Tag Archives: White House

Alternet: One Trump enabler has done more damage than the rest of them combined | Opinion

Posted on by
Reply

John Roberts came to the U.S. Supreme Court professing the best of intentions. In his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, he promised to serve as chief justice in the fashion of a baseball umpire, calling only “balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” Two years later, in an interview with law professor Jeffrey Rosen, he mused that the court’s many acrimonious 5-to-4 decisions could lead to “a steady wasting away of the notion of the rule of law” and ultimately undermine the court’s perceived legitimacy as a nonpartisan institution.

Roberts said that as the court’s leader, he would stress a “team dynamic,” encouraging his colleagues to join narrow, unanimous decisions rather than sweeping split rulings.

“You do have to put [the Justices] in a situation where they will appreciate, from their own point of view, having the court acquire more legitimacy, credibility, that they will benefit from the shared commitment to unanimity in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise,” he reasoned.

Today, that reasoning is on the cutting-room floor. Although the court’s conservatives today outnumber its liberals by a 6-to-3 margin, the tribunal remains fractured and is widely regarded as just another political branch of government. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released in mid-June, neither Republicans nor Democrats see the nation’s top judicial body as neutral. Just 20% of respondents to the poll agreed that the Supreme Court is unbiased while 58% disagreed.

Instead of healing divisions on the bench, Roberts and his Republican confederates old and new, including three justices nominated by Donald Trump, have issued a blistering succession of polarizing and reactionary majority opinions on voting rights, gerrymandering, union organizing, the death penalty, environmental protection, gun control, abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, the use of dark money in politics, equality for LGBTQ+ people, and perhaps most disastrous of all, presidential immunity.

The court’s reputation has also been tainted by a series of ethics scandals involving its two most right-wing members, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, over the receipt of unreported gifts from Republican megadonors. Alito came under added fire for flying an American flag upside down (sometimes used as a symbol of distress at mostly left-wing protests) outside his Virginia home just a few months after the insurrection on January 6, 2021.

The court’s lurch to the far-right accelerated in the recently concluded 2024-2025 term, driven in large part by the immunity ruling — Trump v. United States, penned by Roberts himself — and the authoritarian power grab that it has unleashed. The decision effectively killed special counsel Jack Smith’s election-subversion case against Trump. It also altered the landscape of constitutional law and the separation of powers, endowing presidents with absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken pursuant to their enumerated constitutional powers, such as pardoning federal offenses and removing executive officers from their departments; and presumptive immunity for all other “official acts” undertaken within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties.

Seemingly emboldened by the ruling, Trump has made good on his boast to be a “dictator on day one” of his second stint in the White House, releasing a torrent of executive orders and proclamations aimed at dismantling federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; eviscerating environmental regulations; imposing sanctions on liberal law firms and elite universities; creating the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE); authorizing mass deportations; and ending birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, among dozens of other edicts.

Trump’s executive orders have generated a myriad of legal challenges, some of which reached the Supreme Court this past term as emergency, or “shadow docket,” appeals. The challenges placed Roberts and his conservative benchmates in the uncomfortable but entirely predictable position of balancing the judiciary’s independence as a co-equal branch of government with their fundamental ideological support of Trump’s policy agenda. By the term’s end, it was clear that ideology had won the day.

One of the first signs that Trump 2.0 would cause renewed headaches for the court occurred at the outset of the president’s March 4, 2025, address to a joint session of Congress. As he made his way to the podium, Trump shook hands with retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and with Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Elena Kagan. Nothing appeared out of the ordinary until he approached Chief Justice Roberts, whose hand he took, and with a pat on the shoulder could be heard saying, “Thank you again. Thank you again. Won’t forget.”

Donald Trump greets John Roberts at the U.S. Capitol. Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS

Whether Trump was thanking Roberts for his immunity ruling was ambiguous, but on March 18, Roberts was compelled to issue a rare public rebuke of the president after Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for issuing two temporary restraining orders (TROs) that halted the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in a statement released by the court.

The rebuke, however, came too late to stop the removal of two planeloads of Venezuelans to El Salvador in apparent defiance of Boasberg’s TROs, sparking concerns that Trump might ultimately defy the high court as well, and trigger a full-scale constitutional crisis.

The deportation controversy, along with several others, quickly came before the Supreme Court. On April 7, by a 5-to-4 vote with Justice Barrett in dissent, the majority granted the administration’s request to lift Boasberg’s TROs and remove the cases for further proceedings to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, where the named plaintiffs and other potential class members in the litigation (who had not yet been deported) were being detained under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The court’s four-page per curiam order (Trump v. J.G.G.) was unsigned, and, in a small defeat for the administration, also instructed that the detainees had the right to receive advance “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal” by means of habeas corpus petitions.

