Fox News: GOP lawmaker pushes bill to punish cities that ditched Columbus Day after Trump proclamation

Rep Michael Rulli argued that Columbus Day and Indigenous Peoples Day should be separate

A new House GOP proposal would withhold funding from U.S. jurisdictions that celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day instead of Columbus Day.

It comes after President Donald Trump signed a proclamation last week declaring Oct. 13 Columbus Day in honor of the famed explorer as well as the heritage of Italian Americans across the U.S.

“This is about every son and daughter of Italy, every Knights of Columbus, every pasta dinner on Sunday, and every communion — everything that makes our culture who we are, from Philadelphia to San Francisco,” Rep. Michael Rulli, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

“Every Little Italy neighborhood of this country celebrates Christopher Columbus. It’s so much more than the man. It’s the people.”

Rulli’s new bill would both reaffirm Columbus Day as a federal holiday and punish cities and states that replaced the celebration of it with Indigenous Peoples Day.

“We are not going to allow any American municipality to think that they have power over the federal government,” he said.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden formally recognized the second Monday in October as both Columbus Day and Indigenous Peoples Day.

The move was lauded by progressive activists and historians who saw Christopher Columbus as the harbinger of a genocide against the land’s indigenous people, millions of whom were killed amid American colonization.

But Rulli argued that Columbus Day was about honoring Italian Americans’ heritage, pointing out that part of the motivation for its founding in 1892 was the extrajudicial lynching of 11 Italian Americans in New Orleans after the death of a local police chief.

He added his legislation was not meant to undercut the significance of Native Americans — whom he said deserve their own day of significance.

“I mean, the Native Americans are some of the most amazing, dynamic cultural people that make up the fabric of America. But they need their own special day,” Rulli said. “And I would be willing to do that. I’m saying right now, I would be willing to get the indigenous people their own day, but not this day.”

He further accused the Biden administration of undercutting the legacy of both peoples by declaring both holidays on the same day, while praising Trump for restoring Columbus Day’s original meaning.

“I don’t care what party you’re in … if you come from Italian American descent, you love what President Trump did. It was a wonderful olive branch to all Italian Americans,” Rulli said.

“By no means, no way, shape or form, is this bill meant to offend any of the indigenous people. They deserve their own day. We will get them their own day, but not Columbus Day. This has already been embedded in our fabric for 130 years,” he said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmaker-pushes-bill-punish-cities-ditched-columbus-day-after-trump-proclamation

Newsweek: Ex-Clarence Thomas clerk sounds alarm on expected Supreme Court move

A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas has issued a detailed warning about the Supreme Court‘s accelerating push to expand presidential power over federal agencies, coinciding with active cases that could overturn decades of precedent.

Caleb Nelson, a distinguished professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, published an analysis in September through NYU Law’s Democracy Project titled “Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President’s Pleasure?”, challenging the Court’s interpretation of presidential removal authority.

The alarm bells come as the Court prepares to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump can fire officials at independent agencies without cause, with cases involving Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Reserve officials already pending.

Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court’s public information office via online form and the White House via email on Monday for comment.

Why It Matters

The Supreme Court’s trajectory on removal power could fundamentally restructure American government, affecting everything from consumer protection to monetary policy.

The stakes extend beyond theoretical constitutional interpretation. The Court has already allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mass immigration program terminations and other major policy changes through emergency orders while litigation continues, demonstrating the immediate real-world impact of these judicial decisions.

If the Court expands presidential removal authority, it would enable the White House to rapidly replace independent regulators and carry out major policy changes before courts can review them, with fewer practical checks on abrupt shifts in direction.

At stake is whether independent agencies like the FTC and Federal Reserve can maintain insulation from partisan political control.

What To Know

The constitutional dispute centers on a seemingly simple question with complex implications: who can fire federal officials, and under what circumstances?

Nelson explains that while Article II vests executive power in the president, the Constitution remains largely silent on removal except for impeachment. This silence has become a battleground for competing interpretations.

