as the enterprise’s senior operator—designing the recruitment system, training/overseeing recruiters, controlling scheduling (the “rotation”), instructing techniques, and, with Epstein and Kellen, holding plaintiff’s passport to coerce compliance; Groff managed logistics/scheduling/travel and maintained communications to keep victims compliant; Malyshev acted as a recruiter who brought plaintiff in; the conduct used Epstein’s properties (in NY and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and aircraft. The complaint alleges a hierarchical venture supplying girls to Epstein and others, leveraging wealth, threats, and fraud, and notes the operation shifted from Palm Beach to New York/U.S. Virgin Islands around the 2007 NPA.

16. Failure to further investigate/indict Epstein post-2007 NPA and before 2018-19, despite tips to the FBI and Treasury Department, including from JPMorgan

Despite years of JPMorgan alerts—six Treasury filings (2002–2016), approximately 150 Cash Transaction Reports (73 before Epstein’s July 2006 arrest), and reports to federal law enforcement—no federal agency (FBI or any U.S. Attorney’s Office) contacted the bank or indicated any investigation.

(a) In Janes Does 1-6, Laura Newman, and Sandra Ward v. FBI (Sept. 2024), the plaintiffs allege: “The FBI failed to comply with FBI protocols and missed reports of bank involvement and government elites as co-conspirators,” citing to statements made by JPMorgan Chase in litigation (para. 66).

“66. The FBI received notices and tips of suspicious banking activity linking the accounts to funding sex trafficking. The FBI was notified that JP Morgan Chase handled more than $1.1 million in payments from Epstein to girls or women, many with Eastern European surnames. Again, nothing was done by the FBI to investigate and present evidence for prosecution until 2019.”

(b) In the U.S. Virgin Island’s suit against JPMorgan, bank counsel told the court that JPMorgan made six filings with the Treasury Department (2002, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2015, 2016); further said that the bank had also reported Epstein-related “financial activity to federal law enforcement”; and between 2002 and 2013 JPMC filed approximately 150 Cash Transaction Reports on Epstein (73 before his July 2006 arrest), and law enforcement never contacted the bank in response.

“There are six filings made with the treasury department during the course of the relationship between JPMorgan and Jeffrey Epstein that predate that final post-death filing.” (p. 31)

“There were failings [sic] made with the Treasury Department, and there was no response or action taken by the federal government in response to filings made in 2002, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2015 and 2016.” (pp. 33-4)

“JPMC states that it reported … financial activity to federal law enforcement in the form of Cash Transaction Reports (‘CTRs’).” (p. 27)

“Between 2002 and 2013, JPMC filed approximately 150 CTRs related to Epstein and his accounts in which JPMC identified its relationship with Epstein, flagged his large cash withdrawals[.] […] Seventy-three of these CTRs were filed before Epstein was arrested in July 2006. […] Law enforcement never contacted JPMC in response to any CTR.” (p. 8)

(c) In a sworn deposition in the U.S. Virgin Island’s suit against JPMorgan, then managing director for the bank’s Financial Intelligence Unit, Phillip DeLuca, said at some point around 2009-2011, he called Special Agent Tim Moyer, DeLuca’s regular contact at the FBI, to “exchange information” about Epstein. Moyer told DeLuca that he would call DeLuca back later to discuss Epstein, but did not do so. DeLuca interpreted this to mean the FBI “weren’t interested.”

“Question: Given your consistent dealings with law enforcement, how did you interpret the fact that the FBI never got back to you about Epstein?

De Luca: That they weren’t interested.”

17. Federal law enforcement failed to investigate after 2007; trafficking persisted through at least 2017, and evidence seized in July 2019 indicates continued criminal conduct including child sexual abuse material (CSAM)

(a) The Government of U.S. Virgin Islands Second Amended Complaint (and here) against the Jeffrey Epstein Estate and two Executors of the Estate (background info: news report):

“61. Another victim was flown by Epstein and his associates to New York or Palm Beach and then to the Virgin Islands dozens of times from 2004, when she was age 20, to 2017. She was repeatedly abused by Epstein and also was pressed to have sex with Epstein’s business colleagues.”

“213. Another victim was brought by Defendants dozens of times between 2004 and 2017 to Little St. James, where she too observed a succession of young women and female children who likewise were transported to the island and were required to have sexual relations with Epstein and his guests.”

(b) Kaitlyn Doe’s complaint alleges sexual assaults from 2007-2014, including when Epstein was on work-release during his Florida sentence.

(c) Janes Does 1-6, Laura Newman, and Sandra Ward v. FBI (Complaint) (Sept. 2024):

“Court papers filed in Epstein’s much-delayed child sex trafficking case in 2019 had evidence of CDs containing child pornography with handwritten labels including “Young [Name] + [Name],” “Misc nudes 1” and “Girl pics nude.” The massage table, where many of the victims were abused and raped by Epstein and his friends, was still in his Upper East side mansion in 2019 when raided.” (para. 12)

18. Deficiencies in the 2020 OPR report

The DOJ’s OPR report drew sharp criticism as a “whitewash”: the Department initially released only an executive summary to the public (the full report later surfaced via the Washington Post), and it recast what many viewed to be clear professional misconduct as mere “poor judgment.” Critics of the report included the lead prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida. In court, victims’ counsel also argued that DOJ had withheld key documents and failed to retrieve critical records — despite acknowledged victim-notification failures and the premature closure of the federal probe.

The report downplayed a “data gap” in Alex Acosta’s email inbox that lasted between May 2007 to April 2008—a crucial period, spanning from the time when Acosta’s Office prepared a draft indictment against Epstein to shortly before Epstein pleaded guilty in state court, during which Epstein’s lawyers aggressively lobbied federal prosecutors to end the federal case. As former judge Paul Cassell, one of the victims’ attorneys, said, “The gap seems to have surgically struck on exactly the time period when most of the big decisions were being made. I was stunned because you would think if there was ever a case where the Justice Department would have been very careful to make sure they had complete records and things weren’t missing, this would be the one.” But mention of Acosta’s missing emails were only in a brief section in an appendix on “methodology” in the report.

Victims rebuked the OPR report as a “slap in the face” and said they were giving up hope of ever achieving real accountability.

(a) Criticisms of OPR by Southern District of Florida lead prosecutor Marie Villafaña, who drafted the federal indictment against Epstein in 2007

The lead prosecutor in the US Attorney’s Office, Marie Villafaña, made a public statement after the OPR’s report was released sharply criticizing “implicit institutional biases that prevented me and the FBI agents who worked diligently on this case from holding Mr. Epstein accountable for his crimes” and the failure of OPR to consider those factors:

“I am pleased that OPR finally has completed its investigation but am disappointed that it has not released the full report so the victims and the public can have a fuller accounting of the depth of interference that led to the patently unjust outcome in the Epstein case.”

“That injustice, I believe, was the result of deep, implicit institutional biases that prevented me and the FBI agents who worked diligently on this case from holding Mr. Epstein accountable for his crimes. By not considering those implicit biases based on gender and socioeconomic status, OPR lost an opportunity to make recommendations for institutional changes that could prevent results like this one from occurring in the future.” (emphasis added)

(b) From victims’ lawyers and survivors

• Jena-Lisa Jones (victim): “It felt very much like another slap in the face.” “I’m still very, very mad at this whole situation.” “I was hoping to have a little bit more peace when I came out of this, a little bit more answers on to what had happened, what was going on. And if anything, it left me more angry.” She further said, “I honestly don’t think that anybody will take responsibility in any sense, in any shape or form in the way that they actually should as adults.”
• Dainya Nida (victim): “Any time I am involved in any of this I never have any expectations anymore because I know I am never going to get the answer why.”
• Paul Cassell (a former federal judge and lawyer representing victims): “I think, frankly, what we got was an effort to paper over what happened.” “I think they’re trying to put the most favorable light on what’s clearly misconduct on the part of their attorneys.” He also said the report was “a coverup,” blasted OPR for not interviewing Epstein’s defense attorneys, and flagged a “technical glitch” that left a year-long gap in Alex Acosta’s incoming emails during key decision months.“How can you possibly claim you’ve done a thorough investigation without exploring these issues?” “The report lets Acosta take the fall for everybody,” Cassell said, adding, “That’s very convenient since he’s left the Justice Department.”
• Brad Edwards (lawyer representing victims) criticized the report for “backing into the conclusions they wanted.” “They decided before it started, how are we going to reach the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing or that the victims’ rights weren’t violated.” “And let’s figure out a way to maneuver around the actual facts and reach those conclusions.” He also said, “They just say he used poor judgment, and that’s their way of basically letting everyone off the hook while offering some sort of an olive branch to the victims that we acknowledge weren’t treated perfectly.” “But nobody really did anything wrong. It’s really offensive. It’s hurtful.”
• Adam Horowitz (lawyer representing victims): “The mountain of mistakes was not just poor judgment. It was reckless.”

(c) Congressional reaction

• Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee: “Letting a well-connected billionaire get away with child rape and international sex trafficking isn’t ‘poor judgment’ — it is a disgusting failure. Americans ought to be enraged.” “Epstein should be rotting behind bars today, but the Justice Department failed Epstein’s victims at every turn.” “The DOJ’s crooked deal with Epstein effectively shut down investigations into his child sex trafficking ring and protected his co-conspirators in other states. Justice has not been served.” “The full report needs to be released to the public. OPR might have finished its report, but we have an obligation to make sure this never happens again.”
• Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA.): ““How is letting a child sex trafficker walk free anything but gross professional misconduct? How is keeping the plea deal secret from the survivors not a clear violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act? The light-handedness of OPR’s report is just the latest in a long series of failures by the Justice Department to deliver justice for these young women and girls.”

(d) Judicial reaction

• In re Courtney Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. en banc 2021) (Judge Frank Hull, dissenting) p. 182, n10: “The DOJ’s failure to discipline its own prosecutors heightens the importance of the CVRA’s private right of action. … Given the OPR Report, it is hardly surprising the victims continue to pursue this civil suit to discover and unravel the mystery of why the prosecutors not only signed such a sweetheart plea deal for the billionaire Epstein in the first place but did so in secret and then for nearly a year took great efforts to hide the Agreement by affirmative misrepresentations to the victims and their counsel too.

19. Blocking DOJ Inspector General from investigating failures

(a) The Deputy Attorney General denied the Department’s Office of Inspector General’s requests to review the NPA, according to statements by the Inspector General provided to Congress in May 2021:

“The IG Access Act is needed precisely because the Department has consistently denied the OIG’s requests to investigate serious allegations of professional misconduct by lawyers, including the circumstances under which Jeffrey Epstein received a non-prosecution agreement from the Southern District of Florida. The NAAUSA letter also asserts that because current law allows the OIG to investigate attorney professional misconduct with the approval of the Deputy Attorney General, there is no need for the IG Access Act. Although NAAUSA is correct that existing Department regulations allow the OIG to request authority from the Deputy Attorney General to conduct a professional misconduct investigation, the reality is that in every instance where the OIG has made a request pursuant to the regulation, the then Deputy Attorney General has denied the OIG’s request, including the Epstein case. Moreover, requiring the OIG to request permission from Department leadership to handle a matter, and empowering the Deputy Attorney General to “block” OIG oversight of a serious misconduct allegation, undermines IG independence and is inconsistent with the Inspector General Act.” p. 4 (emphasis added).

(b) Inspector General told Congress again in October 2021:

“Although existing Department regulations allow the OIG to request authority from the Deputy Attorney General to conduct a professional misconduct investigation, the reality is that in every instance where the OIG has made a request pursuant to the regulation, the then Deputy Attorney General has denied the OIG’s request. That includes, most recently, the OIG’s request to investigate the circumstances under which Jeffrey Epstein received a non-prosecution agreement from the Southern District of Florida.” p. 3.

20. Executive Branch handling of the Epstein file and Maxwell imprisonment in 2025

The Justice Department engaged in the following conduct in 2025:

(a) After senior officials promised to provide the public with transparency in releasing information in the Epstein file, an unsigned memo by DOJ and FBI stated on July 7, 2025:

“One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends. To that end, while we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” (emphasis added).

Note-1: Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly ordered the FBI to engage in an extraordinary review of all the files and to “flag” any records in which President Trump was mentioned, a process that took place from March 14 to late March (see Sen. Durbin letter to AG Bondi). In May, Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly informed the president that his name appears multiple times in the files.

Note-2: The longtime Section Chief of the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section was reportedly forced out after clashing with senior DOJ/FBI officials over the process for handling the files.

(b) The DOJ and FBI July 7 memo also stated (implausibly): “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

Annie Farmer’s attorneys wrote to federal courts:

“[T]he Government’s recent suggestion that no further criminal investigations are forthcoming is a cowardly abdication of its duties to protect and serve. It is obviously impossible for two people to conduct a decades-long sex-trafficking enterprise involving thousands of victims without other individuals who participated in and facilitated these unspeakable atrocities.” p. 1.

(c) The DOJ did not communicate with victims before requesting the release of grand jury materials in the Epstein and Maxwell cases, an omission revealed after the judges in those cases asked whether DOJ had done so.

Victims’ attorneys Edwards and Cassel told Judge Berman:

“Given our history fighting for the enforcement of the CVRA on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein’s many victims, we were quite surprised to learn that the government sought the unsealing of grand jury materials before this Court without first conferring with the victims or their counsel, a step required by the CVRA and reinforced by Doe v. United States, 08-80736 (S.D. Fla.). … This omission reinforces the perception that the victims are, at best, an afterthought to the current administration.” p. 2.

(d) Judge Engelmeyer strongly criticized the government for its request to unseal the grand jury transcripts. The court emphasized repeatedly that the transcripts would provide no information that was not already a part of the public record. He remarked, “A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at ‘transparency’ but at diversion—aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such” (emphasis added). And he suggested the government’s false claims that the grand jury transcripts contained critical information may have misled the victims. “Had the Government’s motion made clear that these records are redundant of the evidence at Maxwell’s public trial, the victims’ responses to the motion to unseal might well have been different,” the judge wrote.

(e) The DOJ did not communicate with victims before moving Ghislaine Maxwell to a lower-security prison.

Victims’ attorneys Edwards and Cassel told Judge Engelmeyer:

“Maxwell’s recent move to a lower-security prison has further eroded the victims’ confidence that their safety and dignity are priorities. The transfer was made without prior notice to the victims, without opportunity to object, and without explanation-actions they see as extraordinarily insensitive and suggestive of ulterior purposes.”

(f) The government has provided no explanation for transferring Maxwell to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas. A letter by House Judiciary Committee Democrats demanded information from DOJ and the Bureau of Prisons relating to the transfer and Deputy AG Blanche’s interview with Maxwell, stating: “These actions raise substantial concerns that the Administration may now be attempting to tamper with a crucial witness, conceal President Trump’s relationship with convicted sex offenders, and coax Ms. Maxwell into providing false or misleading testimony in order to protect the President. The transfer also appears to violate both DOJ and Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies.” The letter further noted that the lower security facility, with “greater freedom for inmates,” was, “prior to this extraordinary transfer, categorically off-limits to sex offenders.” The letter also stated, “Even if a waiver were to be granted, standard BOP policy would allow for a waiver only after multiple levels of review that would ordinarily take months to complete. Even if approved for a redesignation, which typically requires new facts or evidence, an inmate would then have to join a months-long waitlist for an opening at a camp.”

(g) The President has made publicly statements that raise concerns he would pardon or commute Maxwell. As attorneys Edwards and Cassel told a federal court, “The risk of a pardon or commutation exacerbates safety concerns in derogation of§ 3771(a)(l), and threatens severe psychological harm, including triggering trauma responses.”

21. Congressional handling of the Epstein file and Maxwell imprisonment in 2025

(a) In July, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) took the rare step of recessing the House early for the summer, in order to avoid holding votes related to releasing the Epstein files. Speaker Johnson said he wanted to give the Trump Administration “space” to disclose information related to Epstein on its own, without Congressional action; to date, the White House (and DOJ) has revealed no new information since the House recessed. The discharge petition, which would force a House vote on whether DOJ must release information contained in the Epstein files, is “set to trigger a vote within days of the House’s return in September.”

(b) Speaker Johnson criticized the bipartisan discharge petition. Speaker Johnson called it “reckless” and said: “I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice, with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and information out there,” Johnson said. “That word ‘credible’ is important. And why? Because you have to protect innocent people’s names and reputations whose names might be, as you noted at the outset of the program, intertwined into all these files.”

(c) On August 11, the House Oversight Committee issued eleven subpoenas related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The Committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer (R-KY), issued deposition subpoenas for former Attorneys General and FBI Directors; and a document subpoena to DOJ for information related to Epstein. The first subpoena is due Monday, August 18. However, it failed to subpoena some of the most relevant and important individuals involved in the federal investigation of Epstein and Maxwell, including: Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida during the office’s Epstein investigation between 2006-07;Marie Villafaña, the lead prosecutor in the SDFL office handling the Epstein investigation; Geoffrey Berman, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York when Epstein was indicted in 2019; and Audrey Strauss, the deputy U.S. Attorney in SDNY under Berman and Acting U.S. Attorney when Ghislaine Maxwell was charged.

(d) On July 29, Senate Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Bondi demanding “the full and complete Epstein files” no later than August 15, pursuant to 5 U.S.C §2954, which requires “[a]n executive agency, on request of … any five members” of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, to “submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.” DOJ ignored this request, and on August 15, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused the Trump Administration of “breaking the law” and threatened to sue.

The post Timeline of Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell Law Enforcement Failures (1996-2025) appeared first on Just Security.

NEW: The clearinghouse also includes Just Security Journalism Fellow Adam Klasfeld’s courtroom reporting and coverage of the issues. 

We will continue updating this page with new information as the trials develop. Moreover, as Trump’s co-defendants plead guilty and cases close, this page will remain a one-stop source for those matters. We hope this repository of information will be useful for analysts, researchers, investigators, journalists, educators, and the public at large. 

If you think the Trump Trials Clearinghouse is missing something important, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.

Master Calendar of Trump Court Dates and the 2024 Campaign

New York: 2016 Election

Department of Justice: 2020 Election Interference

Georgia: 2020 Election Interference

Department of Justice: Classified Documents

New York Attorney General: Corporate Fraud

NB: Sasha Matsuki and Arava Rose also contributed to co-authoring previous versions of this clearinghouse.

The post Trump Trials Clearinghouse appeared first on Just Security.

The Threat Tracker is also available as a PDF file. The Threat Tracker was originally published on February 26, 2024, and the most recent update was on July 22, 2024.