In a related unsigned eight-page ruling (A.A.R.P. v. Trump) issued on May 16, this time by a 7-to-2 vote with Justices Thomas and Alito in dissent, the court blocked the administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members held in northern Texas under the AEA, but also held that the detainees could be deported “under other lawful authorities.”

In another unsigned immigration decision released on April 10 (Noem v. Abrego Garcia), the court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a resident of Maryland married to a U.S. citizen who had been sent to his native El Salvador because of an “administrative error.” Ábrego García was brought back to the United States in early June, and was indicted on charges of smuggling migrants and conspiracy.

The court waited until June 23 to release its most draconian immigration decision of the term (DHS v. D.V.D.), holding 6 to 3 that noncitizens under final orders of removal can be deported to third-party countries, even ones with records of severe human-rights violations. And on June 27, in a highly technical but very important procedural ruling (Trump v. CASA) on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, the court held 6 to 3 that district court judges generally lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions. Although the decision did not address the constitutionality of the executive order or the substantive scope of the 14th Amendment’s provision extending citizenship to virtually all persons born in the country, it sent three legal challenges to the order back to three district court judges who had blocked the order from taking effect. The litigation continues.

The immigration cases were decided on the court’s “shadow docket,” a term of art coined by University of Chicago professor William Baude in a 2015 law review article. It describes emergency appeals that come before the court outside of its standard “merits” docket that are typically resolved rapidly, without complete briefing, detailed opinions, or, except in the CASA case, oral arguments.

The Supreme Court has a long history of entertaining emergency appeals—such as last-minute requests for stays of execution in death penalty cases—but emergency requests in high-profile cases proliferated during Trump’s first presidency. According to Georgetown University law professor and shadow-docket scholar Steve Vladeck, the first Trump Administration sought emergency relief 41 times, with the Supreme Court granting relief in 28 of those cases. By comparison, the George W. Bush and Obama administrations filed a combined total of eight emergency relief requests over a16-year period while the Biden administration filed 19 applications across four years.

Fueled by Trump’s authoritarian overreach, the court’s shadow docket exploded to more than 100 cases in 2024-2025 while the merits docket shrank to 56. Not surprisingly, the upsurge has generated significant pushback, with a variety of critics contending the shadow docket diminishes the court’s already limited transparency, and yields hastily written and poorly reasoned decisions that are often used by the conservative wing of the bench to expand presidential power, essentially adopting the “unitary executive” theory as a basic principle of constitutional law. Popularized in the 1980s, the unitary theory posits that all executive power is concentrated in the person of the president, and that the president should be free to act with minimal congressional and judicial oversight.

Although shadow-docket rulings are preliminary in nature, they sometimes have the same practical effect as final decisions on the merits. For example, on May 22, in an unsigned two-page decision (Trump v. Wilcox), the Supreme Court stayed two separate judgments issued by two different U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judges that had blocked the Trump administration from firing members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) without cause. The decision remanded the cases back to the D.C. Circuit and the district courts, but even as the board members continue to litigate their unlawful discharge claims, they remain out of work.

Shadow-docket rulings also have an impact on Supreme Court precedents, often foreshadowing how the court will ultimately rule on the merits of important issues. The Wilcox decision called into question the precedential effect of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, decided in 1935, which held that Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws limiting a president’s authority to fire executive officers of independent agencies like the NLRB, which oversees private-sector collective bargaining, and the MSPB, which adjudicates federal employee adverse-action claims.

The three appointed to the court by Democrats dissented. Writing for herself and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Kagan accused the Republican-appointed majority of political bias and acting in bad faith. “For 90 years,” she charged, “Humphrey’s Executor v. United States… has stood as a precedent of this court. And not just any precedent. Humphrey’s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control.”

Quoting Alexander Hamilton, she added, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents.” She castigated the majority for recklessly rushing to judgment, writing, “Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.”

The court also issued other pro-Trump emergency shadow-docket rulings in the 2024-2025 term, permitting the administration to bar transgender people from serving in the military and to withhold $65 million in teacher training grants to states that include DEI initiatives in their operations and curriculums. The court similarly used shadow-docket rulings to endorse DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration records and to insulate DOGE from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Yet despite the court’s deference, Trump complained about his treatment at critical junctures throughout the term. After the shadow-docket ruling blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in May, he took to Truth Social, his social media platform, writing in all caps, “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” It also has been widely reported that Trump has raged in private against his own appointees—especially Justice Barrett—for not being sufficiently supportive of his executive orders and initiatives, and his personal interests.