Chief Justice John Roberts has led the charge toward expanded presidential power, writing in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) that presidential removal authority “follows from the text of Article II, was settled by the First Congress, and was confirmed in the landmark decision Myers v. United States.” The Court appears poised to extend this reasoning further, potentially overturning Humphrey’s Executor (1935), which has protected independent agency officials from at-will removal for nearly ninety years.

Nelson systematically challenges each pillar of Roberts’s argument.

He disputes that Article II’s “executive Power” includes the English monarch’s historical removal powers, citing recent scholarship distinguishing between executive authority and royal prerogative. He also contests the historical narrative about the First Congress, arguing that careful examination of 1789 debates reveals no consensus on presidential removal power, despite current Court assertions.

The practical implications are already visible. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on Substack earlier this month that the Trump administration sought emergency action from the Court 19 times in its first 20 weeks—matching the former President Joe Biden administration’s total over four years—and succeeded in 10 of 12 decided applications.

Recent immigration cases demonstrate this pattern: the Court allowed termination of parole programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants and permitted deportations to proceed despite lower court injunctions requiring notice and opportunity to seek protection.

What People Are Saying

Professor Caleb Nelson, in his analysis: “If most of what the federal government currently does on a daily basis is ‘executive,’ and if the President must have full control over each and every exercise of ‘executive’ power by the federal government (including an unlimitable ability to remove all or almost all executive officers for reasons good or bad), then the President has an enormous amount of power—more power, I think, than any sensible person should want anyone to have, and more power than any member of the founding generation could have anticipated.”

He added: “I am an originalist, and if the original meaning of the Constitution compelled this outcome, I would be inclined to agree that the Supreme Court should respect it until the Constitution is amended through the proper processes. But both the text and the history of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting. In the face of such ambiguities, I hope that the Justices will not act as if their hands are tied and they cannot consider any consequences of the interpretations that they choose.”

Judge Clay D. Land, Middle District of Georgia, in a May decision: “Allowing constitutional rights to be dependent upon the grace of the executive branch would be a dereliction of duty by this third and independent branch of government and would be against the public interest.”

Justice Elena Kagan, at a judicial conference in California in July: “Courts are supposed to explain things. Offering reasons for judicial decisions is an essential protection against arbitrary power—to ensure that like cases are being treated alike.”

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in November regarding presidential authority to impose tariffs under emergency powers, while removal cases involving FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook await resolution.

The Court’s decisions could eliminate statutory protections for independent agency officials, potentially affecting thousands of positions across agencies overseeing financial markets, consumer protection, communications, and trade.

https://www.newsweek.com/ex-clarence-thomas-clerk-sounds-alarm-expected-supreme-court-move-10873224

Slingshot News: ‘I Don’t Care One Bit!’: GOP Loser Lindsey Graham Shrugs His Shoulders Over Trump’s Weaponization Of The DOJ During Interview [Video]

In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pathetically tried to talk about Biden when pressed on Trump’s blatant weaponization of the Justice Department against political foes. Eventually, Graham outright exclaimed that he doesn’t care.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-don-t-care-one-bit-gop-loser-lindsey-graham-shrugs-his-shoulders-over-trump-s-weaponization-of-the-doj-during-interview/vi-AA1OonZs

Slingshot News: ‘I’d Like You To See A Short Video’: Dick Durbin Sabotages GOP Colleagues When He Exposes Trump’s Cognitive Decline In Anti-Biden Hearing [Video]

Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee held a sham hearing several weeks ago to “examine” Joe Biden’s presidency. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) turned the tables on his GOP colleagues when he showed a video exposing Donald Trump’s cognitive decline.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-d-like-you-to-see-a-short-video-dick-durbin-sabotages-gop-colleagues-when-he-exposes-trump-s-cognitive-decline-in-anti-biden-hearing/vi-AA1OffCV

Washington Post: Prosecutors push toward charging other Trump foes after Letitia James

With the president pressuring the Justice Department to swiftly prosecute his rivals, federal prosecutors in at least five jurisdictions are pursuing possible cases.

President Donald Trump’s unprecedented efforts to pressure the Justice Department into prosecuting his perceived enemies have, so far, netted swift results — and more may be on the way.

