The Trump administration promotes legislation to raise the threshold for "citizen suing the government": a deposit must be paid before suing the government

As U.S. President Trump’s policies increasingly face court injunctions, Trump and his allies are attempting to respond with a different strategy: making those who sue the government pay a higher financial price.

Media reports indicate that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives previously proposed: requiring those who sue the U.S. government to pay a bond in advance, in case they win a temporary injunction but ultimately lose, so they can compensate the government for its losses. This would raise the threshold for lawsuits, making plaintiffs "take risks and incur costs," preventing them from easily halting government policies. This proposal was included in the Republicans' so-called "Big Beautiful" tax reform bill. The bill also stipulates that if this bond is not paid, judges cannot punish federal officials for contempt of court for violating the ruling.

Media reports state that, despite facing significant resistance, the idea of making it more expensive to sue the government is gaining increasing support. However, critics argue that this is another tactic by the Trump administration to deter people from filing lawsuits.

In addition to this tax law proposal, Republican lawmakers have introduced another bill: if someone sues the government but ultimately loses, they must compensate the government for its legal fees after losing. Meanwhile, Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to require plaintiffs to pay a bond when courts temporarily halt his policies. Trump is also targeting law firms, citing reasons such as these firms having worked for Democrats or having diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring policies.

Trump’s Policies Have Faced Over 400 Lawsuits, Losing More Than Winning

Historically, U.S. courts have typically not required plaintiffs to post bonds in cases involving the federal government. However, recently, some bond amounts proposed by the Trump administration have been quite high, such as a demand for $120,000 in a lawsuit related to union negotiations, and another case involving billions of dollars in clean energy subsidies, where the government requested a "high" bond. Judges in these cases have mostly rejected requests for high bonds, with some setting them symbolically at $10, $100, or even $1.

Civil rights attorney Eve Hill is currently suing the government over issues related to the treatment of transgender prisoners and the operations of the Social Security Administration. She stated:

"If that money has to be paid, many people will be unable to defend their rights."

Since Trump took office, his policies have faced over 400 lawsuits, covering issues such as immigration, government spending, and federal employees. Media analysis shows that Trump has lost more cases than he has won.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers issued a statement saying,

"Radical organizations are abusing the litigation process to obstruct the president's agenda, and requiring these irresponsible organizations to post bonds to compensate for the costs and losses caused by their wrongful lawsuits is entirely reasonable."

Dan Huff, the White House lawyer during Trump’s first term, supports this proposal but believes it needs modifications, such as clarifying that it only applies to temporary rulings and not all injunctions.

Some judges have already ruled in certain cases that the government has not fully complied with court orders. Alexander Reinert, a professor at Cardozo Law School, stated that Congress proposing such a measure at this time is "concerning and quite unusual."

"Completely Illogical"

The media reports that some actions taken by the Trump administration to combat lawsuits have had an impact. For example, they threatened to investigate the hiring policies of law firms, which prompted some firms to reach agreements to no longer participate in challenges to Trump’s policies.

However, other attempts by the Trump administration have not been as successful. Most judges have rejected the high bond requirements proposed by the Department of Justice. One judge wrote when dismissing the government's request for the plaintiffs to post a bond:

"Forcing non-profit organizations to post a bond in exchange for the government being willing to pay funds it should already be paying is completely illogical."

This bond provision in the tax reform bill was pushed by loyal supporters of Trump. Congressman Andy Biggs, a member of the Judiciary Committee, advocated for the inclusion of this provision. Congressman Jim Jordan stated in a media interview that Biggs and another Republican, Harriet Hageman, were "crucial in pushing this provision."

Hageman issued a statement saying that this regulation would "greatly curb judicial abuse of power, stopping enforcement solely based on opposition to a policy, regardless of what the law says."

Liberals have fiercely criticized this provision, viewing it as an attack on judicial power. However, whether it can ultimately pass in the Senate may not depend on whether it is controversial. This is because Republicans want to advance the entire bill through the "budget reconciliation" process, which requires that all provisions be directly related to the budget.

"We Will Find a Way to Get It Passed"

Some Republican lawmakers have also questioned whether this proposal can meet the rules of budget reconciliation. However, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan stated that if the Senate ultimately does not adopt this provision, Republicans will find other ways to make it law. He said,

"We will definitely find other ways to advance it."

The controversy over the bond stems from existing federal rules. According to this rule, judges can only issue temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions after the plaintiffs post a bond deemed appropriate by the court. This money is meant to cover the government's costs and losses in case the plaintiffs lose.

Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, supports setting a bond. He believes that while courts can consider whether plaintiffs have the ability to pay, the government should also receive some compensation when a court injunction is ultimately overturned.

Alexandra Lahav, a professor at Cornell Law School, stated that courts have traditionally viewed this provision as granting judges discretion to waive the bond. She also pointed out that such issues typically arise in commercial disputes involving clear monetary losses, rather than in cases against the government.

"I don't quite understand how to set a bond in cases like 'should there be a hearing before deportation.' I really don't know how to price that situation."