Meanwhile, back on the merits docket, with Roberts at the helm and with Barrett and the conservatives united, the court has continued to tack mostly to the right, giving Trump nearly everything he wants. On June 18, Roberts delivered a resounding victory to the Make America Great Again movement with a 6-to-3 opinion (United States v. Skrmetti) that upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender transition medical care for minors. The decision will have wide-ranging implications for 26 other states that have enacted similar bans. Echoing the sentiments of many liberal legal commentators, Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern described the ruling as “an incoherent mess of contradiction and casuistry, a travesty of legal writing that injects immense, gratuitous confusion into the law of equal protection.”

Joe Biden delivers remarks on Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

In other high-stakes merits cases, the court, by a vote of 6 to 3, approved South Carolina’s plan to remove Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program because of the group’s status as an abortion provider; and held 6 to 3 that parents have a religious right to withdraw their children from instruction on days that “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks are read.

Progressives searching for a thin ray of hope for the future might take some solace in the spirited performance of Justice Jackson, the panel’s most junior member, who has become a dominant force in oral arguments, and a consistent voice in support of social justice. Dissenting from a 7-to-2 decision (Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency) that weakened the Clean Air Act, she ripped the majority for giving “fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens.”

Eras of Supreme Court history are generally defined by the accomplishments of the court’s chief justices. The court of John Marshall, the longest-serving chief justice who held office from 1801 to 1835, is remembered for establishing the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. The Court of Earl Warren, whose tenure stretched from 1953 to 1969, is remembered for expanding constitutional rights and the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.

The Roberts Court will be remembered for reversing many of the Warren era’s advances. But unless it suddenly changes course, it will also be remembered as the court that surrendered its independence and neutrality to an authoritarian president.

One Trump enabler has done more damage than the rest of them combined | Opinion

https://www.alternet.org/trump-enabler

MSNBC: Laura Loomer’s White House witch hunt is just getting started

Posted on by
Reply

The far-right conspiracy theorist has taken credit for numerous high-level firings over what she claims is “disloyalty” to President Trump.

A self-described “proud Islamophobe” and “pro-white nationalism” influencer is one of the most influential people in the Trump White House — despite not actually working for the administration. And she’s brought a particularly odious form of cancel culture to President Donald Trump’s second term that’s led to well over a dozen White House and federal employees recently fired for wrongthink.

Laura Loomer, 32, is known as much for her overt racism as her peddling of evidence-free conspiracy theories — such as 9/11 was an “inside job,” the Parkland high school shooting was staged, and Ohio was being overrun by “cannibalistic Haitians” who were “eating people’s pets.” Loomer has been described by many news outlets as a personal friend and confidant of Trump’s, and she’s fond of bragging about the “scalps” she’s collected, referring to the former White House and federal employees she successfully targeted for firing.

James Risen, writing in The Guardian, noted that Loomer’s critics insist “she has just been taking credit for moves that Trump was already planning,” but added that “Trump himself has said he takes her seriously, so it may be more accurate to describe her as Trump’s de facto national security adviser.”

Loomer has also referred to herself as Trump’s “loyalty enforcer,” and she has just added a few more “scalps” to her collection.

The Daily Wire — a right-wing partisan site co-founded by MAGA pundit Ben Shapiro — reported that National Security Agency general counsel April Falcon Doss had previously worked for Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The Daily Wire’s Luke Rosiak called her a “transparently partisan activist who has written publicly about her opposition to Trump.” As evidence, Rosiak cited Doss’ call “for Trump to be permanently banned from social media for staging an ‘insurrection.’”

Loomer told The New York Times that she “reposted a tweet that exposed her last week and flagged it for the right people.” Doss was fired last week.

Another civil servant recently “Loomer’d” is Jen Easterly, a former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), who had her job offer to serve as the distinguished chair of the Military Academy at West Point’s social sciences department rescinded by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. Loomer earlier this week called Easterly’s job offer a “vetting crisis” and later boasted that “All Biden holdovers must be removed from the Trump admin.”

Loomer has taken credit for at least a dozen other “scalps” for “disloyalty” — including federal prosecutors, directors and aides on the National Security Council and even Trump’s original surgeon general nominee, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, because of her support for the Covid vaccines that Trump helped bring into existence in his first term.

But one of the most striking Loomer-influenced cancellations is the resignation of Dr. Vinay Prasad from his roles as the Food and Drug Administration’s head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and chief medical and scientific officer.

Prasad — an acolyte of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who made a name for himself during the Covid pandemic by blasting the FDA and other health agencies on social media, podcasts and his blog — was only on the job a little more than two months. But he made his MAHA mark when he overrode the FDA’s vaccine experts’ recommendations on two Covid vaccines, which led directly to the FDA announcing its plan to only recommend Covid shots for people over 65 or with high-risk health conditions.

But Prasad was not spared from MAGA cancel culture, after Loomer dug up some old podcast clips where Prasad was critical of Trump. In a classic case of people supporting the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party being shocked that the leopards subsequently ate their faces, the MAGA-friendly and cancel culture-obsessed Free Press (where Prasad has been a contributing writer) published an editorial decrying Loomer’s “shameful smear campaign against our honorable, decent friend.”