Contents

Introduction

I. Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Immigration

II. Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Energy and the Environment

III. Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Release January 6th rioters from prison

IV. Subverting the Rule of Law to Protect Himself from Prosecution

V. Persecuting his Perceived Political Enemies

VI. Draconian Abortion Access Crackdown

VII. Purging Federal Employees and Attacking Federal Agencies

VIII. Rigging Elections and Promoting Harmful Election Conspiracy Theories

IX. Rejecting the Constitution

X. Demonizing Americans with Whom He Disagrees

XI. Trump’s Effusive Praise of Autocrats

XII. Enriching Himself and His Family

XIII. Creating an Unconstitutional Criminal Justice System

XIV. Wielding the Military to Suppress Civil Dissent

XV. Undermining America’s Stature Abroad and Eroding International Alliances

XVI. Discriminating Against LGBTQ+ Americans

XVII. Attacking the Free Press

XVIII. Spreading Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories on Public Health

XIX. Embracing Christian Nationalism

XX. Politicizing Education & Censoring Disfavored Ideas

XXI. Condoning Anti-Semitism

XXII. The Economic Impacts of Trump’s Autocratic Moves

XXIII. Bipartisan Actions to Counter Autocratic Threats

Selected Bibliography

Introduction

Former President Donald Trump has said he will be a dictator on “day one.” He and his advisors and associates have publicly discussed hundreds of further actions to be taken during a second Trump presidency that directly threaten democracy, the rule of law, as well as U.S. (and global) security. These vary from Trump breaking the law and abusing power in areas like immigration roundups and energy extraction; to summarily firing tens of thousands of civil servants whom he perceives as adversaries; to prosecuting his political opponents for personal gain; to pardoning convicted January 6th rioters he views as “warriors,” “great patriots” and “hostages.” We track all of the specific promises, plans, and pronouncements here and we will continue to update them.  

While formally accepting the GOP nomination for president at the Republican National Convention, Trump refuted accusations that he is the “enemy of democracy.” “In fact, I am the one saving democracy for the people of our country,” he contended. At his first rally after the convention, Trump again rebuffed being a “threat to democracy,” declaring that he “took a bullet for democracy,” referencing the attempt on his life. “I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of almighty God,” Trump said at the convention in Milwaukee. “I stand before you this evening with a message of confidence, strength and hope that we’ll begin the four greatest years in the history of our country.” But despite ramped up talk of “unity” by Trump and the GOP throughout the convention, Trump soon returned to familiar autocratic rhetoric. As he often does, Trump criticized the press and Democrats, repeated false accusations of a weaponized justice system and “witch hunt” prosecutions, and made further false accusations of cheating in the 2020 election (claims that were also repeated in a pre-recorded Trump video that was played on the big screen each night). He emphasized the immigration and energy policies which he has previously characterized as part of his intention to be a dictator on “day one” (implying extra-legal means, as we discuss below). As the New York Times noted, he also “derided former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as ‘Crazy Nancy.’ Less than four years removed from office, he said America was already a ‘nation in decline.’ He waxed hyperbolic about the immigration crisis, calling it ‘the greatest invasion in history’ and compared undocumented migrants to Hannibal Lecter, the fictional serial killer and cannibal from ‘The Silence of the Lambs.’” 

In addition to Trump, the convention platformed “extremist voices that were once on the fringe,” and showed an unwillingness to temper harmful election denialism and conspiracy theories. Several speakers repeated harmful “Great Replacement theory” rhetoric, linking a purported immigration “invasion” to an existential threat to the U.S. voting system. Trump himself warned that “no hope or dream we have for America can succeed unless we stop the illegal immigrant invasion” and repeated incendiary and racist rhetoric, including “the China virus.” He embraced Hungary as a “strong country” and its autocratic leader, Viktor Orbán as a “very powerful, tough leader.”  

Moments before Trump surpassed the delegate threshold for the presidential nomination at the convention, he announced Senator JD Vance of Ohio, one of his former fiercest critics, as his running mate. A central voice in the “Never Trump” movement during the 2016 election, Vance has a well-documented history of sharply criticizing Trump and his policies, including once saying Trump could be “America’s Hitler.” Now an ardent MAGA advocate, known for his radical and autocratic-leaning positions, Vance is set to join Trump in carrying out the former president’s agenda and pushing back against the “late republican period,” which, in his own words, necessitates getting “pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go[ing] in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.” Vance’s way of operating “pushes beyond precedent, tradition, and norms,” and according to the New York Times, he is “an ambitious ideologue who relishes the spotlight.” He is “good friends” with the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, who in March said that Vance “is absolutely going to be one of the leaders — if not the leader — of our movement.” (“Privately, we were really rooting for him,” Roberts told reporters at the convention.) Vance has also endorsed Heritage and championed many of its Project 2025 proposals (see below), including mass firings of civil service employees and clearing out the deep state. He said “corruption in our institutions” is what changed his mind about Trump. 

A vocal election denier and fundraiser for January 6 rioters, Vance has said he would not have certified the 2020 election on January 6th had he been vice president and said that he would commit to accepting the 2024 election results “if it’s a free and fair election.” Vance has also joined Trump in attacking the justice system for pursuing accountability for Trump’s alleged and proven crimes. Vance was present during Trump’s trial in Manhattan, said that the Justice Department should be ground to “a halt” for allegedly harassing Trump and harassing President Biden’s political opponents; in response to Trump’s prosecution by the Manhattan DA, the senator called for blocking fast-tracking of judicial and U.S. attorney nominees. Vance has advocated disregarding Supreme Court rulings that he disagrees with, a radical position that threatens to undermine our constitutional framework. He has encouraged prosecuting journalists who criticize Trump; opposes further foreign aid to Ukraine (a position recently welcomed by the Kremlin); supports limiting abortion rights including in cases of incest and rape; criticized DEI initiatives and promoted traditional gender roles and opposing LGBTQ+ rights; and slammed the Biden administration’s policies on climate control and immigration.

Trump and Vance’s openly autocratic rhetoric and aspirations are complemented by an extensive pre-election plan to fundamentally alter the nature of American government: the Heritage Foundation’s “2025 Presidential Transition Project” (or “Project 2025”). Driven in part by a broad desire to be prepared for “Day One” of a Trump administration, Project 2025 purports to “rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left” and “pave[ ] the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars: a policy agenda, Presidential Personnel Database, Presidential Administration Academy, and playbook for the first 180 days of the next Administration.” 

Project 2025’s agenda, as outlined in the 887-page document, “Mandate for Leadership: the Conservative Promise,” aligns with Trump’s Agenda47 plans in several ways, offering “an important preview of a second [Trump] term.” It proposes to dismantle or radically overhaul the Departments of Justice and State; eliminate the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, and Commerce; radically repurpose other agencies; eviscerate the professional civil service; withdraw approval for the abortion pill; crack down on immigration; and thwart environmental and climate change efforts. The project’s “180-day Transition Playbook” seeks to offer a “comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency.” Project 2025 is complemented by other 2025 planning efforts including, for example, the America First Policy Institute, the Center for Renewing America, and the Conservative Partnership Institute. 

Before the 2016 election, Heritage launched a similar project with 334 policy recommendations, and a year into Trump’s term Heritage reported that 64 percent of those recommendations had been adopted in his budget, implemented through regulatory guidance, or were under consideration for future action. A month later, in February 2018, Trump approvingly cited that analysis in a post on Twitter, appearing to consider Heritage’s ”Mandate” at the time synonymous with his own “Trump Agenda,” and championing his implementation of the Agenda.  He quoted Thomas Binion’s statement—who was at that time the director of Heritage’s congressional and executive outreach program, which oversaw the ”Mandate”—in which Binion said that Trump “is very active, very conservative, and very effective.” (Heritage then shared Trump’s post on its website.)

This time around, Project 2025 is, in the words of Heritage President Roberts, a plan for “institutionalizing Trumpism.” The project was created in large part by Trump allies. It is currently led by three individuals—the project’s director, Paul Dans, and associate directors Spencer Chretien and Troup Hemenway—all of whom served in Trump’s administration. Dans, who heads the project and co-edited its ”Mandate,” was Chief of Staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and OPM’s White House Liaison, and later worked as a senior advisor at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Trump also appointed Dans Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission. Project 2025’s Assistant Director Chretien, who “support[s] each pillar of the project’s work,” served as Special Assistant to the President and as an associate director of the Presidential Personnel Office (PPO), where he “help[ed] to identify, recruit, and place hundreds of political appointees at all levels of government,” and had previously been a HUD political appointee. Hemenway, a senior advisor of the project and associate director of personnel placement, was an associate director of PPO, overseeing “presidential appointments in the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, and the Intelligence Community.” He was also “a senior advisor to the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering at the Pentagon, a member of the Senior Executive Service, and a defense fellow and special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.” Before that, Hemenway worked on Trump’s 2016 campaign and the 2016 transition team. Steven Groves, who co-edited the “Mandate” with Dans, was Ambassador Nikki Haley’s Chief of Staff at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. He subsequently joined the White House as Special Assistant to the President and Assistant Special Counsel, representing the White House in the Mueller investigation, before becoming the White House Deputy Press Secretary.

The project and its “Mandate” are supported by numerous Trump allies, including many of his past and likely future appointees if he recaptures the presidency. A comprehensive CNN review indicates the deep interconnections between Trump and Project 2025. “[N]early 240 people” had “ties to both Project 2025 and to Trump” from “nearly every aspect of his time in politics and the White House – from day-to-day foot soldiers in Washington to the highest levels of his government.” CNN noted that the number of individuals with connections to both Trump and Project 2025 was “likely higher” than 240. Their reporting found that “at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025, … including more than half of the people listed as authors, editors and contributors to ‘Mandate for Leadership.’” (An analysis by Judd Legum found that a total of 81% of those responsible for the project’s formal mandate had official roles in the Trump administration.) CNN also noted that six of Trump’s former Cabinet secretaries, four of his ambassadorial nominees, and several officials who enforced his stringent immigration policies were involved in drafting or collaborating on the “Mandate.” 

Moreover, the project is steered by an advisory board comprising a “broad coalition of conservative organizations.” CNN reported that many of those groups have ties to Trump’s allies and advisors – including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows top Trump aide Stephen Miller, Trump’s personal attorney and lead outside counsel during the first impeachment trial Jay Sekulow, and two of the attorneys who helped Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election, John Eastman and Cleta Mitchell, the former of whom is under indictment for that conduct. Other contributors to the “Mandate” were Trump appointees Brendan Carr, who drafted a chapter on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and had been nominated by Trump to be a Commissioner on the FCC; and Lisa Correnti, an anti-abortion advocate Trump selected as a delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah Brett Tolman is also named as a contributor to the “Mandate;” although not a member of the Trump administration, he “functioned as an informal adviser to Trump on pardons and commutations” and helped facilitate the pardon of Charles Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law’s father, as part of his compensated work lobbying the administration. 

Apparently concerned that Heritage and Project 2025’s public statements and plans could prove unhelpful for Trump’s prospects of taking office, his campaign and aides have for some time been distancing themselves, both publicly and privately. And as Project 2025 comes under intensified scrutiny, particularly following Roberts’ “bloodless” revolution comment, Trump has sought to distance himself by claiming he knows “nothing about” it, has “no idea who is behind it,” had “nothing to do with them,” and “disagree[s] with some of the things they’re saying,” which “are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” During his first rally speech following accepting the GOP nomination for president, Trump again tried to publicly sever ties to Project 2025. While he admitted to knowing “some of them,” he was adamant that he did not “know anything about it” and did not “want to know anything about it.” The former president did not stop there, though, this time saying Project 2025 was created by the “severe” and “radical” right, with some “seriously extreme” policies. 

Yet, as noted by Axios and other sources, Project 2025 is “undeniably a Trump-driven operation,” simply one more audacious and frank in its stated goals than the Trump campaign. Dans said in an April 2023 podcast that “we’ve had great relationships” with Trump and other Republicans, adding that “ultimately, yes, I think, you know, President Trump’s very bought in with this.” Roberts responded similarly just days after Trump’s attempts to distance himself, saying there is “tremendous” and “significant” “overlap” between Project 2025, the GOP’s 2024 platform and Trump’s campaign website, adding that there are “no hard feelings from any of us at Project 2025 about the statement because we understand Trump is the standard bearer and he’s making a political tactical decision there.” In a recently aired interview, Dans said Project 2025 has “integration with folks on the [Trump] campaign,” “often…suppl[ies] ideas,” and “I know President Trump’s team will be receptive of it.”

Trump and Trump’s closest associates have long and deep ties to Heritage and Project 2025. Trump has delivered at least two keynote speeches at Heritage events: in October 2017 and April 2022. During the latter event, just as the think tank was beginning Project 2025, Trump said of Heritage, “This is a great group and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”

Trump also praised the then-new leader Roberts and expressed confidence in his future success; complimented other Heritage leaders, including those who had advised his campaign or served in his administration; and repeated his interest in being a “dictator,” saying he would rather be “a dictator” than “a dumb person.” Further, in February 2024, Trump complimented Roberts and Heritage for “doing an unbelievable job … bringing it back to levels we’ve never seen … thank you, Kevin.” 

Trump’s associates who have been involved in Project 2025 continue to be intimately involved in the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign has appointed some of Project 2025’s architects to work on the Republican Party’s platform, and several have met with Trump personally.  Rolling Stone identified at least seven members of the RNC working on the GOP’s platform that had ties to Project 2025. Notably, the Trump campaign and RNC named Russ Vought—who authored a key chapter of the Project 2025 report and has been identified as a potential chief of staff in a future Trump administration—as the RNC platform committee’s policy director. The Heritage Foundation also sponsored the 2024 Republican National Convention, where Trump officially received the Republican nomination for president. Identified as a convention partner on the convention host committee’s website, Heritage held a day-long “policy fest” on the opening day, as well as a closed social event on the penultimate day. Further, the main Trump Super PAC, “Make America Great Again Inc.” (or “MAGA Inc.”), has been recently running online ads promoting a website called “Trump Project 2025.” 

“Project 2025 is obviously intertwined with Trump’s universe of allies and staff” and “a second Trump administration will depend on those allies and that staff to run the government,” the Washington Post’s Phllip Bump explained. Stephen Miller, a central advisor in the Trump Administration who ABC News reported “helped Trump with debate prep and acted as a surrogate in the spin room,” is “one of the most powerful architects” of Project 2025, according to Axios; he has also appeared in videos produced by Project 2025. Another influential Trump advisor, John McEntee, who served as director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, is also a senior advisor to Project 2025. McEntee has effectively confirmed the integration between Project 2025 and Trump, saying on the Daily Wire podcast “Morning Wire”: “Obviously, there will need to be coordination and the president and his team will announce an official transition this summer, and we’re going to integrate a lot of our work with them. But I think keeping the two separate is actually the most beneficial way to go about it.” Indeed, only days after denying any connection to Project 2025, Trump announced that if he wins the election, he will bring back Tom Homan, his former acting director of ICE and the “father” of the family separation policy. Homan, a contributor to Project 2025’s “Mandate” and a fellow and speaker at Heritage, last year confirmed to the New York Times that he met with Trump shortly after he announced his campaign and agreed to return to help organize and run the “largest deportation operation” in U.S. history. Homan reiterated that commitment during a “fiery speech” at the 2024 Republican National Convention, and during Trump’s acceptance speech the following day, the former president again suggested Homan would be “put in charge” of stopping “the invasion” at the border.

Trump and his associates are reportedly discussing building an administration around loyalists who would “stretch legal and governance boundaries” to accommodate an “aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch” (in the words of Project 2025). Among those Axios reported to be under discussion for senior government posts are Stephen Miller, Kash Patel, Steve Bannon, and Jeffrey Clark, who is currently under indictment in Georgia for his role in the false electors scheme and a co-conspirator in the federal election indictment. 

When Trump assumed office in 2017, he and his associates did not have such well developed policies and personnel in waiting. Indeed, he made the “mistake” of including people in senior administration positions who remained loyal to the Constitution. As Sec. Esper told Bill Kristol in an April 17, 2024 interview, “There were guard rails in place, guard rail number one being the prospect of reelection, and number two being the people he brought in around him. Some of those guard rails won’t be there in number two.” A few days later, RNC Co-Chair Lara Trump told an audience to a round of applause, “He’s not worried about winning another election. It’s four years of scorched earth when Donald Trump retakes the White House.”

This autocratic lean has also been pronounced in statements made by Trump and his allies during and after his New York election interference and coverup trial and conviction. Those kinds of attacks on the administration of justice are a hallmark of would-be dictators. As we detail below, Trump has persistently attacked the rule of law when it gets in his way, with the Manhattan case being the most recent example. He committed 10 violations of a gag order protecting witnesses and the jury, falsely accused Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, of being “corrupt” and doing “everything within his power” to help President Biden win the election, vilified prosecutors and otherwise spread grotesque disinformation about the proceedings and racist tropes about the judge. Despite acknowledging it is “very dangerous” for him to say so, speaking at Trump Tower the day after his conviction, Trump said that the “crooked” judge presiding over the case “was a tyrant” who “looks like an angel but he’s really a devil.” Trump allies took a similarly pointed anti-rule of law stance, including in daily appearances outside the trial and a cacophony of unfair and false criticism following its conclusion. 

Trump is moreover claiming that the New York and other criminal proceedings against him should be thrown out based upon the  U.S. Supreme Court’s decision granting broad presidential immunity for official acts. Whatever the ultimate impact of that decision on the current prosecutions, the opinion imposes a potential barrier to accountability for illegal conduct by future presidents and likely encourages it. Many have warned that in light of Trump’s autocratic promises, this legal development poses grave risk to democratic principles and the rule of law. Roberts praised the Court’s ruling during an appearance on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, calling it “vital” for preventing presidents from having to “second guess, triple guess every decision they’re making.” He suggested that the decision could support the group’s Project 2025 plan and help conservatives in “taking this country back” if Trump wins in November. Roberts framed this effort as a “second American Revolution,” which he shockingly said would “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” The Heritage Foundation subsequently endorsed that statement in a post on X:

Trump has long threatened to prosecute his adversaries, but after his felony convictions in Manhattan, both he and his allies have been explicit about doing so in retaliation for that proceeding — despite the lack of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by those targeted. During the presidential debate he was asked about making these threats and, in response, said that Biden “could be a convicted felon as soon as he gets out of office.” According to a New York Times report, the “open desire for using the criminal justice system against Democrats after the [Manhattan] verdict surpasses anything seen before in Mr. Trump’s tumultuous years in national politics.” Trump pointed to his prosecution and said, “it’s very possible that it’s going to have to happen to them,” namely his political adversaries. After the verdict, his former aide and current advisor Stephen Miller asked, “Is every Republican D.A. starting every investigation they need to right now?” Steve Bannon said that Alvin Bragg “should be — and will be — jailed,” according to Axios. According to Axios’s report, another Trump insider pointed to using a federal statute criminalizing civil rights conspiracies. Retaliation has also been embraced by senior GOP leaders in Congress such as Senator Marco Rubio who sounded a call to “fight fire with fire.” Former DOJ official and author of the infamous torture memos, John Yoo has composed a justification of retaliation prosecutions. (The Times aptly describes it as seeking “to dress up the need for such retribution as a matter of constitutional principle.”) Far-right activist Laura Loomer, who Trump has embraced, has gone so far as to say, “Not just jail, they should get the death penalty.” 

