Daily Beast: Trump, 79, Ends Bedtime Truth Social Rant by Yelling Two Words

Rumors of the president’s death escalated over the weekend.

Donald Trump ended his proof of life Truth Social posting spree with a two-word and triple exclamation point sign off, “GOOD NIGHT!!!”

The 79-year-old president assured his MAGA followers and Never Trumpers he had “NEVER FELT BETTER IN MY LIFE” after a debate raged online about his health.

Rumors of his death escalated over the weekend after Trump had not been seen in public for most of the week, speculation fueled by his mysterious bruised hands and bulging cankles.

Trump’s health update responded to a post that said, “Joe Biden would go multiple days at a time without any public appearances and the media would say he’s `sharp’ and `top of his game’… Meanwhile he was wearing diapers and napping.”

Trump swamped his Truth Social account on Saturday with AI-generated content, and returned to the familiar ground of crime and all caps on Sunday.

He mentioned his crackdown in Washington twice in a row, posting, “DC IS NOW A CRIME FREE ZONE, IN JUST 12 DAYS!!! President DJT.”

Trump then shared what he claimed were crime stats from a “list I get every single day,” documenting the number of arrests made, offenses, and how many firearms were seized. He posted that there was one arrest over “assault on a federal officer and threats to the President.”

Switching topics, the president reposted a letter from Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, which supported Lisa D. Cook. Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud in his attempt to get her fired from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

“We also see a troubling pattern of efforts to discredit leaders and experts who are eminently qualified and prepared to lead and to serve,” the letter from International President Cheryl W. Turner noted.

Trump ranted, “This is a total Conflict of Interest. The Judge must RECUSE, IMMEDIATELY!!! President DJT.” He also found time to slam U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who blocked his fast-deportation process.

“Same Judge as on Fed Case,” Trump posted. “I wonder how that happened??? Must recuse!!! President DJT.”

He then pivoted to another presidential passion project, the mean streets of Chicago, shouting, “CRIME IS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL IN CHICAGO. 6 DEAD, 24 BADLY WOUNDED, LAST WEEK ALONE!!!”

Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the president had not ruled out potentially deploying National Guard troops in Chicago.

“That always is a prerogative of President Trump,” Noem said.

Just before he logged off for the night, Trump found time to return to his beloved tariffs, claiming they would bring “more than 15 trillion dollars” into the U.S.

He stated, “If a Radical Left Court is allowed to terminate these Tariffs, almost all of this investment, and much more, will be immediately cancelled! In many ways, we would become a Third World Nation, with no hope of GREATNESS again. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!! President DJT.”

His concerns follow the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on Friday that most of his tariffs are illegal. They found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) statute used by Trump to impose international tariffs did not “explicitly include the power to impose tariffs.”

After that, the president tapped out with his “GOOD NIGHT!!!” post.

But is the creepster still alive?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-79-calls-it-an-early-night-after-exhausting-truth-social-rant

Forbes: Trump Says His Tariffs Collected ‘Trillions’ In Revenue—Here’s The Real Figure

  • “Without tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
  • Trump claimed earlier this month that “trillions of dollars are being taken in on tariffs” and his levies have “not caused inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers.”
  • Trump leaves out that tariffs are paid by U.S. companies to import foreign goods, with those costs eventually paid by U.S. consumers.
  • Trump’s latest comments on his tariffs follow a ruling late Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals, as the court wrote Trump overstepped his authority by issuing his reciprocal tariffs, a power the majority opinion said was “vested exclusively” as a “core Congressional power.”
  • The ruling prohibiting Trump’s tariffs won’t take effect until Oct. 14, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The truth: Trump’s tariffs have only “generated about $96 billion in revenue”.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/08/31/trump-says-his-tariffs-collected-trillions-in-revenue-heres-the-real-figure

Newsweek: Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump after tariff plan struck down

California Governor Gavin Newsom took a swipe at President Donald Trump on Friday after an appeals court struck down his sweeping plan on global tariffs.

Why It Matters

The decision undercut a central element of President Trump’s unilateral trade strategy and could potentially raise the prospect of refunds if the tariffs are ultimately struck down.

The ruling set up an anticipated legal fight that could reach the Supreme Court.

