On 11 August, President Donald Trump ordered federal control of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (D.C.), after declaring a ‘crime emergency’ and invoking the D.C. Home Rule Act. He further directed the Attorney General to temporarily oversee D.C. police, deployed National Guard units (eventually armed) from D.C. and six states, and tasked federal law enforcement agencies with street-level policing. The decision follows an emergency declaration related to ‘the magnitude of the violent crime crisis’ despite declines in crime rates in recent years. It is the first time that the D.C. Metropolitan Police has been placed under federal control. Mayor Muriel Bowser highlighted the unprecedented nature of the decision and the intrusion on the District’s autonomy, but announced cooperation with federal officials. Pursuant to the Home Rule Act and notification of congressional committees, federal control of police lasted 30 days. National Guard members were still deployed in D.C. in September. The President has indicated that similar moves in other cities could follow.

Sources: The White House, Reuters, The Guardian, CNN

On 29 August, the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, signed a new gerrymandered map of the state’s U.S. House of Representatives districts into law. Responding to a demand from President Donald Trump, the redistricting openly aims to create more U.S. House districts dominated by Republican voters and is expected to result in a gain of five House seats for the Republicans. In response, California lawmakers passed bills that would improve the Democratic Party’s performance by five seats in the U.S. House; these will be voted on by Californians in November. In September, a Republican-majority legislature in Missouri followed suit, as governors of heavily Democratic and Republican states further announcing similar measures. Critics have noted that gerrymandering dilutes the power of individual voters, both by packing voters of colour into fewer districts and reducing the competitiveness of some districts.   

Sources: BBC, New York Times, NPR, CNN, The Guardian 

On 25 August, President Donald Trump attempted to fire Lisa Cook, a Governor and member of the Federal Reserve board, alleging she had engaged in mortgage fraud before she assumed office. Cook sued the Trump administration to block her firing, and she was granted a temporary injunction by a District Judge pending the resolution of the suit. The administration appealed to  the Supreme Court to block the injunction. The decision to dismiss Ms. Cook came after the President’s request that the Federal Reserve cut interest rates. This follows the 1 August dismissal of Erika McEntarfer from the post of Commissioner of Labor Statistics after she released reports showing a deceleration in hiring. Critics argue that these measures constitute interference with economic and regulatory entities that enjoy political independence, as established by Congress.

Sources: The Guardian, AP, CNN, BBC, New York Times, D.C. District Court

On 4 July, President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a law that has raised concerns for its potential effects on public debt, social safety net programs and tax provisions for higher-income individuals. The bill tightens eligibility requirements for health insurance for low-income Americans by introducing work requirements for certain beneficiaries, putting low-income individuals and people with disabilities at greater risk of losing coverage. Estimates suggest that up to 12 million people could lose access to healthcare over the next decade. Reduced support for nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food-purchasing assistance to low-income individuals and families, along with cuts to other safety net services, further threatens vulnerable populations—such as children, the elderly and those with chronic health conditions—potentially worsening food insecurity and poor health outcomes nationwide.

On 27 June, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that significantly decreased the power of federal courts to curb executive overreach. The case was brought against an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of temporary visa holders or of undocumented migrants (EO). The Court held that universal injunctions (nationwide orders that halt the enforcement of executive action or legislation) exceed the provisions of the 1789 Judiciary Act, which were not meant to empower federal judges to carry out such broad oversight. The Court dismissed states’ arguments that, in this case, narrower injunctions could result in a legal ‘patchwork’, where some states enforce the executive order and others do not. It held that it was for the matter of lower courts to decide whether narrower injunctions would be fitting in suits brought against the EO. It added that class action certifications and suits brought by States were other alternatives for individuals to access relief, pending a decision on the merits. 

Update: On 10 July a US District judge in New Hampshire certified a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Executive Order, and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement. The lawsuit was filed immediately after the Supreme Court ruling was handed down on 27 June.   

Sources: Supreme Court, CNN, The New York Times, The White House, NPR, The Conversation 

On 7 June, President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of the California National Guard and US Marines to quell civil unrest in Los Angeles, marking the first time since 1965 that such forces were deployed without the state Governor’s consent. Large protests against immigration raids, primarily in downtown Los Angeles, had escalated into instances of violence, which local police struggled to contain. Both the Mayor of Los Angeles and the Governor of California objected to the deployment. The operation also involved federalized National Guard forces—National Guard units placed under federal rather than state authority—in an anti-drug raid alongside the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) outside Los Angeles. This raised additional concerns about the expanding use of military forces in public security operations. Experts note that absent congressional authorization, the participation of federal forces in civilian security tasks (the use of active-duty or federally controlled troops to carry out domestic law enforcement) would be contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Sources: ABC News, Just Security, State of California Department of Justice  

On 14 June, Minnesota House of Representative Speaker, Emerita Melissa Hortman of the Democratic Party, and her husband, were killed at their home, while State Senator John Hoffman, also a Democrat, and his wife were shot in a separate attack the same night. Minnesota officials characterized the killings as politically motivated, citing evidence that the suspect had compiled lists of elected officials as potential targets. The suspect, who was apprehended days later, was charged with multiple federal crimes, including murder, stalking and firearms violations. Federal rather than state charges were brought because the attacks targeted public officials and involved interstate elements, giving federal authorities jurisdiction and allowing them to pursue harsher penalties, including the death penalty. 

Sources: Department of Justice, Public Broadcasting Service

On 5 June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman claiming anti-straight discrimination against her by her employer. The  Ohio government employee alleged her employer had shown bias in two instances in which she was passed over for a job and asked to take a demotion. The Court unanimously ruled that the ‘background circumstances standard’, used in many discrimination cases, is incompatible with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The standard required majority-group members to meet a higher evidentiary burden, which the Court found violates Title VII’s guarantee of equal protection. The lower courts that had dismissed her claims for failing to meet the ‘background circumstances standard’ will now reassess them. The Supreme Court’s ruling standardizes discrimination claims under Title VII, making it easier for majority-group individuals to challenge workplace bias. This could intensify debates over diversity and equity programs. 

Sources: Supreme Court, The New York Times  

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on 1 May, which directed the ending of federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The funding had already been appropriated by Congress. The executive order argued that the news media organizations were biased; these have been the objects of criticism by conservative and Republican actors, who consider that they sympathize with causes that are championed by America’s political left. NPR and PBS have decried the measure as contrary to freedom of expression and imperilling their ability to operate. They have initiated legal challenges to the executive order. Cuts to media organizations follow those ordered in March to the US Agency for Global Media (under which Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia operate), with the matter currently being challenged in the courts. 

Sources:  The White House, AP, NBC News