Latin Times: Rubio’s Contradicting Arguments on Birthright Citizenship Resurface as Supreme Court Weighs Trump Order Looking to Restrict it

Rubio’s comments came amid a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth

A new report has revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in a federal court filing in 2016 that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status when he was a Republican senator running for president, a position that now stands in sharp contrast to the executive order issued by Trump in January which seeks to restrict birthright citizenship.

Rubio’s 2016 filing responded to a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth, he was not a “natural born citizen.”

As The New York Times points out, the court dismissed the case, but Rubio’s arguments went further than necessary, affirming that the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that “all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, ancestry, previous servitude, etc., were citizens of the United States.”

Rubio went on to say that the amendment, the common law on which it was based and the leading Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that “persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth.”

Trump’s executive order, by contrast, states that children born in the U.S. are not automatically citizens if their mothers were either unlawfully present or only in the country on a temporary basis and if their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order has been blocked in lower courts, but the administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall.

Peter J. Spiro, a citizenship law expert at Temple University, told the NYT that Rubio’s earlier arguments remain significant and that “there’s no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn’t be put to work today against the Trump executive order.” Rubio, now secretary of state, oversees the implementation of immigration and passport laws.

Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, dismissed the focus on Rubio’s past filing, saying he is “100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda,” and claiming that “it’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories.”

Rubio has faced backlash for his contrasting stances on issues affecting immigrants in the past few months, especially Latinos. A group called Keep Them Honest erected signs in May accusing him of betraying Venezuelans after supporting the administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. Rubio, once a leading Republican advocate for TPS, has recently called the designation harmful to U.S. interests and linked it to security threats.

https://www.latintimes.com/rubios-contradicting-arguments-birthright-citizenship-resurface-supreme-court-weighs-trump-order-588498

MSNBC:Maddow Blog | Why the Pentagon needed to clarify Pete Hegseth’s position on women’s voting rights

The good news is, the defense secretary’s spokesperson said he supports a woman’s right to vote. The bad news is they had to clarify in the first place.

Under normal circumstances, no one would think to ask the Pentagon whether the current secretary of defense supports women’s voting rights, but there’s little about our current political landscape that’s “normal.” Hence, The Hill reported:

The Trump administration on Thursday sought to clarify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support for women’s voting rights following controversy spurred by his repost of a video tied to a pastor who said the opposite. ‘Of course, the secretary thinks that women should have the right to vote. That’s a stupid question,’ Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told reporters during Thursday’s briefing.

I can appreciate why the DOD’s right-wing spokesperson — someone who, as Politico reported earlier this year, “has touted antisemitic views, white supremacist conspiracy theories and Kremlin-like statements on social media” — would be eager to dismiss the line of inquiry. But it really wasn’t that stupid a question.

In fact, it was just two weeks ago when Hegseth used his social media account to amplify a video about a Christian nationalist church that included various pastors saying women should no longer be allowed to vote. The Associated Press reported:

In the post, Hegseth commented on an almost seven-minute-long report by CNN examining Doug Wilson, cofounder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, or CREC. The report featured a pastor from Wilson’s church advocating the repeal of women’s right to vote from the Constitution, and another pastor saying that in his ideal world, people would vote as households. It also featured a female congregant saying that she submits to her husband.

Hegseth didn’t explicitly endorse the idea of repealing voting rights for American women, but he also didn’t make any effort to distance himself from the rhetoric used in the video he shared with his online followers. On the contrary, he promoted the video, alongside his own written message that read, “All of Christ for All of Life.”

When this sparked a controversy, the former Fox News host could’ve made it clear that he disagreed with the comments, or that he supports leaving the 19th Amendment intact. Instead, Hegseth said nothing.

What’s more, the secretary’s office didn’t make much of an effort, either. When asked about the video he promoted, a Pentagon spokesperson told the AP that Hegseth is “a proud member of a church” that is affiliated with CREC and he “very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings.”

