The Trump administration accuses the University of Pennsylvania of violating sex discrimination laws.

On Monday, the administration made no mention of that funding. Instead, the Education Department said it would require Penn to strip individual athletic records from Ms. Thomas and to send a letter of apology to female athletes whose individual records would be restored. The administration also said it had demanded that the university publicly state its compliance with Title IX, the civil rights law that ensures equal access for women to education.

A university spokesman declined to comment. J. Larry Jameson, the president of Penn, said last month that the university has never had a transgender athlete policy and instead complied with N.C.A.A. policies. Mr. Jameson said his school complied with those policies when Ms. Thomas was on the swim team — and remains compliant now. The NCAA revised its rules to limit participation in women’s sports to athletes who are assigned female at birth, following Mr. Trump’s executive order in February, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

“We now comply with the N.C.A.A. policy and the law as they exist today,” Mr. Jameson said in his March statement. “We expect to continue to engage with OCR, vigorously defending our position.”

Ms. Thomas swam for two years on the men’s team at Penn. She started transitioning using hormone replacement therapy in May 2019 and met the NCAA hormone therapy requirements to swim on the women’s team in 2021. In March 2022, Ms. Thomas became the first transgender athlete to win an N.C.A.A. Division I title when she won the women’s 500-yard freestyle event.

The Trump administration has targeted universities, particularly Ivy League schools, in an attempt to shift the ideological tilt of the education system, which the president views as hostile to conservatives. The administration has halted billions in university research funding as it investigates multiple schools over transgender issues, diversity, equity and inclusion policies and alleged antisemitism.

Vimal Patel contributed reporting.

The legislation, known as the Take It Down Act, aims to crack down on the sharing of material known as “revenge porn,” requiring that social media companies and online platforms remove such images within two days of being notified of them.

The measure, which brought together an unlikely coalition of conservatives and liberals in both parties, passed the Senate unanimously in February. The support of Mr. Trump, who mentioned it during his joint address to Congress last month, appears to have smoothed its path through Congress.

The legislation, introduced by Senators Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, is the first internet content law to clear Congress since 2018, when lawmakers approved legislation to fight online sex trafficking. And though it focuses on revenge porn and deepfakes, the bill is seen as an important step toward regulating internet companies that have for decades escaped government scrutiny.

The Take It Down Act’s overwhelming support highlights mounting anger among lawmakers toward social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and X for hosting disinformation and harmful content, particularly images that hurt children and teenagers.

Though revenge porn and deepfakes affect adults and minors alike, both have been particularly potent for teenage girls as the spread of widely available “nudification” apps has spurred boys to surreptitiously concoct sexually explicit images of their female classmates and then circulate them.

Representative María Elvira Salazar, a Florida Republican who introduced a companion bill in the House, said on Monday that the bill would stop the abuse and harassment of young girls that was “spreading like wildfire” online.

“It is outrageously sick to use images — the face, the voice, the likeness — of a young, vulnerable female, to manipulate them, to extort them and to humiliate them publicly just for fun, just for revenge,” Ms. Salazar said.

The bill’s passage also echoes similar efforts in statehouses across the country. Every state except South Carolina has a law criminalizing revenge porn. And at least 20 states have laws that address sexually explicit deepfakes.

The measure that passed on Monday is part of a yearslong bipartisan effort by lawmakers to address deepfake pornography. Mr. Cruz and Ms. Klobuchar first introduced the bill last year, when it passed the Senate but died in the Republican-led House. It was reintroduced this year and appeared to gain momentum after it drew the support from the first lady, Melania Trump.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a millennial Democrat from New York, also introduced legislation last year that would have allowed those depicted in sexually explicit deepfakes to sue the people who created and shared them. That bill has not been reintroduced this year.

Lawmakers have in recent years rallied around several bills aimed at protecting children online from sexual exploitation, bullying and addictive algorithms. In January 2024, chief executives of Meta, TikTok and other tech firms testified before angry lawmakers, defending their platforms.

In the hearing, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, was forced to apologize to parents who had lost their children from online harms.

Some speech advocates have warned that the measure could chill free expression, saying such a law could force the removal of legitimate images along with nonconsensual sexual imagery.

