Trump's Administration has finally taken notice of Rule 65(c) when it comes to Federal Courts.

(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

This is not discretionary and the court cannot assess a "de-minimus" security amount either; it must be defensible predicated on the costs and damages that the other party may or will suffer with the evidence of same in the order itself if the injunction or TRO issues until disposition of the case and the posting of said security has to be completed before the TRO or injunction is valid.

If, for example, you demand a payment that was frozen be unfrozen and the reason for allegedly freezing it is either executive discretion or suspected fraud you have to post up both the other side's projected legal bill and the full amount of the payment because if the injunction issues and in the fullness of time it is proved either fraudulent or within executive discretion to withhold odds are extremely high that said funds will be entirely unrecoverable.

Further, that security (either cash or a surety bond) is partially or entirely forfeit if the moving party drops the case; in that circumstance the enjoined party then files a motion laying out their costs and harms which is certainly subject to rebuttal and decision but the funds are impounded already to pay same so any release of that security is subject to those claims.

I pointed this out as soon as the suits commenced against the Trump Administration actions.

Anyone who has contemplated (say much less actually litigated) suing in federal court knows about this as his or her attorney has so-advised, and counsel that practices in the federal system are all very aware of this.  It is one of the reasons that injunctions are, relatively-speaking, somewhat rarely sought in federal court: If you seek one you're going to have to post up the potential harm to the other side when you do so and that is usually pretty darn expensive because in addition to the damage you get tagged, in every case, for the other side's legal fees if you lose.

Injunctions and TROs are frequently abused in the state courts and the reason is that in most states the requirement for an injunction bond is discretionary.  For example Illinois' statutes state:

Sec. 11-103. Bond. The court in its discretion, may before entering a restraining order or a preliminary injunction, require the applicant to give bond in such sum, upon such condition and with such security as may be deemed proper by the court, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.

No such bond shall be required of any governmental office or agency.

Note the difference; this is why TROs and injunctions are very common, even ex-parte, in (for example) divorce cases.  Throwing someone out of their house, for example, on an ex-parte basis absolutely causes damage (they must pay for substitute housing) and causes them to incur significant legal expenses.  In federal court if you demand such a remedy you must post up security in case you ultimately lose but in state court the judge has discretion and does not need to do so and if he doesn't, and you drop the TRO or injunction when challenged on it you aren't forced to cover the other side's damages and legal costs.

In state courts such filings are thus routinely used to "tilt the playing field" or "establish a pattern" that a judge is then reticent to change, especially if there is no judicial record ever established that the person who did it had ill intent -- and if when challenged they drop the injunction there's no judicial record of what it was done originally.  You might say that doing so implies ill intent and you might even be right but there's no proof, the movant will always state they had "information and belief" sufficient to do so originally and thus the practice continues.

Parties have made a mockery of Rule 65(c) in the federal courts over the last couple of decades when it comes to demanding injunctions against federal actions, especially when they demand and get national-scope injunctions that go beyond the federal district in question.

Consider a federal suit to block, for example, a pipeline with a demanded TRO and/or injunction.  The moving party, if they have to post up the hundreds of millions or even billions of costs and damages that will be incurred if they lose will cause them to think twice about how strong their case actually is.  If you win then you get your security back, but if you dismiss the complaint or lose you're hosed and the security you put up is gone in whole or part, subject only to the damaged party's capacity to prove up the injury.

The federal court system has long been thought of as the "more reasonable" from a civil perspective in that you are an idiot to bring questionable claims, especially if you try to obtain injunctive relief.  It is one thing to sue and lose as in both cases fees and costs, whether federal or state, are speculative and not commonly awarded but an injunction has a requirement at the federal level that the moving party post up all of the reasonably-foreseeable costs and damages as security, in advance, if they lose.

Thus where is Pam Bondi with immediate emergency filings against all of the existing injunctions already issued demanding that security be posted up and computed in said public filing and, if there is any delay or refusal by the judges involved to do so taking an immediate emergency appeal as far as necessary including to the Supreme Court which, given the actual language in the Rules of Civil Procedure is a slam-dunk and immediate win?  No, demanding this only on a forward basis for future filings is not enough -- force the movants in all the existing injunctions to either post up security or dissolve the injunctions and TROs.

If our government expects we, the ordinary civilians, to adhere to and comply with the law they had better do so themselves especially when various parts of the government go to war legally with each other.