Liberal judges are once again bending the law to obstruct President Donald Trump’s agenda, this time by ignoring Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires plaintiffs to post a bond before an injunction can be granted. By disregarding this legal safeguard, these judges are making taxpayers foot the bill for frivolous lawsuits designed to grind Trump’s executive actions to a halt.
Daniel Huff, a senior legal fellow at the American Path Initiative and former Trump White House attorney, pointed out the blatant violations in an interview with The Daily Wire. “Essentially, what you’re creating here is a requirement that the government spend, on a per-month basis, something like $100 to $200 million to reinstate these people,” Huff said, referring to the recent court-ordered reinstatement of 25,000 federal workers Trump had fired. “That’s a huge cost.”
The math is simple. If the courts eventually side with Trump—something that appears likely—how do taxpayers get their money back? The answer is they don’t, because these left-wing activists in robes refuse to follow the law and require the plaintiffs to post a bond. Rule 65(c) exists to stop exactly this kind of legal abuse, forcing those bringing lawsuits to prove they actually have a case. Without the bond, it’s open season for activist groups to drag out litigation at taxpayer expense.
Huff noted that this isn’t just a one-off mistake but a pattern of lawfare designed to obstruct Trump’s policies on immigration, government reform, and other key issues. The sweeping nature of these judicial rulings is already draining public funds, a fact that has infuriated conservatives. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has suggested stripping these judges of jurisdiction, while Elon Musk has called for their removal.
But with Senate Democrats standing in the way, those solutions remain politically difficult. Instead, Trump’s administration is fighting back with a direct response. Last week, the White House issued guidance to all federal agencies, urging them to demand that courts enforce Rule 65(c) before issuing costly injunctions. “Consistent with applicable law, the heads of executive departments and agencies… are directed to ensure that their respective agencies properly request under Rule 65(c) that Federal district courts require plaintiffs to post security equal to the Federal Government’s potential costs and damages,” the memo reads.
The implications of this legal battle are massive. The left has spent years weaponizing the courts, using friendly judges to tie up conservative policies in endless litigation. But by refusing to follow even the most basic legal standards, these judges are revealing their own corruption. The Trump administration is finally taking a stand against judicial overreach, demanding accountability from a judiciary that has grown far too comfortable with lawless activism.
The American people voted for action, not bureaucratic sabotage. If federal judges continue to ignore the rules, they should expect to be called out—and, if necessary, removed. The days of unchecked judicial obstruction are coming to an end.
