Donald Trump is growing increasingly frustrated that some of the political initiatives of his second term are running into legal roadblocks — particularly as some of his judicial appointees are the ones running interference.
According to a report from Politico’s Kyle Cheney, Trump’s selections to the Supreme Court, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, have been reliably siding with him on a series of short-term wins via the so-called “shadow docket,” but he continues to suffer setbacks from district judges he nominated to the bench — including one he put in place recently.
That has led to the president privately fuming and then complaining on social media about advisers and outside groups who vetted the judicial nominees for him.
Citing Trump setbacks on deporting immigrants, banning the Associated Press from the White House, handcuffing his tariff campaign, and, most recently, limiting his ability to send National Guard troops into Portland, Cheney noted Trump complained on Truth Social late Saturday, “I wasn’t served well by the people that pick judges.”
According to the Politico report, Trump’s latest broadside “came four months after he similarly sounded off about the ‘bad advice’ he got from the conservative Federalist Society for his first-term judicial nominations — a reaction to a ruling, backed by a Trump-appointed judge, rejecting his power to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners.”
The report noted, “While Trump and his allies have spent all year leveling pointed attacks at Democratic judicial appointees, labeling them rogue insurrectionists and radicals, the president is increasingly facing stark rejections from people he put on the bench.”
The trouble the president is running into is being attributed to home-state senators, who are being accused of pushing Trump to “nominate more moderate picks than they might otherwise in states dominated by the opposing party.”
“Still, in some cases in which Trump-appointed judges have heard Trump-related cases, they have gone further than simply ruling against his policies. They have delivered sweeping warnings about the expansion of executive power, the erosion of checks and balances and have criticized his attacks on judges writ large,” Cheney wrote.
Tag Archives: Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Regtechtimes: U.S. veteran detained by immigration officers in California over identity despite valid ID
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his opinion, wrote that citizens or lawful residents would be free to go after brief encounters with immigration agents.
But this veteran’s experience shows the opposite. The officers didn’t check his documents when it would have taken only two minutes. Instead, they arrested him based on where he worked and his appearance.
On July 10, a 25-year-old U.S. citizen and Army veteran was on his way to work as a security guard at a cannabis farm in Camarillo, Ventura County, California. He never expected that his day would take a drastic turn. As he approached the farm, he noticed traffic piling up with cars stuck bumper-to-bumper. Protesters were walking along the sides of the street. He soon saw masked federal immigration agents blocking the road.
A terrifying encounter with immigration officers
He tried to explain that he was a U.S. citizen, a father of two, and an Army veteran who had served in Iraq. But the immigration agents didn’t seem to care. Their focus wasn’t on his identity or service record but on blocking his way.
As a contract worker, missing his job meant losing his paycheck. He got out of his car and tried to explain again. The immigration officers ignored him. When they started walking toward him, he got back inside his car to avoid confrontation.
The situation worsened when immigration agents began using tear gas to disperse the nearby protesters. The gas filled his car, making it difficult to breathe. He panicked but still tried to comply with the officers’ orders. However, they gave contradictory instructions like “pull over to the side” and “reverse” while also trying to open his car door.
Before he could react, an immigration agent smashed his window and sprayed pepper spray into the car. He was dragged out, and one agent knelt on his neck while another pinned his back. Despite holding valid identification in his wallet inside the car, the officers refused to check and confirm his citizenship.
He was zip-tied and made to sit in the dirt with other detainees for four hours. He overheard immigration agents questioning why he had been arrested but received no answers. After that, he was thrown into a jail cell without charges or explanations.
Inhumane Conditions in Immigration Detention
His first night in jail was unbearable. His hands, coated with tear gas and pepper spray, burned constantly because he wasn’t allowed to wash them off. Over the next three nights and days, he remained locked up without being allowed to make a phone call or speak to a lawyer.
He missed his daughter’s third birthday. Still, no explanation or apology was offered. After three days, he was released with no charges against him. He was simply let go, with immigration officials providing only a vague statement about cases being reviewed for “potential federal charges.”
This ordeal shook him deeply. He served his country wearing the military uniform, standing watch in dangerous conditions abroad. He believed in the values of fairness, respect, and dignity that are supposed to be guaranteed to every citizen in America.