As concerning as all that is, it is only a fraction of the evidence that leads us to conclude that there is a significant risk of autocracy should Trump regain the presidency. Trump has said he would deploy the military against civilian protestors and his advisors have developed plans for using the Insurrection Act, said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act to conduct deportations of non-citizens, continued to threaten legally-established abortion rights, and even had his lawyers argue that a president should be immune from prosecution if he directed SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent. 

Trump also seeks the power to protect his personal wealth as he faces staggering civil fines, and to bolster his immunity as he faces criminal charges in prosecutions in different parts of the country. He has predicted a “bloodbath” if he is not elected (although his meaning has been contested, with some saying he was referring to violence and others that “Trump was talking about US automakers”). At a Veterans Day rally last year, Trump said he would “root out” political opponents who “live like vermin within the confines of our country” warning that the greatest threats come “from within” (words that, according to ABC News and others, “echoed those of past fascist dictators like Hitler and Benito Mussolini,” and alarmed historians.)

While Trump has claimed he will be a dictator for only the first day of his administration, his promise to do so—even for 24 hours—is antithetical to American democracy and consistent with the history of authoritarianism. Dictatorial powers, once assumed, are rarely relinquished. Moreover, Trump cannot possibly achieve his stated goals for the use of that power (in immigration and energy policy) in one day, meaning that his notion of a “dictatorship” would of necessity likely last much longer. 

Many of Trump’s former Cabinet officials and advisors—those with the most experience watching him govern behind the scenes—believe he poses a grave danger to the country. John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, said, “I think Trump will cause significant damage in a second term, damage that in some cases will be irreparable.” Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, said that the former president praised Adolf Hitler’s ability to rebuild Germany’s economy, and admired his maintaining “loyalty” of his senior Nazi officials. Alyssa Farah Griffin, former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications, said, “Fundamentally, a second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy as we know it, and I don’t say that lightly.” Mark Esper, Trump’s former defense secretary, has warned of “more … hyper-aggressive behavior” by Trump if he takes office, recounting when Trump asked if demonstrators gathering around the White House following the death of George Floyd could be shot. Another of Trump’s former defense secretaries Jim Mattis reportedly said the former president was “a madman in a circular room screaming.”  

Significantly, Trump’s former vice president and 2020 running mate Mike Pence said recently that there are “profound differences” between the pair “on a range of issues, and not just our difference on my constitutional duties that I exercised on January 6th,” such that he would “not be endorsing … Trump this year,” adding, “Trump is pursuing and articulating an agenda that is at odds with the conservative agenda that we governed on during our four years, and that’s why I cannot in good conscience endorse … [his] campaign.”

We ignore leaders who promise dictatorship—and those who enable them—at our own peril. To see what America might become under Trump’s authoritarian aspirations, we should look at the regimes of other contemporary autocrats, especially as Trump ramps up his embracing of autocrats as “smart” and “tough,” and has been mirroring recent autocratic moves in Hungary and elsewhere. With great fanfare, Trump has welcomed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, most recently after the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., and has long expressed his admiration for Orbán’s leadership. The Hungarian’s self-proclaimed drive toward an “illiberal state” has seen extensive democratic backsliding. He packed the judiciary to place that branch of government squarely under his control; rewrote election laws to retain his legislative majority; censored the press; used law enforcement to persecute his enemies; and changed Hungary’s constitution to help achieve his autocratic goals—and he took that “blueprint on dismantling democracy to Mar-a-Lago.” Trump and Orbán’s continuing public alignment on key policy issues also “threatens trans-Atlantic security,”—despite Orbán’s repeated claims to the contrary—with the pair reportedly aligning on, among other this, the Russian-Ukraine war and eyeing an end to U.S. funding and aid to Ukraine. The United States, like many other functioning democracies, is hardly immune from backsliding and lurching toward autocracy. 

Because past is prologue, it is also important to analyze relevant data points from the first Trump administration. We include considerable indicators of autocratic tendencies from 2017-2021, such as Trump’s calling for his own Department of Justice to prosecute his political enemies, claiming that Article II of the Constitution gave him the authority to do “anything I wanted,” shamelessly violating the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause to use his government position to enrich himself and his family, and many more. That all culminated in the attempted interruption of the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 election. 

Below we organize all of Trump’s and his allies’ Project 2025 and other specific plans and promises. We provide their statements and citations to the publicly available factual record. We also catalog potential bipartisan solutions to address the threat both now and should it come to pass in 2025. The full Threat Tracker is updated regularly. 

For public reference, we have also created a searchable data set of all of Trump’s Truth Social posts, which we will also update regularly. They are an important source for tracking the scope of his plans, although we have also drawn information from hundreds of other sources as shown in the links supporting each entry herein. 

If you think we have missed something, please send recommendations to lte@justsecurity.org. 

Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Immigration

• Dec. 6, 2023, Davenport, Iowa: Sean Hannity asked Trump whether Trump intended to abuse power or break the law, to which Trump answered, “Except for day one. I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.” Trump then immediately doubled down on the exchange, describing it for the audience using the word “dictator” – “He [Hannity] says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
  • Dec. 11, 2023, New York: Less than one week later, Trump tripled down on his dictator comment. “I said I want to be a dictator for one day. You know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
  • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview: Trump said his dictator-for-a-day remarks were a joke, “That was said sarcastically as a joke on Sean Hannity. He said, ‘Do you want to be a dictator?’ I said, ‘Only for one day. I want to close up the border and I want to drill, baby, drill.’ Then I said, ‘After that, then I never want to be a dictator.’ That was done. That was said sarcastically. That was meant as a joke. Everybody knows that.”
    • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview: “No, no, wait. If you read it, it was a joke. I wanted to be for one day. You know why? Because we have an incompetent fool that’s allowing people to come into our country. We have an incompetent fool that drove energy prices so high over such a short period of time. And by the way, you know, he’s gone to a lot of my policies now. But the day after the election, if they win, there won’t be any more oil.”
• Trump’s most touted day one promise is to “seal the border” and carry out “the largest domestic deportation operation in the history of our country.”
  • 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump said: “At the heart of the Republican platform is our pledge to end this border nightmare, and fully restore the sacred and sovereign borders of the United States of America. And we’re going to do that on day one. That means two things on day one, right? Drill, baby, drill, and close our borders.” He also said: “I will end the illegal immigration crisis by closing our border and finishing the wall, most of which I’ve already built.” He went on to celebrate using military funds, bypassing Congress, to build a wall. “That’s why, to keep our family safe, the Republican platform promises to launch the largest deportation operation in the history of our country. Even larger than that of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from many years ago. You know, he was a moderate but he believed very strongly in borders. He had the largest deportation operation we’ve ever had,” Trump further added. 
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said: “[O]n day one, we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” He also said that “On day one of my new administration, I will seal the border, stop the invasion of people pouring through our border and send Joe Biden’s illegal aliens back home where they belong.”
  • April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI: “On day one I will seal the border and we’ll begin the largest domestic deportation operation in the history of our country.”
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “On day one, we will terminate every open borders policy of the Biden administration and begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history, starting with all of the criminals that are pouring in the criminals and the terrorists.”
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, Trump said: “And among my first actions upon taking office will be to … seal the border and stop the invasion of our country.” He later said: “On day one of my administration, I will terminate every open border policy of the Biden administration and we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”
  • April 19, 2024, Trump campaign website states that “President Trump will secure the border on Day One and allow our brave Border Patrol agents to do their jobs,” according to Steven Cheung, Trump Campaign Communications Director.
  • On May 20, 2024, a 30-second video was posted onto Trump’s Truth Social page featuring hypothetical newspaper articles celebrating a purported 2024 presidential election victory, headlined, “What’s next for America?” and heralding “the creation of a unified Reich.” The articles were styled like early 20th-century newspapers, apparently recycling text from World War I reports, and included headlines such as, the “Border Is Closed” and “15 Million Illegal Aliens Deported,” as well as
    • The Trump campaign eventually deleted the post and insisted the video was created by a “random account” and posted by an unnamed campaign staffer.
• Trump’s proposed immigration policies go far beyond securing the border and limiting illegal immigration. He has embraced ordering unlawful immigration roundups and travel bans, using the military domestically to purge undocumented immigrants, violating the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, and prosecuting American officials and organizations who don’t comply with his policies.
• Trump has repeated his promise to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” at least 15 times. His plan will significantly restrict both legal and illegal immigration by expanding and toughening draconian immigration and asylum measures introduced by his previous administration, causing millions of undocumented immigrants to be kicked out of the country even after years or decades of having lived here. His proposed policies will see individuals rushed “through the system, stripping due process protections from them, eliminating any access to legal services, and really transforming this into an assembly line deportation machine,” according to the American Immigration Council’s policy director.
• Trump and team seek to broadly abuse existing statutes to avoid congressional scrutiny. Despite acknowledging the array of lawsuits that would arise from his planned immigration policies, Stephen Miller, the former White House advisor who oversaw Trump’s border efforts during the first administration, expressed defiance. He said that Trump’s second term would utilize a “blitz” of tactics to overwhelm immigration lawyers that sought to challenge the lawfulness of policies. To ensure deportations are “radically more quick and efficient,” Miller said, the Trump team would bring in “the right kinds of attorneys and the right kinds of policy thinkers” willing to carry out Trump’s ideas.
• In November 2023, Stephen Miller, outlining the Trump team’s plans for mass deportations, suggested to Charlie Kirk on the “Charlie Kirk Show” that another Trump administration would seek to deport as many as 10 million “foreign-national invaders.”
  • The Atlantic reported that Miller’s touted plans to achieve mass removals “understate the magnitude of the effort that mass deportations would require, Jason Houser, a former chief of staff at ICE under Biden, told me. Removing 500,000 to 1 million migrants a year could require as many as 100,000–150,000 deputized enforcement officers, Houser believes. Staffing the internment camps and constant flights that Miller is contemplating could require 50,000 more people, Houser said. ‘If you want to deport a million a year—and I’m a Navy officer—you are talking a mobilization the size of a military deployment.’ Houser [said.]”
• Trump’s proposed immigration policies rely heavily on National Guard troops and military resources to assist law enforcement to purge undocumented immigrants, including via raids. Additionally, a Trump administration would seek to reassign federal agents and deputize local law enforcement to play key roles in deportation operations, adding that he would offer officers immunity to be able to carry out their jobs effectively.
  • As reported by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Axios, The Atlantic, and The Hill, Trump’s policies call for using military funds to hold undocumented detainees in newly built military-style camps, to get around any refusal by Congress to appropriate the funds (as he did in his first term to spend more on the wall than Congress had authorized). Trump’s proposal calls for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to be sent into the streets to arrest millions, assisted by: (1) agents reassigned from the federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive; (2) deputized local police officers and sheriffs; and (3) National Guard soldiers voluntarily provided by Republican-run states.
    • Note that under the previous Trump administration, ICE’s controversial 287(g) program grew rapidly. It gives state and local enforcement officers, primarily sheriffs, federal powers to question, arrest and detain suspected undocumented immigrants.
  • April 27, 2023, Manchester, NH, Trump said: “We will use all necessary state, local, federal, and military resources to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” (emphasis added)
  • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview, in response to a follow up question about whether Trump’s plan includes using the military to deport undocumented immigrants, Trump said: “It would. When we talk military, generally speaking, I talk National Guard. I’ve used the National Guard in Minneapolis. And if I didn’t use it, I don’t think you’d have Minneapolis standing right now, because it was really bad. But I think in terms of the National Guard. But if I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military, per se.” “I can see myself using the National Guard and, if necessary, I’d have to go a step further. We have to do whatever we have to do to stop the problem we have.”
  • Stephen Miller told the “Charlie Kirk Show” in November 2023 that the Trump administration would dispatch forces to “go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids.” To assist ICE in the large-scale, highly complex task ahead, which Miller compared to “building the Panama Canal,” he said agents would be reassigned from other other federal law-enforcement agencies, local police and sheriffs would be deputized, and the National Guard troops would participate.
    • For National Guard troop involvement, one scenario would be where Republican governors want to cooperate. “You go to the red-state governors and you say, ‘Give us your National Guard,’” Miller said. “We will deputize them as immigration-enforcement officers.” The second scenario, Miller said, would involve sending troops from nearby Republican-controlled states into what he described as an “unfriendly state” whose governor would not willingly join the removal program. “The Alabama National Guard is going to arrest illegal aliens in Alabama and the Virginia National Guard in Virginia,” Miller said, adding, “And if you’re going to go into an unfriendly state like Maryland, well, they would just be Virginia doing the arrests in Maryland, right? Very close, very nearby.”
    • (See further reporting on Miller’s podcast interview, including some of the impracialities of his touted plans, by The Atlantic and The Washington Post.)
  • Speaking to The New York Times, Stephen Miller described the camps as “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for immigrants as their cases progress through the system. The camps would be built “on open land in Texas near the border.” “He said the military would construct them under the authority and control of the Department of Homeland Security. While he cautioned that there were no specific blueprints yet, he said the camps would look professional and similar to other facilities for migrants that have been built near the border.” Miller confirmed a very similar plan in his podcast interview with Charlie Kirk.
    • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview: When asked about building new migrant detention camps as suggested by Stephen Miller, Trump said: “It’s possible that we’ll do it to an extent but we shouldn’t have to do very much of it, because we’re going to be moving them out as soon as we get to it. And we’ll be obviously starting with the criminal element.”
  • Stephen Miller said in November 2023 that military aircraft and Homeland Security assets will be used in the Trump administration’s plan to implement near-constant flights to return migrants home. “So you create this efficiency by having these standing facilities where planes are moving off the runway constantly, probably military aircraft, some existing DHS assets.”
  • Jan. 25, 2024, via Truth Social, Trump called for states to send their National Guards to the border in Texas to assist Gov. Greg Abbott in what the governor calls a continuing effort to enforce “Trump’s Historic Border Security Legacy.” “We encourage all willing States to deploy their guards to Texas to prevent the entry of Illegals, and to remove them back across the Border. All Americans should support the commonsense measures by Texas authorities to protect the Safety, Security, and Sovereignty of Texas, and of the American people. When I am President, on Day One, instead of fighting Texas, I will work hand in hand with Governor Abbott and other Border States to Stop the Invasion, Seal the Border, and Rapidly Begin the Largest Domestic Deportation Operation in History. Those Biden has let in should not get comfortable because they will be going home,” the statement read.
  • Feb. 29, 2024, Eagle Pass, TX, speaking at a press conference attended by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas and border patrol officials near the U.S.-Mexico border during a campaign visit, Trump embraced efforts by the head of the Texas Military Department Maj. Gen. Thomas Suelzer and the Gov. Abbott to combat the “war” at the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, including expanding military camps which involves establishing a “Forward Operating Base” to house Texas National Guard soldiers.
    • Gov. Abbott ”really stepped it up. It’s been amazing ….This is an incredible operation.” Trump told the press conference, adding, “I want to thank the governor and the entire group of people behind me. I would call them ’staff’ and I would call them ‘representatives and generals.’ They are unbelievable people. The job they’ve done so quickly and so effectively. Congratulations. Congratulations.”
  • April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI, Trump said: “Somebody said ‘how will you get these criminals out?’ I say, ‘the sheriffs, the police, the police officers, the police, law enforcement.’” “And we’re gonna work out a federal immunity for police so they’re allowed to do their job without losing their house and their pension and everything else when the…liberal governors and mayors don’t back them.” He later added, “I will shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement.”
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “Local police” will be used “to tell us who” the “criminals and the terrorists” are “pouring” into our country. “Our local police know their names and middle names and phone numbers. They know everything about them.” He later added, “I will shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement. We’re gonna do immigration enforcement, not paperwork, we’re doing all paperwork.”
  • Feb. 29, 2024, Fox News interview in Texas, Trump, referring to what he calls “Biden migrant crime,” reaffirmed his plan to use local police officers to implement his intended mass deportation of undocumented migrants. He also said he would give officers “immunity” for them to carry out their jobs. “And the way you do it is your local police. We have the greatest police. They don’t get the respect they have to get. They are treated so badly. They do something and they end up losing their pension, even if it’s a good thing. If they stop crime nowadays they lose their pension, their family, their house. And we’re gonna give immunity to police. And we’re gonna let the police do the job they have to do … they understand who these migrants are. They know them by their first name, their last name, they know where they come from. It’s going to be the local police who are going to turn them over and we are gonna have to move them back to their country,” Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
    • Trump’s interview was given the same day that a federal judge in Texas temporarily paused a state law, known as Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), from taking effect on March 5 that would have granted local authorities and judges powers to arrest and undocumented persons suspected of illegally crossing the U.S. border. Gov. Abbott has vowed to appeal the decision made in favor of the plaintiffs (civil rights groups and the DOJ).
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, Trump said: “If Joe Biden’s illegal alien migrants do not go back to their countries, we will never get our country back. But we’re gonna take them back because they’re not going to go back. We’re gonna take them back. Fast. It’s gonna happen quickly. Local police. You know, the local police know every one of them. Somebody said, ‘How are you going to do that?’ It’s not a Washington thing, it’s the local police.” He later added: “Our law enforcement is great. And as I told you, when we do deportation, they know the real bad ones. They know all the local. They know them by their first name, their second name, and their middle name, wouldn’t you say? They know the good ones and the bad ones. And they’re gonna to be working with the federal government on getting them the hell out of here.”
  • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview: Trump said, “We will be using local law enforcement. And we will absolutely start with the criminals that are coming in.” “And we’re going to be using local police because local police know them by name, by first name, second name, and third name. I mean, they know them very well.”
  • Trump has said that undocumented immigrants are not civilians and that he would not be violating the Posse Comitatus Act’s ban on military enforcement of civil laws by using the military to deport these immigrants.
    • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview, Trump said: “Well, these aren’t civilians. These are people that aren’t legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country. An invasion like probably no country has ever seen before.”
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said: “I will shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement.”
• Stephen Miller said that the Trump administration would again try to overturn the Flores settlement, which forbids the government from indefinitely holding children.
• Trump plans to invoke the Insurrection Act at the border and use the military to detain migrants.
  • Confirming late last year Trump’s plan to invoke the Act, Stephen Miller said, “Bottom line…President Trump will do whatever it takes.”
  • In May 2019, multiple senior Trump administration officials confirmed the president’s intent to use “tremendous powers” under the Act to remove immigrants.
  • In February 2019, Trump was reportedly “a few sentences away” from using the military to “forcibly expel” migrants from a caravan heading toward the southern border, according to a book by Miles Taylor, Trump’s then chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security.
• Trump has pledged to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, which applies only where there is a declared war with or a threat of invasion by a foreign nation, to speedily and unilaterally deport from the United States all suspected gang members, drug dealers or cartel members, circumventing ICE deportation processes and due process.^[1]
  • Nov. 4, 2023, Florida Freedom Summit: Trump said, “This is a bomb that’s waiting to happen…And I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known and suspected gang members, like MS-13, drug dealers and Cartel members from the United States.”
  • Sept. 20, 2023, Dubuque, IA: Trump said: “I’ll…invoke immediately the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected gang members…the drug dealers, the cartel members from the United States, ending the scourge of illegal alien gang violence once and for all.”
  • June 25, 2023, Twitter: The Trump campaign posted, “Invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected Gang Members, drug dealers, or Cartel Members from the U.S.” The post was reposted by Stephen Miller, who added, “Huge. Trump pledging to invoke Alien Enemies Act to remove the cartel invaders from the United States.”
  • June 24, 2023, Washington, DC: Trump said, “I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act…to remove all known and suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States.”
• Trump has said he plans to reimpose and expand his administration’s previous predominantly Muslim country travel ban. Alongside his planned travel ban, Trump has said he intends to suspend refugee admissions. In January 2017, in tandem with Trump’s travel ban, he also suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). He went on to do so again around the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, and later cut the number of admissions to a “record low.”
  • Oct. 28, 2023, annual summit of the Republican Jewish Coalition, LV, Trump said: “You remember the travel ban? On day one I will restore our travel ban.”
  • May 1, 2024, Waukesha, WI, Trump said: “On day one of the Trump presidency I’m restoring the travel ban, suspending refugee admissions, and keeping terrorists the hell out of our country.”
  • July 7, 2023, Iowa: Trump said, “When I return to office, the travel ban is coming back even bigger than before and much stronger than before. We don’t want people blowing up our shopping centers. We don’t want people blowing up our cities. And we don’t want people stealing our farms.”
  • Oct. 17, 2023, Newsweek op-ed, Trump said: “we are going to expand each and every ban to keep America safe. We aren’t bringing in anyone from Gaza or Syria or Somalia or Yemen, or Libya, or anywhere else that threatens our security.”
  • Oct. 16, 2023, Clive, Iowa: Trump said, “As I’ve already said many, many times before, I will immediately reinstate and expand the wildly successful Trump travel ban…We aren’t bringing in anyone from Gaza, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, or Libya, or anywhere else that threatens our security.”
  • Sept. 20, 2023, Iowa: Trump said he would “expand” the ban “even further to keep Radical Islamic Terrorists out of our country.”
• Trump plans to use ideological purity tests for immigrant applicants and to deport resident aliens–foreign nationals who are in the U.S. legally. In pledging to disqualify immigrants who sympathize with islamic terrorists, Trump has lumped in groups he characterizes as communists, Marxists, and fascists. Trump’s “strong ideological screening” reportedly will be led by U.S. consular officials, with screening to include searching social media accounts (a practice that began under the Trump administration). Note that ICE and top White House lawyers under the former Trump administration concluded that ideological screenings on foreign nationals would be illegal to implement.
  • Oct. 17, 2023, Newsweek op-ed, Trump said: “Next, we will implement strong ideological screening for all immigrants to the United States. No longer will we allow dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs to get residency in our country. If you empathize with Radical Islamic terrorists and extremists, you’re disqualified. If you want to abolish the state of Israel, you’re disqualified. If you support Hamas or the ideology behind Hamas, you’re disqualified. And if you’re a Communist, Marxist, or Fascist, you are disqualified.”
  • Oct. 17, 2023, Newsweek op-ed, Trump said: “Under my administration, we will proactively send ICE to pro-jihadist demonstrations to enforce our immigration laws and remove the violators from our country.”
  • Oct 16, 2023, Iowa: Trump said, “Next we will implement strong ideological screening of all immigrants to the United States. No longer will we allow dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs to get residency in our country. We’re not gonna let them stay here. We’re…gonna have the largest deportation effort in history.”
  • Oct. 16, 2023, Iowa: Trump said, “If you empathize with Radical Islamic terrorists and extremists, you’re disqualified. You’re just disqualified. If you want to abolish the state of Israel, you’re disqualified. If you support Hamas or the ideology that’s having to do with that, or any of the other really sick thoughts that go through people’s minds, very dangerous thoughts. You’re disqualified if you’re a Communist, a Marxist, or a Fascist, other than the people that are already here you are, of which many are in the Biden administration, you’re disqualified. We’d like to get them out too. Maybe we’ll work on that.”
  • Oct. 16, 2023, Iowa: Trump said, “We’ll aggressively deport resident aliens with jihadist sympathies. We have to.”
  • Sept. 20, 2023, Iowa: Trump said he would use existing law to “expand” his travel ban and “deny entry” into the U.S. for “communists and Marxists.”
  • June 24, 2023, Washington, DC: Trump said he would use Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to “order my government to deny entry to all communists and all Marxists.” “Those who come to enjoy our country must love our country.” “We’re going to keep foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists and socialists out of America.” Trump also said that there was a need for a “new law” to address Americans he characterizes as communists and Marxists but didn’t elaborate any further.
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said: “And if you come here from another country and try to bring jihadism or anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism to our campuses, we will immediately deport you, you’ll be out of that school.”
• Trump again said he plans to end birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States to undocumented parents, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • June 10, 2023, Georgia GOP Convention: “We’re going to do an Executive Order Day One, so important, ending automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens.”
  • May 30, 2023, video posted on X: “As part of my plan to secure the border on Day 1…I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.”
  • Oct. 29, 2018, Axios interview: “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.” “You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.” “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States … with all of those benefits.” “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.” “It’s in the process. It’ll happen…with an executive order.”
• Trump could significantly expand “expedited removals” in order to fast track deportations of those in the United States without authorization. Instead of using such removals for those picked up within 100 miles to the border and soon after crossing, Trump is reported to want to use the sped-up process for those who have been in the country for extended periods of time as he did previously.
• Trump has pledged to terminate all work permits and housing benefits for undocumented immigrants, as well as clamp down on other “tax-payer giveaways” to purportedly save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  • 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump said: “I am going to protect Social Security and Medicare. Democrats are going to destroy Social Security and Medicare because all of these people, by the millions, they’re coming in. They’re going to be on Social Security and Medicare and other things and you’re not able to afford it. They are destroying your Social Security and your Medicare.”
  • Nov. 4, 2023, Florida Freedom Summit: Trump said, “On day one I will shut down this travesty and terminate all work permits for illegal aliens and demand that Congress send me a bill outlawing all welfare payments to illegal migrants of any kind.”
  • Nov. 1, 2023, campaign video: Trump said, “I will reinstate my action making illegals ineligible for public housing.”
  • Nov. 1, 2023, campaign video: Trump said, “We will terminate all work permits for illegal aliens, and I will demand that Congress send me a bill blocking any future president from abusing his power to distribute welfare benefits in this manner.”
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, speaking on the purported impact of immigration is having on healthcare and Social Security, Trump said: “Day one of the Trump administration, we will cut off all of Biden’s taxpayer giveaways to illegal aliens.” He later added: “We will rescue our healthcare system from Joe Biden’s migrant invasion. It was recently announced that crooked Joe is now giving Obamacare and all free government health care to illegal aliens.”
• Trump has vowed to prosecute charities, nonprofits and aid organizations that support immigration and asylum (note: the autocratic playbook of cracking down on nongovernmental organizations as “foreign agents”).
  • Nov. 4, 2023, Florida Freedom Summit, Trump said: “And for any radical left charity, non-profit or so called aid organizations supporting these caravans and illegal aliens, we will prosecute them for their participation in human trafficking, child smuggling and every other crime we can find.”
• Trump said he intends to use criminal penalties for bureaucrats who do not comply with his “total ban on … using taxpayer dollars to free illegal aliens.”
  • Dec. 21, 2022, Truth Social: Trump posted, “NO AMNESTY! Our border is open because Joe Biden has ordered it to be open and because Biden has broken the law and torn it into shreds. He has shredded our system, and he is destroying our Country. We need a total ban on Biden using taxpayer dollars to free illegal aliens — and criminal penalties for administrative noncompliance, which happens every single minute of every single day.”
• Those permitted a temporary stay on humanitarian grounds would lose that status and be deported, including tens of thousands of the Afghans evacuated during the 2021 Taliban takeover and granted entry to the United States. Also, Afghans who hold special visas granted for their help to U.S. forces would be revetted to check if they really did offer support.
• Trump has refused to rule out the possibility of reimplementing his highly-criticized policy that separated families at the southern border.
  • May 11, 2023, Goffstown, NH: During a CNN Town Hall, Trump said, “Well, when you have that policy, people don’t come. If a family hears they’re going to be separated, they love their family, they don’t come. So I know it sounds harsh,” Pressed further by the moderator, Trump resisted giving a firm answer. “We have to save our country,” he said. “When you say to a family that if you come we’re going to break you up, they don’t come.”
• Stephen Miller said Trump plans to again try to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an Obama-era program that provides protection from deportation and grants work to those who were brought unlawfully to the United States as children. In June 2020, in a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s attempt to end DACA on procedural grounds.
• Trump wants to refuse asylum claims by reimposing Title 42, a policy he used during Covid-19 by claiming that migrants carry infectious diseases like tuberculosis and other communicable diseases.
  • June 30, 2023, Moms for Liberty Event, Trump said, “And I will use Title 42…to end the child trafficking crisis by returning all trafficked children to their families in their home countries immediately.”
• Trump has said he plans to end sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, renewing his previous administration’s attacks on the policy.
  • April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI: “We will end deadly sanctuary cities immediately.”
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “And we will end deadly sanctuary cities.”
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said: “We will shut down deadly sanctuary cities, such as Newark and Philadelphia. We will not let criminals come into those cities.”
• Key former figures in the Trump administration who would likely be back at the decision-making table have given glimpses into their immigration-related plans.
  • Trump’s former key immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, is expected to play a “senior role” in Trump’s administration, pushing ahead on reinvigorating the administration’s previous hard stance on immigration and asylum issues. Miller wielded great influence over Trump’s previous immigration policies. Only days after Trump took office in 2017, Miller began gathering a group of bureaucrats perceived to be loyal to Trump to start drafting executive orders; and in recent interviews he has essentially boasted that he would move even faster and more forcefully, again recruiting swathes of loyalist lawyers. Note that Miller also leads the conservative legal group “America First Legal,” which “has a board seat with Project 2025.”
    • NYT, Nov. 1, 2023, Miller said: “Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown…The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening.”
    • NYT, Nov. 1, 2023, Miller said: “Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs.” “Americans will also celebrate the fact that our nation’s laws are now being applied equally, and that one select group is no longer magically exempt.”
    • Axios, Aug. 21, 2023, Miller said: “The first 100 days of the Trump administration will be pure bliss — followed by another four years of the most hard-hitting action conceivable.”
    • Axios, Aug. 21, 2023, Miller said: Being in lockstep with Trump’s immigration goals would be “non-negotiable priority” for any applicant hoping to secure a spot in Trump’s administration.
  • Tom Homan, former Acting Director of ICE under the Trump administration, is also “lined up” to be “put in charge” of stopping “the invasion” at the border, Trump has said recently.
    • During the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump suggested Homan would be “put in charge” of stopping “the invasion” at the border. Homan, who delivered a speech the previous day, said: “As a guy who spent 34 years deporting illegal aliens, I got a message to the millions of illegal aliens that Joe Biden released into our country in violation of federal law: you better start packing now!” 
    • July 13, 2024, Trump told Fox News’ Harris Faulkner that he has Homan “lined up” for immigration and border issues.
    • Homan also recounted to the New York Times a meeting he had with Trump soon after he announced his 2024 campaign. He “agreed to come back” in a second Trump term and would “help to organize and run the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen,” Homan told the Times.
    • Fox News, Dec. 17, 2023, Homan said in an interview with Fox News, “People say, ‘How are you going to remove millions?’ The answer is: One at a time.” “No one’s off the table. If you’re in the country illegally in violation of immigration law, you are a target.” “It’s going to have to result in a historic — the biggest ever — deportation operation in the history of this country. That’s what happens. When you’ve got historic illegal immigration, well, that means you’ve got a historic removal program. That’s just the way it is. If we’re going to enforce our laws, that’s the way it is.” “We’re not going to turn a blind eye to them if they’re in the country illegally. We take them into custody. That’s our job. So, it isn’t like we walk through a neighborhood looking for people who look different from us. These are targeted enforcement operations.”
• Trump has continued to use inflammatory and xenophobic rhetoric against immigrants whom he has likened to “animals” and says seek to “invade” and “poison the blood” of the United States. Trump himself has used the phrase “stop the invasion” at least 10 times.
  • During the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump made several warnings about an “invasion” of illegal immigrants flooding the cities, spreading “misery, crime, poverty, disease.”
    • He said the United States has “an illegal immigration crisis…It’s a massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction to communities all across our land. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.” He later said “We have to stop the invasion into our country that’s killing hundreds of thousands of people a year. We’re not going to let that happen.”
    • “Today, our cities are flooded with illegal aliens.”
    • Trump claimed that “[t]he greatest invasion in history is taking place right here in our country. They are coming in from every corner of the earth, not just from South America, but from Africa, Asia, the Middle East. They’re coming from everywhere. They’re coming at levels that we’ve never seen before. It is an invasion indeed, and this administration does absolutely nothing to stop them.”
    • “But no hope or dream we have for America can succeed unless we stop the illegal immigrant invasion. The worst that’s ever been seen anywhere in the world. There’s never been an invasion anywhere. Third world countries would fight with sticks and stones not to let this happen. The invasion at our southern border, we will stop it and we will stop it quickly.”
  • March 17, 2024, Fox News interview, confronted on his use of words like “animals,” “vermin,” and “poisoning of the blood,” which echo the language of Hitler and Mussolini, Trump defended his statements that “our country is being poisoned.” “We can be nice about it, we can talk about, ‘Oh, I want to be politically correct,’ but we have people coming in from prisons and jails, long-term murderers, people with sentences that the rest of their lives they’re going to spend in some jail in some country that many people have never even heard of. They’re all being released into our country.” He continued: “These are people at the highest level of crime, and then you have mental institutions and insane asylums — I always say the difference is one is ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ you know, it’s a mental institution on steroids, OK? — and those mental institutions and insane asylums are being emptied out into the United States, and then you have terrorists pouring in at levels we have never seen before.”
  • March 16, 2024, Daytona, OH, again promising to carry out the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” Trump said, “Young people, they’re in jail for years, if you call them people, I don’t know if you call them people. In some cases they are not people, in my opinion, but I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left say, ‘that’s a terrible thing’.” “These are animals, okay, and we have to stop it,” he said.
    • Trump said, “We’re gonna get them out fast. We’re gonna have the largest deportation operation in history,” before proceeding to read the lyrics of the song “The Snake,” as he often has since 2016, which he called a “very accurate metaphor” for the U.S.-Mexico border and those “people we have coming in.” “We’re taking in snakes, we’re taking in snakes,” Trump said after ending the poem. “These are tougher than anyone we’ve got in the country. These are hardened criminals and we’ve got hundreds of thousands of them.” He referred to one person as an “illegal monster.”
  • April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI, Trump described immigrants as “animals” and “not humans.” According to Politico, Trump likened undocumented immigrants to “animals” nearly half a dozen times. As the crowd waited for Trump, “a short video featuring grisly clips of news reports documenting crimes allegedly committed by immigrants played over dramatic music.” Speaking on the death of Laken Riley, Trump referred to her suspected killer as “an illegal alien animal.” “The Democrats say, ‘Please don’t call them animals. They’re humans.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not humans, they’re not humans, they’re animals.” He went on to say, “I’ll tell you that the illegal alien trespassers, they must go back to their homes, they have to go back because no country, no country can stand this invasion.” “It’s wrecking our civilization.”
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “With your vote, I will seal the border, I will stop the invasion, I will end the carnage, bloodshed and killing, and we will crush the human traffickers. You know, they traffic in women, mostly in women. We will vanquish the child smugglers. And we will liberate this nation from crooked Joe and his migrant armies of dangerous criminals once and for all. This is an invasion of our country. And by the way, hundreds of thousands of people between the drugs that come in the border and all of the death that’s brought into the border in so many different ways. Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed in our country every year. If we had a war with a country like Mexico, we wouldn’t lose people like that. This is bigger than a war.” “We are being invaded and invaded by a lot of people that are people we don’t want in our country. I will never, ever let that happen,” Trump said, later adding, “And think of it, the legions and legions of Biden migrants pouring into the [country,] it’s really becoming a third world country, we are actually becoming if you think about it a third world country, and we’re not going to let that happen.”
  • March 9, 2024 Rome, GA, Trump said: “I will seal the border … and I will stop this invasion … I will end … the conquest of our country. They’re conquered our country. These people are conquering our country. They’re horrible people.”
  • Feb. 29, 2024, Fox News interview, Trump said to Sean Hannity, “So it’s a very terrible thing what’s — our country is being poisoned. We’re really being poisoned.”