In a matter of only two weeks, his handpicked U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Lindsey Halligan, obtained indictments against two frequent targets: former FBI Director James B. Comey and, on Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Federal prosecutors across the country are pursuing several other investigations, many of which Trump has personally called for. Those include investigations into a sitting U.S. senator, former top leaders of the FBI and CIA and the Georgia prosecutor who charged Trump in a massive 2020 election conspiracy case.

The next set of charges could be coming quickly. Under pressure from senior Justice Department officials, federal prosecutors in Maryland are preparing to ask a grand jury to indict John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security adviser, in a classified documents case. Charges could come as soon as the coming week, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.

Many of Trump’s targets, including Comey, charged with lying to Congress, and James, indicted on allegations of mortgage fraud, have derided the cases against them as baseless and driven by political retribution.

Here’s what to know about where investigations of Trump’s other perceived foes stand:

John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser

Federal authorities in Maryland have been investigating Bolton, a veteran diplomat turned fierce Trump critic, since earlier this year on allegations he illegally retained classified material after his 2019 resignation.

Multiple people familiar with the evidence against him have described the case as generally stronger than those against James and Comey. Court records unsealed last month indicate that FBI agents recovered documents marked classified while searching Bolton’s downtown Washington office.

In seeking a warrant to search the facility, investigators revealed they believed they would find classified records there in part because of information they learned through a foreign adversary hacking into Bolton’s AOL email account years ago.

Kelly O. Hayes, acting U.S. attorney in Maryland, a veteran federal prosecutor whom the Trump administration elevated to the office’s top job this year, is overseeing the case. The prosecution is being led by Tom Sullivan, who heads the national security and cyber divisions in Hayes’s office. Sullivan was previously part of the special counsel team that investigated former president Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents in 2023.

Bolton’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has said the documents marked classified found in Bolton’s office stem from his time in the administration of George W. Bush and had been cleared for his use decades ago.

“An objective and thorough review will show nothing inappropriate was stored or kept by Amb. Bolton,” Lowell said in a statement.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California)

Schiff, a vocal Trump critic who led the House investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, is facing investigation on mortgage fraud allegations similar to those lodged Thursday against James.

Both inquiries were initiated by criminal referrals from Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and pursued by Ed Martin, a former interim U.S. attorney in Washington turned Justice Department official.

In recent weeks, Martin has met with Hayes, the Maryland U.S. attorney, who is also overseeing the investigation of the senator, to discuss the progress of the investigation.

The inquiry is centered on Pulte’s assertion that Schiff misled lenders while buying a second home in Potomac in 2003 by claiming the property would be his primary residence.

Schiff and his lawyer — former Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara — dismiss Pulte’s claims as politically motivated, “transparently false, stale and long debunked.” Bharara privately wrote to the Justice Department in July arguing there was “no factual basis” for those claims and provided documentation to exonerate the senator.

Schiff’s mortgage lender was aware from the start that he and his wife were buying the Maryland house so his family could live there when he was working in Washington, Bharara wrote, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Washington Post. To convict Schiff of mortgage fraud, prosecutors would have to prove that Schiff intended to deceive.

Still, after James’ indictment this week, Schiff is now bracing for the prospect that he could be indicted within a matter of weeks, according to two people familiar with his thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

“Those of us on the president’s enemies list — and it is a long and growing list — will not be intimidated, we will not be deterred,” the senator told reporters Thursday. “We will do our jobs. We will stand up to this president.”

Lisa Cook, Federal Reserve governor

Federal prosecutors in Georgia are also pursuing a mortgage fraud investigation targeting Cook, the Biden-appointed Federal Reserve governor whom Trump is seeking to fire from the central bank.

Last month, investigators issued subpoenas as part of the inquiry, which began with a referral from Pulte, and Martin has conferred with law enforcement officials in the state. Pulte has accused Cook of claiming both a home in Michigan and a condominium in Georgia as “primary residences” on mortgage applications.

Cook’s lawyers deny she committed a crime and have suggested in court papers that she “mislabeled” her homes in her mortgage applications.

