The Trump administration has targeted the funding and academic freedom of some universities. Through a task force ostensibly established to combat antisemitism, the government has made a series of demands to Harvard University that impact its academic freedom as well as the privacy and wellbeing of students accused of engaging in antisemitic activity. These allegations have been rejected by the academic institution. In response, the government has ordered the withholding of federal funds amounting to billions of dollars, a decision currently being challenged by Harvard before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government’s measures against Harvard and other universities such as Columbia, The University of Pennsylvania and Cornell, are part of a larger group of policies intended to influence higher-education institutions, including executive orders that prohibit foreign funding of universities, eliminate DEI in admissions, hiring, and in accreditation processes. Officials have required higher-education institutions to shift from their racial diversity initiatives to introduce viewpoint diversity instead. 

 Sources: CNN, The Guardian, The White House, BBC, NYTimes, Just Security, PBS

On 28 April, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) instructing the publication of a list of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ (cities and counties that have not cooperated with the government’s policies on migration). Such jurisdictions would risk having federal grants and contracts terminated or suspended if they refuse to collaborate with immigration policy. The EO further directs the creation of guidance to prevent undocumented migrants from receiving federal benefits, and to stop the enforcement of local-level legislation and policies related to higher education and the criminal justice system that are deemed to benefit undocumented migrants. Several cities affected by previous directives to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions had filed suit prior to the publication of the EO, to challenge any retaliation for not abiding by the federal government’s immigration enforcement priorities and had obtained an injunction to prevent federal funds from being withheld. On 10 May, a federal judge decided that the 28 April EO could not bypass such an injunction.

 Sources: The White House, Reuters, Just Security

The Trump administration has turned to controversial legal grounds for expediting deportations, undercutting due process for hundreds of undocumented migrants. On 15 March, Trump signed a proclamation designating the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization, invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to summarily apprehend, detain and deport Venezuelans 14 years or older. That day, three planes carrying over 200 Venezuelans landed in El Salvador; the migrants have since been detained in a mega-prison, despite a judge’s order to stop and return the planes. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed Trump to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, but ruled that migrants must still be given notice and time to challenge their deportation.

Also on a 15 March flight was Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran man with a court protection from removal to El Salvador. Officials concede he was deported in error. In April the Supreme Court upheld a judge’s order to ‘facilitate’ Abrego’s return , but officials claim his return is not possible as he is now outside U.S. jurisdiction.

 Sources: The White House, Politico, CNN, AP, SCOTUS  

On 25 March, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) on electoral integrity. Among its provisions is a requirement to produce proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Further, it includes restrictions on mail-in ballots so that only those arriving by election day are counted, the exclusion of QR code or barcode technology for vote counting, and enabling DOGE and Department of Homeland Security access to voter registration information. The EO further directs the Election Assistance Commission, an independent and congressionally established entity, to take action to implement the EO’s provisions. The potential disenfranchisement of millions of people resulting from ID requirements, privacy concerns, and the threat to withhold federal funding from non-compliant states has further fuelled concerns. Legislation on some of these issues has passed in the House but is still to be considered by the Senate. The EO and the instructions for its implementation both appear to exceed the powers of the executive branch. 

 Sources: The White House, Brookings, NY Times, Washington Post, International IDEA

Several foreign activists and university students who have expressed support for Palestine are having their visas or permanent residency revoked, facing arrests by immigration officials and deportation proceedings, which the government has justified on foreign policy grounds. According to officials, the students have shown support for and alignment with Hamas and have undermined the Trump administration’s foreign policy. Officials have not charged the affected students with crimes, nor have they publicized evidence of the allegations against them. Government officials have further requested universities to turn over lists of students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. The use of the immigration system against legal residents and visa-holders for their political views is a startling violation of constitutional protections of freedom of expression. The students’ court cases before immigration and federal judges are ongoing. 

 Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, Washington Post, PBS

The Trump administration has issued executive orders and memos directing federal agencies to terminate contracts with businesses that are clients of some law firms, and ending the security clearances of the lawyers they employ. The law firms in question, which include Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling and Wilmerhale, have represented or employed people considered by the Trump administration to be political adversaries. Others have been targeted for implementing DEI policies in their hiring procedures. A memo to the Attorney General has further called for ethics investigations into individual lawyers who represent plaintiffs in cases against the government. These measures have led to several firms refusing to represent the targeted law firms, Trump critics, or former officials under the Biden administration. Others have made deals with the government to provide pro bono counsel for causes the President supports. Experts consider the executive orders to severely undermine freedom of expression, due process and the right to legal counsel. 

Sources: The White House (1), The White House (2), The White House (3), The White House (4), The White House (5), NY Times

About one million federal workers may no longer be represented in collective bargaining after a 27 March executive order excluded civil servants whose work is related to national security. The White House has asserted the decision has the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (that sought to improve the merit system in the civil service and federal employee-manager relations by affirming both legal protections to civil servants and managers’ authority) as its legal basis. The list of agencies and subdivisions that the executive order considers having ‘national security missions’ include those whose main work is foreign policy, health, veterans’ affairs and immigration, among others. Notably, the executive order does not exclude police officers and firefighters from collective bargaining. Union leaders have characterized the decision as retaliation for the lawsuits filed against the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the U.S. civil service, such as widespread cuts to the federal workforce and the dismantling of agencies and programs. Some unions have filed lawsuits against the decision.

Sources: The White House (1), The White House (2), NPR, AP

On 19 March, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation and responsible for damages of over USD 660 million, which according to the environmental organization could bankrupt its U.S. presence. Energy Transfer (a pipeline company) sued Greenpeace, arguing that three Greenpeace entities (Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund Inc.) had (in 2016 and 2017) organized criminal acts such as trespassing and deprivation of property access, and incited protests against the Dakota Access pipeline at Standing Rock. Greenpeace and legal experts have characterized the lawsuit as SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) litigation, aimed at silencing critics. Members of the Standing Rock Tribe have expressed their opposition to the company’s actions and share the view it had the purpose to silence their protests. Greenpeace will appeal before the North Dakota Supreme Court. It has raised concerns about jury biases on its ability to have a fair trial. Experts consider that the jury’s decision, along with the staggering amount of damages awarded, could have a chilling effect on the right to protest. 

 Sources: TIME, The Guardian, AlJazeera, Euro News

On 20 March, President Trump issued an executive order instructing the Secretary of Education to facilitate the Department’s closure, with the aim of leaving the issue of education to state and local authorities. While officials have stated that crucial services related to student loans and funding for low-income students and high-poverty schools will remain, cuts to staff and data collection have raised questions about if and how money can be allocated and distributed. Relatedly, the Department’s workforce has been significantly reduced, including staff in charge of allotting funding for rural and low-income schools, and USD 600 million in grants (most related to diversity and inclusion programs) have been ended. Republican lawmakers in Congress have put forward initiatives to close the Department, but their party’s slim majority in the House and Senate mean their approval is at this point unlikely. Since the Department of Education was established by Congress, the EO cannot by itself abolish it; it can only facilitate cuts and changes.

Sources: The White House, NBC News, NY Times, NPR

Undocumented migrants have been transported to third countries and the US military base in Guantanamo Bay for their ultimate repatriation. Rights groups and family members have sued on behalf of individual migrants and challenged the deportation schemes, given their impact on migrants’ rights, particularly due process. The US has resorted to agreements with El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Costa Rica and Panama to facilitate the deportation of nationals of countries with which diplomatic relations are inexistent or tense. In Panama, a country that received people swiftly deported from the US without the ability to claim asylum, activists have denounced a lack of access to legal counsel, translation services and prolonged detention. Officials claimed those sent to Guantanamo were high-risk detainees, that is, suspected of or known to have links to criminal groups, including those designated as terrorist. However, most have not been charged or convicted of serious crimes. By early March nearly 300 migrants had been transferred to Guantanamo; most were deported but around 40 people were sent back to the US, without the government explaining the reasons.