“The best of intentions can’t make up for the bill’s dangerous implications for constitutional speech and privacy online,” said Becca Branum, the deputy director of the Free Expression Project for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a research group.

Ms. Branum added that the Take It Down Act was “a recipe for weaponized enforcement that risks durable progress in the fight against image-based sexual abuse.”

Since 2000, the federal government has published a comprehensive look every few years at how rising temperatures will affect human health, agriculture, fisheries, water supplies, transportation, energy production and other aspects of the U.S. economy. The last climate assessment came out in 2023 and is used by state and local governments as well as private companies to help prepare for the effects of heat waves, floods, droughts and other climate-related calamities.

On Monday, researchers around the country who had begun work on the sixth national climate assessment, planned for early 2028, received an email informing them that scope of the report “is currently being re-evaluated” and that all contributors were being dismissed.

“We are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles,” the email said. “As plans develop for the assessment, there may be future opportunities to contribute or engage. Thank you for your service.”

For some of the authors, that appeared to be a fatal blow to the next report.

“This is as close as it gets to a termination of the assessment,” said Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University who specializes in climate adaptation and was a co-author on the last climate assessment. “If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing’s moving forward.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The climate assessment is typically compiled by scientists and expert contributors around the country who volunteer to write the report. It then goes through several rounds of review by 14 federal agencies, as well a public comment period. The entire process is overseen by the Global Change Research Program, a federal group established by Congress in 1990 that is supported by NASA.

Under the Trump administration, that process was already facing serious disruptions. This month, NASA canceled a major contract with ICF International, a consulting firm that had been supplying most of the technical support and staffing for the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates work among hundreds of contributors.

President Trump has frequently dismissed the risks of global warming. And Russell Vought, the current director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote before the election that the next president should “reshape” the Global Change Research Program, becasue its scientific reports on climate change were often used as the basis for environmental lawsuits that constrained federal government actions.

Mr. Vought has called the government’s largest climate research unit, a division inside the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a source of “climate alarmism.”

During Mr. Trump’s first term, his administration tried, but failed, to derail the National Climate Assessment. When the 2018 report came out, concluding that global warming posed an imminent and dire threat, the administration made it public the day after Thanksgiving in an apparent attempt to minimize attention.

In February, scientists had submitted a detailed outline of the next assessment to the White House for an initial review. But that review has been on hold and the agency comment period has been postponed.

It remains to be seen what happens next with the assessment, which is still mandated by Congress. Some scientists feared that the administration might try to write an entirely new report from scratch that downplays the risks of rising temperatures or contradicts established climate science.

“There may well be a sixth National Climate Assessment,” said Meade Krosby, a senior scientist at the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and a contributor to the assessment. “The question is whether it is going to reflect credible science and be of real use to our communities as they prepare for climate change.”

Scientists involved in earlier climate assessments have said the report is invaluable for understanding how climate change would affect daily life in the United States.

“It takes that global issue and brings it closer to us,” Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, said this month. “If I care about food or water or transportation or insurance or my health, this is what climate change means to me if I live in the Southwest or the Great Plains. That’s the value.”

Many state and local policymakers, as well as private businesses, rely on the assessment to understand how climate change is affecting different regions of the United States and how they can try to adapt.

And while the scientific understanding of climate change and its effects hasn’t changed drastically since the last assessment in 2023, Dr. Keenan of Tulane said, there has been a steady progression of research on what communities can do to prepare for worsening wildfires, higher sea levels and other problems exacerbated by rising temperatures.

Decision makers forced to refer to the last assessment would be relying on outdated information on what adaptation and mitigation measures really work, scientists said.

“We’d be losing the cornerstone report that is supposed to communicate to the public the risks we face with climate change and how we can move forward,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University who was an author on the southwest regional chapter. “It’s pretty devastating.”

The Peace Corps confirmed in a statement that the Musk team was assessing its operations and “working to identify additional efficiencies in our staffing structure.”

“The agency will remain operational and continue to recruit, place, and train volunteers, while continuing to support their health, safety and security, and effective service,” the Peace Corps said.