Loomer told Politico that she expects “hundreds” more to be purged for disloyalty to the dear leader. And Loomer is soliciting snitches via an anonymous tip line.

“I’m happy to take people’s tips about disloyal appointees, disloyal staffers and Biden holdovers,” Loomer said. “And I guess you could say that my tip line has come to serve as a form of therapy for Trump administration officials who want to expose their colleagues who should not be in the positions that they’re in.”

We’re a little more than one-eighth of the way through the second Trump administration, and one of its defining features is that it is led by astoundingly unqualified people whose raison d’etat is ruthlessly enforcing ideological orthodoxy and slavish devotion to the president, rather than the country and the Constitution.

And whether you previously worked for people Trump doesn’t like, or you told the objective truth about Trump’s attempted self-coup, or even if you previously criticized him before turning MAGA sycophant, your job is not safe from being eliminated at the behest of a person who during the 2024 election made comments about Vice President Kamala Harris that were so unimpeachably racist they even drew rebukes from loyal Trumpists JD Vance and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Trump’s election was widely seen as a rebuke against the excesses of left-wing cancel culture. But the Loomering of the federal government shows we probably haven’t seen the worst of MAGA cancel culture yet.

When the Trump dictatorship decides to reenact the Night of the Long Knives, Laura will be running the show.

Opinion | Laura Loomer is bringing MAGA cancel culture to the White House
The far-right conspiracy theorist has taken credit for numerous high-level firings over what she claims is “disloyalty” to President Trump.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/laura-loomer-trump-maga-cancel-culture-firings-rcna222581

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal court halts Trump’s asylum crackdown at US-Mexico border
A district judge blocked Trump’s day-one proclamation cracking down on asylum claims at the southern border.
Federal court halts Trump’s asylum crackdown at US-Mexico border

Newsweek: Smithsonian issues update on Trump’s impeachment exhibit controversy

Posted on by
Reply

The Smithsonian National Museum of American History on Saturday released a statement on its website announcing that it would reinstall President Donald Trump to its exhibit about impeachments, saying that it never intended his removal to be temporary.

Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment by email outside of normal business hours on Saturday evening.

Why It Matters

The museum removed references to Trump’s two impeachments from its exhibit on presidential impeachments last month, igniting a debate about historical accuracy and political influence in public institutions.

The controversy centered on “The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden” exhibit, which included a temporary label about Trump’s impeachments that was added in September 2021. Trump remains the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice.

During his second administration, Trump has influenced the museum, which is independent of the government but receives funding from Congress. In March, he signed an executive order to eliminate “anti-American ideology” in the museum and to “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.”

What To Know

The Smithsonian confirmed the temporary label remained in place until July before being removed during a review of legacy content.

In a statement posted to the museum’s website, the Smithsonian said the placard “did not meet the museum’s standards in appearance, location, timeline and overall presentation.”

“It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case,” the statement continued. “For these reasons, we removed the placard. We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit.”

The museum assured that the exhibit in the coming weeks would see its impeachment section updated to reflect “all impeachment proceedings in our nation’s history.”

“As the keeper of memory for the nation, it is our privilege and responsibility to tell accurate and complete histories,” the museum wrote.

The decision to remove the placard stoked concerns in the public about possible government interference, the shaping of public memory, and the integrity of historical curation at America’s most prominent museum complex.

A Smithsonian spokesperson previously told Newsweek: “In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the ‘Limits of Presidential Power’ section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed. The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.”

Why Was Donald Trump Impeached?

Trump faced two impeachment efforts by Democrats during his first administration: First on December 18, 2019, and then again on January 13, 2021—just one week before he left office. He was ultimately acquitted by the Senate both times.

The first impeachment charged Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his dealings with Ukraine. Both articles passed the House with no support from any Republicans, and some Democrats split from the party.

What People Are Saying

Political analyst Jeff Greenfield wrote on X: “Orwellian is a much-overused phrase; but forcing the Smithsonian to erase the fact of Trump’s impeachments is right out of 1984. Did they drop that stuff down the memory hole?”

Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, posted images of media coverage about Trump’s impeachments on X, writing: “This is what Donald Trump wants you to forget. American never will.”

Former GOP Congressman and Trump critic Joe Walsh called the Post‘s report on X: “Despicable. Reprehensible. Dishonest. Cowardly. Trump’s 2 impeachments are historical facts. They are both part of American history. He’s using the powers of his office to try to rewrite history. I’m done saying ‘shame on him.’ Shame on us for electing him.”

A White House spokesperson told NPR: “We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness. The Trump administration will continue working to ensure that the Smithsonian removes all improper ideology and once again unites and instills pride in all Americans regarding our great history.”

