update - Trump does major purge of medical research staff at Centre for Disease Control
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Donald Trump on Saturday got hit with a legal loss when an appeals court blocked his administration from deploying the National Guard on the streets of Chicago, Illinois.
NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach flagged the news on social media, writing, "The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard on the streets of Illinois, in response to an emergency motion from the administration to pause Judge Perry’s order from earlier this week."
Others noted that the ruling was mixed, because Trump was granted authorization to federalize the National Guard.
"The Seventh Circuit REFUSES to allow Trump to immediately deploy the National Guard in Chicago, but allows them to be federalized pending appeal. Same initial ruling as the Ninth Circuit, before oral arguments," wrote journalist Adam Klasfeld.
See the ruling right here.
Appeals court blocks Trump from deploying National Guard on streets of Chicago
NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach flagged the news on social media, writing, "The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard on the streets of Illinois, in response to an emergency motion from the administration to pause Judge Perry’s order from earlier this week."
Others noted that the ruling was mixed, because Trump was granted authorization to federalize the National Guard.
"The Seventh Circuit REFUSES to allow Trump to immediately deploy the National Guard in Chicago, but allows them to be federalized pending appeal. Same initial ruling as the Ninth Circuit, before oral arguments," wrote journalist Adam Klasfeld.
See the ruling right here.
Appeals court blocks Trump from deploying National Guard on streets of Chicago
Oregon Public Broadcasting reports the Trump administration is embracing right-wing media influencers and similar hacks to promote its messages, showing “a deepening alliance between the administration and an online world willing to misrepresent facts if it means furthering political goals.”
“The influencers’ personal content is blended with interviews on Fox News, Newsmax and other outlets, and reposted by federal agencies at times,” said OPB reporter Erik Neumann, adding that many influencers consorting with the administration during its Oregon “ICE tour” later appeared on a panel at the White House with President Trump, where clips were similarly repurposed and spun out to broader conservative media.
“Local media like OPB and The Oregonian/OregonLive have not been given the same access to the ICE building when they requested it,” reports Neumann. “In response to requests to tour the ICE building, DHS officials have asked OPB — a century-old media organization that has covered newsworthy events at the protests since their earliest days — to share links to OPB coverage of the protests before considering access.”
A.J. Bauer, an assistant professor who studies media activism in the University of Alabama’s journalism department, said the Trump administration is using influencers to rationalize the president’s actions.
“The streamers are actually counter-protesters themselves who are going and documenting the protests that they disagree with,” said Bauer. “The government is actually working hand-in-glove with those folks in order to promote the government’s message. That is a new development.”
While mainstream journalists have always embedded themselves with the government to cover major events, like during the Vietnam or Iraq wars, mainstream reporters are primarily free to produce stories and footage critical of the government. But Bauer said right-wing influencers adhere to no journalistic sense of balance, truth or independence. Instead, he said, they begin with an “ideological vision of the world and then narrate what they see in a way that fits that vision.”
“The consequences are that we have two competing visions of reality,” said Bauer, referencing the fabricated reality that chaos is rampant in Oregon, even carrying that fantasy world back to the White House and reinforcing it in the mind of the president.
“The amazing thing is you look at Portland and you see fires all over the place. You see fights. I mean, violence, it’s so crazy,” Trump said during the televised round table, according to OPB. “And then you talk to the governor and she acts like everything is totally normal. It’s almost like, are you waking up from a dream or something?”
One X post from MAGA influencer Benny Johnson showed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem standing with on a high rooftop staring down an “army of antifa,” which actually consisted of a smattering of catcallers, media and a guy in a chicken suit.
Read the full OPB story at this link.
'Competing visions of reality': MAGA influencers have been embedded to spread Trump Gospel
“The influencers’ personal content is blended with interviews on Fox News, Newsmax and other outlets, and reposted by federal agencies at times,” said OPB reporter Erik Neumann, adding that many influencers consorting with the administration during its Oregon “ICE tour” later appeared on a panel at the White House with President Trump, where clips were similarly repurposed and spun out to broader conservative media.
“Local media like OPB and The Oregonian/OregonLive have not been given the same access to the ICE building when they requested it,” reports Neumann. “In response to requests to tour the ICE building, DHS officials have asked OPB — a century-old media organization that has covered newsworthy events at the protests since their earliest days — to share links to OPB coverage of the protests before considering access.”
A.J. Bauer, an assistant professor who studies media activism in the University of Alabama’s journalism department, said the Trump administration is using influencers to rationalize the president’s actions.
“The streamers are actually counter-protesters themselves who are going and documenting the protests that they disagree with,” said Bauer. “The government is actually working hand-in-glove with those folks in order to promote the government’s message. That is a new development.”