However, despite proving his citizenship and military service, he was stripped of his rights. He was treated like an intruder, forcibly detained and isolated without cause.
The Broader Warning: This Could Happen to Anyone
The Supreme Court recently allowed immigration enforcement officers to continue their aggressive tactics in California. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his opinion, wrote that citizens or lawful residents would be free to go after brief encounters with immigration agents.
But this veteran’s experience shows the opposite. The officers didn’t check his documents when it would have taken only two minutes. Instead, they arrested him based on where he worked and his appearance.
This is not an issue about political sides or voting patterns. It’s about basic rights. If a U.S. citizen can be detained by immigration agents, silenced, and dehumanized despite holding valid identification, then anyone could be next.
This veteran’s experience has now become a warning signal. He is taking legal action with the help of the Institute for Justice under the Federal Torts Claim Act. However, he must wait six months before filing a lawsuit.
He stresses that justice should not be restricted to one group or one viewpoint—it must be accessible and fair for all.
His case highlights how immigration enforcement policies, without proper checks, can strip citizens of their dignity and rights. It raises important questions about oversight, accountability, and fairness in immigration enforcement.
This is not just one person’s story—it’s a cautionary tale that underscores the importance of protecting every citizen from wrongful treatment by immigration authorities.
CNN: Kavanaugh faces blowback for claiming Americans can sue over encounters with ICE
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s breezy suggestion this week that Americans who are roughed up by ICE can sue agents in federal court is drawing pushback from civil rights attorneys who note the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has in recent years made those cases nearly impossible to win.
Writing to explain the court’s emergency ruling Monday that allowed the Trump administration to continue “roving” immigration patrols in Southern California, Kavanaugh brushed aside concerns that masked ICE agents had pushed, shoved and detained Hispanics – in one instance throwing a US citizen against a fence and confiscating his phone.
“To the extent that excessive force has been used,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 10-page concurrence, “the Fourth Amendment prohibits such action, and remedies should be available in federal court.”
But in a series of recent decisions – including two that involved incidents at the border – the Supreme Court has severely limited the ability of people to sue federal law enforcement officers for excessive force claims. Kavanaugh, who was nominated to the court by Trump during his first term, was in the majority in those decisions.
“It’s bordering on impossible to get any sort of remedy in a federal court when a federal officer violates federal rights,” said Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the libertarian Institute for Justice who has regularly represented clients suing federal agents.
Lauren Bonds, executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, said that it can be incredibly difficult for a person subjected to excessive force to find an attorney and take on the federal government in court.
“What we’ve seen is, term after term, the court limiting the avenues that people have available to sue the federal government,” Bonds told CNN.
Sotomayor dissents
To stop a person on the street for questioning, immigration officials must have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally. The question for the Supreme Court was whether an agent could rely on factors like a person’s apparent ethnicity, language or their presence at a particular location, to establish reasonable suspicion.
A US district court in July ordered the Department of Homeland Security to discontinue the practice of making initial stops based on those factors. The Supreme Court on Monday, without an explanation from the majority, put that lower court order on hold – effectively greenlighting the administration’s approach while the litigation continues in lower courts.
In a sharp dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the stories raised by several of the people in Southern California who had been caught up in the crackdown.
“The government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that all Latinos, US citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” wrote Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jason Gavidia, a US citizen, was approached in June by masked agents who repeatedly questioned his citizenship status, pressing him to name the hospital in which he was born, according to court records. When he could not answer that question, he said, agents racked a rifle, took his phone and pushed him up against a metal fence.
He was later released.
Another US citizen, Jorge Viramontes, was grabbed and escorted by agents into a vehicle and held in a “warehouse area” for further questioning, according to court documents.
Richard Re, a Harvard Law professor, viewed Kavanaugh’s remark in the opinion differently. Maybe, Re wrote on Tuesday, Kavanaugh was attempting to signal something about where he thinks the law should go.
“When you have an important sentence that’s very ambiguous, it’s usually deliberately so,” Re, who clerked for Kavanaugh when he was an appeals court judge, told CNN.
“I think it’s not clear what to make of that remark,” Re said. “It could suggest a genuine interest, on at least one pivotal justice’s part, in revitalizing Fourth Amendment remediation.”
Limited recourse
The court has for years been limiting the ability of people who face excessive force to sue federal agents, litigation that proponents say can act as a check on such behavior.