Mr. Baker said he had been told that the Peace Corps would not close any offices in foreign countries or reduce the numbers of volunteers it takes per year. The agency, which operates independently within the executive branch, was founded under President John F. Kennedy. It has about 3,000 volunteers who serve for two years in one of 60 developing countries.

“The Peace Corps has received guidance that they’re not going to cut volunteers and countries, but the staffing impact is going to be significantly stressful for their operations,” Mr. Baker said, recounting the conversation.

The Peace Corps has about 970 full-time American employees who recruit new volunteers and oversee their training, health care and security. Of those employees, about 790 work in the United States.

Mr. Baker said he was not told how many of those jobs the Peace Corps intended to cut.

To begin the reductions, Mr. Baker said, the agency on Monday offered employees a chance to take “early retirement,” to be paid through the end of this year. The agency confirmed in its statement that staff members had until May 6 to apply for the administration’s “deferred resignation” offer.

The application fee would be the first time the United States specifically charged migrants who are seeking asylum, a status meant for people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted in their home country because of their race, religion or nationality. Typically, migrants who claim asylum are released into the United States to wait for court appearances. But a huge backlog in such claims has kept many of those seeking asylum in the country for years, waiting for their cases to be heard. Under the bill, applicants would also pay $100 a year while their application is pending,

The bill would also require a $1,000 fee for most immigrants who are paroled into the United States and a $3,500 fee for those sponsoring children — large sums that could make it more difficult for minors who cross the border alone to be released from federal custody and taken in by family members in the United States.

Asylum seekers and people under temporary protected status — meant to protect them from being sent back to countries facing conflict or natural disasters — would have to pay a $550 fee when applying for authorization to work.

Those fees, likely to be burdensome to many immigrants, would serve as a further deterrent to those considering crossing the border illegally. Such crossings are currently at their lowest level in years.

Though the Republicans’ budget blueprint generally calls for slashing taxes and government spending, it provides for increased funding for immigration enforcement, deportations and border security initiatives.

The plan being considered by the House Judiciary Committee calls for $45 billion to build and expand immigrant detention centers, $8 billion to hire Immigration and Customs Enforcement staff and $1.25 billion to help the Justice Department immigration judges, their staff and their courts.

Portions of many of the new or expanded fees for migrants would be directed toward supporting the new spending.

The judiciary panel is set to consider the proposal this week, and several other House committees are also scheduled to meet to lay out their portions of the domestic policy package. Democrats have said they expect those sessions to provide substantial fodder for attacks against Republicans, given that the G.O.P. budget would require major cuts to popular federal programs including Medicaid.

Catie Edmondson contributed reporting.

“Now, over 100 attorneys decided that they’d rather not do what their job requires them to do, and I think that’s fine,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, the new head of the division, said in an interview with the conservative commentator Glenn Beck over the weekend, welcoming the turnover and making plain the division’s priorities.

“We don’t want people in the federal government who feel like it’s their pet project to go persecute” police departments, she said. “The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.”

Traditionally the department has protected the constitutional rights of minority communities and marginalized people, often by monitoring police departments for civil rights violations, protecting the right to vote and fighting housing discrimination.

Now, more than a dozen current and former civil rights division lawyers say, the new administration appears intent on not simply modifying the direction of the work, as has been typical during changeovers from a Democratic administration to a Republican one.

The administration is instead determined, the lawyers said, to fundamentally end how the storied division has functioned since it was established during the Eisenhower administration, becoming an enforcement arm for President Trump’s agenda against state and local officials, college administrators and student protesters, among others.

It is a remarkable shift from the start of the second Trump administration, when many lawyers in the division planned to stay on, confident that their work would be much like it was in the first Trump term, with shifting priorities but not wholesale changes.

Until recently, the civil rights division had not faced the kind of intense pressure from above that other parts of the Justice Department had to confront in the early days of the administration. The criminal division’s public integrity section was one of the first to start receiving ultimatums from the department’s political leadership.

Those demands were so objectionable to the people who worked there that it became a section in name only, having its staff of more than 20 lawyers reduced to a handful.

