Bloomberg: Murdoch Calls Trump’s Epstein Suit ‘Affront’ to Free Speech

Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. asked a US judge to throw out President Donald Trump’s $10 billion libel lawsuit over a Wall Street Journal report tying him to a bawdy birthday note to the late Jeffrey Epstein, calling the case “an affront to the First Amendment.”

The July 17 story about a note bearing Trump’s signature that was sent to Epstein along with a sketch of a naked woman in 2003 is true and doesn’t defame the president’s character, lawyers for the 94-year-old News Corp. chairman emeritus said Monday in a request to dismiss the suit.

“By its very nature, this meritless lawsuit threatens to chill the speech of those who dare to publish content that the President does not like,” Murdoch and News Corp. said in the filing in federal court in Miami.

Trump sued July 18, accusing Murdoch, News Corp. and Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. of maligning his character. The suit was filed as the president was fighting a firestorm of criticism over the government’s handling of documents related to the late, disgraced financier. Epstein died in prison in 2019 as he faced sex-trafficking charges.

The Wall Street Journal story, which provided details of a “birthday book” of notes compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday, raised further pressure on Trump, who has long denied any awareness of Epstein’s activities. House Democrats investigating the sex-trafficking operation run by Epstein earlier this month released the alleged birthday note that they said Trump sent to the late disgraced financier.

“Two weeks ago, in response to a congressional subpoena, Epstein’s estate produced the Birthday Book, which contains the letter bearing the bawdy drawing and plaintiff’s signature, exactly as The Wall Street Journal reported,” Murdoch and News Corp. said in the filing.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Murdoch and News Corp. said in their filing that the First Amendment’s protections for truthful speech “are the backbone of the Constitution.”

Trump “acknowledged his friendship with Epstein,” Murdoch and News Corp. said in the filing. “As the article reports, three months before the Birthday Book was gifted to Epstein, a New York magazine article quoted the plaintiff as saying that he had known Epstein for ‘15 years’ and that Epstein was a ‘terrific guy,’ ‘a lot of fun to be with,’ and ‘likes beautiful women as much as I do.’”

Murdoch in August agreed to provide Trump’s lawyers with a sworn declaration “describing his current health condition” as well as regular updates on his health as part of a deal to delay any deposition in the case. 

The filing comes days after a judge tossed Trump’s $15 billion defamation suit against the New York Times, which accused it of serving as a “mouthpiece” for the Democrats. The judge in that case said Trump’s lawyers “unmistakably and inexcusably” violated court rules by featuring “repetitive,” “superfluous” and “florid” allegations and details in the complaint. The judge gave Trump permission to refile a shorter lawsuit within the rules.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-22/murdoch-asks-judge-to-toss-out-trump-s-10-billion-epstein-suit

Newsweek: Elena Kagan warns Supreme Court “overriding” Congress to give Trump a win

ustice Elena Kagan warned Monday that the Supreme Court is “overriding” Congress to hand President Donald Trump sweeping new powers over independent agencies.

Her dissent came after the court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter while the justices consider whether to overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential removals.

The conservative majority offered no explanation, as is typical on its emergency docket, but signaled a willingness to revisit the landmark 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling.

Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the court has repeatedly cleared firings that Congress explicitly prohibited, thereby shifting control of key regulatory agencies into the president’s hands.

“Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals,” Kagan wrote. “Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President.”

Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Monday afternoon.

Why It Matters

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly faced decisions regarding Trump’s use of his powers since his return to the White House in January. Cases have included attempts to fire large swaths of the federal government workforce, as well as changes to immigration policy and cuts to emergency relief funding, with arguments that it is Congress, not the president, that holds such powers.

What To Know

Monday’s decision is the latest high-profile firing the court has allowed in recent months, signaling the conservative majority is poised to overturn or narrow a 1935 Supreme Court decision that found commissioners can only be removed for misconduct or neglect of duty.

The justices are expected to hear arguments in December over whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor.

In that case, the court sided with another FTC commissioner who had been fired by Franklin D. Roosevelt as the president worked to implement the New Deal. The justices unanimously found that commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty.

That 1935 decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination and public airwaves. However, it has long rankled conservative legal theorists, who argue that such agencies should answer to the president.

