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 concerning an executive order halting birthright citizenship. The Court held that lower federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions while litigation is ongoing. Universal injunctions are broad orders that block the enforcement of a law or policy for everyone, not just for the parties directly involved in the case. According to the majority opinion, such expansive preliminary injunctions are not authorized under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which did not empower federal trial judges to oversee executive action on a national scale. However, federal Circuit Courts of Appeals can still issue injunctions that apply within their jurisdictions, meaning contested policies may be blocked regionally but not nationwide. The Court emphasized that other avenues for broader relief remain, such as class action lawsuits. 

Supporters argue the ruling curtails the practice of ‘judge shopping,’ where litigants strategically seek out sympathetic courts to secure nationwide blocks on executive policies, often stalling the agendas of presidents from both major political parties. Critics, however, warn that restricting universal injunctions risks consolidating power in the executive, as contested policies may take effect nationwide even while their legality is unresolved. The ruling did not address the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order but allows its enforcement while challenges continue in the courts.

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

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 circumstance 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 

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

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

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