  • Jan. 25, 2024, Truth Social, Trump said: “When I was President, we had the most secure Border in History. Joe Biden has surrendered our Border, and is aiding and abetting a massive Invasion of millions of Illegal Migrants into the United States. Instead of fighting to protect our Country from this onslaught, Biden is, unbelievably, fighting to tie the hands of Governor Abbott and the State of Texas, so that the Invasion continues unchecked. In the face of this National Security, Public Safety, and Public Health Catastrophe, Texas has rightly invoked the Invasion Clause of the Constitution, and must be given full support to repel the Invasion.”
  • Jan. 5, 2024, Sioux Center, IA: Trump said: “But a vote for Donald Trump in these caucuses is a vote to secure our border. It’s a vote to stop the invasion of millions of people from parts unknown. We don’t even know where the hell they come from. They come from parts unknown.”
  • Dec. 16, 2023, Durham, NH, Trump said: “They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” adding, “all over the world they are pouring into our country.”
  • Nov. 8, 2023, Hialeah, FL: Trump said: “Anybody ever hear of Hannibal Lecter? “He was a nice fellow. But that’s what’s coming into our country right now.”
  • September 2023 interview with The National Pulse, Trump said that immigration into the United States is “poisoning the blood of our country.” “Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country. It’s so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have.”
  • March 13, 2023, Davenport, IA, Trump said: “And I said, ‘This is an invasion of our country.’ And it is, by the way. This is an invasion of our country, what’s coming across our border. It’s no different than soldiers. And they’re bringing a lot of different problems than soldiers would bring. They’re not bringing merely bullets. They’re bringing plenty of them, but they’re causing tremendous problems for our country. And it’s a problem that we may have a very, very long…Unless we do something quickly, and we have to do it smart, and we have to work with law enforcement to do it properly, it’s not going to be easy, but they’re hurting our country. They’re killing the blood, the lifestream of our country, and we’re going to do something about it.”
  • March 5, 2023, CPAC, Trump said: “Other countries are emptying out their prisons, insane asylums and mental institutions and sending all of their problems right into their dumping ground: the U.S.A…We have complete chaos. Fentanyl is pouring in. Families are being wiped out, destroyed, and there’s death everywhere, all caused by incompetence.”
  • Nov. 14, 2022, Mar-a-Lago, Trump said: “Our Southern border has been erased, and our country is being invaded by millions and millions of unknown people…We’re being poisoned.”
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, Trump said: “And among my first actions upon taking office will be to…seal the border and stop the invasion of our country.”
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump spoke about the “border invasion,” which he also called the “Biden invasion.” He said, “on day one, we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” He also said, “On day one of my new administration, I will seal the border, stop the invasion of people pouring through our border and send Joe Biden’s illegal aliens back home where they belong.” He warned, “Millions and millions of people are taking over our cities or suburbs. It cannot be sustained by any country.” After reading the lyrics of the song “The Snake,” as he often does when criticizing immigrants during his campaign rallies, Trump went on to say: “When I return to the White House, we will stop the plunder, rape, slaughter, and destruction of the American suburbs, cities and towns. They’re destroying your cities. They’re destroying your towns and suburbs.”
  • May 1, 2024, Waukesha, WI, Trump said: “But we’re going to immediately seal the border, we’re going to stop the invasion, we’re going to send Joe Biden’s illegal aliens back home, where they belong, we’re going to send them back home where they belong. In addition to criminals, drugs, terrorists, mental patients, Joe Biden’s border catastrophe is also bringing colossal costs, unbelievable costs of being brought in by this catastrophe on our border. Crooked Joe is flooding our country, with millions and millions of low wage migrants from crime ridden countries all over the world. This isn’t just South America, they’re come from all over the world. Last week, 22 from the Congo in Africa. They’re coming from Africa, they’re coming from Asia, they’re coming from the Middle East.” Trump later said: “But it should be no surprise that in addition to the millions and millions of people invading our country from the border, crooked Joe is now reportedly planning…to bring massive numbers of Gazans from the Middle East…to your American towns, your towns and villages. Your towns and villages will now be accepting people from Gaza. Lots of people from Gaza and, and various other places, Yemen, lots of other places…He’s now delivering thousands. He just announced last night he’s going to deliver thousands of people to a town near you. Joe Biden seems…determined to create the conditions for an October 7 style attack right here in America. It’s gonna happen. with all of these people coming in from the southern border, you know.” And add “That for a year and a half they’ve been actually flying planes in and landing in towns all over the country. And they’re flying them in by the thousands. They’re flying them in, going over the border, they are flying them in.”
  • May 1, 2024, Waukesha, WI, Trump said: “Under no circumstances shall we bring thousands of refugees from Hamas-controlled terrorist epicenters, like Gaza to America. We just can’t do it. You know, we also have to run our country. It’s nice to be nice. It’s nice to be good. We got to run our country, our country’s in trouble. Our country might not survive. I’ll tell you what, if we don’t win this election, I don’t think our country is going to survive. I will say it and I’ve never said that publicly, I don’t think. But I felt it for a long time. I actually think our country is not going to survive. There are plenty of neighboring Muslim countries to take them, they should take them. They don’t want them by the way. They don’t want them, they don’t want them. We do not need a Jihad in the United States of America. We do not need our once great cities to become hotbeds of terrorism.”
  • April 6 2024, Palm Beach, FL, speaking at a multimillion-dollar fund-raiser, Trump said, “These are people coming in from prisons and jails. They’re coming in from just unbelievable places and countries, countries that are a disaster,” the New York Times reported. Seemingly referring to an instance during his presidency when he called Haiti and some African nations “shithole countries,” compared to some European countries, Trump went on to say: “And when I said, you know,’ Why can’t we allow people to come in from nice countries,’ I’m trying to be nice,” adding, “Nice countries, you know like Denmark, Switzerland? Do we have any people coming in from Denmark? How about Switzerland? How about Norway?” He continued, “And you know, they took that as a very terrible comment, but I felt it was fine.”
• Trump has echoed the white supremacist conspiracy theory known as the “Great Replacement.” This ideology—which has garnered support from MAGA Republicans, MAGA media, and beyond—alleges that Democrats and elites intend to dilute the white American population and improve electoral gains by bringing non-white migrants into the country.
  • During the 2024 Republican National Convention, prominent speakers used immigrants as a scapegoat to push election fraud conspiracies.
    • “We cannot allow the many millions of illegal aliens they’ve allowed to cross our borders, to harm our citizens, drain our resources, or disrupt our elections. We will not allow it.” – House Speaker Mike Johnson
    • “How did we get here? It happened because Democrats cynically decided they wanted votes from illegals more than they wanted to protect our children.” – Texas Senator Ted Cruz
    • “Just last week, Ruben Gallego voted to let the millions of people who have poured into our country illegally cast a ballot in this upcoming election.” – Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake
    • “I traveled to the future to an imaginary world where actually Joe Biden got reelected….in my dream I met the ghost of Biden’s future…. It was easy for Democrats to rig the elections; they simply allowed all the noncitizens to vote.” – Senator Rick Scott
  • March 2, 2024, Richmond, VA, Trump said: “They’re trying to sign them up to get them to vote in the next election.” “Every day Joe Biden is giving aid and comfort to the foreign enemies of the United States. Biden’s conduct on our border is by any definition, a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America.”
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, Trump said: “Biden’s conduct on our border is by any definition a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America.” “Biden and his accomplices want to collapse the American system, nullify the will of the actual American voters and establish a new base of power that gives them control for generations.” “Joe Biden is giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies of the United States.” He later went on to state: “They’re coming from China. 29,000 people in the last three months from China. They all happen to be of the age from 18 to 25. What the hell is going on with that?…You know, that’s called ‘military fighting age,’ right? That’s called, ‘prime fighting age.’ Dana White of the UFC says I like fighters from 18 to 25. That’s what’s coming in from China 18 to 25.”
  • May 1, 2024, Waukesha, WI, Trump said: “Why would somebody want to have people pouring into our country, unvetted unchecked, we know nothing about them? Even from a health standpoint, they’re coming and they have problems. It’s sad. But those problems are contagious, other people will get those problems. Why would, why would anybody want this?” Trump went on to give three explanations. First, “They hate our country.” Second, “They’re stupid.” Finally, he added, “And the other thing is that they want those votes, you know, and you wouldn’t think they could do them that quickly. But they’re trying to sign people up that just got here that don’t speak a word of English, that have lived in prisons and lived in mental institutions, they want the vote.”
  • April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI, Trump said: “Many of them are military age, which is very strange. You don’t see very many women coming in and you see a lot of them coming in, they’re about 19 to 25, 26 years old. Especially from China. We have 29,000 over the last few months. 29,000 from China, and they all seem to be perfectly fit for military service, ready for military service. It’s crazy.”
  • Feb. 29, 2024, Eagle Pass, TX, Trump told Texas state officials that Biden is “allowing thousands and thousands of people to come in from China, Iran, Yemen, the Congo, Syria and a lot of other nations. Many nations are not very friendly to us. He’s transported the entire columns of fighting-age men and they’re all at a certain age and you look at them, and I said ‘they look like warriors to me, something’s going on.’ It’s bad.”
  • Feb. 29, 2024, Fox News interview, “They’re coming from numbers and countries that you wouldn’t believe. So you have 28,000 from China, all fighting-age. You don’t see women and you don’t see men much older than that. It’s from 18 to 25, 26 years old.” “Well, China has, as of today, 29,000 young men, for the most part, in our country for the last three or four months. There’s something going on. Look, there’s something going on.” Speaking on those leading current immigration policies, Trump said, “So there’s two things that you think of. Number one, they maybe want the votes. I think they’re gonna get these people registered to vote…Either they’re stupid or they hate our country.”
  • April 12, 2024, Mar-a-Lago, during a joint press conference with Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson also spouted similar rhetoric that, “by design,” Biden is pumping undocumented migrants into the United States to affect the election.
    • He said: “And election integrity is tied to border, the lack of border security. President Biden has created a catastrophe and he did it by design.” He then said: “But among the problems that flows from this open border catastrophe is directly related to this threat to our election integrity. Why is that? You need to understand something really important about federal law. Since 1993, the National Voter Registration Act, we call it ‘The Motor Voter Law, allows people to sign up to vote when they get a driver’s license. If an individual only asserts or simply states that they are a citizen, they don’t have to prove it, they can register that person to vote in a federal election. And you see states are currently prohibited, believe it or not, the states are prohibited from asking someone to prove that they’re a citizen…The federal voter registration form just has a checker box. And if you do that, you’re good. The states can allow. We think that’s a serious problem. And so what we’re going to do is, the House Republicans are introducing a bill that will require proof of citizenship to vote. It seems like common sense. I’m sure all of us would agree, we only want US citizens to vote in US elections. But there are some Democrats who don’t want to do that. We believe that one of their designs, one of the reasons for this open border, which everybody asked all around the country, ‘Why would they do this? Why would they allow this chaos? Why the violence?’ Because they want to turn these people into voters. Right now, the administration is encouraging illegals to go to their local welfare office to sign up for benefits. Well, guess what, when you go to a welfare office they also ask you if you would like to register to vote, and so many people, we think are going to do that. And you know, what, the numbers are so high, there’s so many millions of illegals in the country, that if only one out of 100 voted, they would cast potentially hundreds of thousands of votes in the election. That could turn an election. This could be a tied election in our congressional races around the country. It could, if there are enough votes, affect the presidential election. And so that’s why House Republicans are going to act. I’m going to announce today, here stand alongside President Trump, that we will do everything within our power to ensure that we do have free and fair elections in this country. If we don’t have that in a constitutional republic, we have nothing. It’s the basis of who we are as a nation, and we owe that to the American people. And so what we’re going to do is introduce legislation to require that every single person who registers the vote in a federal election must prove that they’re an American citizen first. You have to prove it. That will be a new part of the federal law and a very important one. Our bill will establish new safeguards that will put us on par, by the way, with virtually every other democracy around the world that also prohibits non-citizen voting. And this is a critical thing for us to do at a very critical time. Our bill also requires states to remove non-citizens from their existing voter rolls. That’s a big problem too. And, and it will provide access to databases from the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to help the states administer this. As the entity that is responsible for regulating federal elections, Congress has this responsibility. We cannot wait for widespread fraud to occur or to occur, especially when the threat of fraud is growing with every single illegal immigrant that crosses that border. This is something most Americans are deeply concerned about. The latest poll says 78% of the Americans who were polled say that preventing illegal immigrants from voting in our elections is a top priority. In every place I’ve gone around the country, whether it’s out west, Midwest, Long Island, Deep South, it doesn’t matter. Everybody is concerned about this, we have a job to do. Here’s what you need to look for. And I’ll turn it back to the President. When we put this bill on the floor, you’re going to see a record vote by Republicans and Democrats. You’ll see that the Republicans stand for election integrity. And then we’ll be able to ask this very important question of the Democrats, they’re going to have to go on record, ‘Do you believe the that Americans and Americans alone should be the ones who vote in American elections?’ We’re about to find out their answer. And I think that will be a very interesting one for everybody to see.”
• Trump has claimed that unnamed South American countries, as well as other countries “all over the world,” are releasing their prisoners, terrorists, and mentally ill patients into the United States—a claim that has been widely rebuffed. Alongside this, Trump often claims “communities are being ravaged” by a new form of crime, “Biden migrant crime.”
  • During the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump said countries all around the world were emptying into the United States their prison populations, as well as those from mental and insane asylums, and terrorists. 
    • “They’re coming from prisons. They’re coming from jails. They’re coming from mental institutions and insane asylums. I, you know the press is always on me because I say this. Has anyone seen “The Silence of the Lambs”? The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He’d love to have you for dinner. That’s insane asylums. They’re emptying out their insane asylums. And terrorists are coming in at numbers that we’ve never seen before. Bad things are going to happen. Meanwhile, our crime rate is going up, while crime statistics all over the world are going down. Because they’re taking their criminals and they’re putting them into our country. A certain country, and I happen to like the president of that country very much, but he’s been getting great publicity because he’s a wonderful shepherd of the country.”
    • Trump said, speaking about the president of a country he did not name:  “He says how well the country’s doing because their crime rate is down. And he said he’s training all of these rough people. They’re rough, rough, rough. He’s training them. And I’ve been reading about this for two years. I think, ‘Oh that’s wonderful, let’s take a look at it.’ But then I realize he’s not training them; he’s sending all of his criminals, his drug dealers, his people that are in jails, he’s sending them all to the United States. And he’s different in that he doesn’t say that. He’s trying to convince everybody what a wonderful job he does in running the country. Well, he doesn’t do a wonderful job. And by the way, if I ran one of the countries, many countries, many, many countries from all over, I would be worse than any of them. I would have had the place totally emptied out already.”
    • “[W]e have become a dumping ground for the rest of the world, which is laughing at us.” 
    • Trump said: “In Venezuela, Caracas, high crime, high crime. Caracas, Venezuela, really a dangerous place. But not anymore, because in Venezuela, crime is down 72 percent. In fact, if they would ever win this election, I hate to even say that, we will have our next Republican convention in Venezuela because it will be safe. Our cities, our cities will be so unsafe we won’t be able, we will not be able to have it there. In El Salvador, murders are down 70 percent. Why are they down? Now, he would have you convinced that because he’s trained murderers to be wonderful people, no. They’re down because they’re sending their murderers to the United States of America. This is going to be very bad. And bad things are going to happen.”
  • March 5, 2023, CPAC, Trump said: “Anybody see Silence of the Lamb[s]? That’s where they come from. Insane asylum. That’s a stronger word than a mental institution. And they’re putting them into our country”
  • Nov. 8, 2023, Hialeah, FL: Trump said: “Anybody ever hear of Hannibal Lecter? He was a nice fellow. But that’s what’s coming into our country right now.”
  • April 14, 2023, National Rifle Association speech: Trump said: “I read a story not long ago where a man who takes care of a large segment of people in a mental institution in a South American country, a doctor, sounded like a great man actually, he said he no longer has anything to do. He used to work 24 hour days. He said, ‘All of our patients have been released into the United States of America.’ And this is what we have. This is what we’ve allowed to happen. And we can’t allow this to happen because we will not have a country any longer. We can’t allow it to happen.”
  • April 27, 2023, NH, Trump said: “Why do you want people from prisons and mental institutions and insane asylums? That’s a step above, that’s Silence of the Lamb type….There was a story recently about a psychologist. Or psychiatrist. But a psychologist who worked in mental wards in South America. And he said, ‘I worked 24…’ – a good man – he worked 24 hours a day taking care of very mentally ill people. And he was sitting there reading a newspaper and they asked him, ‘what – what’s he doing?’ He said, ‘I have no more work. The people have all been let go into the United States.’ Can you believe [it]? This is what we’re doing.”
  • March 25, 2023, Waco, TX, Trump said: “Other countries are emptying out their prisons and sane asylums and mental institutions and sending their most heinous criminals to the United States. And who can blame them? Who can blame them? These are very smart people, the presidents and the heads of these countries, presidents, prime ministers, and dictators, I know them all. But they’re very smart, very streetwise, and they’re sending their criminals to live in the United States. We’re talking about mental institutions and prisons. Think of it. And they’re all coming in.” He continued: “I read a story recently, where a doctor in a mental institution, in a certain country in South America is saying, ‘My whole life, I’ve been so busy taking care of people, but now, I have no people to take care of, because they’re all being sent into the United States.’ And I said, ‘How stupid are we? How stupid are we? How stupid are we?’”
  • Feb. 29, 2024, Eagle Pass, TX, speaking at the U.S.-Mexico border to border patrol agents on the alleged crimes of “illegal aliens” and referring to the operation at the border as like a “war,” Trump said: “They’re coming from jails, and they’re coming from prisons, and they’re coming from mental institutions, and they’re coming from insane asylums, and they’re terrorists. They’re being led into our country. It’s horrible. It’s horrible.” “They’re sending their people from jails and prisons and mental institutions.”
  • Feb. 29, 2024, Fox News interview, “Millions and Millions of people. And they come from jails and prisons. They come from mental institutions and…a step above that, the insane asylums … and you have terrorists coming.” “When you have prisons and jails and mental institutions being emptied out, not just in South America, all over the world … you can check your prison population throughout the world and it’s all coming into our country.”
  • April 1, 2024, West Michigan Live radio interview with Justin Barclay, Trump repeated his claim that countries were emptying their prisons and “mental institutions” into the United States. “Now they’re coming in, they’re pouring in the criminals from jails and from mental institutions, and terrorists by the way, and at levels that no country has ever seen before. It’s insane what they’re doing. Insane,” Trump told Barclay. “I guarantee you the real crime rate all over the world is way down,“ Trump said, adding, “And I’d do the same thing, if I were a dictator or a president, anybody running a country, I would do the exact same thing. First thing I’d do is say wow, I’d empty up every prison and every mental institution, and that’s what the countries are doing all over the world.” Trump again claimed that Venezuela’s crime rate has fallen by 67% because it has released many of its prisoners and former prisoners to the United States, adding that Venezuela doesn’t “have gangs anymore in the different cities and outside of the cities. They’re all gone, and the people are thrilled.” “They’ve taken all of their gangs, their gang leaders, every one of their gangs is gone now. They dumped them into the United States.”
  • April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI, Trump titled his real speech, “Biden’s border bloodbath,” repeating his accusations that President Biden is to blame for the alleged spike in “migrant crime,” and that Biden is allowing a “bloodbath” that is “destroying our country.” “Under Crooked Joe Biden, every state is now a border state. Every town is now a border town because Joe Biden has brought the carnage and chaos and killing from all over the world and dumped it straight into our backyards. And people are coming in from prisons and mental institutions, and nobody’s seen anything like it.” “We have a new form of crime, it’s called ‘migrant crime.’…They’re sending prisoners, murderers, drug dealers, mental patients and terrorists—the worst they have in every country, all over the world, this isn’t just in South America. They’re coming from the Congo, from Yemen, from Somalia, from Syria, they’re coming from all over the world.” Trump later said that Michigan “communities are being ravaged by a new form of crime and that’s that ‘migrant crime’ that we name. It should be called ‘Biden migrant crime.’” And also alleged that the Biden administration is “allowing prisoners and mental institution people and terrorists into our country with no checks, no nothing, no checks, no nothing, by the millions and millions.” Toward the end of his rally speech, Trump again repeated that “they send the people…that they want out…That’s why they come out of jails and prisons, that’s why they come out of the mental institutions and insane asylums.”
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “[C]ommunities are being crushed by ‘Biden migrant crime,’ you know, we have a new category of crime. It’s called ‘migrant crime.’ It was brought to you by the worst president in the history of our country. Joe Biden[.]” He said that Wisconsin’s “police force is being diverted from traffic stops to ‘migrant crime.’ My favorite new term, ‘migrant crime.’ It’s a new category of crime.” Trump also repeated that crime in Venezuela had dropped by 67% because they were sending their criminals into the United States: “And the reason is they take their gangs and they’re criminals and they brought them into the United States.” Trump also said: “They’re sending prisoners, murderers, drug dealers, mental patients, terrorists. The worst of every country is coming into our country. Now, they’re coming from the Congo, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, all over the world. They’re coming, they’re country changing, country threatening and they’re country wrecking. They’re destroying our country.” He further added, “Joe Biden is so weak on the border that other countries are now publicly taunting and extorting him by pumping migrants across our wide open border. They’re opening their jails and they’re opening their mental institutions and they’re bringing them right in and nobody stops him. Nobody. Nobody has any idea what’s going on. Just this week, Mexico’s president declared that they will keep the flood of illegal aliens pouring in. They’re going to pour into our country unless Biden hands over $20 billion a year just to sit down.”
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, Trump said: “But let there be no doubt this is Joe Biden’s invasion.” He said that he would not let Biden turn the United States “into a crime-filled, disease-ridden dumping ground, which is what they’re doing, they’re dumping. Everybody is being dumped into the United States of America.” He stated: “Our border is an open and gushing wound, it’s pouring drugs, gangs, terrorists, and millions and millions of illegal aliens into our country…They’re actually cutting the wire fences so that thousands and thousands of migrants can pour in.” Later in the rally, Trump told the crowds, “Under Biden, we now have a brand new category of crime. It’s called ‘migrant crime.’ We have ‘migrant crime.’ We have criminals that are going around having boxing matches with police officers. Nobody’s ever seen it before…We have tough people coming in…And they’re coming in from jails and prisons. They’re emptying out all over the world. Last night, they had four people coming in from the Congo…They’re coming from Africa. They’re coming from Asia. They’re coming from all over South America. They’re coming from the Middle East. They’re coming from China.” He also went on to speak about high-profile murders by suspected undocumented migrants, which he referred to as ‘Biden migrant crime,’ before stating: “It’s a whole new category of crime. And it’s probably going to be more vicious than anything we’ve seen. These are vicious people. They’re from jails, many of them are from jails. Many of them are for mental institutions. This is what they’re dumping into the United States…They want to clean out their jails…jails all over the world. You take a look at their prison population, it’s way down, because they’ve taken people out of those jails, and they’ve dumped them into our country. They’ve taken people out of their mental institutions and insane asylums…’insane asylum is like mental institution on steroids.’ That’s ‘Silence of the Lambs.’ Did you ever hear of a fine gentleman named ‘Hannibal Lecter’?…Well, that’s what they have in insane asylums, and they’re dumping them into a community near you…Venezuela comes out and said, ‘We’re dumping all our criminals into the United States. But the second part, we’re never taking them back. Don’t ever bring them back.’”
  • April 12, 2024, Mar-a-Lago, during a joint press conference with House Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump said: “But I would like to demand that our border be closed because we have millions of people coming into our country, millions and millions of people are pouring in at levels that nobody’s reporting, nobody’s going to talk about, but I believe you could have 15 million already in. Some are terrorists. They come from jails and prisons, they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. They come from all over the world, not just South America, they’re coming from all over the world, Venezuela announced that their crime is down 67%, because of the fact that they’ve taken the gang members, the leaders and the members, and they’ve deposited them very nicely into the United States of America. That’s just Venezuela. It’s happening with the Congo. It’s happening with countries all over. Africa, Asia, South America. All over the world it’s happening. Our country is like a dumping ground. And we’re going to have it stopped.” He further said: “But we probably have 15 million people. And they come from places that you don’t wanna know about. And they’re gonna be big problems. And it’s getting worse. It’s ‘migrant crime.’ It’s a new category of crime, ‘migrant crime.’ And I’m just demanding.” And later stated: “And I think most people are united on the fact that they don’t want people pouring in from prisons and jails and mental institutions. They don’t want that to happen. They don’t want it to take place. And it’s not going to happen for long.”
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said: “We got to do something about the fact that 20 million people have come into our country from prisons, from jails, from mental institutions, from insane asylums. And they’re terrorists. Many are terrorists.” He went on to say, “Maybe this is a great political thing. To have millions of prisoners and mental institution people come in. Maybe it’s a good thing.” And later added: “The biggest thing we have is we have millions of people here that are criminals. We really, I mean, they’re criminals. Think of it, Venezuela, just announced, and they had a new number 67, now it’s 72%, 72% they’re down in crime, because they took their gang members, they took a lot of their criminals and they moved them into the United States of America. Jail populations all over the world are way down, and these fools back there, the press, the fake news, they don’t want to report it. You know why they’re down? Because they’re sending people in their jails into the United States, from Africa, from Asia, from all over the world. They’re emptying out their jails into the United States. They’re emptying out their mental institutions into the United States, our beautiful country, and now, the prison populations all over the world are down. They don’t want to report that. The mental institution population is down because they’re taking people from insane asylums and from mental institution. You know what the difference is, right? An insane asylum is a mental institution on steroids. ‘Silence of the Lambs.’ has anyone ever seen ‘The Silence of the Lambs?’ The late great Hannibal Lecter is a wonderful man. He oftentimes would have a friend for dinner. Remember the last scene? ‘Excuse me, I’m about to have a friend for dinner,’ as this poor doctor walked by. ‘I’m about to have a friend for dinner.’ But Hannibal Lecter, congratulations, the late great Hannibal Lecter. We have people that are being released into our country that we don’t want in our country. And they’re coming in totally unchecked, totally unvetted. And we can’t let this happen. They’re destroying our country. And we’re sitting back, and we better damn well win this election. Because if we don’t, our country is going to be doomed. It’s going to be doomed.”
  • May 1, 2024, Waukesha, WI, Trump said during a rally: “And that doesn’t even include some of the horrible numbers that we’re seeing flowing in from the poor and crime-ridden countries all over the world. They have people flowing in from the poorest and heaviest crime countries all over the world. Congratulations. They come out of prisons. They come out of mental institutions, and they’re coming in to be a neighbor right near you. So congratulations.” He later added said: He went on to say we “now…have thousands of terrorists coming into our country.”
  • March 16, 2024, Daytona, OH, Trump accused the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Venezuela of emptying their prisons into the United States.
    • “I call it ‘Biden migrant crime,’ but it’s too long. So let’s just call it ‘migrant crime’. We have a new category. You have vicious crimes, you have violent crimes, you have all these, now we have migrant crimes and they’re rough. They’re rough and it’s going to double up. And you see what’s happening. Throughout the world right now, I don’t know if you know this, crime is way, way down. You know why? Because they sent us their criminals. That’s why. It’s true. It’s true. They sent, do you know Venezuela is down 66% because they sent us their gang members and their gangsters. They sent us their drug dealers and their murderers. They’re all coming into our country and Venezuela now, their crime is down 66%. And all over the world, crime is down because they’ve sent them to the United States of America because we have a stupid president that allows this to happen.”
    • “They’re sending from all over the world, not just South America, Latin America. They’re sending them from Asia. They’re sending them from Africa. The Congo, last night, 22 people arrived from the Congo. Now, the Congo is a very nice place I would imagine, but they arrived from the Congo and they came from prison. Where are you from in the Congo? What’s your address? Prison. Now these are rough people. They’re coming from Africa, they’re coming from Asia, they’re coming from the Middle East, they’re coming from Yemen. All over the place from Yemen.”
    • “And I would do the same thing if I had prisons that were teeming with MS-13 and all sorts of people that they’ve got to take care of for the next 50 years, right?…We have so many people. We have so many people being hurt so badly and being killed. They’re sending their prisoners to see us. And they’re bringing them right to the border and they’re dropping them off and we’re allowing them to come in.”
  • June 16, 2015, Trump said announcing his presidential; campaign that “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best — they’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” He also said: “I can never apologize for the truth. I don’t mind apologizing for things. But I can’t apologize for the truth. I said tremendous crime is coming across. Everybody knows that’s true. And it’s happening all the time. So, why, when I mention, all of a sudden I’m a racist. I’m not a racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body.”
  • July 5, 2015, Fox News, Trump said: “What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
  • July 6, 2015, commenting on his June 16 campaign announcement comment (see above), Trump said in a three-page statement commenting that “the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government.” “The largest suppliers of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs are Mexican cartels that arrange to have Mexican immigrants trying to cross the borders and smuggle in the drugs. The Border Patrol knows this,” Trump wrote. “Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in fact, for many other parts of the world.”
    • “Shortly before releasing his statement, Trump gave an interview to Business Insider where he described the idea that the Mexican government is deliberately ‘pushing the bad ones’ to the US as the one element of his position on immigration that hasn’t gotten enough attention.”
• His campaign has increasingly used, even exploited, high-profile national murders by alleged undocumented immigrants as a way to criticize the Biden administration’s immigration policies, stoke fear that waves of criminals are coming into the country, and justify his intended immigration crackdown policies.
  • During the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump spoke about the murders of Laken Riley and others, including Jocelyn Nungaray and  Rachel Morin. 
  • April 2, 2024, the Republican National Committee released its official website for documenting “migrant crime” and “illegal alien crime.” “BidenBloodbath.com provides the latest data on Biden’s border crisis, as well as providing real-time messaging on the crisis to activists who sign up for email updates via the website. Additionally, there are state-specific BidenBloodbath.com websites with up-to-date facts and figures for battleground states including: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin,” according to the RNC’s website. 
  • April 2, 2024, during campaign rallies in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Green Bay, Wisconsin, Trump discussed the recent high-profile murder of Ruby Garcia, allegedly by a man who had entered the United States illegally after having been deported to Mexico in 2020, to justify his plans to crack down on immigration and “migrant crime,” reportedly falsely claiming that he had met with the victim’s family. Trump had discussed the death of Garcia the day prior during his radio interview with West Michigan Live radio interview with Justin Barclay, and extended an invite to the Garcia family to attend his rally in Grand Rapids. He also discussed Laken Riley on April 2, a Georgia college student who was allegedly murdered by a Venezuelan migrant in February 2024. Trump has long used the death of Riley to support his campaign efforts, with Riley’s family meeting with Trump backstage before his March 9 rally in Rome, GA. Speaking in Grand Rapids, he said that he had vowed to Laken’s family that he would “deliver justice.” Now he intends to also “deliver justice” for Ruby.
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, after speaking on the “illegal alien criminal” who allegedly killed Ruby Garcia, Trump went on to say: “We have the worst border. Last week another illegal alien criminal was arrested in Alabama for raping a mentally incapacitated 14-year-old girl. And in Chicago, recently, an illegal alien gang member who was released into our country by crooked Joe Biden was arrested for a drive-by shooting that left a 27-year-old woman riddled with bullet holes all over her body—died. I’m here tonight to declare that Joe Biden’s ‘border bloodbath.’ Remember they used the name ‘bloodbath,’ I was talking about something entirely different, but this is a ‘border bloodbath.’ Ends the day I take the oath of office.”
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, the week after Laken Riley was murdered, Trump told crowds that the suspected killer was a “monster[, an] illegal alien migrant who was led into the country and released into our communities by crooked Joe Biden.” He later went on to discuss another two murder cases where he described the suspects as, respectively, an “illegal alien animal” and “a savage Biden migrant criminal.”
• Miller told the NYT that Trump would use coercive diplomacy to induce other countries to assist with his immigration plans, making cooperation a condition of any other bilateral engagement. Trump would rely heavily on Mexico to revive the “Remain in Mexico” policy, though it’s unclear whether Mexico would agree. He would also renegotiate deals with Central America, including Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador—and potentially other countries—to send regional migrants there shortly after they arrive in the United States as “safe third countries.” Despite previous similar agreements only covering migrants who had previously passed through a third country, federal law does not require such passing and Trump would seek to make those deals without that requirement, in part as a deterrent.