What To Know

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Trump had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act IEEPA to declare national emergencies and impose broad import taxes on most trading partners, the Associated Press reports.

The legal challenge centered on two sets of actions: reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2—including up to 50 percent on some goods and a 10 percent baseline on most imports—and earlier tariffs announced February 1 targeting selected imports from Canada, China and Mexico tied to drug and migration concerns.

Newsom’s press office reacted to the ruling on X on Friday, saying, “If it’s a day ending in y, it’s a day Trump is found violating the law!”

The rebuke comes amid weeks of back-and-forths from the pair as Newsom has taken aim at Republicans‘ redistricting efforts and Trump’s implementation of national guard troops in U.S. cities.

Taking to his social media platform Truth Social, reacting to the ruling, the president vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, saying in part that: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else.”

What People Are Saying

Republicans Against Trump reacting to the president’s vow to appeal to the Supreme Court on X: “Grandpa is mad”

Retired U.S. Air Force General Robert Spalding reacting to Trump’s post on X: “Thank god”

William and Mary Law School Professor Jonathan Adler on X reacting to the ruling: “Whoa”

Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, on X: “BOOM. The federal appeals court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal, because they are. There’s no national emergency, and so the power to tariff a country rests with Congress. Trump admin has lost at every stage of the process, but stay tuned for the Supremes to chime in.”

Wolfers in a follow-up post: “This won’t end all tariffs. This ruling applies to tariffs applied to entire countries (which is most of the tariff agenda). The industry-specific tariffs use a different legal authority, and will remain. The White House has other (more limited) tariff powers it’ll dust off.”

What Happens Next

The appeals court did not immediately block the tariffs, however, allotting the Trump Administration until October 14 to appeal the decision.

https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-mocks-donald-trump-tariff-plan-struck-down-2121980

Washington Post: Two Virginia school districts sue Education Dept. in fight over gender policies

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools sued the U.S. Department of Education, seeking to bar it from freezing funds to the Virginia districts amid a fight over a policy supportive of transgender students.

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools filed lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Education on Friday, seeking to bar the federal agency from freezing funds to the districts in response to an ongoing debate over a policy supportive of transgender students.

The move is the latest in a fight between the Education Department and five Northern Virginia school districts over policies that allow students to use facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

Earlier this month, school officials in Arlington, as well as Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, declined to comply with a call from the Education Department to rescind the gender policies after an investigation determined they violate Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination.

In response, the Education Department said it would start the process to “suspend or terminate” funding from the five districts. The following week, the department announced it placed the school districts on “high-risk” status, which would make it harder for the systems to receive future federal funds.

“States and school districts cannot openly violate federal law while simultaneously receiving federal funding with no additional scrutiny. The Northern Viriginia[sic] School Divisions that are choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law must now prove they are using every single federal dollar for a legal purpose,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a statement.

The new complaints from the Arlington and Fairfax school district, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seek immediate relief from the court to reverse that decision.

In a news release, Arlington schools said the federal money supports academics, counseling, and free and reduced meals for students.

Leaders from the Northern Virginia districts have stood behind policies they say satisfy state and federal antidiscrimination laws and create welcoming environments for students. Revoking their transgender student policies, the school districts argue, would put them in violation of the law.

The Education Department launched its investigations after a Title IX complaint was filed by America First Legal — a conservative group founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/08/29/virginia-school-district-sues-education-department-transgender-policy

No paywall:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/two-virginia-school-districts-sue-education-dept-in-fight-over-gender-policies/ar-AA1LvdIK

Kansas City Star: Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling

Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a civil judgment issued against her for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her actions, which took place shortly after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, have continued to spark legal debate. While plaintiffs and LGBTQ advocates have criticized the move as an attempt to undermine established rights, conservative activists have rallied behind Davis.

Davis argued that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause shielded her from personal liability while in office. She urged the Court to overturn Obergefell.

Attorney Mathew Staver wrote, “The mistake must be corrected.” Staver argued that Davis is “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

Lower courts rejected her defenses and affirmed liability for state action in her role. A federal appeals panel concluded that she may not invoke the First Amendment against such claims.