All of this, of course, came on the heels of Hegseth’s efforts to purge several women from leadership posts within the U.S. armed forces.

Hopefully, what the Pentagon spokesperson said was accurate, and the secretary doesn’t actually support rolling back women’s voting rights, despite the content of the video he amplified online. But to see this question as somehow out of bounds given the broader context is difficult to take seriously.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pentagon-needed-clarify-pete-hegseths-position-womens-voting-rights-rcna225686

Washington Post: A night in D.C. after Trump’s National Guard deployment

Spend the night with us in one of D.C.’s nightlife hubs, as federal police roam, crowds are smaller, bartenders worry and clubgoers try to enjoy themselves.

The sunlight dimmed along this stretch of U Street to the familiar soundtrack of a city ready for the weekend: rumbling buses taking home tired commuters, high heels clacking along sticky sidewalks and chattering crowds ready to order their first round.

Then a group gathered on a street corner with pots and pans, jingling them as the darkness grew closer. They whooped and cheered for a few minutes, a brief moment of joyful resistance seeking to counteract the image of the crime-ridden city described by the president.

Among the clubgoers in miniskirts and sweat-soaked T-shirts, there were federal agents hopping in and out of unmarked cars. A protester held a sign reading “America has no kings.” Police officers were met with boos and phones ready to record.

Welcome to the first Friday night in D.C. since President Donald Trump announced he was placing the local police under federal control and sending in National Guard troops to a city where 9 in 10 voters cast ballots for his opponent. The next morning, the White House would announce that the overnight operation yielded 52 arrests and the seizure of three illegal firearms. Twenty-two multiagency teams were deployed throughout the city.

Trump justified the exertion of executive power to reduce crime by depicting the city as a lawless wasteland, despite violent crime reaching 30-year lows. But many of those gathered around the bars and clubs in Northwest Washington on Friday night said they felt more unsettled by the federal presence than any other safety concerns.

Washington Post journalists spent Friday night in a popular section of U Street — a nightlife hub that is among the areas of the city with the highest number of crimes reported this year. Earlier this summer, D.C. police implemented a youth curfew over concerns about rowdy crowds in some areas.

Nearby, two nights earlier, a mix of local and federal authorities pulled over drivers for seat belt violations or broken taillights while onlookers chanted: “Go home, fascists.”

On Friday, crowds were smaller, bartenders and club managers said, and they wondered if patrons were staying inside to avoid federal authorities. And yet, there were still people ready to party.

The largest police response The Post witnessed Friday night was over a claim of a stolen bike. It was around 8:30 p.m., and the sky was ink blue.

One couple heading home from an event at a nearby synagogue looked on with furrowed brows. They spotted a few D.C. police cruisers blocking traffic and agents donning vests labeled “HSI” — Homeland Security Investigations. They hadn’t seen that before, not here.

A pair of French tourists, in D.C. for the first time and looking for a bar, paused when they saw the police cruisers and growing crowd. Earlier, they had strolled by the White House and marveled at the Capitol, and now they were trying to make sense of the flashing lights.

They had loosely followed the week’s headlines and were still thrilled to be visiting.

“We’re on vacation, so we try to cut [out] the news,” Solène Le Toullec said, and they walked on.

At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk — watching, filming, booing.

“Get out!”

“Go!”

“Quit!”

Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left.

Click the links below to read the rest:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-night-in-d-c-after-trump-s-national-guard-deployment/ar-AA1KFJnn

Idaho Statesman: Idaho Christian nationalists embrace the immoral if they have power | Opinion

Women should not be allowed to vote, according to the cult to which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth belongs:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently shared on X an interview with Moscow Pastor Doug Wilson, a key figure in the Christian nationalist movement who argues that women should be subordinate to men – even to the point that they should not be allowed to vote.

The movement has been emboldened by the re-election of President Donald Trump, and the CNN report Hegseth shared details the ongoing effort among Wilson and his allies to gain political power.

And the episode contains another important lesson: That the essential part of Christian nationalism is right-wing nationalism, while Christianity is a secondary, accidental feature.