John Brennan, former CIA director

The Justice Department acknowledged in July that it had opened an investigation into Obama-era CIA director John Brennan, one of many targets the president has said should be prosecuted for involvement in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

John Ratcliffe, the current CIA director, and Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, referred Brennan and others, including Comey, to the Justice Department. They alleged that Brennan and others manipulated a 2017 intelligence assessment to wrongly tie the Trump campaign to Moscow’s efforts and later lied about it to Congress.

In recent weeks, federal investigators in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have conducted some interviews as part of the investigation, though its full scope remains unclear, one person familiar with its progress said.

One other current and one former official familiar with the matter suggested Gabbard may have undermined the investigation’s progress. Earlier this year, she publicly revoked the security clearances of 37 people who had been drafting the 2017 intelligence assessment, accusing them of politicizing intelligence and failing to safeguard classified information.

Her comments may have damaged their credibility as witnesses in any potential case against Brennan, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the ongoing investigation.

FBI officials under former director Christopher A. Wray

In a separate investigation centered on the 2016 election, federal authorities in the Roanoke-based Western District of Virginia are investigating claims that senior bureau officials under former FBI director Christopher A. Wray mishandled or sought to destroy documents related to the Russia investigation.

That inquiry appears to have been sparked by allegations first floated by current FBI Director Kash Patel, who said in July he had discovered thousands of pages of records in “burn bags” at the bureau’s headquarters in Washington. He has suggested they were placed there to cover up wrongdoing by his predecessors at the FBI.

Some of those records — linked to an investigation by special counsel John Durham about the origins of the Russia investigation — have since been released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Current and former national security officials have questioned the premise of Patel’s allegations, noting that many of the records he claims to have uncovered had also been stored on government computer servers for years.

Fani T. Willis, Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney

The New York Times reported last month that the Justice Department had issued a subpoena for travel records of Willis, the Atlanta-area prosecutor who brought a sprawling racketeering case against the president and more than a dozen allies, accusing them of illegally seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

The investigation of Willis is being overseen by Theodore S. Hertzberg, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. But the scope of the inquiry remains unclear — including which records were subpoenaed and from whom.

The Times reported that the subpoena sought information tied to overseas trips Willis took around the time of the 2024 election. But Willis had not personally received a subpoena, her spokesman Jeff DiSantis said.

Trump has railed against Willis since her office charged him in 2023, calling his prosecution a “witch hunt.” The case remains the only remaining criminal matter in which Trump is charged, though Willis and her office are no longer leading the prosecution.

Last month, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Willis’s appeal of a lower court decision that removed her and her office from the proceedings after she was accused of an improper relationship with an outside attorney she appointed to the lead the case.

A state agency is now looking for a new prosecutor to take on the case. Willis has acknowledged she would likely continue to be a target of the president and his supporters.

“I am fully aware that there will be people in power over the next four years who may seek to use that power to lash out at those who are working to uphold the rule of law,” Willis told The Post in January. “I will not be intimidated by threats or acts of revenge.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-push-toward-charging-other-trump-foes-after-letitia-james/ar-AA1OgMRK

Independent: White House admits Trump’s message to [Bimbo #3] Bondi to prosecute enemies was supposed to be a DM: report

Apparent error provides another glimpse into radically reshaped Justice Department under Trump’s command

Donald Trump’s Truth Social post urging Attorney General Pam [Bimbo #3] Bondi to prosecute his perceived political enemies without “delay” was intended to be a private message, according to administration officials.

A post from the president’s account September 20 addressed to [Bimbo #3] “Pam” demands “justice be served” against his former FBI director James Comey, who was indicted five days later.

Trump — suggesting in his post that the prosecution of his favored targets is retribution for his impeachments and indictments against him — believed he had sent [Bimbo #3] Bondi the message directly, and was surprised to learn it was public, The Wall Street Journalreported.

[Bimbo #3] Bondi was reportedly upset over his mistake, which Trump quickly sought to correct with a follow-up message roughly one hour later praising [Bimbo #3] Bondi for doing a “GREAT job.”

The error has provided a glimpse into a radically reshaped Department of Justice, stripped of its historic independence with both [Bimbo #3] Bondi and Trump at the helm.