What Happens Next?

The Smithsonian acknowledged the need for a comprehensive update of its presidential impeachment exhibit. The institution stated the impeachment section will be revised in the coming weeks to “ensure it accurately represents all historical impeachment proceedings.”

No specific timetable was provided for when Trump’s impeachments or other new content will be permanently reintroduced.

Be sure to leave plenty of room for King Donald’s third impeachment. It will surely be needed if the Felon-in-Chief doesn’t roll over & die first.

Smithsonian issues update on Trump’s impeachment exhibit controversy
The Smithsonian Museum had removed a placard discussing President Donald Trump’s impeachments, sparking outcry amid concern of censorship.

https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-museum-issues-update-trump-impeachment-exhibit-controversy-2108096

Nicki Swift: Trump’s Salacious Comments About Karoline Leavitt Won’t Help Her Apparent Donald Obsession

Posted on by
Reply

There’s absolutely no doubting Karoline Leavitt’s devotion to Donald Trump, which seemingly borders on obsession. If you cut her, she’d probably bleed MAGA red. And, going by recent lascivious comments the president has made about his enamored employee, the feelings appear reciprocal.

“She’s become a star. It’s that face, it’s that brain, and it’s those lips,” Trump drooled during an August 1 interview with Newsmax before drawing on a bizarre analogy. “The way they move, they move like she’s a machine gun,” he said, continuing to heap on the praise by claiming that nobody in the history of the United States has ever had a biglier, beautifuler and better media mouthpiece.

There’s absolutely no doubting Karoline Leavitt’s devotion to Donald Trump, which seemingly borders on obsession. If you cut her, she’d probably bleed MAGA red. And, going by recent lascivious comments the president has made about his enamored employee, the feelings appear reciprocal.

“She’s become a star. It’s that face, it’s that brain, and it’s those lips,” Trump drooled during an August 1 interview with Newsmax before drawing on a bizarre analogy. “The way they move, they move like she’s a machine gun,” he said, continuing to heap on the praise by claiming that nobody in the history of the United States has ever had a biglier, beautifuler and better media mouthpiece.

Leavitt doesn’t know how to quit Trump stanning

Donald Trump surrounds himself with “yes” people. They strictly adhere to the party line and are not backward in coming forward with adulation and fervent defences, no matter how indefensible Trump’s actions are. However, if they dare to step out of line, their downfall is fast and furious, as evident by Trump’s epic fallout with his first VP, Mike Pence. Still, given Karoline Leavitt’s unwavering devotion, it’s impossible to envision such an indignity ever befalling her.

“Leavitt’s either tragically uninformed or lying, MSNBC “Deadline: Washington” host and political commentator, Nicolle Wallace, claimed in March 2025. Given Leavitt’s complete subservience, parroting of narrative, and unbridled fury at anyone who dares question Trump’s alternative facts, Occam’s razor seemingly points to lying, with way more than a healthy dose of obsession added. During a July 31 White House press conference, Leavitt drastically upped her game by exalting Trump for the many global conflicts he’s professed to have brokered ceasefires for and/or ended wars in since entering office on January 20. “It’s well past time President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize,” she insisted.

Leavitt’s call for 47 to be honored was met with mixed reactions. “Every dictator has a spokesperson like Karoline Leavitt: officious, condescending, arrogant, humorless, overbearing, sanctimonious, dismissive, zealous, unapproachable, militant, inflexible, pedantic, aloof, hostile, patronizing, contemptuous, self-important, thin-skinned, and worshipful of their ‘dear leader,'” one X, formerly Twitter, commenter ranted. “Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize Caroline [sic] Leavitt for President,” another gushed.

Trump’s Salacious Comments About Karoline Leavitt Won’t Help Her Apparent Donald Obsession – Nicki Swift
Donald Trump couldn’t stop praising Karoline Leavitt’s lips, which is wildly inappropriate, but she may have found flattering.

https://www.nickiswift.com/1928980/trump-salacious-comments-karoline-leavitt-her-donald-obsession

Daily Express: Trump breaks with centuries-old U.S. tradition in bid to maintain ‘superiority’

Posted on by
Reply

The move follows other efforts by Trump to turn government institutions into vehicles to further his personal agenda

Four-star general candidates will meet with President Donald Trump before their confirmation is finalized, according to the White House. The new procedure comes as a break from past practice, one that critics say appears as a possible attempt to treat military leaders as political appointees based on their loyalty to the president.

“President Trump wants to ensure our military is the greatest and most lethal fighting force in history, which is why he meets with four-star-general nominees directly to ensure they are war fighters first – not bureaucrats,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement to several outlets.

Kelly said the intent of the meetings is for Trump to ensure the military retains its superiority and that its leaders are focused not on politics, but on fighting wars. The New York Times, which was the first to report on the procedure, said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth first initiated it.