The point is to gain power for a reactionary kind of political and cultural view – hence the movement’s constant insistence on the submission of women to men; the sympathy for the Old South, even to the point of defending slavery; constant attacks on gay and transgender people; occasionally downplaying the Holocaust and so on – and Christianity is a pretty cloak to wrap that foul project in.

This explains their consistent embrace of individuals who relentlessly exhibit personal debauchery – so long as they have political power – people like Hegseth and Trump.

To recite the obvious: Trump has been found liable for sexually abusing a woman, has bragged about his ability to sexually assault women at will, faced complaints about leering at teenage contestants in the locker rooms of beauty pageants, has cheated (often ostentatiously) on all three of his wives and faces numerous other credible allegations of sexual misconduct.

Hegseth, Trump’s moral clone, has faced credible allegations of sexual assault and admitted cheating on the mother of his children with five different women. His former sister-in-law has alleged he abused his next wife. His drunken escapades have become notorious.

“I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego,” wrote one of his critics. “You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

When the idea is that only families, led by a husband, can vote, Hegseth dons the demeanor of a pious Christian and declares, “All of Christ for All of Life.” But the moment his marriage requires him to be faithful, his Bible hits the floor just before his pants.

We are all poor sinners, it’s true. But doesn’t it seem strange that the Kingdom of God would be brought forth by the most degenerate among us? Maybe it’s worth thinking about false prophets and the idea that “you will know them by their fruit.”

The Christian nationalist movement’s embrace of people like this can be understood in much the same way as the massive hoard of pornography found on the outwardly pious Osama bin Laden’s hard drives after his death: It shows that terrorism was his primary commitment, and his religion was a situationally dispensable secondary matter.

In the CNN segment, Wilson argued that working for a theocratic takeover of Idaho government is nothing but tending “our little corner of the vineyard.” Asked if Muslims in Idaho should have to live by Christian law, Wilson responded: “If I went to Saudi Arabia, I would fully expect to live under their God’s rules.”

But Idaho is not Wilson’s little corner of the vinyard.

What the Christian nationalist movement proposes is not a return to Idaho’s older and better days. It is the imposition of a new and fundamentally alien order. The equality of women, even if never perfectly realized, has been deeply threaded through Idaho’s history and tradition from the very beginning.

Unlike in many eastern states, the right of women to vote was not a late development in Idaho’s history. Only six years after Idaho’s 1890 founding, the right of women to vote was enshrined in the state Constitution – with the overwhelming approval of the then-all-male electorate – making ours the fourth state to protect universal suffrage.

That is our heritage.

Two years later, in 1898, Permeal J. French became Idaho’s first female constitutional officer when she was elected state superintendent. After that, Idaho has always had at least one woman in statewide office or Congress, except for a brief period between 2013 and 2014 between the resignation of State Controller Donna Jones and the election of Superintendent Sherri Ybarra.

That is our history.

The point isn’t for America or Idaho to be Saudi Arabia with a different religion. The point is for America and for Idaho to be free.

If Wilson doesn’t like that, maybe he should find another vineyard. Maybe the aforementioned Saudi Arabia, where it’s illegal to be gay, where women can’t vote, where institutions quite like slavery persist, where most of what Wilson and his cohort want for Idaho is already accomplished.

Sure, there may theological differences, but what’s a minor philosophical disagreement between friends, especially when they agree about pretty much everything else?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/idaho-christian-nationalists-embrace-the-immoral-if-they-have-power-opinion/ar-AA1KAseo

Brandenton Herald: ‘Villainized’: ICE Officers Respond to Rise in Threats


Would somebody please call a Whambulance?

An 830% increase of a very small number is still a fairly small number, especially when these purported incidents are distributed among ICE’s 10,000+ abusive bully boys.


Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have reported a staggering 830% increase in violence amid the implementation of mass deportation policies under President Donald Trump. Some have spoken up regarding their experiences of violence in hopes of humanizing their work and countering hostility. ICE Officer Kristian Moreno noted that officers have been targeted for simply enforcing the law.