Return to Table of Contents

Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Energy and the Environment

• Trump’s dictator-for-a-day comments are also tied to his energy and environmental policies. Specifically, he has said that on day one he intends to ramp up oil drilling. In tandem with this disregard for reducing fossil fuel extraction, Trump and his senior campaign officials and advisers have also said that on day one he plans to reverse what he calls the “All Electric Car Lunacy” and the Biden “electric vehicle mandate,” which would include undoing recently announced EPA regulations limiting gas-powered vehicle tailpipe emissions and repealing provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at driving electric vehicle manufacturing. Most recently, Trump has said that he will halt offshore wind energy projects “on day one.”
  • Dec. 11, 2023: Trump said: “I said I want to be a dictator for one day. You know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
  • Dec. 6, 2023, Iowa: Hannity asked Trump whether Trump intended to abuse power or break the law, to which Trump answered “Except for day one. I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.” Trump then immediately doubled down on the exchange, describing it for the audience using the word “dictator” – “He [Hannity] says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
  • During the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump repeated his day one promises to “drill, baby, drill,” and to end the “Green New Scam” as well as the “crazy electric mandate.”
    • Trump said: “At the heart of the Republican platform is our pledge to end this border nightmare, and fully restore the sacred and sovereign borders of the United States of America. And we’re going to do that on day one. That means two things on day one right? Drill, baby, drill, and close our borders.”
    • “I will end the electric vehicle mandate on day one.” He later added again that he would end the “crazy electric mandate” on day one. 
    • “And next, we will end the ridiculous and actually incredible waste of taxpayer dollars that is fueling the inflation crisis. They’ve spent trillions of dollars of things having to do with the Green New Scam. It’s a scam. And that has caused tremendous inflationary pressures in addition to the cost of energy. And all of the trillions of dollars that are sitting there not yet spent, we will redirect that money for important projects like roads, bridges, dams and we will not allow it to be spent on the meaningless Green New scam ideas.”
    • “So much starts with energy. And remember, we have more liquid gold under our feet than any other country by far. We are a nation that has the opportunity to make an absolute fortune with its energy….We will be energy dominant and supply not only ourselves, but we will supply the rest of the world.”
  • March 11, 2024, Truth Social post: “My first acts as your next President will be to Close the Border, DRILL, BABY, DRILL, and Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned!”
  • Jan. 23, 2024, NH: “In the first year, they’re going to be reduced by 50% because we are going to drill, baby drill, drill, baby drill. Inflation is going to come way down, but in the first year, your energy costs are going down by 50%.”
  • Feb. 9, 2024, NRA speech, PA: “We’re gonna drill, baby, drill. That’s what we’re gonna do…We’re gonna drill, baby, drill. We’re gonna get our prices down.”
  • Feb. 4, 2024, “Sunday Morning Futures”: In response to a question on the other ways he intends to reduce inflation, Trump said, “Well, among other things, it’s drill, drill, drill, yes.” Responding to “What else?,” Trump said: “It’s drill, drill, drill…There is no [sic] else. You have to get the oil.”
  • Jan. 27, 2024, Las Vegas: Trump said: “[If I had been president] there wouldn’t have been an attack on Ukraine, and we wouldn’t have had any inflation. Inflation was caused by energy, by fuel, by oil going to $100 and $110 a barrel.” “That’s what caused inflation, and we’re going to bring it down because we’re going to go drill, baby, drill. We drill, baby, drill. We’re bringing it way down.” “His inflation that he [Biden] caused and would’ve been so easy not to. All it was, is energy. Remember this, gasoline, fuel, oil, natural gas went up to a level that it was impossible.”
  • April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI, Trump said: “The first day – I promise you – I will sign where the electric vehicle mandate is gone.” “So we’re gonna end that immediately. We’re gonna end it day one.”
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “On day one I will terminate crooked Joe’s insane electric vehicle mandate. In addition to this job-killing disaster, Joe Biden is also preparing to approve a waiver request from California allowing them to enact a complete and total ban on all gasoline powered cars and trucks. I will terminate that.
  • April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “We will stop Biden’s inflation train wreck and we will ‘drill, baby, drill.’ We’re gonna get your energy prices way down.”
  • March 20, 2024, Fox News reported: “In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Trump campaign said the climate regulations — unveiled by the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday — would force Americans to buy expensive electric vehicles (EV) and reduce consumer choice. The campaign further vowed that Trump would immediately strike down the regulations if he bests President Biden in their election rematch later this year. ‘Joe Biden’s extreme electric vehicle mandate will force Americans to buy ultra-expensive cars they do not want and cannot afford while destroying the U.S. auto industry in the process,’ Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘This radical policy is anti-jobs, anti-consumer and anti-American.’ ‘It will destroy the livelihoods of countless U.S. autoworkers while sending the U.S. auto industry to China. President Trump will reverse Joe Biden’s extreme electric vehicle mandate on Day One.’”
  • March 16, 2024, Daytona, OH, Trumps said: “On day one I will terminate crooked Joe Biden’s insane electric vehicle mandate.”
  • Jan. 16, 2024, Laconia, NH, Trump said: “On day one, I will end Crooked Joe Biden’s insane electric vehicle mandate.”
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, Trump said: “And we’re gonna start drilling. We’re gonna start drill, drill, drill, drill, baby, drill. Day one…But you have no idea we’re gonna drill.” He told the crowd that “I will immediately end Joe Biden’s war on American energy.”
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said: “So, we’re going to terminate the green new scam. We’re going to drill, baby, drill. We’re gonna get our energy way down. Don’t forget that’s what caused inflation. He let energy get out of hand and it went to $100 a barrel.”
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said: “On day one, I will immediately terminate Joe Biden’s insane electric vehicle mandate, and there will be no ban on gas cars and gas trucks in the Garden State. There will be no ban anywhere in the United States of America on gas.”
  • May 1, 2024, Waukesha, WI, Trump said: “And upon taking office,…we’re going to halt his [Joe Biden’s] inflation death spiral, we’re going to terminate his green new scam, it’s going to be terminated, and we’re going to end this war on American energy. We’re going to drill, baby, drill, we’re going to bring down your energy costs. We’re going to bring down your energy costs like you wouldn’t believe.”
  • April 2024, Mar-a-Lago, while hosting top U.S. oil and gas executives at his Florida estate, Trump promised to immediately “reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted,” the Washington Post reported. In exchange, some of those in attendance told the Post, Trump asked for $1 billion from the executives to help his return to the White House—a sum that Trump called a “deal” in exchange for his offer to also cut taxes and regulation.
    • Amongst Trump’s promises were to reverse recent restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic and ramp up new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. He also said he would introduce speedier drilling permits. “You’ve been waiting on a permit for five years; you’ll get it on Day 1.” He said he would end Biden’s electric vehicles “mandate” and criticized the recent EPA regulations limiting gas-powered vehicle tailpipe emissions. He vowed that on day one in office he would end the Biden administration’s freeze on approvals for pending and future applications to export liquefied natural gas from new projects, reportedly “a top priority for the executives” present. “‘You’ll get it on the first day,’ Trump said, according to the recollection of an attendee.”
      • June 24, 2024, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a criminal bribery complaint, calling on the FBI and DOJ to investigate Trump’s donations “deal” with oil industry executives.
    • May 23, 2024, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate Finance Committee launched a joint investigation into the Mar-a-Lago meeting with oil executives.
  • May 11, 2024, Wildwood, NJ, Trump said on wind turbines: “We are going to make sure that that ends on day one. I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on day one.” Trump claimed that wind turbines “destroy everything,” “cause tremendous problems with the fish and the whales” and that whales “come up all the time, dead.” “They destroy everything, they’re horrible, the most expensive energy there is,” Trump said, adding, “They ruin the environment, they kill the birds, they kill the whales.”
    • The Washington Post reported that when Trump met with top oil and gas executives at Mar-a-Lago in April 2024 (see above), he doubled down on his attack against renewable wind energy. “I hate wind,” Trump is reported to have said to executives.
    • “‘If I were in the offshore wind industry, I would probably be pretty, pretty nervous,’ a former Trump administration energy official told the Washington Post.”
  • May 22, 2024 Houston, during a fundraising pitch at Houston’s Post Oak Hotel, Trump made a host of second-term promises to oil executives, including that he would help fast-track their merger and acquisition deals, easing the Federal Trade Commission’s scrutiny of the industry, the Washington Post reported. According to an attendee’s notes, Trump told the group that he would issue “immediate approvals for energy infrastructure. That’s pipelines, power plants.” “I approved the Keystone pipeline, and I approved the Dakota Access pipeline,” Trump said. He also said he would ramp up drilling, including opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. He added that he would “lift the natural gas export ban, cancel all unnecessary energy-killing regulations … [and] open up more federal lands” to drilling, as well as reverse the Biden administration’s pause on approvals of LNG exports and “end the EV mandate immediately.” Unlike at his Mar-a-Lago event the month prior, “Trump did not ask the oil executives for a specific amount of campaign donations … ‘Be generous, please,’ he said to end his speech.”
• Trump plans to violate statutory requirements by using administrative agencies within the executive branch to promulgate rules that prevent oversight and regulation required by Congress.
  • For instance, Congress passed the bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016, but Trump’s EPA illegally withheld chemical safety studies where public disclosure was required, violated the law’s requirements to review new chemicals, and refused to ask companies to disclose data required under the law.
  • He has embraced violating, in similar fashion, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.
  • Trump engaged in “a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections,” said Hana V. Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program.
  • With respect to Trump’s Day One Dictator promise, Ed Crooks, Vice Chair for the Americas at Wood Mackenzie, said the comments point to the potential use of executive actions and rule changes “to lighten the regulatory burden on oil and gas companies.”
• Trump has called global warming a “hoax.”
  • March 21, 2022, Fox Business: Trump called climate change a “hoax,” explaining, “In my opinion, you have a thing called weather, and you go up, and you go down. If you look into the 1920s, they were talking about a global freezing, okay? In other words, the globe was going to freeze. And then they go global warming. Then they couldn’t use that because the temperatures were actually quite cool. And many different things. So now they just talk about climate change. The climate’s always been changing.”
  • Trump has repeatedly changed his position on climate change and global warming. He has called global warming a “canard,” a “make-believe problem,” and a “big scam,” as well as blaming the Chinese for creating the concept of global warming to hurt American manufacturing. But he has also described climate change as “Nothing’s a hoax. It’s a very serious subject.”
  • The Project 2025 agenda calls for a radical reversal on climate change and clean energy policies:
    • “The next Administration should eliminate the Climate Hub Office and withdraw from climate change agreements that are inimical to the prosperity of the United States.”
    • “Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs.”
    • “The next conservative Administration should rescind all climate policies from its foreign aid programs.”
• Trump has called for dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • March 3, 2016: During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump said, “Department of Environmental Protection: We are going to get rid of it in almost every form. We’re going to have little tidbits left. But we’re going to take a tremendous amount out.”
  • As The Guardian detailed, Trump’s 2024 plan includes “systematically dismantling” the EPA, including cutting funding, rolling back regulations, forging closer ties to the fossil-fuel industry, and loosening fuel economy standards.
• The Washington Post reported that North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) is a “key figure leading the Trump campaign’s development of its energy policy” and also a “possible contender to lead the Energy Department in a second Trump term.” At a fundraiser on May 4, 2024, “Burgum told donors that Trump would halt Biden’s ‘attack’ on fossil fuels” “What would be the No. 1 thing that President Trump could do on Day 1? It’s stop the hostile attack against all American energy, and I mean all,” Burgum said, adding, “Whether it’s baseload electricity, whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, whether it’s ethanol, there is an attack on liquid fuels.”

