After months of work on Trump's spending bill, House Republicans passed the legislative package — titled the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — on May 22, 2025. The next day, claims that the budget included a provision that, if the bill were to pass in the Senate, would legally eliminate U.S. courts' ability to enforce contempt charges against government officials began to spread across multiple platforms (archived, archived, archived, archived).
One post (archived) on Facebook that users shared more than 31,000 times, as of this writing, claimed:
A small addition to the budget bill House GOPers are pushing upends the traditional balance of power by forbidding courts to charge Trump and other government officials with contempt for defying court orders.
The bill also blocks court-ordered national injunctions to prevent potential illegal acts posing imminent harm.
With the SCOTUS ruling giving Trump immunity, this small part of the bill completes his quest to become America's first dictator.
The section of the budget these posts reference does exist. However, the posts fail to capture certain nuances in the potential impacts of the provision. In reality, the provision will likely not "forbid" courts from charging Trump and other government officials with contempt for defying court orders, but it would make it more difficult for them to do so.
Details of the provision
Buried in the bill on
SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT.
No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.
While the provision does not necessarily corroborate the claim in its entirety, it would significantly limit courts' ability to check executive power. Most recently, the Trump administration has dismissed judges' orders in several deportation cases, including an order to return Kilmar Abrego Garci
Jeff Feldman, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law, wrote via email: "That language, on its face, would not eliminate the court's ability to enforce contempt charges against the government. It would make it much more difficult, though." He also noted that he had not reviewed the entirety of the legislation (which is more than 1,000 pages long), and there could be language or other provisions within the bill that impact the meaning or provide context for the language of the provision in question.
Feldman elaborated:
While the language in the bill does not eliminate the court's ability to enforce contempt charges against the government, by conditioning contempt power on the requirement that security have been posted, the language makes it much more difficult to obtain an enforceable injunction and, likewise, makes it much less likely that a government agency or individual will be found to be in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of an injunction.
In other words, according to the language in the bill, if the government fails to comply with an injunction — a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action — U.S. courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) do not have the right to enforce a contempt citation — the consequence for an act of disobedience or disrespect toward the judicial branch — unless the plaintiffs have paid security (most commonly a bond). Without paying a bond, plaintiffs would not have access to federal courts.
How the provision would interfere with courts obtaining an injunction
There are several reasons
- First, the government is not a private business or individual who could suffer economically if issued an injunction; this is the purpose of plaintiffs providing security. Injunctions do not pose the same risk to government agencies or individuals and the government will not "go out of business" as a result of an injunction.
- Second, because the government is not a business or individual, it would be very difficult for courts to determine the amount of required security.
- Lastly, individuals and groups suing the government do not have access to the kind of money that the government is likely to argue is necessary to protect the government during the injunction period, nor would individuals or groups likely have access to the substantial assets required to obtain a bond as security.
Defiance toward federal courts is also highly unpopular with the American public. A recent Pew Research poll found that nearly 78% of Americans say "the administration has to follow the court's ruling and stop its action" if a federal court rules that an action by the Trump administration is illegal.
In sum, the provision social media posts referenced in regard to balance of power between the Trump administration and federal courts is a real part of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," although it does not explicitly say it would "forbid" courts to charge Trump and other government officials with contempt for defying court orders. The bill would, however, make the process more difficult because the provision would require plaintiffs to post an undetermined amount of money for a U.S. court to enforce a contempt citation, while the U.S. government has access to offensive and defensive resources otherwise unavailable to the general public.