When Mr. Trump took office in January, there were around 380 lawyers in the civil rights division, according to current and former Justice Department officials. Based on unofficial estimates of the number of people planning to resign by Monday’s deadline, the division would soon be left with about 140 attorneys, or possibly fewer. The figures are roughly similar for the nonlawyer support staff in the division, according to current and former officials.

The departures have also increased as political appointees at the department reassign the few remaining career managers at the division, leaving line attorneys worried that their work responsibilities are quickly sliding into a chaotic daily scramble in which it is unclear on any given day who their boss will be.

Vanita Gupta, who ran the division during the Obama administration and served as a senior Justice Department official during the Biden administration, warned that the changes underway signaled a broader transformation. “This is not simply a change in enforcement priorities — the division has been turned on its head and is now being used as a weapon against the very communities it was established to protect,” she said.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

Within the civil rights division, it is commonplace for some cases to be dropped, or for some cases to be initiated, with the change in administrations.

In and of themselves, current and former Justice Department officials say, those types of decisions are not particularly surprising. But the way Attorney General Pam Bondi and Ms. Dhillon have announced such decisions has alarmed many who work there.

It is not just the priorities that have changed, but the very purpose of the division itself, according to current and former lawyers. They pointed to a set of new mission statements introduced this month that they say make major parts of the division’s work unrecognizable.

Stacey Young, who once worked in the division as a lawyer and is now the executive director of Justice Connection, an organization of former department officials, voiced alarm about the consequences.

“With the reckless dismantling of the division,” she said, “we’ll see unchecked discrimination and constitutional violations in schools, housing, employment, voting, prisons, by police departments and in many other realms of our daily lives.”

The agency’s political leaders say their mission is to end the “weaponization” of the department against conservatives, and end “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion inside and outside government. “Illegal D.E.I.,” which is a buzzword of the Trump administration, is particularly confusing to employees in the division whose jobs have long been to ensure equal protection under the law.

Last week, Ms. Dhillon announced that the division was withdrawing court filings in two cases related to transgender prison inmates. Given the current administration’s position on the issue, the withdrawals were expected. But in announcing the move, senior Justice Department officials accused the agency itself of having abused the legal system.

“The prior administration’s arguments in transgender inmate cases were based on junk science,” Ms. Dhillon said. “The prior administration’s nonsensical reading of the Americans With Disabilities Act was an affront to the very people the statute intended to protect.”

Weeks earlier, Ms. Bondi used similarly caustic language in stating that the department would drop a Biden-era lawsuit that charged that a 2021 Georgia law overhauling election procedures was discriminatory. “Georgians deserve secure elections, not fabricated claims of false voter suppression meant to divide us,” she said.

Matthew B. Ross, a professor at Northeastern University who often serves as an expert witness in cases in which the department reaches consent decrees to reform local police departments, said he had heard from lawyers in the division he had worked with that they would be leaving.

Inside the division, there have been discussions about scrapping long-established consent decrees with police departments and instead bringing cases against liberal cities to loosen their gun restrictions, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Mr. Ross described the departures as a “mass exodus,” one that will have far-reaching consequences.

“We’re going multiple steps backwards in terms of modernizing law enforcement in this country, and it’s quite unfortunate,” Mr. Ross said. “A lot of the work that the civil rights division is actually doing is getting these police agencies up to a modern standard,” even on simple goals like replacing paper forms with searchable computer data.

Given how many people are leaving the division, he said, “it’s not clear how they are even going to comply with the existing consent decrees.”

The concerns of career staff members inside the division are not simply that much of their traditional work is being abandoned. Current and former staff members say Ms. Dhillon and other political appointees in the department have pushed the division to embark on priorities of the Trump administration that do not appear to line up with current anti-discrimination laws or the decades of precedents surrounding those laws.

For instance, a handful of civil rights lawyers have been sent to the Department of Health and Human Services, with orders to investigate antisemitism involving campus protests against Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip, according to people familiar with the assignments who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal personnel moves.

Specifically, those investigations are meant to focus on medical schools, because the federal government can withhold sizable sums of grant money that goes to them. The Trump administration, these people said, sees the money as a key form of leverage to dictate new standards for campus conduct.