Return to Table of Contents

Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Release January 6th rioters from prison

• Trump also promises that on day one he will release from prison those charged and convicted for their involvement in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He has also promised to on day one pardon “a large portion” of convicted January 6th rioters.
  • May 25, 2024, Libertarian Party National Convention, Washington DC, Trump said: “Right now, the Biden DOJ is trying to put Christians in prison for 11 years for the crime of singing hymns. The moment I win the election, I will appoint a special task force to rapidly review the cases of every political prisoner who has been unjustly persecuted by the Biden administration, so that I can sign their pardons or commutations on day one…As everyone knows it will be my great honor to pardon the peaceful January 6 protesters, or as I often call them, ‘the hostages.’ They’re hostages. There has never been a group of people treated so harshly or unfairly in our country’s history. This abuse will be rectified and it will be rectified very quickly.”
  • March 11, 2024, Truth Social post: “My first acts as your next President will be to Close the Border, DRILL, BABY, DRILL, and Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned!”
  • March 16, 2024, Daytona, Ohio, Trump began a MAGA rally by telling the crowd: “You see the spirit from the hostages, and that’s what they are is hostages. They’ve been treated terribly and very unfairly, and you know that and everybody knows that. And we’re gonna be working on that … the first day we get into office. We’re gonna save our country and we’re gonna work with the people to save treat those unbelievable patriots and they we unbelievable patriots, and are.” “[I]t’s a disgrace in my opinion.”
  • June 9, 2024, Las Vegas, NV, Trump said: “So, when we get in, it’s gonna go very rapidly. We’re gonna do a lot of things. We’re gonna look very strongly at J6. Those people, there has never been people treated more horrifically than J6 hostages.”
  • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview: Asked if he would consider pardoning the more than 800 individuals sentenced for actions on January 6th, Trump said “I would consider that, yes.” “Yes, absolutely.” “If somebody was evil and bad, I would look at that differently. But many of those people went in, many of those people were ushered in. You see it on tape, the police are ushering them in. They’re walking with the police,” he added.
  • May 10, 2023, CNN town hall, NH, Trump promised as President to pardon “a large portion” of people convicted in connection with January 6th. “I am inclined to pardon many of them.” “I can’t say for every single one, because a couple of them, probably they got out of control.” “I will most likely – I would say it will be a large portion of them.” He also said that rioters “were there proud. They were there with love in their heart. That was an unbelievable – and it was a beautiful day.”
  • Sept. 1, 2022, Wendy Bell Radio, Trump said: “I will tell you, I will look very, very favorably about full pardons. If I decide to run and if I win, I will be looking very, very strongly about pardons. Full pardons.” “We’ll be looking very, very seriously at full pardons because we can’t let that happen. … And I mean full pardons with an apology to many.”
  • Feb. 1, 2022, Newsmax interview, Trump said: “I would absolutely give them a pardon, if things don’t work out fairly” and called the punishment “20 times out of proportion. These people are being persecuted.”
  • Jan. 29, 2022, Conroe, TX, “If I run and I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly.” “We will treat them fairly.” “And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons, because they are being treated so unfairly.”
• POLITICO reported that during Trump’s final days in office he considered blanket pardons of Capitol rioters. Between Jan. 6 and Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump reportedly made multiple calls to advisors to discuss the idea. “Do you think I should pardon them? Do you think it’s a good idea? Do you think I have the power to do it? Trump asked one advisor, who summarized their three conversations. Another advisor said that Trump asked, “Is it everybody that had a Trump sign or everybody who walked into the Capitol” who could be pardoned? Trump “said, ‘Some people think I should pardon them.’ He thought if he could do it, these people would never have to testify or be deposed,” according to that advisor.
• Neither Trump nor his campaign have confirmed who exactly Trump intends to release from prison and/or pardon. Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has made various comments revising and interpreting Trump’s remarks. For instance, in a statement to NBC at the end of April 2024, she said, “As President Trump has promised, he will pardon January 6th protestors who are wrongfully imprisoned by Crooked Joe Biden’s Justice Department, and those decisions will be determined on a case-by-case basis when he is back in the White House.” At least one month earlier, the Washington Post asked Leavitt about who Trump was referring to as “hostages” and the potential for pardons, to which Leavitt indirectly responded: “President Trump will restore justice for all Americas who have been unfairly treated by Joe Biden’s two-tier system of justice.”
• Analysis by Just Security identified that, as of March 13, 2024, Trump likely intended to “get out” of the D.C. Department of Corrections 29 January 6th inmates, 27 of whom had been charged with assaulting law enforcement officers in the U.S. Capitol or on its grounds, as well as committing other crimes.
• Trump continues to hail January 6th rioters, including those incarcerated, as “warriors,” “people who love our country” and “great patriots,” and those incarcerated as “hostages” who are “wrongfully imprisoned.” His solidarity has become more pronounced over recent months, now central to his campaign. The Washington Post found that between January through March 23, 2024, Trump’s referencing Jan. 6 “hostages” increased, mentioning the term in every rally during March.
  • June 9, 2024, Las Vegas, NV, at Trump’s first rally after having been convicted in New York on 34 felonies, he said: “So, when we get in, it’s gonna go very rapidly. We’re gonna do a lot of things. We’re gonna look very strongly at J6. Those people, there has never been people treated more horrifically than J6 hostages.” He continued: “Those J6 warriors, they were warriors, but they were really more than anything else, they’re victims of what happened. All they were doing is protesting a rigged election. That’s what they were doing. And the police say, ‘go in, go in, go in, go in…go on in, everybody, go on in.’ What a setup that was, what a horrible, horrible thing.”
  • March 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump posted on his platform a flyer advertising a nightly vigil for the inmates held by the D.C. Department of Corrections. “Stand in solidarity with our January 6th Political Prisoners in the DC jail as we honor their bravery,” the flier reads. “At 9:00pm, everyone stops what they are doing to stand in solidarity as we all sing the National Anthem together.” Trump captioned the flyer with his own announcement of the vigil: “The 600th Day of their nightly Vigil outside the DC Jail. From Micki Whitthoeft (Ashli Babbitt’s Mother):”
    • Micki Witthoeft, the mother of a January 6th inmate, said at that vigil that had Trump called her earlier that day about “setting these guys free when he gets in,” adding that “He said to pass that on to the guys inside that they’re on his mind, and when he gets in they’ll get out.”
  • March 16, 2024, Daytona, OH, to introduce Trump to the stage while campaigning for Bernie Merona, Trump played the “Justice for All” recording. The song was preceded by an introduction from an unknown voice: “Ladies and gentleman, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages.”
    • The same introductory message was played on March 9, 2024 in Rome, Georgia to introduce Trump to the stage at his “Get Out The Vote Rally” speech. Although, as above, the J6 Choir has long been used in Trump rallies, the introductory message appears to have first been introduced in March 2024.
  • March 2, 2024, Greensboro, NC, Trump said: “You heard the hostages singing…they’re the ‘J6 hostages’ I call them. Because they are hostages. They’re policemen, they’re firemen, they’re accountants, they’re lawyers, in some cases. They’re put in jail for extended periods of time, for very long periods of time. They’re hostages.” He later added: “But when people who protest on January 6th in Washington they become hostages unfairly imprisoned for long periods of time.”
  • Feb. 24, 2024, CPAC, Trump said: “You heard the J6 hostages, didn’t you? You heard that? And, I will tell you, there’s never been in the history of our country a group of people treated the way they’ve been treated. There’s never been anything like it.”
  • Dec. 19, 2023, Durham, NH, Trump said at a campaign rally: “[W]hen people who love our country protest in Washington, they become hostages, unfairly imprisoned for long periods of time.”
  • Dec. 17, 2023, Reno, NV, Trump told a crowd at a rally: “When people who love our country protest in Washington, they become hostages and prisoners unfairly imprisoned for long periods of time.”
  • Nov. 2, 2023, Houston, Trump said, referring to the J6 Choir: “I call them the J6 hostages, not prisoners. I call them the hostages, what’s happened. And it’s a shame.”
  • Jan. 13, 2023, Real America’s Voice interview, Trump said: “I think it’s a disgrace what’s been happening, and so many of these people are great patriots.”
  • Sept. 1, 2022, Wendy Bell Radio, Trump said that he was “financially supporting people that are incredible.” “And they were in my office actually two days ago. It’s very much on my mind. It’s a disgrace what they’ve done to them.”
• Trump has long sympathized with January 6th rioters, making no apologies for his unwavering support of those being held to account by DOJ as well as his support of their actions on January 6. Trump “has also fundraised for them, befriended their families and collaborated on a song that became a surprise iTunes hit.” He also featured on a record with January 6th rioters serving prison sentences, the profits of which are being used to fund rioters’ legal fees. The “Justice for All” record features the self-dubbed “J6 Choir” singing a version of the national anthem with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over the track. The song has made intermittent appearances in Trump’s rallies as early as March 2023. The Washington Post reported that “He routinely plays it on the patio at Mar-a-Lago.”
• According to DOJ data as of July 6, 2024, 42 months since the January 6th attack, over 1,472 individuals had been charged for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including approximately 531 charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, of which approximately 157 had been charged with using deadly or dangerous weapons or causing serious bodily injury to officers. There have been approximately 1,092 successful convictions: approximately 907 of those convicted had received sentences, of which approximately 562 resulted in prison sentences and many others periods of home detention.
• The Washington Post reported that several individuals with ties to January 6th and other illicit efforts to overturn the 2020 election played significant roles in the recent Republican National Convention. For instance, Trump’s formal nomination was seconded by Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald who helped organize 2020 false electors in his state. The deputy policy director of the convention’s platform committee, Ed Martin, was among the mob outside the Capitol, and the same for at least three others serving as delegates. At least five other convention delegates served as false electors, including four charged with fraud, forgery and conspiracy. As part of a lawsuit settlement, the false electors in Wisconsin formally “agree[d] not to serve as presidential electors in 2024 or in any United States presidential election in which Donald J. Trump is on the ballot.” However that settlement agreement did not bar them from serving as RNC delegates, and one of the Wisconsin false electors served as a delegate at the Convention and another served as an alternate (CNN reporting).