The recent move to personally oversee the political involvement of militarly leaders is not the first time the president has leveraged the armed forces in furtherance of partisan goals, according to The Associated Press. In June, during the height of the largely peaceful protests in Los Angeles against ICE raids, Trump mobilized the National Guard and the Marines.

He sent hundreds of troops into the streets of the California city against the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has vocally opposed Trump on several occasions. Trump contended Newsom had “totally lost control of the situation.” Newsom said the president was “behaving like a tyrant.”

It was the first time the Guard has been used without a governor’s consent since then-President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama in 1965 to ensure compliance with civil rights laws.

Trump followed up with a campaign-style rally at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where uniformed soldiers cheered as he criticized former President Joe Biden, Newsom and other Democrats, raising concerns that Trump was using the military as a political prop.

Sen. Tom Cotton, an Army veteran and Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the meetings “very welcome reform.”

“I’ve long advocated for presidents to meet with 4-star nominees. President Trump’s most important responsibility is commander-in-chief,” Cotton wrote in a post on X.

“The military-service chiefs and combatant commanders are hugely consequential jobs” and “I commend President Trump and Secretary Hegseth for treating these jobs with the seriousness they deserve.”

On July 14, Trump hosted a military parade in Washington, D.C., to celebrate both the Army’s 250th anniversary and his own 79th birthday. The parade featured troops marching in formation, military vehicles and product advertisements. It came as one of the most visible ways Trump has tried to turn government institutions into vehicles to implement his personal agenda, according to The Associated Press.

“As many lengths as Army leaders have gone through to depoliticize the parade, it’s very difficult for casual observers of the news to see this as anything other than a political use of the military,” said Carrie Ann Lee, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund who also taught at the U.S. Army War College.

Trump has wanted a military parade since his first term, but senior commanders balked, worrying it would be more like a spectacle one would see in authoritarian countries such as North Korea or Russia than something befitting the United States. After returning to the White House, Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replaced him with his own pick and dismissed several other top military leaders.

“We don’t want military forces who work as an armed wing of a political party,” Lee said.

King Donald is turning flag-rank appointments into political appointees. This is an extremely bad idea.

https://www.the-express.com/news/us-news/178958/trump-breaks-centuries-old-us-tradition

Newsweek: Trump admin warns DACA recipients to self-deport

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration advised Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients to self-deport and warned that they are “not automatically protected from deportation.”

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of Homeland Security, told Newsweek the warning is “not new or news.”

“Illegal aliens who claim to be recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA] are not automatically protected from deportations,” she said. “DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country. Any illegal alien who is a DACA recipient may be subject to arrest and deportation for a number of reasons, including if they’ve committed a crime.”

Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state contains the highest number of DACA recipients, told Newsweek the move “highlights the Trump administration’s hypocrisy” and shows that “they do not want to detain and deport the worst of the worst.”

“Their chaos campaign is all about detaining and deporting as many people as possible without a regard to people’s legal rights, including intercepting Americans, Dreamers, kids, people with legal protections and those following immigration rules and even U.S.-born citizens into their indiscriminate dragnet.,” she said. “It’s dangerous precedent when deportations matter more than basic rights or a functional U.S. immigration system.”

Why It Matters

President Donald Trump pledged to undertake the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history on the campaign trail and quickly moved to increase immigration enforcement upon his return to the White House. However, he has offered mixed signals on DACA.

Although Trump sought to end DACA during his first term, he told NBC News’ Meet the Press last December that he wanted to find a way to allow DACA recipients to stay in the United States.

Former President Barack Obama introduced the DACA program in 2012. It offered protections and work authorization for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. But its legal status has remained in limbo for years, and the latest comments from the administration reflect the challenges faced by DACA recipients, commonly referred to as “Dreamers.”

What To Know

McLaughlin first warned that DACA recipients should self-deport in a statement provided to NPR earlier this week.

She told Newsweek on Thursday that undocumented migrants can “take control of their departure with the CBP Home App.”

“The United States is offering illegal aliens $1,000 and a free flight to self-deport now,” she said. “We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the U.S. the right legal way to live American dream.”

The administration has not outright ended DACA, but the statement reflects a shift in policy toward these migrants from President Joe Biden‘s administration, which was more supportive of protections for Dreamers.

Reports have emerged of DACA recipients being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

Erick Hernandez Rodriguez, 34, is among the DACA recipients facing deportation. DHS said he was arrested for allegedly trying to illegally cross the southern border after allegedly self-deporting. His attorney, Valerie Sigamani, said he did not self-deport and made a wrong turn while completing a ride-share trip in San Ysidro, just north of the U.S.-Mexico border.

He has been in the U.S. for 20 years. His wife, Nancy Rivera, is a U.S. citizen, and the couple has a daughter together and is expecting a son. He had begun the process for permanent legal resident status.