The Justice Department argues that Trump can fire board members for any reason as he seeks to implement his agenda. However, Slaughter’s attorneys argue that regulatory decisions will be influenced more by politics than by the expertise of board members if the president can fire congressionally confirmed board members at will.

“If the President is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him, that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives,” they argued.

The court will hear arguments unusually early in the process, before the case has fully worked its way through lower courts.

The court rejected a push from two other board members of independent agencies who had asked the justices to also hear their cases if they took up the Slaughter case: Gwynne Wilcox, of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The FTC is a regulator enforcing consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. The NLRB investigates unfair labor practices and oversees union elections, while the MSPB reviews disputes from federal workers.

What People Are Saying

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “The President and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control.”

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent: “The majority may be raring to take that action, as its grant of certiorari before judgment suggests. But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, in an amicus brief filed in Trump v. Slaughter“Because the President’s limited authority to temporarily withhold funds proposed for rescission under the ICA does not permit the President to withhold those funds through their date of expiration without action from Congress, the district court’s injunction imposes no greater burden on the government than already exists under that law. The stakes for Congress and the public, however, are high. The fiscal year ends on September 30, less than three weeks from today.”

What Happens Next

The court has already allowed the president to fire all three board members for now. The court has suggested, however, that the president’s power to fire may have limits at the Federal Reserve, a prospect that is expected to be tested in the case of fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

https://www.newsweek.com/kagan-supreme-court-congress-trump-win-ftc-2133934

Reuters: Trump signs order targeting antifa as a ‘terrorist organization’

  • Trump designates antifa a ‘terrorist organization’
  • Critics warn of potential free speech attack
  • Legal experts question constitutionality of designation

U.S. President Donald Trumpsigned an executive order on Monday calling the antifa movement a “terrorist organization,” the White House said, after promising actions targeting left-wing groups following Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Kirk, a prominent conservative activist with close ties to Trump, was assassinated on September 10 while speaking on a college campus in Utah. A 22-year-old technical college student has been charged with Kirk’s murder.

Investigators are still looking for a motive and have not said the suspect operated in concert with any groups. But the Trump administration has used the killing as a pretext to revive years-old plans to target left-wing groups they regard as being hostile to conservative views.

Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is a “decentralized, leaderless movement composed of loose collections of groups, networks and individuals,” according to the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks extremists.

“While some extreme actors who claim to be affiliated with antifa do engage in violence or vandalism at rallies and events, this is not the norm,” it says on its website.

Trump’s 370-word executive order directs “all relevant executive departments and agencies” to “investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations” conducted by antifa or anyone who funds such actions, according to the White House.

“Individuals associated with and acting on behalf of Antifa further coordinate with other organizations and entities for the purpose of spreading, fomenting, and advancing political violence and suppressing lawful political speech.”

Federal law enforcement officials already investigate violent and organized crime associated with a variety of hate groups and ideological movements.

The U.S. government does not currently officially designate solely domestic groups as terrorist organizations in large part because of constitutional protections.

But a Justice Department official with knowledge of discussions on the issue said Trump’s order would unlock expansive investigative and surveillance authorities and powers.

The person, who declined to be named, said the designation would allow the U.S. government to more closely track the finances and movements of U.S. citizens and to investigate any foreign ties of the loose network of groups and nonprofits the Trump administration views as antifa.

FOCUS IS ON FOREIGN FUNDING

Critics of the administration have warned it may pursue an attack on free speech and opponents of the Republican president.

The FBI’s Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Divisions will be used to track finances – both domestic and foreign sources of funding – and attempt to identify the central leadership of antifa, the official said. FBI surveillance and investigative operations are normally restricted in how they can target U.S. citizens.

“The big picture focus is on foreign money seeding U.S. politics and drawing connections to foreign bank accounts,” a White House source familiar with the plans told Reuters.

“The designation of antifa gives us the authority to subpoena banks, look at wire transfers, foreign and domestic sources of funding, that kind of thing,” the White House source said.

It was not clear which individuals would be the target of such a probe.

Political violence experts and U.S. law enforcement officials have previously identified far-right attacks as the leading source of domestic violent extremism. Trump administration officials have sought to portray left-wing groups as the main drivers of political violence in their remarks since Kirk’s death.

Legal experts have said the domestic terrorism designation may be legally and constitutionally dubious, hard to execute and raise free-speech concerns, given that subscription to an ideology is not generally considered criminal under U.S. law.