In 2020, the court’s conservative majority blocked a damages lawsuit from the family of a 15-year-old Mexican boy who was shot and killed across the border by a Border Patrol agent.
Three years ago, the court similarly rejected a suit from a US citizen who owned a bed and breakfast near the Canadian border and who said he was pushed to the ground as Border Patrol agents questioned a guest about their immigration status.
Lawsuits against federal police are controlled by a 1971 precedent, Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents, that involved federal drug agents who searched the home of a man without a warrant. The Supreme Court allowed that lawsuit, but in recent years it has significantly clamped down on the ability of people to file suits in any other circumstance besides the warrant involved in the Bivens case. The right to sue federal agents, the court has maintained, should be set by Congress, not the courts.Americans may also sue the government for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, if its employees engage in wrongdoing or negligence. But federal courts have carved out a complicated patchwork of exceptions to that law as well. Earlier this year, in a case involving an FBI raid on the wrong house, a unanimous Supreme Court allowed the family to sue, but also limited the scope of a provision of the law that was aimed at protecting people who are harmed by federal law enforcement.
The tort law, Bonds said, is “incredibly narrow, incredibly complex and definitely not a sure thing.”
‘Shadow docket’ criticism
Kavanaugh’s opinion came as the court has faced sharp criticism in some quarters for deciding a slew of emergency cases in Trump’s favor without any explanation.
The Supreme Court has consistently sided with Trump recently, overturning lower courts’ temporary orders and allowing the president to fire the leadership of independent agencies, cut spending authorized by Congress and pursue an aggressive crackdown on immigration while litigation continues in lower courts.
Those emergency cases don’t fully resolve the legal questions at hand – and the court is often hesitant to write opinions that could influence the final outcome of a case – but they can have enormous, real-world consequences.
Emergency cases are almost always handled without oral argument and are addressed on a much tighter deadline than the court’s regular merits cases.
In that sense, Kavanaugh’s opinion provided some clarity about how at least one member of the court’s majority viewed the ICE patrols.
He noted Sotomayor’s dissent and pointed out that the issue of excessive force was not involved in the case.
“The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard continues to govern the officers’ use of force and to prohibit excessive force,” Kavanaugh said.
What he didn’t explain, several experts note, is how a violation of those rights could be vindicated.
“Sincerely wondering,” University of Chicago law professor William Baude posted on social media, “what remedies does Justice Kavanaugh believe are and should be available in federal court these days for excessive force violations by federal immigration officials?”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/kavanaugh-blowback-ice
USA Today: ‘Unconscionably irreconcilable’. Sotomayor rips Supreme Court’s pro-Trump ICE ruling
The liberal justice called the order “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees.”
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion criticizing the majority’s decision and the Trump administration’s actions.
- Sotomayor argued the ruling allows the government to seize people based on their appearance, language, and type of work.
- The Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s order that had restricted ICE agents’ tactics in Los Angeles.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Trump administration’s operation of the Los Angeles immigration raids, vowing not to stand idly by while the United States’ “constitutional freedoms are lost.”
On Sept. 8, the Supreme Court lifted a restraining order from a federal judge in LA who had restricted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from conducting stops without reasonable suspicion.
In July, US District Judge Maame Frimpong of the Central District of California said the government can’t rely solely on the person’s race, the language they speak, the work they perform, and whether they’re at a particular location, such as a pickup site for day laborers.
However, the Sept. 8 reversal by the Supreme Court’s mostly conservative majority gave the Trump administration another victory, as Sotomayor condemned the vote.
“That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” Sotomayor wrote in a blistering, 21-page dissent on Sept. 8. “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.”
Sotomayor called the order “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees.”
The justice, an Obama appointee, ripped her high court conservative colleagues and the government over the ruling. Sotomayor declared that all Latinos, whether they are U.S. citizens or not, “who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”oss California by broadening its scope from those only with criminal records to anyone in the United States without proper authorization. The crackdown ignited protests, prompting Trump to call in the National Guard and eventually the Marines to diffuse the outrage.
In June, the Trump administration ramped up immigration raids across California by broadening its scope from those only with criminal records to anyone in the United States without proper authorization. The crackdown ignited protests, prompting Trump to call in the National Guard and eventually the Marines to diffuse the outrage.
