On Thursday, President Donald Trump issued a directive aimed at holding activist groups financially accountable when they sue the federal government. The memo instructs agency heads to request federal judges to mandate financial guarantees from plaintiffs if an injunction is deemed unnecessary. This move comes amid over 90 lawsuits challenging executive actions since January 20. By requiring security amounts based on assessed harm, the administration aims to curb what it sees as judicial overreach and ensure litigants are held responsible for potential damages.

The memorandum, signed by President Trump, mandates federal agencies to collaborate with Attorney General Pam Bondi to petition federal courts for adherence to a rule that demands financial guarantees from parties seeking injunctions. While federal judges retain the ultimate authority to decide on these guarantees, the Department of Justice can invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to request judges enforce this requirement. Plaintiffs must provide financial assurances equivalent to the costs and damages the government might incur due to a wrongly issued preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.

The White House asserts that this directive will rein in "activist judges" and hold litigants accountable. According to a fact sheet obtained by Fox News Digital, agencies must justify the security amounts based on reasoned assessments of potential harm. If plaintiffs fail to meet these financial obligations without good cause, courts should deny or dissolve the injunctions. The administration believes this measure will prevent unelected district judges from overstepping their authority and interfering with executive policymaking.

The impact of this directive extends to the numerous lawsuits currently pending against the Trump administration. One notable case involves a Supreme Court ruling that upheld a district judge’s order requiring the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds. Since the original payment deadline has passed, the Supreme Court directed the case back to the lower court to determine future payment plans. The court emphasized the need for clarification on the government's obligations to comply with the temporary restraining order while considering feasible compliance timelines.

This new policy underscores the administration's effort to address what it perceives as judicial overreach and to ensure that those challenging government policies bear the financial responsibility for any potential harm caused by injunctive relief. The administration hopes this approach will streamline legal challenges and maintain the integrity of executive decision-making.