During the first Trump administration there were at least two failed efforts to designate antifa a terrorist organization, according to internal Department of Homeland Security communications viewed by Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-sign-order-designating-antifa-terrorist-organization-2025-09-22

Guardian: History teaches us that authoritarians use any excuse to seize power

Nazis used the 1933 Reichstag blaze to justify snuffing out civil liberties. In the US, the calls for a crackdown have already begun

On the night of 27 February 1933, six days before national elections, the German Reichstag was set on fire. Firefighters and police discovered a Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe at the scene, who confessed to being the arsonist. The Nazi Reichstag president, Hermann Göring, soon arrived, followed by the future propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, who had been dining together.

Two competing, still unresolved, conspiracy theories would circulate about the real culprit: the Nazis, with van der Lubbe as front; or a communist cabal. But the three men had no doubts. Göring pronounced the crime a communist plot. Hitler called it “a God-given signal”, adding: “If this fire, as I believe, is the work of the communists, then we must crush out this murderous pest with an iron fist.”

On 10 September 2025, within minutes of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, before a suspect or a motive had been identified, a cacophony of voices – from neo-Nazi influencers to Republican members of Congress – were blaming the left for the murder of the hugely effective far-right political organizer.

Donald Trump amplified the indictments. “Radical left … rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now,” he said, in a televised address from the Oval Office that night, pointedly omitting examples of violence against progressives or Democrats.

Is Kirk’s assassination Trump’s Reichstag fire?

There are major differences between Germany in 1933 and the US in 2025. Germany’s democracy was but 14 years old at the time. Created amid the privation of the postwar depression and attended by popular ressentiment at the country’s defeat, the Weimar Republic was unstable from the start. And simultaneously, out of those same conditions, the Nazi movement was born and gained strength.

Hitler’s attempted coup d’etat of 1923 – the beer hall putsch – failed but brought him national attention. During what the Nazis called the “time of struggle” between 1925 and 1932, stormtroopers and assorted thugs committed nearly continual acts of terrorism and violence toward political foes. Jews, and other minorities. The conflagration of 27 February 1933 burst from tinder ready to combust.

By contrast, US democracy is nearly a quarter of a millennium old. It has weathered division, corruption, and violence – and, in many instances, stood stronger, better governed, and more just in their aftermath. Today – despite attacks on the press, boldly partisan gerrymandering, police brutality against peaceful protests, and the rightward lurch of the judiciary – Americans still have civil liberties, however frayed and endangered. That is more than Germans had after the Reichstag fire. But it is becoming clearer that, without widespread popular resistance, it will not stay that way.

Important differences notwithstanding, this moment in the US contains many parallels with what happened in Germany over 90 years ago. American history is full of injustice and repression – from the dispossession of Indigenous people’s lands to the permanently heightened surveillance of everyday life since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But the scale and scope of Trump’s assaults on democracy are unprecedented. We need to learn from the past to recognize how dangerous a moment we are in, and where we might be going.

Within hours of the Reichstag fire, German president Paul von Hindenburg signed an emergency decree “for the protection of people and state” that snuffed out civil liberties, including the freedoms of speech, association, and the press and the rights of due process. A massive repression ensued, including thousands of arrests of communists and Social Democrats, trade unionists, and intellectuals on a list compiled by the paramilitary Sturmabteilung (stormtroopers or SA). The first night, 4,000 people were taken to SA barracks and tortured. The violence did not let up.

On 23 March 1933, with almost all opposition members prevented from taking their seats, the Reichstag passed the statutory partner of the 28 February decree, the Enabling Act, which permanently suspended civil liberties and assigned all legislative power to Hitler and his ministers. Just weeks later, the first concentration camp, Dachau, opened. Accelerated by the blaze in Berlin, German democracy was reduced to ashes.

Now the Trump administration is using Kirk’s assassination, as the Nazis used the fire in Berlin, to instigate its own massive repression. Trump has not blocked Democrats from taking their seats in Congress nor arrested opposition members en masse yet. But he is using the instruments of government to bring to heel anyone who speaks the mildest ill of him or his friends.

In just the last few days, the FCC chair threatened Disney, ABC and its affiliates with punitive action if they did not cancel Jimmy Kimmel Live after the host made a joke in which he implied that Kirk’s killer was one of the “Maga gang”. The companies caved and Kimmel’s show was indefinitely suspended. Autocrats are not known for gracefully taking a joke.