When asked about the message in a Senate oversight hearing this week, [Bimbo #3] Bondi replied: “I don’t think he said anything that he hasn’t said for years.”

Comey pleaded not guilty to lying to Congress and obstruction in his first court appearance on the charges Wednesday. A trial date is tentatively scheduled to begin January 5, 2026, but Comey’s attorneys are expected to try to have the case thrown out altogether, citing Trump’s “vindictive” prosecution.

Trump’s message to [Bimbo #3] Bondi is likely to be at the heart of that motion, showing the judge overseeing that case that the president directed the nation’s top law enforcement official to investigate a target he labeled “guilty” before any charges were brought against him.

The Trump administration has ousted dozens of officials and government attorneys deemed insufficiently loyal to the president’s agenda, but in his September 20 post, the president singled out Erik Siebert, the now-former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia — who Trump himself nominated and then pushed out of the role after he resisted pressure to prosecute Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Trump complained that “nothing is being done” against Comey, James and Senator Adam Schiff, who are “all guilty as hell,” in his social media post.

He complained that “we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past,” despite Siebert being one of Trump’s own nominees for the job.

Trump called him a “woke RINO, who was never going to do his job,” and said he “fired him” because he wouldn’t take up the case against Comey.

His personal attorney Lindsey Halligan “is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump wrote in the message to [Bimbo #3] “Pam.”

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump wrote. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT.”

Three hours later, Trump announced on Truth Social that he was nominating Halligan, who has no prosecutorial experience.

Before Halligan entered office, federal prosecutors repeatedly sought to make a case against charging Comey, who is now the first former senior government official facing criminal charges under Trump’s retribution campaign.

According to an internal memo in which career prosecutors explained why they would not seek an indictment, prosecutors determined that a central witness — Comey’s longtime friend Daniel Richmond, a law professor at Columbia University — would prove “problematic” and likely prevent them from establishing a case, according to ABC News.

Richmond’s testimony would result in “likely insurmountable problems” for the prosecution, the memo stated.

In a highly unusual move, Halligan presented the case to a grand jury herself, and the grand jury voted to indict him last month.

A majority of the grand jury voted against charging Comey with one of three counts presented by Halligan, according to court documents. Comey was indicted on two other counts — making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding — after only 14 of 23 jurors voted in favor.

During her contentious confirmation hearing in January, [Bimbo #3] Bondi promised to end what she has called the partisan “weaponization” of the agency against perceived political enemies — echoing claims from Trump and his allies who have characterized the president’s own federal indictments as a politically motivated conspiracy against him.

In that hearing, she did not explicitly rule out prosecuting Trump’s targets. Asked again Tuesday whether she had any instruction from the White House to investigate anyone, [Bimbo #3] Bondi refused to answer. “I’m not going to discuss any conversations,” she said.

Trump, [Bimbo #3] Bondi and law enforcement across the Justice Department — now filled with loyalists and attorneys to dominate agencies that the president claims were weaponized against him — are also targeting other prominent Democratic officials as well as progressive fundraising groups and an array of ideological opponents the administration alleges are tied to acts of terrorism.

Prosecutors in Maryland are expected to bring charges against former national security adviser turned Trump critic John Bolton, according to WSJfollowing a raid at his home in August. A case file on a federal court docket remains sealed.

Former FBI director Christopher Wray, another Trump appointee who remained in office under Joe Biden, also is under investigation, according to the newspaper, though the subject of the probe is unclear.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/bondi-truth-social-trump-james-comey-b2842585.html

Chicago Tribune: Gov. JB Pritzker says President Trump deploying troops to Chicago due to ‘dementia’ and obsessive fixations

In a scathing critique of President Donald Trump, Gov. JB Pritzker on Tuesday accused the Republican president of deploying National Guard troops to the Democratic cities of Chicago and Portland based on fixations that stem in part from his being mentally impaired.

“This is a man who’s suffering dementia,” Pritzker said in a telephone interview with the Tribune. “This is a man who has something stuck in his head. He can’t get it out of his head. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t know anything that’s up to date. It’s just something in the recesses of his brain that is effectuating to have him call out these cities.