DACA recipients are required to receive advance parole before leaving the U.S. to avoid loss of protection and deportation risk. There are more than 500,000 DACA recipients living in the U.S., according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

What People Are Saying

President Donald Trump told Meet the Press in December: “The Democrats have made it very, very difficult to do anything. Republicans are very open to the dreamers. The dreamers, we’re talking many years ago, they were brought into this country. Many years ago. Some of them are no longer young people. And in many cases, they’ve become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases, they have small businesses. Some cases they might have large businesses. And we’re going to have to do something with them.”

Anabel Mendoza, communications director for United We Dream, told NPR: “We’ve known that DACA remains a program that has been temporary. We’ve sounded the alarms over that. What we are seeing now is that DACA is being chipped away at.”

What Happens Next

DACA’s future remains in limbo, with legal challenges ongoing in federal courts and the administration continuing to enforce strict immigration statutes.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-daca-recipients-self-deport-2106991

Raw Story: Trump may have accidentally ‘admitted knowledge of a grotesque crime’: legal expert

Posted on by
Reply

A legal expert was taken aback Thursday night after watching President Donald Trump admit he knew of a “grotesque crime” when he talked about his falling out with Jeffrey Epstein.

Ryan Goodman, founding co-editor-in-chief of the legal and policy website Just Security, joined Erin Burnett on CNN’s “OutFront” to weigh in on Trump’s shocking remarks regarding his relationship with Epstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking allegations.

Burnett noted the White House has offered multiple explanations about the falling out, including over a real estate deal. Trump, however, has instead said their friendship blew up because Epstein hired his spa workers — a claim that, she said, “doesn’t add up, because the hiring-away was two years before Trump was continuing to say wonderful things about Epstein—and seven years before he kicked him out of the club.

“Now they’re saying, and Trump has used this word before, that Epstein was a ‘creep,’ and that the White House says, quote, ‘Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.’ I mean, does any of this add up legally?

Goodman was floored by the remarks.

“So I think they’ve gotten themselves in more trouble by these references, that the reason for it was that he was a creep or that he was a creep to the —

“It’s hard to say he’s a creep if you said you didn’t know what he was doing,” Burnett interjected.

“Exactly,” replied Goodman. “So if he kicked him out because of sexual predation toward the employees, then it means he had knowledge.”

Goodman said Trump’s timeline “doesn’t make sense.” A Trump Organization attorney has said Epstein was booted from Mar-a-Lago in 2007 due to an arrest a year earlier in Florida. Now, the White House is claiming he took that action over what he knew.

“A year after the arrest for pedophilia. Seven years after Virginia Giuffre is hired—is stolen—seven years after that?” asked Burnett.

“Seven years after that. So it’s not a good look for them, at the least. And that’s about, in some sense, moral culpability, not legal culpability. There would have to be more for that. But it does seem as though he’s admitting to knowledge of a grotesque crime against minors. That’s the problem.”

When Burnett asked whether any recourse is possible for Trump over what he knew at the time, Goodman poured cold water on the idea.

“If it’s just knowledge, there’s only one situation in which there would actually be legal obligations. And that’s if somebody is a mandatory reporter. But to be a mandatory reporter, they’d have to be like a schoolteacher or a medical doctor,” he said.

“Not a rich friend?” Burnett clarified.

“No, not just a friend or anything like that. And that would also be under state law. And there would probably also be a statute of limitations problem for that particular offense. But otherwise, that would chalk up to moral culpability.”

Trump may have accidentally ‘admitted knowledge of a grotesque crime’: legal expert

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2673797390

Irish Star: Trump suffers a ‘senior moment’ after not recognizing athlete standing right next to him

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump appeared to suffer a senior moment today as he failed to recognize the person he was introducing during a bill singing ceremony.

Today, the president signed an executive order to expand his council on sports, fitness, and nutrition, including the reinstatement of a previously discontinued fitness test for children. He was joined by a number of professional athletes who will be members of the White House sports council. Pro-golfer Bryson DeChambeau will be the chair of the council. Trump introduced each council member with a brief synopsis of their achievements, including Chief Content Officer of WWE, Triple H.

Trump looked directly at Triple H, calling him “an amazing athlete” and his “friend for a long time.” However, Trump then appeared to look around the room for him, forgetting that he was standing right beside him.

Trump also stumbled over his words right before the awkward moment, causing many to believe that he suffered a senile moment. Trump’s cognitive health has been the topic of conversation for several months now.

“Trump looks tired and bloated. I think he is sicker than the White House said a few weeks ago,” someone on X said about the gaffe.

“OMFG. That’s probably the clearest visible evidence I’ve seen that he’s losing it. Yikes!” someone else wrote. “8 seconds from the first time he looked at him to where the hell is he? Dementia is real!” another person commented.