Assigning blame for Kirk’s murder on the entire American political left came not just from extreme-right podcasters, influencers and militia leaders. Republican representatives, administration officials, and White House advisers loudly, almost triumphantly, joined the fray.

“The Democrats own this,” congresswoman Nancy Mace, of South Carolina, told NBC News, calling Kirk’s then-unknown killer a “raging left lunatic”.

“EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS,” Florida congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna posted on X. “You were too busy doping up kids, cutting off their genitals, inciting racial violence by supporting orgs that exploit minorities, protecting criminals … Your words caused this. Your hate caused this.”

Laura Loomer, one of Trump’s closest allies, chimed in: “Prepare to have your whole future professional aspirations ruined if you are sick enough to celebrate his death,” she wrote. “I’m going to make you wish you never opened your mouth.”

Of course, the bully at the bully pulpit spoke loudest. “My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity & to other political violence,” Trump promised, “including the organizations who fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Taking over as host on Kirk’s radio show Monday, JD Vance vowed to “go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence” – which he also called “left-wing lunatics”. Of these, he named the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, the latter run by George Soros, the progressive, pro-democracy philanthropist and Jewish Holocaust survivor, who has long been the subject of neo-Nazi vitriol. Vance also threatened to investigate the non-profit status of the venerable leftwing publication the Nation.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff , also on the show, added: “With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, homeland security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these [radical left] networks and make America safe again for the American people.”

On Tuesday, after Trump was confronted by protesters who chanted “Free DC! Free Palestine! Trump is the Hitler of our time!” in a Washington DC restaurant, deputy attorney general Todd Blanche said on CNN that he might investigate them as “part of an organized effort to inflict harm and terror and damage to the United States”.

The president more recently told reporters he conferred with US attorney general Pam Bondi about bringing federal racketeering charges against these “agitators” and would support designating “antifa” as terrorists.

In many senses, the crackdown on dissent has been under way for months. Trump began his second term implementing the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther, punishing professors, students, whole college departments, and anyone accused of “antisemitism”– defined as criticism of Israel – with names supplied by Zionist informants. The witch-hunt is expanding.

All of this, along with Trump’s earlier moves, recall senator Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against communists and other alleged subversives in the 1950s. McCarthy instituted loyalty oaths for government workers, and many states followed suit. Failure to sign meant resignation or firing. In June, a plan to test potential federal employees for fidelity to Trump’s mission was dropped after criticism, but employees and higher officials have since then been regularly fired for failure to demonstrate it, or just for telling a truth inconvenient to the president. The FBI director, Kash Patel, published a list of traitorous “deep state” figures and has already punished a third of them. He denies it is an “enemies list”, referring to the list McCarthy claimed to have.

The president has toyed with invoking the Insurrection Act amid protests against immigrant roundups. He has declared a spectral “crime emergency” as a pretext to send troops into Washington DC and other cities, and ordered the formation of a federal “quick response force” for “quelling civil disturbances”. He has deputized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) to terrorize and brutalize brown, Spanish-speaking people its agents assume to be undocumented immigrants, a policy of racial profiling and a violation of the fourth amendment against illegal search and seizure, which the US supreme court has allowed.

Before the National Socialists became Germany’s one, murderous ruling party, Nazism was a popular movement. But movements and parties are not separate entities, and governments need to mobilize consent – or squash opposition – to survive. Our lawless government supports and is supported by a lawless movement. “It is shocking how day after day, naked acts of violence, breaches of the law, barbaric opinions appeal quite undisguised as official decree,” the German Jewish philologist and diarist Victor Klemperer wrote on 17 March 1933. The same could describe the US under Trump.

The criminal president has criminals at his back. One of the provisions of the Enabling Act was a grant of amnesty to anyone who had committed a crime “for the good of the Reich during the Weimar Republic”.

“He who saves his country does not violate the law,” Trump posted, quoting Napoleon a few weeks after pardoning all the January 6 rioters, including those who had assaulted and killed police officers. “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” he said in a 2016 presidential debate. He is now hinting that it’s time for them to act.

The challenges are enormous. But in addition to the resilience and longevity of US democracy, there are reasons to hope that a resistance movement can survive and win this time around.