“And then, unfortunately, he has the power of the military, the power of the federal government to do his bidding, and that’s what he’s doing.”

The governor’s comments came as National Guard troops from Texas were assembling at a U.S. Army Reserve training center in far southwest suburban Elwood and Trump’s administration was moving forward with deploying 300 members of the Illinois National Guard for at least 60 days over the vocal and legal objections of Pritzker and other local elected leaders.

The Trump administration has said the troops are needed to protect federal agents and facilities involved in its ongoing deportation surge and has sought to do much the same in Portland, Oregon, though those efforts have been stymied so far by temporary court rulings. A federal judge in Chicago is expected to hold a hearing this week over the legal effort by Illinois and Chicago to block the deployments, which Pritzker and other local officials say is not only unnecessary but a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the use of U.S. military assets from taking part in law enforcement actions on domestic soil.

During the interview, Pritzker — who has been one of Trump’s harshest critics and is a potential 2028 presidential Democratic candidate — said the courts will play an integral role in challenging Trump’s efforts in Illinois and across the nation.

“We’re not going to go to war between the state of Illinois and the federal government, not taking up arms against the federal government,” Pritzker said. “But we are monitoring everything they’re doing, and using that monitoring to win in court.”

Pritzker also said he has not had any conversations with his staff or other Democratic governors regarding a so-called soft secession, a political and legal theory that has grown during Trump’s second term in which Democratic states would gradually withdraw their cooperation with the federal government, including withholding financial support, without formally leaving the Union.

“Preparing for and going to court with the law on our side and winning in court is important,” he continued. “It is the most important thing that we can do legally. If there are people who are suggesting there are things that we should do that are illegal. I would suggest to you, we’re not going to do those things.”

But even as the governor said he was counting on winning in the courts, Trump was openly exploring options to circumvent them.

Speaking in the Oval Office on Tuesday, the president reiterated that he was considering employing the two-century-old Insurrection Act to get around legal court orders that would deny him the ability to deploy National Guard troops to cities such as Chicago and Portland over governors’ objections.

“It’s been invoked before,” Trump said of the law, which the Brennan Center for Justice said has been used 30 times, starting with President George Washington, to quell the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.

Trump says he’d consider Ghislaine Maxwell pardon and mentions Diddy in same breath as Epstein pal: ‘Have to take a look’

The Insurrection Act is an exception to Posse Comitatus and allows a president to deploy the military to “suppress rebellion” or “insurrection” when enforcing federal law becomes “impracticable.”

Past Supreme Court rulings have given the president broad discretionary powers to decide if conditions have been met to invoke the Insurrection Act, but it has left the door open for judicial review to determine if a president invoked the law “in bad faith” or in going beyond “a permitted range of honest judgment.” And the actions of the military, once invoked, are also subject to judicial review.

The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was by President George H.W. Bush during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, with the support of California Gov. Pete Wilson. It also was used in Chicago in 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson to curb rioting over the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. with the backing of Mayor Richard J. Daley and acting Gov. Samuel Shapiro.

But the last time it was invoked over the opposition of a sitting governor was in 1965 when Johnson used it to federalize troops to protect civil rights marchers in Montgomery, Alabama, over the objections of segregationist Gov. George Wallace.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously invoked the act in 1957 to order the Arkansas National Guard to stand down from its orders from Gov. Orval Faubus to prevent the segregation of Little Rock’s public schools following the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Eisenhower also deployed the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to protect Black students attending classes.

As Pritzker has sought to counter Trump on nearly every front, he has joined California Gov. Gavin Newsom in threatening to leave the bipartisan National Governors Association because the organization hasn’t spoken out against Trump’s National Guard mobilizations.

In the Tribune interview, Pritzker noted how nearly all 50 state governors at the time signed on to an April 29, 2024, letter to then-President Joe Biden’s administration opposing the military’s push in Congress to forcibly transfer Air National Guard units performing space missions into the U.S. Space Force without the governors’ consent.

Among those who signed were then-GOP South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who now heads the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, overseeing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and Border Patrol.