Another handful of lawyers have been reassigned within the Justice Department to work on issues involving antisemitism on college campuses, a task that also appears to be focused on investigating student protests and how university officials dealt with them, these people said.

And another group of civil rights lawyers have been assigned to work on cases for the Trump administration’s stated goal of protecting women at colleges and schools — which is how the administration describes its efforts to prevent transgender students from playing women’s sports.

In her interview with Mr. Beck, Ms. Dhillon suggested that she planned to hire quickly to pursue such cases.

Otherwise, she said, “we’re going to run out of attorneys.”

One order directs Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, to publish a list of state and local jurisdictions that the Trump administration considers “sanctuary cities” and to “pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures” against jurisdictions that continue to oppose the administration’s immigration crackdown.

A second order instructs the Trump administration to provide legal resources to cops accused of wrongdoing; review and attempt to modify existing restraints on law enforcement, such as federal consent decrees; provide military equipment to local law enforcement; and use enforcement measures against local officials who “unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties.”

Earlier in the day, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the order would “unleash America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals.”

A third executive order seeks to enforce existing rules requiring professional truck drivers to be proficient in English. The order requires the Transportation Department to place any driver who cannot speak and read English as “out-of-service.”

“Proficiency in English,” Mr. Trump’s order states, “should be a non-negotiable safety requirement for professional drivers.”

Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown has prompted significant outcry.

“Let’s be clear: Trump continues to position his anti-immigrant agenda at the very center of his action,” said Hector Sanchez Barba, president of Mi Familia Vota, a pro-immigration advocacy organization. “Trump’s inhumane attacks on law-abiding, tax-paying immigrants are both morally repugnant and deeply unpopular with the American people. We know this because in just four months, Trump has reached historically low levels of unpopularity with voters.”

The Trump administration has already sued the city of Rochester, N.Y., accusing officials there of illegally impeding immigration enforcement. And the Justice Department is prosecuting a Milwaukee judge on charges of obstructing immigration agents.

Rochester’s mayor, Malik D. Evans, and City Council president, Miguel Meléndez, released a joint statement on Friday criticizing the lawsuit.

“On its face, the complaint is an exercise in political theater, not legal practice,” the statement said, adding, “The City of Rochester is committed to investing its resources on public safety for all, not doing the federal government’s work of immigration enforcement.”

Meanwhile, a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government from enforcing part of an executive order directing agencies to withhold funds from cities and counties that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

“It’s quite simple,” Ms. Leavitt said Monday. “Obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities.”

The executive orders were signed a day before Mr. Trump celebrates the 100th day of his second term. The White House has scheduled a week of events promoting his actions so far, beginning with his immigration crackdown.

The White House lawn was lined Monday morning with mug shot-style posters of undocumented migrants who were arrested and accused of committing crimes.

In his first term, Mr. Trump targeted so-called sanctuary cities by threatening to withhold federal funding from mayors and governors who did not comply with his anti-immigration agenda. The administration has ramped up pressure on the jurisdictions just three months into Mr. Trump’s second term, using bellicose language to describe the tension with Democratic leaders.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, said Democrat governors and mayors were waging a “war” against federal law enforcement.

“They don’t recognize the supremacy of federal law enforcement to protect the lives and livelihoods of American citizens against a foreign nation,” Mr. Miller said.

Mr. Miller said those Democratic-led cities were allowing “illegal aliens to go free and rape and murder.”

Even before Mr. Trump signed the new executive orders on Monday, the Department of Homeland Security said it was reviewing billions of dollars in grants for cities and states to make sure recipients complied with Mr. Trump’s priorities on immigration enforcement and other domestic policies.

For Mr. Trump’s immigration advisers, the sanctuary city policies are one of the primary hurdles standing in their way of making good on Mr. Trump’s campaign pledge to record the most deportations in U.S. history. The label of “sanctuary jurisdiction” applies broadly to cities and counties that block their local jails from cooperating with federal immigration officials.

The federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, prefers to pick up undocumented immigrants from local jails, rather than from their homes, workplaces or out in public. In order to do so, it needs collaboration from local officials, like county sheriffs. In some cities and counties, this collaboration is outright blocked or severely limited.