 Sources: NY Times, OHCHR, NBC News, BBC, CBS News

Following a January executive order that called for the suspension of Congress-approved foreign aid funds and the review of foreign aid programs, the Trump administration began placing thousands of employees of the US Agency for International Development on administrative leave. Despite ongoing litigation on the matter, by the end of February, officials had placed over half of USAID’s workforce of approximately 10,000 either on leave or had dismissed them, and announced only essential personnel (numbering in the several hundreds) would continue as part of the State Department. On 10 March, the Secretary of State announced the review of USAID’s programs had finalized; between 82 and 90 per cent of the agency’s programs have been terminated (representing about USD 51.6 billion in grants). According to the Secretary of State, the surviving programs would, in consultation with Congress, continue under the State Department. Despite USAID being a congressionally created agency, Republicans who hold a majority in both chambers have not pushed back on its dismantling.

Sources: TIME, ABC News, BBC, Just Security

The Associated Press (AP) journalists have been barred from accessing Oval Office and other White House events, as well as from boarding the presidential plane as part of the press pool, due to the AP’s editorial decision to continue referring to the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ with its original name, after the Trump administration issued an executive order to rename it as the ‘Gulf of America’. The AP filed a lawsuit against the government, claiming both free speech and due process violations. Litigation is ongoing.  

Sources: Associated Press (1), Associated Press (2) Just Security, The White House, The Conversation

President Donald Trump issued an executive order (EO) on 10 February, directing the Attorney General to pause the enforcement of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for 180 days. The FCPA was enacted with the objective of banning US companies, subsidiaries and other enterprises and individuals with ties to the US from offering or paying bribes to foreign officials. Critics of the FCPA have argued the legislation leaves American companies in an unfavourable position in markets where payments to officials are commonly conducted to facilitate business. President Trump has voiced opposition to the law since his first term, considering US companies are unable to compete on a level playing field with foreign enterprises. Days before the EO was issued, the Attorney General had issued a memorandum, prioritizing investigations into bribery that benefited cartels and terrorist organizations. While the EO only temporarily freezes the FCPA, it may undermine anti-corruption efforts at the domestic and international levels.

Sources: The White House, Voice of America, Just Security, CBS News, Reuters

Following his inauguration on 20 January, President Donald Trump embarked on a far-reaching effort to change the way that the United States government functions, principally through Executive Orders (EOs). On the day of the inauguration, President Trump signed 26 EOs; he had signed 46 by the end of January. While the use of EOs is not unique to this administration, the powers claimed by the President in many of these orders are nearly unprecedented in US-American history. The EOs that have ordered the government to halt disbursements of funds appropriated by Congress have relied on claims of executive power to intervene in the budgetary process that far exceed what has been permitted under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974. EOs and memoranda halting the disbursement of congressionally appropriated funds for services provided by states (such as Medicaid) and official development aid distributed by agencies such as USAID were suspended through emergency orders granted by federal courts, but not before they generated destructive levels of uncertainty for the agencies affected. The lack of response from Congress to this erosion of its constitutionally mandated powers has signalled the majority’s willingness to cede these powers to the executive branch.

The President has also delegated a great deal of policy-making power to a newly established agency called the Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE). This agency is functionally led by businessman Elon Musk, although his only formal role in the US government is as an advisor to the President. The vast powers to intervene in government departments that President Trump has delegated to this agency have generated significant problems for democratic accountability and have introduced damaging levels of arbitrariness in the functioning of the government. 

Many of the EOs have been challenged in legal proceedings, contributing to further uncertainty about the content of the law and US government policy until these cases are resolved.

Sources: Federal Register, Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio, American Broadcasting Company News, Just Security

On 20 January, President Trump issued an executive order commuting the sentences of 14 people convicted of crimes related to the January 6 riots (members of extremist organizations Proud Boys and Oath Keepers) and granted pardons to the rest of January 6 defendants (which exceed 1,500 people), including people charged or convicted of violence against police and media and seditious conspiracy. Across the political spectrum, politicians and experts have denounced the blanket pardons for their incompatibility with accountability and the rule of law. 

