Weekly Update: June 9

Your weekly rundown of the latest kleptocratic actions by the Trump administration.

Jun 13, 2025

Trump and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Bill

Passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025, H.R.1 - One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now under consideration by the Senate, is actually a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Bill.

In Judith Viorst's 1972 book, "Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day," the title character Alexander suffers a series of misfortunes—gum in his hair in the morning, no prize in his cereal box, a cavity uncovered during a visit to the dentist, and lima beans for dinner—all adding up to one absolutely awful day. Similar to Alexander's no good day, the provisions in H.R. 1 add up to one very bad bill for Americans, for American democracy, and for the rule of law.

It's not just the potential impact of H.R. 1 on Medicare—nearly $800 billion in proposed cuts—or on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—another $267 billion in proposed cuts—or on the federal deficit—an increase of $2.4 trillion over the 2025–2034 period that is alarming. Tucked into the more 1,000 page bill is provision Section 70302, titled “Restriction on Enforcement," that has received significantly less attention but has the potential to be just as terrible as the cuts noted above.

If successful, Section 70302 would essentially gut the ability of courts to hold people in contempt, potentially shielding President Trump and members of his administration from the consequences of violating court orders. Judges have contemplated contempt proceedings, for example, in a number of recent deportation-related orders, including one stopping flights deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, another issued by the Supreme Court to facilitate the release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from a Salvadoran prison, and a third blocking the administration from deporting people to countries that were not their own without giving them sufficient time to object.

Here is how it would work. Often, when individual or organization sues the government for breaking the law, courts issue "preliminary injunctions" or "temporary restraining orders." These are orders to pause the action, and in some cases to correct harms. Section 70302 would change how this works. Right now, if you feel the government has done wrong and you sue, you do not have to pay anything other than lawyers fees, and in some cases, court fees. Section 70302 would require plaintiffs to put down a “security,” a financial guarantee that would pay the government if a later decision reversed an injunction or restraining order. This has two effects. First, it places a tremendous risk burden on people merely trying to enforce their rights. Second, it would block federal judges from enforcing their contempt citations if they had not previously ordered a bond. According to Notre Dame law professor Samuel L. Bray, many judges do not order injunction bonds in cases where people are seeking to stop government actions that they claim are unconstitutional—they reason that Americans should not have to risk going millions of dollars into debt to protect their rights.

What is worse, this legislation would apply retroactively, allowing the government to ignore past judgments that did not have a bond attached. In particular, this could have a tremendous effect on the many successful lawsuits that challenge Trump's claims of authority under the Alien Enemies Act.

The Brennan Center for Justice describes Section 70302 as a "brazen assault on the rule of law," emphasizing that so far this year "190 court rulings have temporarily or permanently halted administration actions, and several judges have found that the administration violated court orders. At least one judge has found probable cause to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for 'willful disobedience'."

Liberals, small-government conservatives, business owners, and local governments all should be concerned that the bill would, in essence, create a situation where the administration could ignore the courts or exact high fees on plaintiffs.

The Big Picture

Section 70302 is just one terrible tactic in the Trump administration's broad attack on the rule of law. In last week's update, we catalogued Attorney General Pam Bondi's efforts to undermine independent courts, weaken accountability, and redefine criminality. As Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem leads an unprecedented expansion of a program that allows local officers to function as deportation agents during routine policing, she appears to have a very bad understanding of constitutional law, erroneously describing habeus corpus—the constitutional provision that allows people to legally challenge their detention by the government—as “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.”

And on May 26, 2025, in honor of the men and women who have died while serving in the US military, President Trump wrote in all caps, “HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY...THROUGH JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER, AND RAPE AGAIN—ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. HOPEFULLY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND OTHER GOOD AND COMPASSIONATE JUDGES THROUGHOUT THE LAND, WILL SAVE US FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE MONSTERS WHO WANT OUR COUNTRY TO GO TO HELL."

With this type of rhetoric, it should come as no surprise that, according to internal data compiled by the US Marshals Service, threats against federal judges have risen drastically since Trump took office.

Weekly Wins

Revenge of the Lawyers

Since its February 25 announcement targeting Covington and Burling LLP, the Trump Administration has exerted maximum pressure—including terminating federal contracts, barring the firms' lawyers from federal buildings, and revoking security clearances—against law firms that have worked for Democrats or aided in legal efforts to investigate his ties to Russia.

Last week, DC lawyers seized an opportunity to push back. Brad Bondi, former lawyer for the Trump Media & Technology Group and brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi, suffered an overwhelming loss in his bid to lead the DC Bar Association. His opponent, employment lawyer Diane Seltzer, secured more than 90% of the vote in a race that saw a record 43% turnout (up from 9% last year). During the campaign, Seltzer touted her work supporting federal workers on their rights regarding employee removal and reduction in force. A down-ballot election ended along similar lines, with Microsoft attorney Amanda Molina defeating another Trump administration figure, Justice Department lawyer Alicia Long, in the race for treasurer-elect. With 119,000 members, the DC Bar is the largest unified bar in the United States and includes members in all 50 US states.

In his concession speech, Bondi criticized his detractors as "rabid partisans," bemoaning a campaign characterized by "baseless attacks, identity politics, and partisan recrimination.”

The Resistance is Alive and Well...at the Serbian Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments

The Trump family is moving forward with international real estate deals in a wide range of countries including Vietnam, India, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Albania. In their efforts to placate the Trump Administration, these governments have potentially violated domestic regulations, expedited approvals, amended environmental laws, and revoked cultural protections. Most of these governments are autocratic and have faced no domestic pushback.

Until Belgrade.

Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and a key ally, Richard Grenell, aim to develop a Trump Tower-style high-rise on the site of an unofficial memorial to Serbian suffering during the 1999 (US-led) NATO bombing of Belgrade. Citing the building's historical significance, protestors have organized petitions and mass demonstrations. Despite warnings to "back off," dozens of architects and cultural historians at the state-run Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments opposed changing the monument's protected status and filed a letter of protest to the government and Ministry of Culture. Soon after, a criminal investigation was initiated by Serbia's organized crime prosecutor, leaving the future of the project in doubt. Officials later admitted to forging permissions to demolish the historic building.

Weekly Update: June 9

Your weekly rundown of the latest kleptocratic actions by the Trump administration.

Trump and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Bill

The Big Picture

Weekly Wins

Revenge of the Lawyers

The Resistance is Alive and Well...at the Serbian Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments

More positive acts of resisting kleptocracy

More links, more kleptocracy

Protection racket

Self-enrichment

Cronyism

Threats, intimidation, and surveillance

Executive power grabs

Weakening independent agencies

Justice Department

Civil service

Other agencies and local government

Attacks on civil society, media, and higher education

Aiding kleptocrats abroad

Discussion about this post