Sotomayor takes exception to Kavanaugh’s explanation
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who agreed with the Trump administration, said in his concurrence on Sept. 8 that the District Court overreached in limiting ICE’s authority to briefly stop people and ask them about their immigration status.
“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors,” Kavanaugh said.
He added, “Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of US immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations.”Despite fears, still looking for work:
Sotomayor took exception to Kavanaugh’s comments. She said ICE agents are not simply just questioning people, they are seizing people by using firearms and physical violence.
Sotomayor added that the Fourth Amendment, which is meant to protect “every individual’s constitutional right,” from search and seizure, might be in jeopardy.
“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers,'” Sotomayor said. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”
Salon: Sotomayor says SCOTUS ruling lets ICE “seize anyone who looks Latino”
Sotomayor worried that the ruling made Latinos living in Los Angeles “fair game” for ICE harassment
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Supreme Court’s decision to allow wide-scale ICE raids and immigration stops in Los Angeles to continue on Monday. In a scathing dissent, she said the court was giving the Department of Homeland Security a green light to “seize anyone who looks Latino.”
The Monday ruling lifted an injunction on “roving” ICE actions in Southern California. That order from a lower court judge barred agents from carrying out detentions based on ethnicity, languages being spoken, employment or location.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling was unsigned, it appeared to be supported along partisan lines as all three liberals dissented. Writing for the liberal justices, Sotomayor called the order “unconscionable” and said it made Latinos throughout the region “fair game.”
“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring with the unnamed majority, said ethnicity was a “a ‘relevant factor’” for ICE agents to consider. He added that “many” undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area “do not speak much English,” and work low-wage, manual labor jobs.
“Under this Court’s precedents, not mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.
In her dissent, Sotomayor raised concerns about how the ruling could impact constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be free from arbitrary interference by law officers,” she wrote. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”

https://www.salon.com/2025/09/08/sotomayor-says-scotus-ruling-lets-ice-seize-anyone-who-looks-latino
Independent: Federal agents to ‘flood the zone’ after Supreme Court opens door for racial profiling in Los Angeles immigration raids
The Trump administration is vowing to “FLOOD THE ZONE” after the Supreme Court opened the door for federal law enforcement officers to roam the streets of Los Angeles to make immigration arrests based on racially profiling suspects.
A 6-3 decision from the nation’s high court Monday overturned an injunction that blocked federal agents from carrying out sweeps in southern California after a judge determined they were indiscriminately targeting people based on race and whether they spoke Spanish, among other factors.
The court’s conservative majority did not provide a reason for the decision, which is typical for opinions on the court’s emergency docket.
In a concurring opinion, Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but it can be a “relevant factor” for immigration enforcement.
Attorney General Pam Bondi called the ruling a “massive victory” that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to “continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement.”
The Department of Homeland Security said its officers “will continue to FLOOD THE ZONE in Los Angeles” following the court’s order.
“This decision is a victory for the safety of Americans in California and for the rule of law,” the agency said in a statement accusing Democrat Mayor Karen Bass of “protecting” immigrants who have committed crimes.
Federal law enforcement “will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor,” according to Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
The court’s opinion drew a forceful rebuke from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the bench, who accused the conservative justices of ignoring the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful protects against unlawful searches and seizures
“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion.
“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers,’” she added. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”
Immigration raids throughout the Los Angeles area in June sparked massive protests demanding the Trump administration withdraw ICE and federal agents from patrolling immigrant communities.
In response, Trump federalized National Guard troops and sent in hundreds of Marines despite objections from Democratic city and state officials. The administration deployed roughly 5,000 National Guard soldiers and Marines to the Los Angeles area, assisting with more than 170 law enforcement operations carried out by federal agencies, according to the Department of Defense.
The Pentagon has ended most of those operations, but hundreds of National Guard members remain active in southern California.
California Governor Gavin Newsom sued the administration, alleging the president illegally deployed the troops in violation of a 140-year-old law that prohibits the military from performing domestic law enforcement operations.
ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, representing groups who sued to block indiscriminate raids in Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court order “puts people at grave risk.”
The order allows federal agents “to target individuals because of their race, how they speak, the jobs they work, or just being at a bus stop or the car wash when ICE agents decide to raid a place,” she said.