“Well, I’m somebody who likes to reach out and do things in a bipartisan fashion, and I’ve attended NGA events and had friendly relationships with some Republican governors in the past, and the NGA has an important role. But not if it’s unwilling to stand up in this moment and speak on behalf of states’ rights the way that it always has,” Pritzker said. “So I don’t know how I can trust that the NGA actually does stand up for the states with Republicans in charge, apparently they’re just going to do Donald Trump’s bidding.”

Pritzker also continued to defend the process and timing of the Illinois attorney general’s office in filing a lawsuit to halt the National Guard activations, which wasn’t filed until Monday, two days after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memo about the Illinois National Guard deployments. This is despite Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul knowing for weeks that Trump had threatened to send the military to the streets of the Chicago area.

“You have to understand legal proceedings. In order for you to bring a lawsuit of any sort, you have to have what’s called ripeness. It has to be ripe. That means there has to be some action that’s taken to demonstrate that the wrong is being effectuated,” said Pritzker, calling any questions about the timing of the suit “a false avenue to follow.” “Just because someone says they’re going to call out the National Guard to do this in Illinois, until they do, you can’t file suit.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/gov-jb-pritzker-says-president-233400557.html

CBS News: Encountering ICE: A “David vs. Goliath” moment

In city after city, the Trump administration, through its agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has been testing limits of the law in apprehending and detaining people suspected of being undocumented, many of whom have no criminal record. Lee Cowan talks with a pastor whose Los Angeles parishioners feared being targeted by ICE; a man whose legal status in the U.S. was revoked and now faces deportation; and an attorney who resigned from ICE and now helps defend those detained by the government, which claims it is acting within the law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/encountering-ice-a-david-vs-goliath-moment/vi-AA1NU0p2

Slingshot News: ‘They’ll Be Struggling’: Trump Owns Up To His Economic Failures, Admits Tariffs Will Destroy Farmers In Oval Office Signing Event

Donald Trump signed a batch of executive orders in the Oval Office several days ago. During his remarks, Trump admitted that farmers will be struggling due to his tariffs until the so-called “transition” is complete. Never learning from his past mistakes, Trump brought up the idea of bailing out farmers again.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/they-ll-be-struggling-trump-owns-up-to-his-economic-failures-admits-tariffs-will-destroy-farmers-in-oval-office-signing-event/vi-AA1NXc9v

Raw Story: ‘Trump’s presidency is effectively over’: New polling spells disaster for Trump in 2026

New polling data on swing states shows that a plurality of voters now favor President Donald Trump being impeached, a figure that one journalist suspects will reach an outright majority ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“If Democrats win 20-40 seats, while only needing to flip three to take the majority, Trump’s presidency is effectively over,” wrote journalist Jason Easley, co-owner and editor of PoliticusUSA, a left-leaning news website, in an analysis published Thursday.

“The opposition to this president and his presidency appears to be only growing stronger. The pot is boiling, and the boil-over moment will likely manifest itself next November.”

Conducted by Lake Research Partners and commissioned by the national nonprofit Free Speech For People, the new poll shows that 49% of likely 2026 voters in swing districts supported impeaching Trump, compared to 44% who opposed. Additionally, the polling showed that 56% of those same voters disapproved of Trump during his second term compared to 40% who approved.

To the polling firm, the results were “unprecedented,” noting that such high support for impeachment so early into a president’s term were “remarkable.”

“It is remarkable and, as far as we know, unprecedented for such a large proportion of voters in swing districts to support impeachment of a president in the first year of their term,” the polling firm wrote in its memorandum alongside the polling data.

As for Easley, he suspected that given the dramatic shift toward supporting impeachment, that support would reach an outright majority ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“This is a surprising number of people in swing districts who want Trump impeached,” Easley wrote. “At the current pace this administration is on, the number of voters who want Trump impeached for a third time will pass 50% before the midterm election.”

Trump has been impeached twice already; first for his “perfect phone call” in which he was alleged to have attempted to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for damaging information on former President Joe Biden in 2019, and again in 2020 for attempting to overturn the results of the election.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2674039637