Repression is quickly metastasizing. But the same social media that polarize opinion, spread disinformation, and abet government surveillance enable political organizing, foil censorship and substantiate truth, and link global networks to elude repressive laws, such as the feminist cells distributing abortion pills into red states.

The country seems hopelessly divided. Yet the same federalism that gives the states the right to gerrymander and enact undemocratic legislation is useful to states that are intent on governing well, providing for their residents and sheltering them from the abuses of Washington.

The Democrats in Washington are clueless, but local progressive candidates are winning elections. Law firms and major media companies are surrendering to Trump’s extortion without a fight. But the ACLU still exists, as do independent news outlets.

And try as Trump may to erase America’s histories of oppression and of the liberation movements against it, they are not forgotten. We know what capitulation and passivity lead to and what the struggles for peace and justice can ultimately achieve. It is easy to feel defeated, but we cannot give up now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/20/authoritarians-seize-power-trump

New Republic: Trump’s Biggest Corruption Scandal Isn’t Getting Enough Attention

Donald Trump cashed in on a massively corrupt foreign crypto deal—and no one blinked.

New York Times exposé published Monday tells the tale of two back-to-back deals that enriched three powerful families: the Trumps, the Witkoffs (as in Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff), and the ruling family of the United Arab Emirates.

In one deal, announced in May, a firm of Emirati royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan invested $2 billion in World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company owned by the Trump and Witkoff families—which consequently became among the most prominent crypto firms overnight.

In the other, negotiated “at the same time and by some of the same people,” the White House two weeks later agreed to sell the UAE hundreds of thousands of the world’s most valuable artificial intelligence chips, despite national security concerns.

The Times revealed that some officials in the Trump administration were wary about the chip deal due to UAE-China ties. But a key dissenter at the National Security Council, David Feith, was taken out of the equation when MAGA provocateur Laura Loomer questioned his (and five other NSC members’) loyalty, leading to their removal by the president. Silicon Valley investor David Sacks, Trump’s AI and crypto czar, then took a leading role in the negotiations—and received a White House ethics waiver in order to do so.

While the Times reports that there is no evidence that the two deals constituted an explicit quid pro quo—and the White House, and those involved, maintains they were not linked—they do “violate longstanding norms in the United States for political, diplomatic and private deal-making among senior officials and their children,” according to ethics lawyers cited in the report.

On Bluesky, economist Ryan Cummings, who served on President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote that the deals, if linked, would represent, by far, “the largest public corruption scandal in the history of the United States”—amounting to a $2 billion bribe, whereas the most comparable incident, the Harding administration’s Teapot Dome scandal, involved bribes amounting to about $10 million in today’s dollars, he said.

Dan Nexon, a political scientist at Georgetown University, observed that the report reveals how “U.S. foreign policy is much easier to understand once you accept that the main ‘grand strategy’ of the Trump administration is straight-up kleptocracy.”

“The Trump Administration is cashing in on foreign crypto deals—and weakening guardrails that protect our advanced technology,” wrote Senator Elizabeth Warren on X. “We should not pass any crypto legislation without shutting this down.”

https://newrepublic.com/post/200486/trump-corruption-scandal-crypto-uae-deal

Slingshot News: ‘We Did It With Bobby And Oz’: Trump Invents A New Lie, Claims He Has Found The Cure To Autism During Charlie Kirk Memorial Ceremony [Video]

President Donald Trump claimed, without a shred of evidence, that he has cured autism with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz during the Charlie Kirk memorial ceremony in Arizona this afternoon.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/we-did-it-with-bobby-and-oz-trump-invents-a-new-lie-claims-he-has-found-the-cure-to-autism-during-charlie-kirk-memorial-ceremony/vi-AA1N1ll8

Slingshot News: ‘We Can’t Do That To Our Farmers’: Trump Walks Back His Reckless Mass Deportations During Bill Signing Event At The White House [Video]

During his remarks at the White House in June, President Trump walked back his reckless mass deportations. Trump stated, “We can’t do that to our farmers.” 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/we-can-t-do-that-to-our-farmers-trump-walks-back-his-reckless-mass-deportations-during-bill-signing-event-at-the-white-house/vi-AA1N0YeF

Slingshot News: ‘I Really Don’t Want Deals’: Trump Makes Freudian Slip, Admits He’s Not Negotiating With Other Countries At White House Luncheon [Video]