“For anyone perceived as Latino by an ICE agent, this means living in a fearful ‘papers please’ regime, with risks of violent ICE arrests and detention,” Wang added.
In his lengthy concurring opinion, Kavanaugh suggested that the demographics of southern California and the estimated 2 million people without legal permission living in the state support ICE’s sweeping operations.
He also argued that because Latino immigrants without legal status “tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work,” work in construction, and may not speak English, officers have a “reasonable suspicion” to believe they are violating immigration law.
Sotomayor criticized Kavanaugh’s assessment that ICE was merely performing “brief stops for questioning.”
“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor,” she wrote. “Today, the court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”
Because the court did not provide a reasoning behind the ruling, it is difficult to discern whether the justices intend for the order to have wider effect, giving Donald Trump a powerful tool to execute his commands for millions of arrests for his mass deportation agenda.
Bass warned that the ruling could have sweeping consequences.
“I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country,” she said in a statement.
CNN: Trump’s pick to lead [Bureau of Labor Statics] ran Twitter account with sexually degrading, bigoted attacks
President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics operated a since-deleted Twitter account that featured sexually degrading attacks on Kamala Harris, derogatory remarks about gay people, conspiracy theories, and crude insults aimed at critics of President Donald Trump.
E.J. Antoni, a 37-year-old economist for the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, posted the comments from approximately 2017 through 2020 under a series of usernames and display names. CNN verified that all of Antoni’s posts came from the same Twitter account and that the posts from the anonymous aliases shared strikingly similar biographical details as Antoni.
An outspoken critic of the nonpartisan BLS, which calculates US job growth and unemployment figures, Antoni is a stout Trump loyalist. NBC News reported and CNN confirmed that he was a “bystander” at the US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. There is no evidence he entered the Capitol.
His appointment comes after Trump fired the Biden-appointed BLS commissioner and accused the agency without evidence of corruption after a report showed job growth in May and June was weaker than previously estimated.
Antoni has positioned himself as a watchdog for government accountability in media appearances and Heritage Foundation blog posts. But his own digital trail reveals a pattern of incendiary rhetoric that veered frequently into conspiracy theories and misogyny.
In 2019, the since-deleted account known as “ErwinJohnAntoni” changed its username to “phdofbombsaway.” The account posted at least five sexually suggestive tweets implying that then Sen. Kamala Harris had advanced her career through sexual favors.
Shortly after Harris ended her 2020 presidential campaign, Antoni wrote, “You can’t run a race on your knees,” in response to a tweet of a doctored campaign poster that depicted a sexually explicit image of Harris.
Antoni also referred to Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, as “Miss Piggy.” In February 2020, he retweeted a post titled “Advice For Women: How To Land a Great Guy,” which instructed women to “be in shape,” “grow your hair long,” “be sweet,” “learn to cook,” and “don’t be annoying.” The post concluded: “Angry feminists and simps will try to sabotage you in the comments. Don’t listen to them. Listen to me.”
Wired first reported the existence of the account, detailing Antoni’s posts engaging with conspiracy theories on the 2020 election and Covid-19, and referencing weapons used by Nazi Germany in World War II. After that story was published, Antoni’s cousin, a right-wing podcaster, defended Antoni in a social media post, saying the family was proud their grandfather had fought for the US in World War II.
In a statement, the White House defended Antoni and did not address whether he still holds beliefs he espoused on the account.
“President Trump has nominated Dr. EJ Antoni to fix the issues at the BLS and restore trust in the jobs reports. Dr. Antoni has the experience and credentials needed to restore solution-oriented leadership at the BLS — solutions that will prioritize increasing survey response rates and modernizing data collection methods to improve the BLS’s accuracy,” said Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson.
Trump’s decision on August 1 to fire BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer drew criticism from economists who warned that politicizing the government’s employment data risks eroding trust and disrupting markets. The BLS is critical to the way governments, businesses and everyday people view the economy.
Unlike McEntarfer, who had decades of experience working in government, Antoni has none. He earned a Ph.D. in economics from Northern Illinois University in 2020 and took positions at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, where he now works as an economist. The Heritage Foundation is the architect of Project 2025, which envisioned a blueprint for Trump’s second term.
