WASHINGTON — Buried deep inside a House-approved bill advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda is a little-known provision that one judge called a trillion-dollar barricade against challenging his policies in federal courts. This clause could fatally weaken judges’ power to enforce rulings that block Trump’s policies deemed illegal—a power already exercised over 180 times.
Usually, judges ensure compliance by holding government officials in contempt if they defy court orders, a tool that can bring hefty fines, sanctions, or even jail time. But this obscure provision would strip judges of that enforcement authority unless the party seeking to uphold the order posts a bond—sometimes matching astronomical amounts at stake, including trillions tied up in federal grants.
Without the threat of contempt, legal experts warn the Trump administration could brazenly ignore court rulings with no repercussions. Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, explained this would essentially render U.S. courts powerless to enforce injunctions or restraining orders through contempt.
The measure centers on Rule 65(c) of federal civil procedure, which demands a bond to cover potential losses if an injunction is later overturned. While judges traditionally decide the bond’s size, courts have typically waived this requirement in cases against the government, since these lawsuits usually contest policies or constitutional matters rather than financial damages.
One telling example involved U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, who denied the Trump administration’s bid to demand a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits after she blocked the government’s freeze on all federal grants. AliKhan noted that despite the government allegedly withholding trillions in promised funds, it would suffer no monetary harm from her injunction.
Why is this bond demand suddenly emerging? The provision tucked into the budget reconciliation bill forbids federal courts from enforcing contempt penalties for injunctions or restraining orders unless bonds were posted at the time those orders were issued. It applies retroactively, potentially neutering many existing court orders.
Although judges could still impose nominal bonds, experts warn that the added procedural step would slow enforcement significantly. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School, told USA TODAY that any injunction or restraining order without a posted bond would lose the power of contempt enforcement altogether.
This legislative change mirrors a Trump administration memo from March, directing the Justice Department to seek bonds in all lawsuits as a shield against costs tied to wrongly issued injunctions. The memo stressed holding litigants accountable for what it termed “ill-granted injunctions.”
Trump has signed an unprecedented 157 executive orders within four months, sparking more than 250 lawsuits challenging sweeping policies—from agency reorganizations to immigration crackdowns and tariffs. Courts have already blocked several deportation-related policies, including:
- A judge in Washington, D.C., found probable cause that the government criminally violated a court order by attempting to deport Venezuelans labeled as gang members before they had a chance to challenge the designation.
- In Maryland, courts have repeatedly held hearings regarding the deportation of a Salvadoran immigrant who was removed despite an active immigration court order blocking his removal.
- In Massachusetts, a judge ruled the government broke an order halting deportations to certain countries after six migrants were sent to South Sudan. The administration has appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to lift the ban.
Trump and his supporters argue these judicial decisions infringe on presidential authority over national security and foreign policy. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the judges “rogue” but maintained the administration would comply with court orders while fighting and winning cases on their merits.
Legal experts warn that forcing deported immigrants to post bonds would effectively bar their cases from federal courts. Without enforcement tools, the government might simply ignore court orders altogether. Veteran attorney Mark Foley noted, “If they can just ignore the order, they don’t have to appeal it. It’s a win-win for them.”
This battle over injunction enforcement raises serious questions about separation of powers. Congress, responding to the executive branch’s demands, risks undercutting the judiciary’s critical role in checking presidential power.
While Trump has blasted judges who oppose him, he’s pledged to comply with court orders he dislikes only to appeal them. His administration has filed an extraordinary 14 emergency requests with the Supreme Court to uphold his policies, with several still pending.
Not all lawmakers backing the bill were aware of this controversial provision. Rep. Mike Flood, a Nebraska Republican, condemned it publicly, urging the Senate to remove the section. “I believe federal courts should have the full force of law when issuing injunctions,” he said.
Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa agreed, stating the bond rule “will not be” in the Senate version, expecting the parliamentary rules to exclude it since it lacks direct budgetary impact.
In the end, this obscure provision could dramatically reshape the balance of power among branches of government, with profound consequences for the judiciary’s ability to enforce the law and restrain executive overreach.