Before leaving office, President Biden pre-emptively pardoned the members and staff of the congressional committee that investigated the January 6 riot (as well as Capitol and D.C. police who testified), and General Mark Milley and Dr. Anthony Fauci. He also pre-emptively pardoned five members of his family, citing the risk of them facing politically motivated prosecutions.

Sources: The White House, The Washington Post, NBC, Reuters, CNN, Biden White House Archive (1), Biden White House Archive (2)

On 29 January, President Donald Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law. This piece of legislation establishes that undocumented migrants who are charged with crimes that involve injury or death, but also non-violent crimes such as shoplifting, should be detained and deported by federal officials, even without a conviction. It also enables state attorneys general to file lawsuits against federal government immigration enforcement policy (for example regarding the release or decision not to detain certain undocumented migrants, such as non-violent offenders). Named after a nursing school student killed by a Venezuelan migrant, the piece of legislation received bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, although it was opposed by a majority of Democrats. It received widespread criticism, as due process guarantees and presumption of innocence are not duly considered in its provisions, and for the impact it will have on community members, including DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients. 

Sources: U.S. Congress, AP News, ACLU, NPR, CNN

President Donald Trump has moved to significantly restrict immigration and the right to seek asylum. Through executive orders, the Trump administration has declared the situation at the southern border to be a national emergency, directing the armed forces to repel undocumented migration (along with trafficking in persons and narcotics). The orders further call for the evaluation of visa programs, significantly restrict access to legal status and humanitarian protection, ending parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, whose legal status is now uncertain. They also suspend refugee resettlement and most decisions on applications for refugee status. Executive orders that in the previous administration sought to facilitate the reunification of migrant families have been rescinded. The move to restrict birthright citizenship, excluding children born to undocumented migrants has been particularly controversial. Rights organizations, local officials and religious organizations have filed lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of these orders.

Sources: NBC, ProPublica, Just Security 

Executive orders issued in January determine that the US policy will be to only recognize the male and female sex, rejecting the concept of gender identity. Government-issued identification and paperwork will no longer reflect a person’s gender identity and federal agencies have been directed to issue guidance ‘protecting sex-based distinctions’ and access to single-sex spaces in settings such as prisons (where gender-affirming care will no longer be supported), detention centres and shelters. A specific order further prevents transgender people from serving in the military.

Additional executive orders have ended 'diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA) programs, which have been characterized by the Trump administration as illegal discrimination. This includes the termination of all DEI, DEIA and ‘environmental justice’ positions and of the hiring of federal officials pursuant to DEI. The orders have been challenged before the courts, and in the interim have created a great deal of uncertainty for those affected by the orders. 

Update: In March, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the closure of its environmental justice offices, whose work included the analysis and relief of the impact of pollution on marginalized communities and people living in poverty. 

Sources: NBC, Just Security, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

An executive order issued by President Donald Trump on 20 January instructs the Attorney General not to enforce a divest-or-ban legislation regarding social media platform TikTok, for 75 days. Legislation enacted in April 2024, expressly classified TikTok as a “foreign adversary controlled application”, citing national security and data-collection and privacy. The platform petitioned for review before the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the legislation on First Amendment grounds. After the D.C. Circuit denied the petition, TikTok appealed to the Supreme Court. On 17 January, the Supreme Court upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, reasoning that Congress’s worries regarding national security over the platform’s data collection and relationship to China did not violate TikTok’s First Amendment rights. However, President Trump’s executive order has enabled the app to continue functioning in the United States.   

Sources: The White House, U.S. Supreme Court, CNN, New York Times

The Trump administration dismissed 18 federal agency Inspectors General (IGs) from their posts through email notifications from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. IGs are independent oversight officials within federal agencies, tasked with identifying potential misconduct or abuse. Pursuant to the Inspector General Act, the removal of IGs from their posts requires Congress to be notified 30 days in advance, and that substantive and case-specific reasons are laid out to justify the removal. A group of eight IGs filed suit to challenge the legality of the dismissals, under the Inspector General Act, with the case still ongoing. The mass removal of IGs raises concerns that anti-corruption efforts will be weakened.

 Sources: The Guardian, New York Times, Associated Press, New York City Bar, Just Security