Among its suggestions was a recommendation to consolidate BLS with the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau to make it “a more manageable, focused, and efficient statistical agency.”
Antoni’s academic work is also sparse, causing concern from prominent economists. Last year, he co-published a report that purported “the American economy has actually been in recession since 2022,” which economists across the political spectrum have criticized.
In past appearances on cable media, Antoni echoed Trump’s dissatisfaction with labor statistics and with the Federal Reserve. In one appearance from earlier this year, Antoni accused the central bank of “election interference” for cutting rates close to the 2024 presidential election, a claim Trump has also made.
Antoni, who is not currently leading the bureau, faces a difficult Senate confirmation process. His nomination must first pass through the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, which counts moderate Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins as members.
A spokesperson for HELP committee Chairman Bill Cassidy told CNN the committee plans to hold a hearing for Antoni pending completed paperwork.
A hearing for Antoni would be rare, as the committee does not typically hold hearings for the position. But it wouldn’t be unprecedented. The last time this occurred was during Trump’s first term for another Heritage Foundation economist, William Beach.
Antoni as ‘phdofbombsaway’
Antoni’s Twitter account was created in 2015, according to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. He initially appears to have used his full name – ErwinJohnAntoni – as the username and Erwin J. Antoni III as the display name. The account’s profile picture featured Trump in revolutionary garb gripping a massive gun, an American flag at his back, a bald eagle perched on his opposite arm, and flames rising behind him.
Under two separate display names, Antoni frequently referred to himself as an “economist” on the account. In March 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, the account tweeted twice that he was an economist.
By May 2020, after Antoni was awarded his Ph.D., he had reverted the display name to Dr. Erwin J. Antoni III while keeping the handle phdofbombsaway. A conservative think tank tagged Antoni on the account in 2020, which helped CNN trace the account to him.
That summer, after he changed his display to Dr. Erwin J. Antoni III, he tweeted four separate times that he was an economist.
The account also used the phrase “You called down the thunder, now reap the whirlwind,” across both display names 20 times. On his professional account, “RealEJAntoni,” Antoni used the phrase “reap the whirlwind” at least three times.
Antoni’s posts during this time often mirrored Trump’s rhetoric. In January 2018, Antoni criticized a potential government shutdown as a way to “derail” the economy. “#SchumerShutdown is the Dems’ pathetic attempt to derail the Trump Train economy. It won’t work – get on board or get run over,” he wrote.
When Arizona Sen. John McCain passed away in August 2018, Antoni tweeted under his real name, “I like a senator who doesn’t die” — echoing Trump’s infamous line from 2015 insulting McCain for being captured during the Vietnam War.
Sometime in mid-2019, when Antoni was a Ph.D. candidate in economics at Northern Illinois University, the account’s username changed to “phdofbombsaway” with the display name “Dr. Curtis LeMay.” The profile image also changed to what looks to be a nuclear explosion. The username and display name appear to be a reference to “Bombs Away LeMay,” a reference to the Cold War general and his controversial stance promoting the use of nuclear weapons. LeMay ran alongside segregationist George Wallace on his 1968 presidential ticket for the far-right American Independent Party.
In other posts, Antoni frequently targeted progressive congresswomen in the so-called “Squad.” He called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “whack job” and “space cadet.” In November 2019, he called her an “antisemite” after she led an effort to try to force Trump White House staffer Stephen Miller to resign after leaked emails showed Miller shared articles from a White nationalist website before he worked at the White House. In March 2020, Antoni tweeted about Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Trump critic, saying “No one wants to have sex with that catfish.” When Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota tweeted in support of “LGBTQIA+” issues, Antoni invoked a debunked conspiracy theory that Omar was married to her brother. “Does the I stand for incest? With your brother?” he wrote.
He also repeatedly tweeted that liberal economist Paul Krugman was a pedophile, a smear for which there is no evidence – and one he also hurled at former President Joe Biden and former FBI director James Comey.
In February 2020, Antoni declared: “Feminism is that belief by which women are liberated from false slavery to men in order to become true slaves to corporations.” And in another post, responding to a post to #TellMeALie, he wrote “attractive feminists exist.”
And in March 2020, he dismissed LGBTQ people’s existence, writing: “There is only one sexual orientation — everything else is a disorientation.”