Speaking with Fox News host Lara Trump, Moreno said, “It has been very sad to see how we’re villainized, the names used towards us.” She added, “We got a job to do. We’re just enforcing the law. We’re not making up the law, and it’s sad, but we just keep pushing through it.”

ICE Officer Chris Sandoval noted the risks agents face, such as being photographed and doxxed. He stated that misinformation and negative views have hindered their efforts to protect vulnerable communities.

Sandoval stated, “It’s kind of unfair to where… we’re doing our job, we’re serving the country, but sometimes I see people writing and stuff, and you’re hurting your own community.”

ICE Officer Edgardo Centeno expressed concern about rising hostility toward ICE agents. He noted that working conditions in Los Angeles and New York have become troubling and condemned political rhetoric inciting violence against agents.

Centeno said, “I believe in the First Amendment, and you can express yourself all you want, but when you are enforcing, as a Congress member…[people] to go after us, then you’re crossing that line.”

Centeno added, “We should not be afraid of doing our jobs. I raised my hand to defend the Constitution, and I’ll die for it. That’s who I am, and I know my partners are the same here.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/villainized-ice-officers-respond-to-rise-in-threats/ar-AA1KDSBm

KTLA: ICE officers barred from using deceptive tactics in Southern California home raids

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are no longer allowed to identify themselves as local police or use deceptive tactics during home arrests in Southern California, following a court-approved settlement reached in a class action lawsuit.

The settlement, approved Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II in Kidd v. Noem, prohibits ICE officers in the agency’s Los Angeles Field Office from falsely claiming to be state or local law enforcement or misrepresenting the nature of their visit in order to enter a home or persuade a resident to come outside.

The case was filed in 2020 by Osny Sorto-Vazquez Kidd and two immigrant advocacy organizations, the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of ICE’s home arrest practices in Los Angeles and surrounding counties.

Under the agreement, ICE officers may not claim to be conducting criminal investigations, probation or parole checks, or other public safety inquiries unless those claims are accurate. Officers are also prohibited from using pretexts, such as suggesting a problem with a resident’s vehicle, to lure individuals outside.

“This settlement makes clear immigration officers are not above the Constitution and will be held accountable for their deceptive practices,” said Diana Sanchez, a staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which represented the plaintiffs. “We’ll be monitoring to ensure ICE does not violate the rights of our community members.”

As part of the settlement, ICE officers in the Los Angeles Field Office must wear visible identifiers clearly labeling them as “ICE” whenever they display the word “POLICE” on their uniforms. The measure aims to prevent confusion among residents and reduce the possibility that individuals might mistake federal immigration agents for local law enforcement.

“For far too long, ICE disrespected the privacy of community members by taking shortcuts around the Constitution’s requirement that law enforcement have a warrant signed by a judge to enter a home,” said Annie Lai, director of the Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic at the UC Irvine School of Law. “Thanks to this settlement, ICE must now be transparent about who they are if they don’t have a warrant and want to speak with someone at their home.”

The settlement also mandates new training protocols. ICE must inform all Los Angeles Field Office officers of the new policies through broadcast messages and regular trainings. Officers will be required to document certain details when conducting home arrests, and ICE must share those records with class counsel to ensure compliance. This oversight will remain in place for three years.

The Los Angeles Field Office covers seven counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

The settlement follows a related court ruling issued in May 2024, which found that ICE officers and Homeland Security Investigations agents may not enter the private area around a home, known legally as the “curtilage,” without a judicial warrant or consent if their intent is to make a warrantless arrest. The combined effect of the two rulings significantly limits ICE’s authority to carry out home arrests without judicial oversight.

Angelica Salas, executive director of CHIRLA, said the decision brings meaningful safeguards. “By prohibiting ICE agents from using trickery, for example, falsely claiming that there is an issue with a resident’s vehicle, to lure people out of their homes, this settlement protects all its occupants and creates a safer community.”