Donald Trump participated in a faith luncheon at the White House several weeks ago. During his remarks, Trump slipped up and admitted that he didn’t want to negotiate trade deals with their countries. Trump stated, “am I right when I say I really don’t want deals, I just want the paper to get sent?” 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-really-don-t-want-deals-trump-makes-freudian-slip-admits-he-s-not-negotiating-with-other-countries-at-white-house-luncheon/vi-AA1MZQd9

Guardian: Tulsi Gabbard did not alert White House before revoking 37 security clearances

Exclusive: White House only realized afterwards that clearances at the CIA and in Congress had been rescinded

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, did not inform the White House that her office was revoking the security clearances of 37 people – including top deputies to the CIA director, John Ratcliffe – before it happened last month, according to three people familiar with matter.

The move caused consternation because it resulted in the White House not having an opportunity to closely vet the list before it became public and there appeared to be no paper trail from the president directing the effort, the people said.

As a result, officials only realized after the fact that Gabbard had managed to pull the security clearances of career CIA officials, at least one of whom was a top adviser to Ratcliffe and had worked on some of the US’s most sensitive military operations, the people said.

The list also included two Democratic congressional staffers – Maher Bitar, the national security adviser to senator Adam Schiff, and Thomas West, an aide on the Senate foreign relations committee – prompting fears the administration would be thrust into a messy separation-of-powers issue.

Weeks later, several of Trump’s top advisers remain deeply frustrated with Gabbard and view the episode as a blunder that comes as Trump is skeptical of the intelligence community and has suggested dismantling the office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI).

It also appears to have deepened existing animosity between Gabbard, whose most important job as the director of national intelligence is delivering the president’s daily briefing and overseeing the intelligence agencies, and the CIA, whose officers actually produce the brief.

Trump advisers inside and outside of the administration have complained that Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, did not explain to them how the list was compiled and the underlying evidence to warrant pulling the security clearances, the people said.

A senior intelligence official disputed this account and said Gabbard told Trump in the Oval Office that she had compiled names of officers who had worked on the intelligence assessments on Russia’s malign influence operations during the 2016 election who should be fired.

Trump replied to Gabbard that if those people had worked on the Russia intelligence assessments and they were still employed in the federal government, they should be removed, and Gabbard was merely executing the president’s agenda, the intelligence official said.

The intelligence official also claimed the list was emailed to the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; communications chiefs Steven Cheung and Taylor Budowich; the national security council; and the chiefs of staff at every major intelligence agency.

“The CIA just wants to blame ODNI all the time,” the official said.

A White House spokesperson did not address whether there had been advance notice or when the emails were sent but said in a statement: “Director Gabbard is doing a phenomenal job and the White House has worked closely with her on implementing the President’s objectives.

“The entire administration is aligned on ensuring those who have weaponized their clearances to manipulate intelligence, leak classified intelligence without authorization, and many other egregious acts are held to account,” the spokesperson said.

Rescinding security clearances was supposed to be part of an effort to correct what Trump’s advisers view as flaws in intelligence assessments and to punish Trump’s political enemies for allegedly mischaracterizing intelligence about Russian malign influence operations during the 2016 election.

Gabbard said in the memo announcing the revocations last month that her actions were at Trump’s direction and claimed that the people targeted were involved in the “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” to advance partisan agendas, or had leaked classified information.

“Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,” Gabbard wrote. “Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.”

It was also in keeping with an executive order and followed the administration pulling security clearances for dozens of Trump’s political adversaries including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as other figures from Trump’s first impeachment.

Gabbard is not expected to face significant ramifications over the episode, in large part because she has emerged relatively unscathed from other fraught moments, including when Trump in June publicly contradicted her assessment that Iran was far from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump said in response to a question about Gabbard’s testimony that Iran had decided not to make a nuclear bomb, shortly after she was notably absent from a key meeting at Camp David on the matter. “I think they were very close to having it.”

Gabbard also drew Trump’s ire when she posted a video in June warning of nuclear annihilation. Trump harangued Gabbard, saying it would scare people and that she appeared more engaged in self-promotion in order to set herself up for higher office, a person familiar with the matter said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/20/tulsi-gabbard-white-house-security-clearances

Daily Mail: Trump savages Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi as he leaks brutal text message listing her failings… and tells her: I want Lindsey


Finally! King Donald savages one of his favorite Bimbos! But given that Pam “Bimbo #3” Bondi is dumb as a rock, does she really have a clue?