At a morning news conference, Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, said the administration had carried out 139,000 deportations. That figure lags behind the pace of the final year of the Biden administration, which seemed to annoy Mr. Homan.

He said the number would be higher but, because border crossings had fallen so significantly, there were fewer people to turn back.

“Am I happy with that? The numbers are good,” he said, adding: “I read the media, ‘Oh, ICE deportations are behind Biden administration.’ Well, why? Because they counted border removals.”

Mr. Homan said the administration would, as of Tuesday, begin to enforce its plan to make undocumented immigrants ages 14 and older register and provide their fingerprints to the U.S. government or potentially face criminal prosecution.

Immigration agents, aided by state and local law enforcement, carried out mass arrests over the weekend that ensnared nearly 800 people in Florida. A growing number of children, including some who were citizens as young as 2, have been removed. It was unclear where the hundreds in Florida were arrested over the four-day operation, though such efforts in communities require substantial planning.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to restore a policy set during the Biden administration that generally prohibits immigration agents from carrying out operations that disrupt civic spaces, particularly ones where adults and children congregate together. The suit also asks the court to nullify a memo from Mr. Trump’s first week in office overturning that policy, arguing that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of assembly.

The case brings together a diverse coalition of labor organizations, interfaith groups and parishes, with member organizations and constituents in all 50 states.

Esther Sung, the legal director of Justice Action Center, said it was bipartisan consensus for decades to avoid conducting deportation and detention operations in places like food banks, vaccination clinics or testing sites, funerals, day cares or disaster relief shelters.

“There had been a constant policy in place for over 30 years by Republican and Democratic administrations alike protecting sensitive locations,” she said, “and never once was that policy ever walked back.”

The Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights group focused on litigation, won a separate case this month when a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from shutting down a work program for migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti. The Innovation Law Lab, a nonprofit based in Portland, Ore., was involved in pushing back against Mr. Trump on his approach to asylum and policies devised to curtail other forms of legal immigration during his first term.

Since Mr. Trump returned to office, at least three other lawsuits have been filed with the goal of blocking immigration agents from having free rein to conduct enforcement operations in schools, churches and community centers.

Two were brought by coalitions of religious organizations, which argued, among other things, that they had lost congregants because anyone at risk of deportation stopped participating in public life. Only one has resulted in a meaningful restriction on immigration enforcement in places of worship, and it fell far short of the goals outlined in the lawsuit on Monday.

Related challenges have had mixed success with the legal arguments they presented, and judges have been skeptical of a number of the claims on which they were predicated.

Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia declined to immediately intervene to stop the new policy this month, writing that there was not yet evidence that enforcement tactics singling out sensitive spaces were “sufficiently likely or imminent” or that they had a chilling effect on public life.

Judge Friedrich reasoned that it was unclear that ICE agents or others had staked out sensitive locations or targeted them in a way that caused disproportionate harm. She added that apparent declines in participation at houses of worship were difficult to attribute to Mr. Trump’s immigration policy.

Ms. Sung said that the effect of Mr. Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda on civic life had somewhat crystallized, and that the groups and people her organization had spoken to were well equipped to document examples.

Beyond the narrower question of the legal status of sensitive locations, she said, the factors a judge might consider had increased significantly since earlier challenges, making the matter more urgent.

Among other examples, Ms. Sung noted the administration’s new emphasis on trying to punish cities and institutions that resisted Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, such as a proposed policy to defund local governments that do not allocate resources to immigration enforcement.

Ms. Sung said high-profile deportation cases — including the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia and the administration’s refusal to retrieve him from a prison in El Salvador, despite an order from the Supreme Court — have also contributed to a climate of anxiety.

The complaint filed on Monday argues that a spate of hastily executed removals of people to extrajudicial confinement in places like Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, or the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador, known as CECOT, had significantly raised the stakes for associations involved in the suit.

In an effort to avoid “deportation to an indefinite detention in a maximum-security prison outside U.S. borders,” the complaint said, many people who used to associate with or receive services from the groups were staying away.