Lizbeth Abeln, deputy director at the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, called the agreement a long overdue victory.

“For years, we’ve heard the testimonies: ICE agents impersonating local police, showing up at people’s doors, lying about their purpose, and using fear to tear families apart,” she said. “ICE can no longer use deception to target our communities.”

Giovanni Saarman González, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and counsel for the plaintiffs, said the settlement, combined with the earlier ruling, offers meaningful relief to the classes and the broader Southern California community.

https://ktla.com/news/california/ice-officers-barred-deceptive-tactics-home-raids

KEYT: Nursing mother unlawfully detained by ICE, attorney says

The attorneys for a nursing mother in the Twin Cities who has spent more than three weeks in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody argue she is unlawfully detained and will petition in federal court on Tuesday for her release.

Antonia Aguilar Maldonado, 26, has two young children who are U.S. citizens and lives in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, and was taken into custody on July 17. Gloria Contreras Edin and Hannah Brown, who are representing her pro bono, submitted a writ of habeas corpus petition challenging her continued detention.

They argue she should be released on bond in accordance with an immigration judge’s earlier decision on July 31, to which the Department of Homeland Security filed an automatic stay, which has kept her in the Kandiyohi County Jail.

“I’ve had over 1,000 cases before the immigration courts, and in all of my years and in all of my experience, I haven’t seen anything like this before, especially when someone is lactating, has small baby at home, no criminal history, and then being detained for so long,” Contreras Edin said in an interview. “It just goes against ICE’s policies. It just seems wrong.”

There is a hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in St. Paul seeking emergency relief. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said Maldonado’s detention is “fully supported by statute, regulation and the Constitution” and that “her detention is lawful because she is an applicant for admission who is not ‘clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted’ to the United States,” writing that Maldonado “herself does not claim that she has lawful status to remain in the United States.”

The government is asking the judge to reject the motion for a temporary restraining order.

“We should respect the fact that our country can and should enforce immigration laws. I think that’s important,” Contreras Edin said. “But I also think that we should recognize an element of humanitarian interests and concerns, right? We don’t want a US citizen baby being deprived of his mother’s milk. This is about a mother and a baby.”

Maldonado came to the U.S. as a teenager in 2017 and had a removal order in 2019 for failing to attend a hearing. But an immigration judge reopened her case last year after finding she wasn’t given notice of that court appearance, her attorney said.

Since then, she has been doing “everything right,” Contreras Edin explained, and filed for asylum, obtained work authorization and has no criminal history. Her arrest on July 17 came as a surprise.

“In my practice during removal proceedings, someone like Ms. Maldonado would have normally been released on a bond and then proceed with a non-detained docket, and would have been allowed to appear before an immigration judge while being able to be with her family and her children,” she said.

Contreras Edin described her client as depressed and distraught and said she has to pump breast milk and dump it in the sink.

“She’s imagining the wailing of her baby every night, and that’s what she goes to bed to, and now her milk is turning green,” she said.

Her children are currently staying with relatives.

When asked about Maldonado’s case, a spokesperson for ICE provided the following statement to WCCO: “By statute, we have no information on this person.”

Contreras Edin said she is hopeful a judge will authorize the release of Maldonado, pointing to a similar case involving a Turkish graduate student at the University of Minnesota who was detained by ICE and later released.

NBC News: Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that they say led to chilling of free speech

The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

Stanford University’s student newspaper sued the Trump administration Wednesday over two provisions in federal immigration law that it says the officials have wielded against those with pro-Palestinian views.

The Stanford Daily, in addition to two former college students, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing the administration of using the provisions to threaten deportation and the revocation of visas. They say the situation has led to censorship and violations of free speech rights.

The paper’s staff members who are on visas have self-censored and declined assignments related to the war in Gaza, fearful that their reporting could jeopardize their lawful immigration status, the lawsuit said.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is helping represent the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

A senior State Department official declined to comment and directed NBC News to comments Rubio has about visa holders and complying with U.S. law.