President Donald Trump has launched an extraordinary attack on Attorney General Pam Bondi over her failure to take Deep State scalps.

The president appeared to leak a private message he had sent to Bondi accusing her of ‘all talk, no action’ and demanding successful prosecutions of his political enemies.

Trump listed off FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff of California, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, claiming ‘they’re all guilty as hell,’ in the message shared to his Truth Social platform.

The president told Bondi, ‘We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.’

Much of his fury was directed at the outgoing US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, who declined to prosecute James for mortgage fraud over what he said was a lack of evidence. 

Siebert also failed to prosecute Comey after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused him of threatening Trump in a social media post. 

Siebert resigned last week but Trump in his Truth Social post claimed that he’d been fired.

‘He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so,’ Trump wrote.

Trump floated a replacement for Siebert in the post, Lindsey Halligan, a member of the White House counsel, who has a track record of defending the president in court – including the classified documents case.

In a follow-up post made about a half hour later, Trump officially announced his intention to nominate Halligan to the US Attorney position in Virginia’s eastern district.

He described Siebert as a ‘Democrat Endorsed ‘Republican” and said Halligan will ‘be Fair, Smart, and will provide, desperately needed, JUSTICE FOR ALL!’

Trump also walked back his prior exasperated tone with Bondi, saying she is ‘doing a GREAT job.’ 

The earlier post, which appeared to be a deliberate leak of a private text message he had sent to Bondi, was an extraordinary public attack on the nation’s top prosecutor.

Trump’s frustration with the AG over her failed efforts to prosecute his political enemies comes as her position is already weakened by the Jeffrey Epstein debacle.

Bondi, a longtime Trump loyalist who defended him during his first impeachment trial and served as Florida AG from 2011 to 2019, was appointed with expectations she’d aggressively pursue revenge and ‘drain the swamp.’

Trump’s main targets, Comey, Schiff and James, ran what the president describes as ‘witch hunts’, orchestrated by the Deep State to ruin his credibility before the electorate. 

Trump fired Comey as FBI chief in 2017 amid the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference, which the president has repeatedly called a hoax.

Schiff, a vocal Trump critic and high-ranking Democrat Representative from California, led the 2019 impeachment inquiry into Trump over withholding aid from Ukraine.  

Democratic New York AG James brought the 2022 civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization which resulted in a $454 million judgment. It is currently under appeal.

Trump’s backers argue these figures represent the unchecked partisanship of the liberal elite; while his critics claim that his demands for prosecutions are an authoritarian overreach which ignores the rule of law.

The president has set his sights on the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, a key federal prosecutorial hub where he is pushing for investigations into the trio.

To help Bondi fulfil this task, Trump now wants his trusted attorney Halligan in the role.

The glamorous lawyer has been representing Trump for years, most prominently serving as one of his attorneys in the case against him for retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

In August 2024, that case was dismissed by US District Judge Aileen Cannon, with her arguing that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.

Smith appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which then formally dismissed the case in February 2025, marking its end.

More recently, Halligan was leading the charge in Trump’s review of historical exhibits at the Smithsonian.

In an August interview with Fox News, Halligan said slavery was an overemphasized topic at the museum in Washington, D.C.

‘The fact our country was involved in slavery is awful — no one thinks otherwise,’ she said. 

‘But what I saw when I was going through the museum, personally, was an overemphasis on slavery, and I think there should be more of an overemphasis on how far we’ve come since slavery.’

‘There’s a lot of history to our country, both positive and negative, but we need to keep moving forward. We can’t just keep focusing on the negative — all that does is divide us,’ she added.

Halligan’s new promotion comes after Bondi reportedly tapped Mary ‘Maggie’ Cleary to be the acting US attorney in that office.

Cleary has served as an assistant US attorney in the Western District of Virginia and is perhaps most known for her attempts to beat back an allegation made by an anonymous individual that she was present during the January 6 Capitol Riot.

Cleary, a deeply conservative Republican, was briefly placed on administrative leave but was cleared after a brief internal investigation, Politico reported.

If Halligan is to become the permanent US attorney, she will have to be confirmed by the Senate.

Since the Republicans have a 53-seat majority in the Senate, it is likely she will ascend to the position.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15118587/trump-attacks-pam-bondi-lindsey-halligan-replacement.html