“The immigration enforcement landscape was really different in February than it is now,” Ms. Sung said. “In February, we did not have Kilmar Abrego, we did not have Gitmo and Venezuelans being taken in shackles to either Gitmo or CECOT in El Salvador, and we didn’t have college students getting picked up off the street or from a citizenship interview and being detained.”

In a letter to his constituents on Monday, he said that the disease, “while initially beaten back, has now returned,” prompting his decision to step aside and ultimately retire. Mr. Connolly said he planned to do “everything possible” to finish out what he said would be his final term.

“I will be stepping back as ranking member of the Oversight Committee soon,” he wrote. “With no rancor and a full heart, I move into this final chapter full of pride in what we’ve accomplished together over 30 years.”

Mr. Connolly’s announcement did not make clear when he may hand over his position, and a spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled to hold a crucial hearing on Wednesday about its portion of Republicans’ tax and spending program, which includes changes to federal employees’ benefits and gives them the option to give up civil service protections to make more money.

According to a congressional aide who requested anonymity to share internal discussions, Representative Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts will assume Mr. Connolly’s role for that hearing.

Mr. Connolly’s decision will clear the way for a new senior Democrat on one of the most partisan committees in Congress, which lawmakers typically use to antagonize the White House and exercise their check on executive power.

Republicans currently control the committee and its subpoena power. With Representative James Comer of Kentucky, a close Trump ally, as chairman, the committee has largely focused on reopening old investigations of the Biden administration.

The committee also has jurisdiction over the Department of Government Efficiency, the White House initiative led by Elon Musk to significantly remake the federal government and cut its work force. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the firebrand Georgia Republican, leads the panel on that effort and has used her perch to echo Mr. Musk's claims about government waste.

But Mr. Connolly’s successor will not be without power. The ranking member oversees a large staff and can call for investigations and minority hearings to spotlight issues of concern. The position is also a valuable platform for lawmakers, and Mr. Connolly’s replacement would be in a prime position to lead the committee if Democrats retake the House majority in 2026.

Mr. Connolly, whose district includes a substantial number of federal workers affected by Mr. Musk’s efforts, won an internal battle for the role last year over Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. His victory was seen as a blow to a younger group of Democratic lawmakers who have rejected seniority in favor of generational change.

Though several other veteran leaders stepped aside or were beaten by challenges from younger colleagues, Mr. Connolly, a more moderate Democrat, was chosen because of his experience.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is no longer a member of the Oversight panel, which would complicate any effort she might undertake to win the position were she to try to do so.

Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, 87, the nonvoting delegate from the District of Columbia, did not raise her hand for the role last year despite her seniority on the committee. Mr. Lynch, 70, is the next most senior Democrat on the panel.

“With this investment and manufacturing commitment, we are ensuring that IBM remains the epicenter of the world’s most advanced computing and AI capabilities,” Arvind Krishna, IBM’s chief executive, said in a statement.

But whether pledges from IBM and other tech giants fully come to fruition remains to be seen. Investments touted by major firms, including during President Trump’s first term, have at times fallen short of plans described in their announcements. A $10 billion project announced in Wisconsin by the electronics manufacturer Foxconn in 2018 — hailed by Mr. Trump as the “eighth wonder of the world” — fell far short of expectations.

The announcements have come steadily since Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s largest chip manufacturer, said last month it would spend $100 billion in the United States over the next four years to expand its production capacity and bring its most advanced semiconductor processes to its operations in Arizona. In February, days after Apple’s chief executive met with Mr. Trump, the company said that it planned to spend $500 billion and hire 20,000 people in the United States over the next four years, and open a factory in Texas to make the machines that power the company’s push into artificial intelligence.

In January, Mr. Trump announced a joint venture between OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle to create at least $100 billion in computing infrastructure to power artificial intelligence, an initiative that added to tech companies’ significant investments in U.S. data centers, although the push to form the venture predated his term.

The Trump administration has pressured companies to produce more in the United States, with a particular aim at China. Even so, it has spared smartphones, computers, semiconductors and other electronics from tariffs Mr. Trump imposed on Chinese goods as part of his trade war.