Attorneys for David Ermold and David Moore have urged the Court to deny review. They noted that no appellate judge supported rehearing.

Attorney William Powell said, “Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention.”

The petition has arrived amid efforts in several states to limit recognition of same-sex marriages. Public support has remained high, but partisan divides have notably widened.

If the Supreme Court hears the case, it could revisit same-sex marriage precedents, though existing marriages remain protected under the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-asked-to-review-marriage-ruling/ar-AA1KMc10

Washington Examiner: Federal court halts Trump’s asylum crackdown at US-Mexico border

A panel of federal judges blocked President Donald Trump‘s day-one proclamation restricting asylum claims at the United States-Mexico border.

One of the first proclamations of Trump’s second term was Proclamation 10888—Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion. The move forbade migrants from claiming asylum when crossing the border at any place outside a port of entry, and restricted requirements to claim asylum for those entering through said ports of entry. In July, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority with the move.

The 3-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit put an administrative pause on Moss’s ruling, which was lifted after their decision Friday.

In his 128-page ruling, Moss argued that Trump’s unilateral moves violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides the “sole and exclusive” means for deporting illegal immigrants. Trump’s proclamation had set up “an alternate immigration system” that violated the law, he claimed, rejecting the government’s argument that an out-of-control border necessitated the move.

“Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President … the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,” Moss wrote. “An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”

Though he argued that an emergency doesn’t excuse the move, he seemed to cede that there was, in fact, an emergency.

“The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote. “But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”

The White House was quick to respond, arguing that the ruling violated the recent Supreme Court decision limiting the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions on federal government policies.

“A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally. The judge’s decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come to in illegally,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement obtained by Politico.

Department of Homeland Security Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin derided Moss as a “a rogue district judge” who was “threatening the safety and security of Americans.”

The Washington Examiner reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for further comment.

Moss’s ruling is the latest of several major legal moves against Trump’s immigration agenda. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration’s use of expedited removal exceeded the Department of Homeland Security’s legal authority.

Cobb blocked three actions from the Trump administration: a Jan. 23 DHS memo directing immigration officials to apply expedited removal as broadly as possible; a Feb. 18 ICE directive authorizing officers to consider expedited removal for “paroled arriving aliens”; and a March 25 DHS notice terminating the Biden-era parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

Newsweek: Trump admin ordered to return man deported to El Salvador

President Donald Trump‘s administration has been ordered to return a Salvadoran man who was deported minutes after a federal appeals court blocked his removal.

Jordin Melgar-Salmeron was deported to El Salvador on May 7 despite an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, New York, blocking it.

On Tuesday, the appeals court ordered the administration to “facilitate the return” of Melgar-Salmeron as soon as possible to “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

It also directed the government to return to court within one week to provide details on the current location of Melgar-Salmeron and how it planned to return him to the United States.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-ordered-return-man-deported-el-salvador-2090058

New York Times: Trump Declares Dubious Emergencies to Amass Power, Scholars Say

In disputes over protests, deportations and tariffs, the president has invoked statutes that may not provide him with the authority he claims.

To hear President Trump tell it, the nation is facing a rebellion in Los Angeles, an invasion by a Venezuelan gang and extraordinary foreign threats to its economy.

Citing this series of crises, he has sought to draw on emergency powers that Congress has scattered throughout the United States Code over the centuries, summoning the National Guard to Los Angeles over the objections of California’s governor, sending scores of migrants to El Salvador without the barest hint of due process and upending the global economy with steep tariffs.

Legal scholars say the president’s actions are not authorized by the statutes he has cited and are, instead, animated by a different goal.

“He is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,” said Ilya Somin, a libertarian professor at Antonin Scalia Law School who represents a wine importer and other businesses challenging some of Mr. Trump’s tariffs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/us/politics/trump-emergency-powers-invasion.html?unlocked_article_code=1.N08.tEO-.S_2DmAE6Yws9&smid=url-share

US Appeals Court Hands Trump Stinging Defeat in Deportation Case

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the March 15 ruling from Boasberg that temporarily halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act after ordering that the government’s “emergency motions for stay be denied,” according to court documents reviewed by Newsweek.

US Appeals Court Hands Trump Defeat in Deportation Case – Newsweek