Some of his other provocative posts were sexually graphic anti-gay taunts at CNN anchors Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper, both of whom are gay.
Antoni also promoted the debunked conspiracy theory that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich — who was murdered in 2016 in what police described as a botched robbery — was actually the source of leaked DNC emails during the 2016 presidential campaign, rather than Russian hackers.
He engaged with an account that promoted the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory in hashtags, in a tweet attacking Sen. Adam Schiff, who was then a House representative. And he frequently tweeted at the far-right account “Catturd2,” known for spreading conspiracy theories.
Antoni, using his given name, also used the account to promote hardline socially conservative views.
In September 2020, he argued against abortion even in cases of rape, writing: “If the original principle was that abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human life, then the manner of conception does not change that fact. In this line of thinking, abortion after rape would be punishing an innocent child for someone else’s crime.”
As phdofbombsaway in 2019, he once posted that abortion was “child sacrifice.”
Antoni abandoned his Twitter account after Trump was banned from the platform following the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. He migrated over to the now-defunct website Parler using the phdofbombsaway username.
In one of the few archived posts from the account, he posted a meme of a Twitter avatar-like bird wearing an Adolf Hitler mustache and Nazi armband, writing “I believe censorship is bad, 1984-level bad.”
Bigots in Trumpville? Why am I not surprised? Remember that Trump himself was sued several times for refusing to rent his New York City apartments to blacks. He’s the same old bigot, just older, fatter, and uglier.

Raw Story: ‘Unhinged’: Spy chief alerted as Trump seen ‘threatening Supreme Court justices’
“Trump is now threatening Supreme Court justices who ruled against him,” Democratic influencer Harry Sisson said on Saturday.
That is just one of the notable people who over the weekend accused the president of lobbing indirect threats at the members of the mostly conservative Supreme Court, many of whom Trump himself appointed.
The allegations stem from a Trump Truth Social post on Saturday, when the president shared a comment made by a MAGA attorney.
Former GOP staffer Mike Davis has made headlines for his social media comments in the past, and was rumored to be on Trump’s list for attorney general. Recently, he posted a plan to get back at the Supreme Court justices for not ruling in line with MAGA.
“The Supreme Court still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists,” Davis wrote. “The President should house these terrorists near the Chevy Chase Country Club, with daytime release.”
Chevy Chase Club is “an elite country club that counts Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. among its members,” the Washington Post reports.
https://www.rawstory.com/unhinged-trump-threatening-supreme-court
Independent: Trump endorses idea that Supreme Court ruling blocking his deportations under Alien Enemies Act is ‘illegal’
President reposted a comment claiming the Supreme Court was heading down the wrong path by blocking some of Trump’s actions
President Donald Trump endorsed the idea that the United States Supreme Court had placed an “illegal injunction” on him by temporarily blocking his administration’s ability to deport Venezuelans, accused of being gang members, without due process, while litigation on the matter plays out in lower courts.
On Truth Social on Saturday, Trump reposted two posts made by attorney Mike Davis, a close Trump ally and the founder of the Article III project, calling the court’s recent decision “illegal” and claiming it was “heading down a perilous path” by not allowing Trump to continue a constitutionally questionable action.
“The Supreme Court still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists,” Davis wrote.
Do these fools have any understanding as to why the Supreme Court exists?
USA Today: ‘Spaghetti against the wall?’ Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies
The Trump administration is fighting to kill 40 court orders blocking its new policies.
- Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to halt nationwide injunctions against Trump policies but said if class-action lawsuits took their place, he would oppose them too.
- Legal experts said if the Supreme Court abolishes nationwide injunctions, Trump could cut his losses by limiting the reach of court rulings that go against him.
As the Trump administration fights to kill 40 court orders blocking some of his most controversial or aggressive new policies, legal experts say the government’s strategy is to break the cases apart, into individual disputes, to delay an eventual reckoning at the Supreme Court.
One called President Donald Trump’s legal strategy a “shell game.” Another said government lawyers were “throwing spaghetti against the wall” to see what sticks.
“Their bottom line is that they don’t think these cases should be in court in the first place,” said Luke McCloud, a lawyer at Williams and Connolly who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “They are looking for a procedural mechanism that will make it the most challenging to bring these sorts of cases.”