In April, Rubio wrote in an opinion piece published on Fox News that he would be taking a “zero-tolerance approach to foreign nationals who abet terrorist organizations.”

“The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that visa holders or other aliens cannot use the First Amendment to shield otherwise impermissible actions taken to support designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizballah, or the Houthis, or violate other U.S. laws,” Rubio said.

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, described the lawsuit as “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs take aim at the Deportation Provision and Revocation Provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” The second gives the secretary the power to revoke a visa or documentation at his or her discretion.

As the lawsuit points out, the Trump administration has cited the Deportation Provision as the basis for trying to deport Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested and detained for more than three months. Similarly, the administration used the Revocation Provision to detain Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who has also since been released.

Because of the administration’s use of the statutes, the lawsuit said, the Stanford Daily has received a number of requests from lawfully present noncitizens to have their names, quotes or photos removed from articles. Many international students have stopped speaking to the paper’s journalists, and current and former writers have asked for their opinion editorials to be taken down, the lawsuit said.

“The First Amendment cements America’s promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,” the lawsuit said. “And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.”

One of the unnamed plaintiffs appeared on the Canary Mission, the suit said. The website, run by an anonymous group, has published a detailed database of students, professors and others who it says have shared anti-Israel and antisemitic viewpoints. It has been accused of doxxing and harassment, in addition to launching personal attacks that depict pro-Palestinian activists as being in “support of terrorism,” the Middle East Studies Association of North America said. The plaintiff has stopped publishing and “voicing her true opinions” on the Palestinian territories and Israel, the suit said.

Canary Mission has told NBC News that it documents people and groups who “promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews” across the political spectrum. It did not respond to criticisms of its work.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that block the officials from using the provisions against them based on engaging in what they consider protected speech.

“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” Greta Reich, the Stanford Daily’s editor-in-chief, said in a statement. “The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stanford-student-newspaper-sues-trump-officials-immigration-law-rcna223477

Raw Story: Appeals court rules against Trump admin in big case — and gives deadline to comply

A federal appeals court ruled over the weekend that Donald Trump’s administration’s moves on government spending are an affront to the Constitution and disclosure laws, according to Politico.

According to the outlet, the three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously to “shoot down a Trump administration bid to make secret a public database of federal spending that researchers say is crucial to ensure the administration is not flouting Congress’ power of the purse.” The court also imposed a deadline, according to the report.

The court reportedly gave “the administration until Friday to put the data back online.”

“Two of the three appeals judges assigned to the matter also signed onto a forceful opinion declaring that the administration’s bid to conceal the data was an affront to Congress’ authority over government spending, one that threatened the separation of powers and defied centuries of evidence that public disclosure is necessary for the public good,” according to the report.

Politico further noted that, “Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote in support of the decision to deny the Trump administration’s request to keep the data under wraps while litigation over the issue goes forward,” and quoted her as saying, “No court would allow a losing party to defy its judgment. No President would allow a usurper to command our armed forces.”

She added, “And no Congress should be made to wait while the Executive intrudes on its plenary power over appropriations.”

https://www.rawstory.com/appeals-court-rules-against-trump

Washington Post: Laura Loomer knocks Medal of Honor recipient in new attack on Army

The unofficial adviser to President Donald Trump chastised Army Secretary Dan Driscoll over a social media post recognizing Florent Groberg, a decorated soldier who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Far-right political activist Laura Loomer has opened an extraordinary new line of attack on the Pentagon, sharply criticizing Army Secretary Dan Driscoll for allowing the service to acknowledge the battlefield valor of Medal of Honor recipient Florent Groberg, who suffered catastrophic injuries saving the lives of fellow soldiers targeted by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.

Loomer, writing on social media, questioned why the Army had spotlighted Groberg in a recent post marking the incident’s anniversary. Groberg, she suggested, was undeserving of such recognition because he delivered remarks, as a private citizen, at the 2016 Democratic National Convention and was not “US born.”

