In the shadows of a sprawling tax-and-spending package backed by Donald Trump, Senate Republicans have quietly slipped in a clause that could sharply curtail the power of federal judges—especially those who’ve been a thorn in the side of past Trump policies.
Unveiled by Senator Chuck Grassley, the new language in the Senate version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would make it significantly harder for challengers to halt federal actions. It demands that anyone seeking a preliminary injunction post a bond—essentially, a financial cushion to cover government costs if a court later decides the injunction wasn’t justified.
The move stands in stark contrast to the House version of the bill, which instead attempts to defang judges through limits on their power to hold officials in contempt for ignoring court orders. That means no more fines, no more jail time—just words without teeth.
At its core, the Senate provision weaponizes the bond requirement, something traditionally left unused in lawsuits against government agencies. It’s a high-cost tollgate for litigants trying to pause federal programs in court. If you can’t afford the bond, you might not get the injunction.
This push didn’t come out of nowhere. Trump-era policies on immigration, health care, and climate were frequently frozen in their tracks by nationwide injunctions. Republican lawmakers, incensed by these legal setbacks, have been gunning to shut down that judicial lane ever since.
The White House even issued marching orders back in March, nudging federal agencies to ask for bonds in these cases. Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to bake that strategy into law.
While the House passed the “No Rogue Rulings Act” earlier this year—a more direct assault on injunctions—the Senate hasn’t picked it up. Instead, Republicans are threading their version through budget legislation, using procedural rules that let them dodge the typical 60-vote threshold in the Senate. A simple majority is all they need.
Beyond the bond clause, the Senate proposal includes funds for a study into how much these injunctions cost taxpayers, and for training judges on what Republicans are now framing as their downsides.
Democrats aren’t buying it. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, called the proposal a political shield for a law-breaking presidency. “Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they’re beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not,” the statement read.
In short, this isn’t just about taxes anymore. The bill has become a battleground for the future of checks and balances, one bond at a time.