Other members will include Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker and former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor, who is a registered sex offender.

Today’s executive order initiates the revival of the Presidential Fitness Test in public schools. The test, first introduced by President Johnson in 1966, rewards “excellence in physical education,” by anointing children who receive the highest scores with presidential recognition.

President Barack Obama, who has been targeted by Trump in recent weeks, retired the fitness test in 2012, replacing it with the FitnessGram assessment, that focused on bettering individual health.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in a statement: “President Trump wants every young American to have the opportunity to emphasize healthy, active lifestyles – creating a culture of strength and excellence for years to come.”

The White House said that the test is part of the administration’s goal to develop “bold and innovative fitness goals” for young Americans, in order to foster a new generation of healthy, active individuals.

The changes come as the US prepares to host a number of major sporting events in the coming years, including the 2026 FIFA World Cup followed by the 2028 Summer Olympics.

Memory care beckons!

Trump suffers ‘senior moment’ after not recognizing athlete standing next to him
Trump also stumbled over his words right before the awkward moment, causing many to believe that he suffered a senile moment

https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/trump-suffers-senior-moment-after-35655330

Newsweek: Kids of Afghan translator taken at green-card check living in fear—brother

Posted on by
Reply

The children of an Afghan man who served with U.S. troops and entered the U.S legally are terrified to play outside after their father was detained at a green-card appointment, the man’s brother said.

Zia S., a 35-year-old father of five and former interpreter for the U.S. military, was apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents outside a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office in East Hartford, Connecticut, on July 16, his lawyer told reporters on a press call.

The brothers requested that their names be withheld over safety concerns.

“His kids don’t even go out to play because they’re scared. And I didn’t even go out to work because I’m watching his kids,” Zia’s brother, who also served as interpreter, told Newsweek in an exclusive interview on July 30.

Why It Matters

Following the end of the U.S. military’s 20-year presence in Afghanistan in 2021, many Afghans who had assisted American forces were allowed entry into the United States through refugee programs, Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). However, policy changes under the Trump administration resulted in the termination of TPS for some people, raising concerns about potential deportations.

The U.S. ended TPS for Afghans effective July 14, 2025, according to a Department of Homeland Security notice published in May. President Donald Trump has vowed to remove millions of migrants without legal status. The White House said in January that anyone living in the country unlawfully is considered to be a “criminal.”

What To Know

Zia arrived in the U.S. on humanitarian parole in October 2024 and had been living in Connecticut, his lawyer told reporters during a press call.

He assisted U.S. troops in Afghanistan for about five years and fled the country with his family in 2021. Although they had received Special Immigrant Visa approvals and were pursuing permanent residency, Zia was placed in expedited removal proceedings.

A federal judge has issued a temporary stay on his deportation. After his initial detention in Connecticut, Zia was transferred to an immigration detention center in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official told Newsweek on July 23 that the Zia “is currently under investigation for a serious criminal allegation.” Newsweek has requested more details from DHS surrounding the alleged wrongdoing.

Zia’s brother denied that he was involved in any criminality and said the allegations are “baseless.”

Both brothers served the U.S. military as interpreters. Zia’s brother came to the U.S. more than a decade ago through the same SIV program and eventually obtained U.S. citizenship, he said.

The detention has taken a toll on his wife, Zia’s brother said.

“His wife is suffering anxiety since he’s been detained,” he said. “And nobody sleeps. The family is awake all night.”

In a message to Trump, Zia’s brother said the family followed all legal procedures and expected the U.S. to honor commitments to its Afghan allies.

“We were promised wartime allies,” he said. “For our job, like when we have served with the U.S. and we helped the U.S. Army and our home country, and we were promised that you all would be going to the U.S. on legal pathways.

“They should stand on their promise. They should not betray us. They should not betray those who put their lives at risk and their families’ lives at risk for them.”

What People Are Saying

Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, previously told Newsweek: “The Trump administration’s decision to turn its back on our Afghan allies who risked their lives and the lives of their families to support American troops in Afghanistan is unconscionable.”

A senior DHS Official told Newsweek: Zia is “a national of Afghanistan, entered the U.S. on October 8, 2024, and paroled by the Biden administration into our country.”

Zia’s attorney, Lauren Cundick Petersen, told reporters on a press call on July 22: “Following the rules are supposed to protect you. It’s not supposed to land you in detention. If he is deported, as so many of the people have articulated today, he faces death.”

What Happens Next

Zia is being held in a Massachusetts detention center and will remain in ICE custody, pending further investigation by DHS.

Kids of Afghan translator taken at green-card check living in fear—brother
“His kids don’t even go out to play because they’re scared,” the man’s brother told Newsweek.

https://www.newsweek.com/afghan-translator-ice-immigration-green-card-2107104