“There are probably so many people who the Army could honor who have received the Medal of Honor,” Loomer, a provocateur who, unofficially, has advised President Donald Trump on personnel matters, wrote in her post on X. “But who did the Army choose to honor instead on their social media page under the Trump admin?” Under Driscoll, she continued, “there have been several instances of either him, or the Army promoting anti-Trump Leftists on their official social media channels.”

The Medal of Honor is the United States’ highest recognition for combat valor, and the Defense Department has long celebrated the courage and sacrifice demonstrated by the award’s recipients, putting Loomer’s criticism deeply at odds with one of the more sacrosanct aspects of American military culture. Yet given her considerable influence and frequent visits with Trump — she has taken credit for the administration’s ouster of several appointees whom she branded insufficiently loyal — Loomer’s broadside late Friday night appears certain to force an uncomfortable discussion at the Pentagon and, potentially, within the White House.

Spokespeople for Driscoll and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, both Army veterans like Groberg, did not respond to requests for comment. The White House also did not respond.

An Army official, speaking on the condition of anonymity citing the issue’s sensitivity, said Groberg is a “national hero” and one in a long series of soldiers who will be featured online by the service this year as it celebrates its 250th birthday. Loomer’s attack, the official said, is “despicable.”

“The Army is not going to check the political affiliation of our soldiers before we recognize them,” the official said. “A man or woman serving is not a Democrat or Republican, they are an American. Their political affiliation has nothing to do with their service.”

Loomer’s swipe at Driscoll and Groberg coincided with the anniversary of the suicide bombing on Aug. 8, 2012, that claimed the lives of four men: Army Command Sgt. Maj. Kevin J. Griffin, 45; Army Maj. Thomas E. Kennedy, 35; Air Force Maj. Walter D. Gray, 38; and Foreign Service officer Ragaei Abdelfattah, 43. Groberg, then 29, shoved the attacker away moments before the explosives detonated, preventing far greater carnage. He suffered life-altering injuries to his left leg, and several other soldiers were wounded.

Groberg declined an interview request but voiced amazement online at Loomer’s criticism.

“Thirteen years ago today is my Alive Day, the day I nearly lost my life, and four of my brothers, including three Army leaders, never came home,” he wrote. “I’ve served under presidents from both parties and will always honor my oath to this country. Yes, I spoke for 60 seconds at the DNC when asked about service and sacrifice, not politics. For me, 8/8 isn’t about parties. It’s about the lives we lost.”

During his convention speech, Groberg said he was not speaking as a Republican or a Democrat, but as a “proud immigrant to this country, a proud veteran of the United States Army, and a proud recipient of our nation’s highest military honor.” Groberg, who was born in France and later became a U.S. citizen, recognized his fellow service members who were killed during the attack. He said, too, that when Hillary Clinton’s moment arrived, she would be “ready to serve, ready to lead and ready to defend you.” Trump defeated Clinton in the election that November.

Groberg, asked previously about his decision to appear at the Democratic convention, said he informed organizers he is a Republican.

“I saw an opportunity for me to go in, not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, not as a political figure, but as a veteran. As an immigrant. As an American,” he told The Washington Post in 2016. He said then that he had a “God-given right” to share who he would be voting for, and that he did not judge anyone who voted for Trump.

“I made a choice,” he said. “I stood up. I knew I would take the heat. But guess what? I still go to sleep at night like a baby. I’m okay with it.”

In an interview Saturday, Loomer defended her criticism of Driscoll and Groberg, telling The Post that no one from the White House or Hegseth’s office had contacted her and asked her to take down her posts. She said the Army’s choice to recognize Groberg was ideologically at odds with the Trump administration.

“It is very important that the secretary of the Army does not push out Democratic propaganda,” Loomer said. She added that people can take her criticism “however they want. I just laid out the facts,” and said she thought she had been respectful.

“Well,” she said, “I said, ‘Thank you for your service.’”