Subverting the Rule of Law to Protect Himself from Prosecution

• Trump has constantly attacked the criminal and civil cases against him. If re-elected, Trump could order the Department of Justice to drop the criminal prosecutions against him in Washington, DC regarding subverting the 2020 presidential election (the January 6th case) and in South Florida regarding the retention of large volumes of government documents (the Mar-a-Lago documents case). As president, Trump could try to dismiss the federal prosecutions during the appeals process even after he was convicted. Further, he could also try to pardon himself and other co-conspirators/potential cooperators. Also, Trump has threatened to interfere with the state prosecutions against him in New York and Georgia by retaliating against state officials involved with those prosecutions, including prosecutors, judges, judicial staff, and witnesses. Reports also suggest that Trump and his allies intend on cutting the budgets of the FBI and DOJ, including defunding Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Office.
  • Aug. 4, 2023, Truth Social, Trump wrote the day after pleading not guilty in the January 6th case: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
  • Sept. 21, 2023, Truth Social, he called for Congress to shut down the federal government in order to “defund these political prosecutions against me and other Patriots.”
  • April 5, 2023, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SHOULD DEFUND THE DOJ AND FBI UNTIL THEY COME TO THEIR SENSES.”
  • June 10, 2023, Georgia GOP Convention: Responding to the DOJ’s Mar-a-Lago indictment, Trump said: “This is a sick nest of people that needs to be cleaned out immediately. Get them out.”
  • November 14, 2023, Truth Social: Trump reposted that New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing the New York corporate fraud trial, should be placed under “CITIZENS [sic] ARREST FOR BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND HARASSMENT.”
  • November 10, 2023, Truth Social: Trump posted on social media that NY AG James “should be prosecuted” for bringing the case against him.
  • October 17, 2023, Truth Social: Trump said during a video posted on social media that the state of New York should “intercede and stop” the Office of the NY Attorney General’s prosecution of the Trump Organization for fraud.
  • October 16, 2023, Truth Social: Trump shared a link of AG James’ home address while accusing her of a “MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE ALL WRAPPED UP IN ONE!” Earlier in 2023, James revealed she had received death threats for pursuing the case against Trump.
• Convicted in New York state court on May 30, 2024, on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election, Trump and his GOP allies have persistently sought to undermine the justice system as a tool for radical left “lawfare,” “election interference” and “political persecution,” saying that the prosecution and eventual conviction were only possible in a “banana republic” and a “rigged” system. He and allies, some of whom attended trial days, have attacked prosecutors, witnesses, and the judge. GOP support of Trump and rebuke of the judicial system only seem to have grown since Trump’s conviction, which they wasted no time in attacking as a “travesty” and an “injustice,” warning that it will likely backfire.
  • Throughout the trial Trump levied attacks.
    • May 29, 2024, on the morning of closing arguments, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “KANGAROO COURT! A CORRUPT AND CONFLICTED JUDGE. RELIANCE ON COUNSEL (ADVISE OF COUNSEL) NOT ALLOWED BY MERCHAN, A FIRST. HIS RULINGS, ON A CASE THAT SHOULD, ACCORDING TO ALL LEGAL SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS, NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, HAVE MADE THIS A BIDEN PUSHED WITCH HUNT. THERE WAS NO CRIME, EXCEPT FOR THE BUM THAT GOT CAUGHT STEALING FROM ME! IN GOD WE TRUST!”
    • May 27, 2024, Truth Social: “Can you imagine, a President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in the history of our Country, and who is also the Republican Nominee for President in the upcoming 2024 Election, and leading in all polls against the Democrat Nominee, Joe Biden, is tomorrow going before a Corrupt and Conflicted Democrat Appointed, Acting New York Judge, on a FAKE & MADE UP CASE by a Soros backed failed D.A., and the Judge himself, to see whether or not he will become a common criminal? According to virtually all Legal Scholars and Experts, THERE IS NO CRIME OR CASE against President Trump, and if there was it should have been brought seven years ago, not in the middle of his Campaign for President. Prosecutorial Misconduct. Election Interference!”
    • May 26, 2024, Truth Social: “The reason the Radical, highly Conflicted Judge Juan Merchan had to come up with three FAKE options for the jury to choose from, without requiring them to be unanimous, which is completely UNAMERICAN AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, is because the Corrupt, Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, couldn’t come close to proving that any crime was committed. THERE WAS NO CRIME. Legal Expense paid to a lawyer was marked, by a bookkeeper using a dropdown menu in a computer program, as Legal Expense paid to a lawyer. WHAT ELSE COULD YOU CALL IT? There is NO CASE, just a Democrat Persecutor controlled by Crooked Joe Biden’s White House, a Democrat Judge, and a biased venue. This is nothing but an Election Interfering Witch Hunt, and the American People know it! MAGA2024.”
    • May 26, 2024, Truth Social: “Can anyone believe that Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, was able to get a DELAY of 7 days to his Corrupt and Unconstitutional Case against me, with no sequester? Legal Expense = Legal Expense! The only thing Bragg has going for him is the Corrupt and highly Conflicted Judge – Which is a lot!!!”
    • May 25, 2024, Truth Social: “I HAVE A GREAT CASE, BUT WITH A RIGGED AND CONFLICTED JUDGE. HISTORY PROVES, HOWEVER, THAT I WOULD BE FAR BETTER OFF WITH A BAD CASE AND A GREAT, FAIR, AND HONEST JUDGE!!!”
    • May 24, 2024, Truth Social: “The Worst FBI Director in History, who I inherited from the Obama Administration, but fired almost immediately into ours, along with many other Corrupt Actors in the DOJ and FBI (The start of DRAIN THE SWAMP!), is going around LYING about the SCAM brought by Soros backed D.A. Alvin Bragg, and perpetuated by the Highly Conflicted, Democrat Appointed Judge, Juan Merchan. If you want to see the real story on Comey, read the Report put out by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, that gives you all the Horrors of Comey, in great detail. If Comey had any respect for our System of Justice, which is being DESTROYED before our eyes, he would be fighting against the Crooked Joe Biden inspired Witch Hunts, instead of spreading LIES!”
    • May 24, 2024, Truth Social: “When the Disgraceful District Attorney and his Thugs, WITH FULL APPROVAL, I assume, by the Highly Conflicted Judge, Juan Merchan, and the Crooked Joe Biden Administration, who are leading the Trial for ELECTION INTERFERENCE purpose, keep talking about the ‘bookkeeping error’ or ‘crime,’ they are referring to the fact that a bookkeeper, with zero influence from or discussion with me, correctly called the payment of a Legal Expense to a lawyer – a Legal Expense. In other words, I am being prosecuted because a bookkeeper, who I had no contact with, marked down, from a dropdown menu in the ledger, a Legal Expense to a lawyer as ‘Legal Expense.’ What the hell is wrong with that? And, what else would you call it?….”
    • May 24, 2024, Truth Social: “….For this ridiculous charge, Millions of Dollars have been spent on the PERSECUTION of a Popular President (Got more Votes than any sitting President in History!), and the current Leader in the Polls against his Democrat Opponent, Crooked Joe Biden, without whom NO CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED. Any other Judge would not have allowed this SCAM to proceed, and neither did D.A. Bragg, nor any other Agency in Government, want to bring it. We are fighting against a Rigged New York System of “Justice.” WITCH HUNT!”
    • May 24, 2024, Truth Social: “Corrupt, Deeply Conflicted, Democrat Appointed Acting Judge Juan Merchan is doing all he can to even further RIG the Manhattan Sham “Trial.” He is denying me the opportunity to put on a Highly Respected Election Law Expert who will say, once again, that THERE WAS NO CRIME. This Judge, whose conflicts are completely disqualifying, isn’t even requiring a unanimous decision by the jury on key portions of this Criminal Hoax, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNAMERICAN. The whole Case should be ENDED IMMEDIATELY, and all the charges THROWN OUT, because everything was done right, with Legal Expenses being reported as Legal Expenses! The Judge CANNOT be allowed to do further damage to Justice in New York and our Nation, and every Legal Scholar and Expert agrees with this. The whole Sham is a disgusting Political Witch Hunt by Crooked Joe Biden’s White House. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”
    • May 21, 2024, Truth Social: “Judge Juan Merchan, who has thus far been the exact Conflicted Democrat Operative his Comrades expected, has a chance to take a real step toward rehabilitating both his Reputation and the Justice System of New York by dismissing the Biden Election Interference Witch Hunt brought by Soros funded D.A. Alvin Bragg. Every serious Legal Expert and Scholar is unequivocally stating that the ‘prosecutors’ have not come close to putting on a case, THERE IS NO CRIME, which means that the right thing to do is to END THIS SCAM NOW AND FOREVERMORE. It would be a Big, Bold, Beautiful, but Highly Unexpected, yet BRILLIANT, step toward Justice in New York, and our Nation as a whole!”
    • May 17, 2024, Truth Social: “Wow! Even MSDNC & Fake News CNN, home of the First Presidential Debate in June, now feel the Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, ‘Case’ against me SHOULD BE DROPPED IN THAT IT IS NOT WINNABLE, AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! The only thing they have going for them is a HIGHLY CONFLICTED JUDGE who has done everything within his power to help Crooked Joe Biden win a Presidential Election that he has, based on performance, no right to win. He is systematically destroying America, and is a true THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!!!”
    • May 16, 2024, Truth Social: “People are thinking that Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, who never wanted to bring the Witch Hunt against me in the first place, is going to drop this ridiculous and very unpatriotic ‘CASE’ in order to save lots of money, and also the self respect of his once revered Office. He would then be able to focus on Violent Crime, which is running rampant and totally out of control in New York. The dilemma is, and always has been, the Trump Hating (APPOINTED IN 2009 & STILL ACTING!) Judge, Juan Merchan, who would be confronted with the problem of how he would explain this TRUMP loss, to the Radical Left Democrats, to whom he owes so much? Bring back ‘Justice in America.’ ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!”
    • April 27, 2024, Time Magazine interview: Trump said, “I think we’re becoming less of a democracy when I look at the weaponization of the Justice Department, the FBI. When you look at what happened with FISA. When you look at all the things that have happened, we’re becoming less and less of a democracy. But with democracy, if it’s a properly-run democracy, which it will be, if and when I get back into office, it’ll be a very proper democracy, not like what we have right now. I don’t even think what we have right now is, where a presidential candidate has to spend eight hours a day in court instead of campaigning over nothing. Over zero. Over nonsense. And all speared and all spread out and—and really done by the Biden administration. And I think that’s no longer democracy. I think that’s third-world country stuff.”
  • Following conviction Trump has continued his attack.
    • May 31, 2024, Trump Tower, Trump attacked Justice Merchan as a “devil” and “tyrant.” “The judge was a tyrant.” “[Merchan] looks like an angel but he’s really a devil.” He continued, “We’re losing our country, and I really think that this is an event what took place yesterday with this judge that we have conflicted, but he’s a crooked judge, and you’ll understand that. And I say that knowing that is very dangerous for me to say that, and I don’t mind because I’m willing to do whatever I have to do to save our country and to save our constitution. I don’t mind.”
    • May 30, 2024, Trump said outside Manhattan court: “I’ve gone through two of these trials already. It’s a very, with the same kind of a judge. It’s all worked, it’s all rigged, the whole thing, the whole system is rigged.”
  • Following Trump’s conviction, his allies have continued in their marked attacks on the justice system as well as on those who have spoken favorably of the verdict.
    • Speaker of the House Mike Johnson:
      • May 30, 2024, 5:10pm on X, within minutes of the verdict, Johnson issued a statement:

“My statement on President Trump trial verdict:

Today is a shameful day in American history. Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges, predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon. This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one.

The weaponization of our justice system has been a hallmark of the Biden Administration, and the decision today is further evidence that Democrats will stop at nothing to silence dissent and crush their political opponents.

The American people see this as lawfare, and they know it is wrong—and dangerous. President Trump will rightfully appeal this absurd verdict—and he WILL WIN!”

• • • • May 31, 2024, Hugh Hewitt interview, Johnson said, “You know, I mean, there’s so many grounds for appeal here. I think it’s a certainty that it will be overturned. It’s just going to take us some months to do that, I’m afraid. And that’s the peril of all this, and that’s, of course, what they knew and what they wanted all along.”
      • May 31, 2024, Fox News’ “Fox and Friends,” Johnson called for the Supreme Court to “step in” on Trump’s appeal to “set this straight.”
    • Jim Jordan
      • House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan sent letters on May 31 to DA Alvin Bragg and senior counsel Mathhew Colangelo requesting their appearance on June 13 before the committee’s subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government.
    • Ron DeSantis
      • May 30, 2024, X post: “Today’s verdict represents the culmination of a legal process that has been bent to the political will of the actors involved: a leftist prosecutor, a partisan judge and a jury reflective of one of the most liberal enclaves in America—all in an effort to “get” Donald Trump. That this case—involving alleged misdemeanor business records violations from nearly a decade ago—was even brought is a testament to the political debasement of the justice system in places like New York City. This is especially true considering this same district attorney routinely excuses criminal conduct in a way that has endangered law-abiding citizens in his jurisdiction. It is often said that no one is above the law, but it is also true that no one is below the law. If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought, the judge would have never issued similar rulings, and the jury would have never returned a guilty verdict. In America, the rule of law should be applied in a dispassionate, even-handed manner, not become captive to the political agenda of some kangaroo court.”
    • Seven Maryland state delegates—Kathy Szeliga, Matt Morgan, Lauren Arikan, Robin Grammer, Mark Fisher, Brian Chisholm, and Ryan Nawrocki—released a signed statement expressing their vehement opposition to the conviction, calling it “political persecution” from a “kangaroo court” and a “left-leaning prosecutor,” which is turning the US justice system into a “third world parody of law and order.”
    • Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD-01) called the verdict “a travesty of justice and a blatant attempt by the Biden Justice Department to jail a political opponent in the middle of an election year.”
    • The delegates Maryland Republican Party Chairwoman Nicole Beus Harris released a statement on the state GOP’s X account that said, “Americans are sick of a two-tiered justice system which is broken and corrupt.”
    • National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said in a Fox News interview as news of the verdict broke: “I thought that the trial was a complete sham.”
    • Trump allies recently denounced Larry Hogan, Maryland’s Republican Senate nominee, for his call to “respect the verdict.”
      • June 2, 2024, Lara Trump told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on “State of the Union,” that Hogan “should have thought long and hard” before releasing his statement. “I’ll tell you one thing, I don’t support what he just said there. I think it’s ridiculous.” “He doesn’t deserve the respect of anyone in the Republican Party at this point, and quite frankly, anybody in America, if that’s the way you feel. That’s very upsetting to hear that.”
      • Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, in a post on X, just moments after Hogan’s statement, said in a post on X, “You just ended your campaign.” The Washington Post reported that the following day LaCivita said in an interview: “There are a lot of Republicans who are going to be upset with him for making that comment, and he needs all the Republicans he can get to win.” “From a political standpoint, it makes no sense to issue a statement that can be considered by us to be a criticism. It was stupid,” LaCivita said, adding, “He didn’t have to say anything. Say, ‘It’s a sad day in America.’ But no, he had to make a point. If he’s going to make his point, we’re going to make our point. You take a shot, you’re going to get a shot back. That’s how it works in politics.”
• June 2, 2024, “Fox and Friends” interview, Trump has warned of a public “breaking point” if he is sentenced to home detention or incarceration for his New York falsifying business records conviction. Trump said he was “OK with it,” but added, “I don’t know that the public would stand it, you know? I don’t — I’m not sure the public would stand for it.” “I think it’d be tough for the public to take. You know, at a certain point, there’s a breaking point.”
• Trump considered pardoning himself during his first term and has not ruled out doing so if re-elected.
  • Sept. 14, 2023, “Meet the Press”: Trump said it’s “very unlikely” he would pardon himself if he won a second term in 2024 but declined to rule out a personal pardon if re-elected.
  • Trump discussed pardoning himself in the final days of his presidency, stating, “I could’ve pardoned myself” but that he decided against it. He claims he said, “The last thing I’d ever do is give myself a pardon,” but other accounts suggest that several attorneys, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Attorney General Bill Barr, dissuaded Trump from pardoning himself after he brought it up several times.
  • At the end of his first term, Trump considered granting pardons to his three oldest children—Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric Trump—as well as his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
• Trump has argued that he is above the law as president and has claimed complete immunity from prosecution.
  • April 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “IF A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE IMMUNITY, THE COURT WILL BE ‘OPENING THE FLOODGATES’ TO PROSECUTING FORMER PRESIDENTS. AN OPPOSING HOSTILE PARTY WILL BE DOING IT FOR ANY REASON, ALL OF THE TIME. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND!”
  • April 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Page Two: No Immunity for a President would make it very difficult for him or her to do the job of protecting our Country. A current President would always be thinking, with every move made, whether or not there would be a Criminal Prosecution after leaving Office!”
  • April 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “A key Constitutional issue is whether or not a President should have Immunity. The answer is YES! During the hearing in the D.C. Circuit, the other side actually conceded two very important points, either of which would give the critical Immunity argument to us. If for any reason it were held that a President doesn’t have Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden, after he leaves Office, could be charged for the horrible and dangerous job he is doing on the Southern Border, the Afghanistan Disaster with all of its Death, Destruction, and ‘Surrender,’ or his quid pro quo on Ukraine, where he said, on tape, that if they don’t get rid of an Unfriendly Prosecutor, they don’t get the $1 Billion in Funding from the United States (He then clapped his hands, and said, in effect, ‘I won!’)…..”
  • April 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “WITHOUT IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR A PRESIDENT TO ENJOY HIS OR HER ‘GOLDEN YEARS’ OF RETIREMENT. THEY WOULD BE UNDER SIEGE BY RADICAL, OUT OF CONTROL PROSECUTORS, MUCH LIKE I AM (BUT WITHOUT THE ‘RETIREMENT’ WORD!).”
  • April 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT “CROSS THE LINE” MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY. EXAMPLE: YOU CAN’T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE SELDOM SEEN ‘ROGUE COP.’ SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH ‘GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.’ ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE AN EASY DECISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!”
  • April 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “The Supreme Court will address the historic question of Presidential Immunity on Thursday, but unfortunately, I will not be able to attend. The Highly Conflicted Judge in the Manhattan D.A. ‘case’ (Soros-backed Alvin Bragg) has prohibited me from attending. Without Presidential Immunity, the President cannot function, as his Political Opponents will blackmail and extort him with the threat of wrongful prosecution at every turn. We look forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court.”
  • April 22, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Without Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will no longer exist. Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity. A President must be free to make proper decisions. His mind must be clear, and he must not be guided by fear of retribution!”
  • April 20, 2024, Truth Social: Trump wrote, “Of course I was entitled, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, to Immunity. I wasn’t campaigning, the Election was long over. I was looking for voter fraud, and finding it, which is my obligation to do, and otherwise running our Country. If I don’t get Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn’t get Immunity, and with the Border Invasion and Afghanistan Surrender, alone, not to mention the Millions of dollars that went into his “‘pockets’” with money from foreign countries, Joe would be ripe for Indictment. By weaponizing the DOJ against his Political Opponent, ME, Joe has opened a giant Pandora’s Box. As President, I was protecting our Country, and doing a great job of doing so – Just look around at the complete mess that Crooked Joe Biden has caused. The least I am entitled to is Presidential Immunity on Fake Biden Indictments!”
  • April 20, 2024 Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision to take up Presidential Immunity. Without Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America. Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office. This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President. The other side would say, ‘If you don’t do something, just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner.’”
  • April 20, 2024 Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Page 2: A President has to be free to determine what is right for our Country without undue pressure. If there is no Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will ‘no longer exist.’ Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity. A President must be free to make proper decisions. His mind must be clear, and he must not be guided by the fear of retribution!”
  • April 20, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “REMEMBER, if I don’t have Presidential Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn’t have it either, and he would certainly be Prosecuted for his many ACTUAL CRIMES, including illegally receiving massive amounts of money from Foreign Countries, including China, Ukraine, and Russia, paying off Ukraine to fire an unfriendly prosecutor, allowing millions of people to illegally Enter and Destroy our Country, SURRENDERING in Afghanistan, with Hundreds Dead, many Americans Left Behind, and handing over Billions of Dollars Worth of the Best Military Equipment anywhere on Earth, the Decimation of American Wealth through the Green New Scam, and so much more. REMEMBER, Crooked Joe Biden and his CORRUPT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, D.A.’s and A.G.’s, has attacked his Political Opponent at a level never seen before in this Country, and wants desperately to PUT ‘TRUMP’ IN PRISON. He is playing a very dangerous game, and the great people of America WILL NOT STAND FOR IT. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”
  • April 20, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “A President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country. A Nation-destroying ruling like the one handed down by the D.C. Circuit cannot be allowed to stand. If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country. A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office. I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now. It will become a Political Weapon used for Election Interference. Our Elections will be corrupted and under siege. So bad, and so dangerous for our Nation. SAVE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY!”
  • April 20, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!”
  • April 20, 2024 Truth Social, Trump wrote: “IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, THEY TAKE AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY.”
  • April 20, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Without Presidential Immunity, the Presidency will lose its power and prestige, and under some Leaders, have no power at all. The Presidency will be consumed by the other Branches of Government. THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WANTED!”
  • April 20, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “If a President does not have Immunity, the Opposing Party, during his/her term in Office, can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, ‘if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,’ even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate. That would be the end of the Presidency, and our Country, as we know it, and is just one of the many Traps there would be for a President without Presidential Immunity. Obama, Bush, and soon, Crooked Joe Biden, would all be in BIG TROUBLE. If a President doesn’t have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a ‘Ceremonial’ President, rarely having the courage to do what has to be done for our Country. This is not what the Founders had in mind! Protect Presidential Immunity. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
  • April 20, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY. WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!”
  • April 19, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY. WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!”
  • April 19, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “If a President does not have Immunity, the Opposing Party, during his/her term in Office, can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, ‘if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,’ even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate. That would be the end of the Presidency, and our Country, as we know it, and is just one of the many Traps there would be for a President without Presidential Immunity. Obama, Bush, and soon, Crooked Joe Biden, would all be in BIG TROUBLE. If a President doesn’t have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a ‘Ceremonial’ President, rarely having the courage to do what has to be done for our Country. This is not what the Founders had in mind! Protect Presidential Immunity. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
  • April 19, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Without Presidential Immunity, the Presidency will lose its power and prestige, and under some Leaders, have no power at all. The Presidency will be consumed by the other Branches of Government. THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WANTED!”
  • April 19, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, THEY TAKE AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY.”
  • April 19, 2024, Truth Social, Trump wrote: “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!”
  • Jan. 18, 2024, Truth Social: Trump wrote, “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT “CROSS THE LINE” MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD…ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER.”
  • Jan. 27, 2024, Truth Social: Trump wrote, “IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY. WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!”
  • Jan. 9, 2024, Truth Social: Trump wrote, “IF A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE IMMUNITY, THE COURT WILL BE ‘OPENING THE FLOODGATES’ TO PROSECUTING FORMER PRESIDENTS. AN OPPOSING HOSTILE PARTY WILL BE DOING IT FOR ANY REASON, ALL OF THE TIME!”
  • Jan. 9, 2024, Washington, DC: Shortly after oral argument in his immunity appeal in the DC Circuit, Trump told the press, “I feel that as a president, you have to have immunity, very simple.” “You can’t have a president without immunity.” “You have to have, as a president, you have to be able to do your job.”
  • Jan. 9, 2024: Trump’s legal team argued before the DC Court of Appeals that a president could direct SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political opponent and be immune from prosecution.
    • April 12, 2024, Time Magazine interview, Trump later said that he understood this argument differently and equivocated on its validity: “Well, I understood it differently. I thought it was a political rival from another country. I think I understood it differently, and I’m not sure. And John Sauer also said that first you go through an impeachment and then you make that determination based on impeachment. But a president, if you don’t don’t have immunity from prosecution, fairly strong immunity from prosecution. Now, if you do something just overtly very bad and very stupid, that’s a different situation. That may be one of those cases.”
    • April 25, 2024, during oral argument before the US Supreme Court, Trump counsel John Sauer doubled down on arguments before the DC Circuit. Justice Sotomayor asked, “Now I think — and — and your answer below, I’m going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it. If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Sauer replied: “It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act.”
      • Trump counsel later told the justices that ordering the military to stage a coup “could well be” an official act: