PROSECUTE THESE NUTS

CHARGE SHEETS — TRUMP ADMINISTRATION (2025–2026)

← BACK TO ALL PROFILES

DONALD J. TRUMP

President of the United States

Inaugurated January 20, 2025

These are allegations based on real stories reported by reputable sources. No charges have been filed as of publishing. The depiction of the individuals behind bars is political satire and commentary.

COUNT 1 — CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT

18 U.S.C. § 401 — Contempt of Court

On March 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an order temporarily halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and verbally directed Justice Department attorneys that any planes in the air "need to be returned." The administration did not turn the planes around. Two flights carrying over 200 men continued to El Salvador, where the deportees were imprisoned in the CECOT mega-prison without any opportunity to contest their removal. On April 16, 2025, Judge Boasberg ruled that "probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt" and that the administration's actions demonstrated "a willful disregard for its Order." A contempt inquiry remains active as of early 2026, with sworn testimony from senior officials including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove. A separate whistleblower complaint from fired DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni alleged that Bove directed the administration to disregard the court's order. Judge Boasberg found the deportations violated due process in December 2025 and ordered the government to facilitate the return of the deportees or provide constitutionally adequate hearings.

Sources:

COUNT 2 — CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT (ABREGO GARCIA)

18 U.S.C. § 401 — Contempt of Court

On March 15, 2025, the administration deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in direct violation of a 2019 immigration court order barring his removal to that country. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government must "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return. The administration refused for months. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis found that "Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance." The Fourth Circuit called the government's conduct "shocking" and wrote that it was "asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process." Abrego Garcia was eventually returned — but only to face criminal charges that court records suggest were initiated as retaliation for his legal challenge. A top DOJ official called charging him a "top priority," and the case was fast-tracked at the direction of the Deputy Attorney General's office only after Abrego Garcia sued to contest his deportation.

Sources:

COUNT 3 — DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

18 U.S.C. § 242 — Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

President Trump directed the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute individuals identified as his personal political adversaries. He publicly ordered action against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Federal Reserve Board Member Lisa Cook, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell — in each case on social media before any investigation had begun. The Comey and James indictments were thrown out by a federal judge. The investigation of Lisa Cook was opened after Trump posted on Truth Social calling for her resignation; she had refused to step down from the Fed under political pressure. The investigation of Jerome Powell followed Trump's public statements that Powell had "mental problems" and that he would love to "fire his ass." These prosecutions and investigations target individuals for lawful conduct — performing their official duties, exercising prosecutorial discretion, or refusing to bend to presidential demands — and constitute deprivation of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under color of federal authority.

Sources:

COUNT 4 — OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

18 U.S.C. § 1503 — Obstruction of Justice / 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) — Witness Tampering

On his first day in office, President Trump pardoned approximately 1,500 individuals convicted of or awaiting trial for offenses related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The pardons covered individuals convicted of seditious conspiracy, felony assault on law enforcement officers, assault with deadly weapons, obstruction of official proceedings, and destruction of government property. Among those pardoned or granted commutations were Stewart Rhodes (Oath Keepers founder, 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy), Enrique Tarrio (Proud Boys leader, 22-year sentence for seditious conspiracy), David Dempsey (20-year sentence for stomping on police officers' heads and spraying bear mace), and Peter Schwartz (14-year sentence for assaulting officers with a chair and pepper spray). More than 140 police officers were injured during the attack. While the pardon power is broad, using it to reward participants in an attack on a coordinate branch of government — an attack undertaken to keep the pardoning president in power — raises serious questions about obstruction of justice and accessory-after-the-fact liability. Trump had previously been indicted for conspiring to overturn the very election that the January 6 attackers sought to disrupt; those charges were dropped only because he won reelection.

Sources:

COUNT 5 — VIOLATION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT

5 U.S.C. App. § 3(b) — Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended 2022)

On January 24, 2025 — his fifth day in office — President Trump fired 17 Inspectors General via a two-sentence email citing "changing priorities." The 1978 Inspector General Act, as strengthened by Congress in 2022, requires the president to provide Congress with 30 days' advance written notice and "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" before removing an Inspector General. Trump provided neither. On September 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled that "President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious." The firings eliminated the independent watchdogs responsible for investigating waste, fraud, abuse, and the very conduct described in this and related charge sheets. The USAID Inspector General was fired shortly after his office released a report warning the administration's actions had "significantly impacted USAID's capacity to disburse and safeguard its humanitarian assistance programming." The administration subsequently defunded the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), taking down whistleblower reporting portals and tens of thousands of oversight reports.