Hegseth’s silence, in particular, is notable. Unlike other defense secretaries, he’s been extremely active on social media and quick to publicly rebut perceived critics or slights. He also has repeatedly called for a return of what he calls the “warrior ethos” to the Pentagon, celebrating those who prepare for combat and serve with distinction in it.

He and Loomer spoke privately in recent weeks, Hegseth’s spokesman, Sean Parnell, told CNN recently. The conversation came as she has turned her attention to perceived disloyalty to Trump within the Defense Department.

Driscoll’s name has surfaced as a possible replacement for Hegseth if the defense secretary were to leave the Cabinet post. Hegseth has faced frequent questions about his longtime viability in the role amid allegations of mismanagement and infighting on his team at the Pentagon, but he has retained the president’s support.

Loomer said the social media post about Groberg marks at least the third time this year that the Army has highlighted people who have opposed Trump. She cited Driscoll’s show of gratitude to Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) for attending the Army’s 250th birthday celebration. Vindman, a retired Army officer, was a central figure in Trump’s first impeachment.

Loomer also noted the Army’s announcement that retired Army officer Jennifer Easterly, who served in the Biden administration as the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, would join the faculty at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Driscoll revoked Easterly’s appointment last month, after Loomer and other critics panned the decision, and said he would direct a review of West Point hiring practices.

Others who have served under Trump defended Groberg and questioned Loomer’s understanding of the military’s nonpartisan culture.

“One of the first things my drill sergeant told us at Army Basic Training in 1983 was, ‘You all bleed Army green now — no one cares about the color of your skin, where you came from, or what religion you are,’” Chris Miller, who served as acting defense secretary during the first Trump administration, said in a text message. “He didn’t have to add, ‘or your political affiliation’ because it was taken for granted that our oath was to the Constitution and not any political party or person.”

Miller added: “To have an agent provocateur, seemingly lacking any understanding of the appropriate role of the military in America’s constitutional republic, cast aspersions on Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll’s righteous effort to honor the courage and sacrifice of all Army Medal of Honor recipients is an abomination and disreputable.”

Robert Wilkie, who served as Veterans Affairs secretary during the first Trump administration, said in a statement to The Post that the Medal of Honor “knows no political affiliation.”

“I am a Trump supporter and I am the son of a distinguished combat officer,” Wilkie said. “My service was modest. I was raised to believe that that medal is sacred. No matter what the holder believes or where he came from, he is worthy of the respect and thanks of all Americans.”

Dakota Meyer, a Medal of Honor recipient and friend of several Trump administration appointees, called Loomer out in a social media post of his own on Saturday. While the medal is apolitical, he said, a person wearing it does not have to be.

“If anyone has earned the right to free speech or to have an opinion it’s a man who threw himself in front of a suicide bomber to save lives,” Meyer wrote to Loomer. “What have you done?”

During the first Trump administration, Groberg visited the White House multiple times for ceremonies recognizing other service members who received the Medal of Honor. Trump thanked him directly for attending, according to transcripts from those events.

During the Biden administration, Groberg was appointed to the American Battle Monuments Commission, an independent agency that oversees U.S. military cemeteries and monuments overseas. He has often voiced a need for Americans to stand together and remember U.S. troops killed in combat. Groberg has been retained by the Trump administration on the commission, according to its website.

Groberg also visited the Pentagon recently and met with Hegseth in his office. Groberg, whonow works at an aerospace investment firm, voiced appreciation for the opportunity on LinkedIn.

“Honored to meet with the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth this week for a meaningful conversation about strengthening our defense industrial base and our troops,” Groberg said. “We discussed the importance of competition, resilience, and innovation across the national security ecosystem. Grateful for the time, leadership, and shared commitment to building a more agile and prepared force.”

When some criticized Groberg’s decision to meet with Hegseth, the Medal of Honor recipient defended his choice and said that it appeared Hegseth has veterans’ best interests at heart.

Pathetic partisan bitch!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/09/laura-loomer-florent-groberg-dan-driscoll