Trump Orders DOJ to Demand Money Bonds From Challengers in Court

President Donald Trump on Thursday announced a new policy requiring US Justice Department attorneys to “demand” in court that challengers suing the administration should post money bonds if they win orders blocking his actions.

The president’s latest directive follows a string of rulings from federal judges across the country halting the administration’s efforts to suspend or permanently cut billions of dollars in spending in the US and overseas and to shrink the size of the federal workforce.

Bonds would allow the administration to recoup money it had spent if the Justice Department succeeded in contesting a lower court judge’s ruling on appeal. Federal court rules allow for these kinds of requests, but judges recently have said that it’s unusual to see them in cases involving broad challenges to executive actions.

Trump’s memo states that the requirement for Justice Department lawyers is intended to “deter frivolous litigation, protect parties from unwarranted costs, and streamline judicial processes.” Trump’s new policy applies to all lawsuits against the US government “where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs” if a judge rules against them.

Several judges have rejected the Trump administration’s bond demands in recent weeks. A Maryland federal judge who granted an injunction last month blocking the administration from cutting off federal grants and contracts to entities that engage in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs entered a bond of zero dollars, effectively denying the government’s request.

The judge wrote that courts historically had waived imposing a bond “in cases where a fundamental constitutional right is at stake” and that requiring plaintiffs to post a large sum of money upfront likely would mean they couldn’t press the case.

A Washington judge who blocked the administration’s mass freeze of federal funding also recently denied a bond request.

“In a case where the government is alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients, it would defy logic — and contravene the very basis of this opinion — to hold plaintiffs hostage for the resulting harm,” US District Judge Loren AliKhan wrote.

The federal court rule at issue states that judges can only issue an injunction or temporary restraining order if the party asking for the order puts up a security “that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages.” But judges are given discretion to decide what’s appropriate.

A Maryland judge who temporarily blocked employees affiliated with the administration’s “Department of Government Efficiency” project from accessing certain records at two federal agencies ordered the plaintiffs to post $10,000 as a security. The Justice Department hadn’t asked for that in its brief and US District Judge Deborah Boardman didn’t explain in her opinion why she ordered it.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case and a Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Zoe Tillman in Washington at ztillman2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Sara Forden at sforden@bloomberg.net

Peter Blumberg, Steve Stroth

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.