While mainstream journalists have always embedded themselves with the government to cover major events, like during the Vietnam or Iraq wars, mainstream reporters are primarily free to produce stories and footage critical of the government. But Bauer said right-wing influencers adhere to no journalistic sense of balance, truth or independence. Instead, he said, they begin with an “ideological vision of the world and then narrate what they see in a way that fits that vision.”
“The consequences are that we have two competing visions of reality,” said Bauer, referencing the fabricated reality that chaos is rampant in Oregon, even carrying that fantasy world back to the White House and reinforcing it in the mind of the president.
“The amazing thing is you look at Portland and you see fires all over the place. You see fights. I mean, violence, it’s so crazy,” Trump said during the televised round table, according to OPB. “And then you talk to the governor and she acts like everything is totally normal. It’s almost like, are you waking up from a dream or something?”
One X post from MAGA influencer Benny Johnson showed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem standing with on a high rooftop staring down an “army of antifa,” which actually consisted of a smattering of catcallers, media and a guy in a chicken suit.
Read the full OPB story at this link.
'Competing visions of reality': MAGA influencers have been embedded to spread Trump Gospel
The Trump administration's latest move to re-deport Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia has failed once again.
According to Politico, U.S. officials have tried to remove him to Africa, but so far have found no country willing to take him: "A senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official testified that efforts to get the African countries of Uganda and Eswatini to accept the high-profile deportee have foundered in recent days. Another potential destination, Ghana, also seemed to fizzle Friday as that country’s foreign minister said unequivocally on X that Ghana would not agree to receive Abrego."
The Trump administration previously deported Abrego, a family man living in Maryland, to El Salvador, where he was locked up for weeks in the infamous CECOT megaprison, despite a judicial order prohibiting his deportation to that specific country.
Homeland Security officials initially tried to claim they had no jurisdiction to push the government of El Salvador to return him, but after his case became a national story and generated mounting political pressure, they finally repatriated him to the United States.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Almost as soon as they had done so, federal officials charged Abrego with gang activities, in a case that legal experts have said is deeply defective and based on unreliable testimony. They also began proceedings to deport him again, this time looking for any country other than El Salvador that might accept him.
According to the report, Abrego has actually offered the administration a solution — but they rejected it.
"Abrego told the administration in August that he would accept deportation to Costa Rica," said the report. However, "One of his lawyers, Andrew Rossman, said Friday that the administration’s scattershot attempts to identify African countries instead show that the administration is intent on refusing the Costa Rica offer," telling U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, “We now know they are 0 for 3. Three strikes and you’re out. They have spun the globe and picked various places … to fail on purpose by selecting places that would be completely unpalatable for Mr. Abrego."
"What we’ve been getting in this courtroom is a lot of run-around,” Rossman added.
Trump's bid to ship out wrongly deported migrant fizzles out again
According to Politico, U.S. officials have tried to remove him to Africa, but so far have found no country willing to take him: "A senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official testified that efforts to get the African countries of Uganda and Eswatini to accept the high-profile deportee have foundered in recent days. Another potential destination, Ghana, also seemed to fizzle Friday as that country’s foreign minister said unequivocally on X that Ghana would not agree to receive Abrego."
The Trump administration previously deported Abrego, a family man living in Maryland, to El Salvador, where he was locked up for weeks in the infamous CECOT megaprison, despite a judicial order prohibiting his deportation to that specific country.
Homeland Security officials initially tried to claim they had no jurisdiction to push the government of El Salvador to return him, but after his case became a national story and generated mounting political pressure, they finally repatriated him to the United States.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Almost as soon as they had done so, federal officials charged Abrego with gang activities, in a case that legal experts have said is deeply defective and based on unreliable testimony. They also began proceedings to deport him again, this time looking for any country other than El Salvador that might accept him.
According to the report, Abrego has actually offered the administration a solution — but they rejected it.
"Abrego told the administration in August that he would accept deportation to Costa Rica," said the report. However, "One of his lawyers, Andrew Rossman, said Friday that the administration’s scattershot attempts to identify African countries instead show that the administration is intent on refusing the Costa Rica offer," telling U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, “We now know they are 0 for 3. Three strikes and you’re out. They have spun the globe and picked various places … to fail on purpose by selecting places that would be completely unpalatable for Mr. Abrego."
"What we’ve been getting in this courtroom is a lot of run-around,” Rossman added.
Trump's bid to ship out wrongly deported migrant fizzles out again
WASHINGTON — A slew of conservative groups will lead a new coalition to spur civics education and push the subject in a more patriotic direction, the U.S. Education Department announced last month, raising alarms for some traditional civics and education groups that were not included in the initiative.
The America First Policy Institute, a think tank with close ties to the president, is organizing and coordinating the America 250 Civics Education Coalition made up of more than 40 national and state-based groups, including prominent conservative advocacy organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA.