Sources:

COUNT 6 — UNLAWFUL IMPOUNDMENT OF FUNDS

2 U.S.C. §§ 684–685 — Impoundment Control Act

Through executive orders and directives to agency heads, President Trump froze billions of dollars in congressionally appropriated funds across multiple agencies, including foreign aid, domestic grants, scientific research funding, and public health programs. Multiple federal judges ordered the release of frozen funds, finding the impoundments unlawful. The Impoundment Control Act — passed in 1974 in response to President Nixon's similar impoundments — prohibits the executive branch from withholding funds that Congress has appropriated without following specific statutory procedures requiring congressional approval. The administration impounded funds through DOGE-directed freezes, HHS grant pullbacks, Education Department defunding, and USAID dissolution, among other mechanisms.

Sources:

COUNT 7 — VIOLATION OF THE FOREIGN EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

Three days before his inauguration, President Trump launched the $TRUMP meme coin cryptocurrency. Through entities wholly owned by the Trump Organization — Fight Fight Fight LLC and CIC Digital — Trump and his business partners earned over $320 million in trading fees while more than 800,000 investors lost a combined $2 billion. A Raskin-led House Judiciary Committee investigation found that Trump's cryptocurrency ventures were "entangled with foreign governments, corporate allies, and criminal actors" and added billions to his net worth. In April 2025, Trump announced that the top 220 meme coin holders would receive dinner with the president, and the top 25 would receive a private VIP reception and White House tour. A Bloomberg analysis found that 19 of the top 25 holders were likely foreign nationals. The top holder was Justin Sun, a Chinese crypto billionaire facing an SEC fraud lawsuit — a lawsuit the administration froze after Sun invested $75 million in Trump's separate World Liberty Financial crypto venture. Sun subsequently became an official adviser to World Liberty Financial and attended events at the White House complex. The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits any federal officeholder from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" without congressional consent. No consent was sought or given.

Sources:

COUNT 8 — BRIBERY

18 U.S.C. § 201 — Bribery of Public Officials

The $TRUMP meme coin dinner explicitly linked financial payments to presidential access. Companies publicly stated they purchased Trump's cryptocurrency to gain policy influence: Freight Technologies announced a $20 million purchase to help "advocate for fair, balanced, and free trade between Mexico and U.S." GD Culture Group, whose Chinese subsidiary may be subject to government influence, announced a $300 million purchase shortly after Trump signaled willingness to delay a TikTok ban. At least 34 of the top 220 dinner invitees sold their holdings immediately after attending, confirming the purchases were not investments but payments for access. This statute prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, or agreeing to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Sources:

COUNT 9 — RETALIATORY PROSECUTION

18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) — Witness Tampering / 18 U.S.C. § 242 — Deprivation of Rights

The administration vindictively prosecuted Kilmar Abrego Garcia after he challenged his wrongful deportation. Court records unsealed in December 2025 showed that the Deputy Attorney General's office called the prosecution a "top priority" and pushed for charges "sooner rather than later" — but only after Abrego Garcia filed suit. The DOJ attorney who truthfully told a court that the government had mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia, Erez Reuveni, was fired. He subsequently filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that senior DOJ officials directed the administration to disregard court orders and that government lawyers lied to the court about the events surrounding the deportation. The firing of Reuveni for truthful testimony constitutes retaliation against a witness and whistleblower.

Sources:

COUNT 10 — CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (Klein Conspiracy)

The actions described in Counts 1 through 9 do not reflect isolated decisions but a coordinated pattern: firing the independent watchdogs who investigate executive branch misconduct; directing the Department of Justice to prosecute political enemies while dropping cases against allies; pardoning participants in an attack on Congress undertaken to keep Trump in power; defying court orders with impunity; and using the presidency as a vehicle for personal financial enrichment through cryptocurrency schemes entangled with foreign actors. Taken together, these actions constitute a conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful functions of the United States government — specifically, the functions of the judiciary (through contempt and defiance), of Congress (through impoundment and IG firings), and of the Department of Justice (through political weaponization). The Klein conspiracy doctrine does not require an agreement to commit a specific offense; it applies to any conspiracy to obstruct a lawful function of the government by deceitful or dishonest means.

Sources:

Note: All individuals listed above deny wrongdoing. The President of the United States has not been charged with any offenses; under longstanding Department of Justice policy, a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. These charge sheets represent reported conduct mapped to applicable federal statutes for the purposes of political commentary and satire. No charges have been filed against any individual listed. This document does not constitute legal advice or a legal determination of guilt.

← BACK TO ALL PROFILES