The vast majority of the groups in the coalition promote a vision of U.S. identity that downplays historical wrongs associated with race and gender and projects the country as an exceptional force for good. Many are well-known conservative groups that have promoted President Donald Trump’s political agenda.
The coalition lacks many of the more traditional civics education groups who say their nonpartisanship is a fundamental element of civics education, leading to concerns from those groups.
“Our organization serves students in every state and over 80% of counties,” said Shawn Healy, the chief policy and advocacy officer at iCivics, a group that promotes public support for civics education. “You can’t do that if your curriculum is shaded red or blue — it has to be fiercely nonpartisan.”
The coalition will have nothing to do with school curricula, a department official said last month, acknowledging that the agency legally cannot dictate what schools teach. And it will not receive any federal funding from the department, the official added.
But the agency has taken other steps that appear designed to steer curricula in a more partisan direction.
The same day the coalition launched, the department announced it would be prioritizing “patriotic education” when it comes to discretionary grants. The agency said patriotic education “presents American history in a way that is accurate, honest, and inspiring.”
Earlier in September, the department said it would invest more than $160 million in American history and civics grants — a $137 million increase in the funds Congress previously approved.
Civics as cultural battleground
Civics — a branch of social studies that focuses on rights and obligations of citizenship and the basic mechanics of government — has been a bipartisan priority, though it’s become a hot-button issue within education culture wars regarding how and what is taught as America grapples with its complicated history.
Many on the political right, including Trump, have long bristled at how that history is taught. Going back to his first presidency, Trump has sought to exert control over the subject.
After retaking office in January, he reestablished the 1776 Commission — an advisory committee meant “to promote patriotic education.”
“Despite the virtues and accomplishments of this Nation, many students are now taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but rather villains,” notes the executive order first establishing the commission during his first term.
The commission released a 41-page report in January 2021 that drew criticism from historians and educators, including the American Historical Association.
In a statement signed by 47 other organizations, the association wrote that the report makes “an apparent attempt to reject recent efforts to understand the multiple ways the institution of slavery shaped our nation’s history.”
Trump formed the commission after The New York Times published the 1619 Project, which aimed to “reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA sign up
In its September announcement, the department said the coalition “is dedicated to renewing patriotism, strengthening civic knowledge, and advancing a shared understanding of America’s founding principles in schools across the nation.”
The coalition will include more than 100 events and programs across the country over the next year as part of the administration’s celebration of the country’s 250th anniversary.
The coalition is set to feature a 50-state “Trail to Independence Tour,” a “Fundamental Liberties College Speaker Series” as well as “Patriotic K-12 Teacher Summits and Toolboxes” aimed at supporting “patriotic teaching nationwide.”
The America 250 Civics Education Coalition includes right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation — the architect of the sweeping conservative policy agenda known as Project 2025 — as is America First Legal, a conservative advocacy group founded by Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff.
Turning Point USA, co-founded by conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in September, is also part of the initiative. PragerU, a conservative nonprofit that has drawn questions among researchers and scholars regarding the accuracy of its content, was also listed as a member of the coalition.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon was the chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute between her roles in the first and second Trump administrations. She had to sign an ethics waiver to participate in the coalition, according to the department official, who did not provide further details on what exactly this entailed.
‘News to us’
While conservative political organizations were made part of the coalition, leading civics education groups were not even aware of it before its public launch.
“Certainly, it was news to us about this coalition being formed,” Healy, of iCivics, said.
Healy added that his group encourages the America 250 Civics Education Coalition “to be more pluralistic in orientation” and that the organization is “eager” to have a conversation with the coalition about what they’re doing.
iCivics, a nonpartisan organization founded in 2009 by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, launched CivxNow. The latter group describes itself as the country’s “largest cross-partisan coalition working to prioritize civic education in the United States.”
CivxNow’s nearly 400 members comprise a broad swath of mainstream civics education groups.
“It’s our fundamental belief, both as an organization and as a coalition, that civic education has to be fiercely nonpartisan and nonideological,” Healy said.
But only one group — Constituting America — is a member of both CivxNow and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition.
Momentum for civics
iCivics and others in the civics education field said the added attention the initiative brings to the subject will be positive.
The coalition “provides an opportunity for everyone interested in civic education and patriotic education to do something right now,” said Donna Phillips, the president and CEO of the nonpartisan Center for Civic Education, pointing to “decades where there hasn’t been enough, or any, attention to civic education.”
Phillips, whose organization is a member of CivxNow, said she hopes “the civic education field more widely can benefit from the momentum behind the need for this and that we can all find a place within this momentum and this moment.”
Hans Zeiger, president of the nonpartisan Jack Miller Center, described the administration’s initiative as the “latest development in what we take to be a growing movement for civics in the country.”
Zeiger, whose organization aims to empower college professors to work on civics education and is a member of CivxNow, said his group is “very interested in growing the national civics movement, and glad that there are people all across the political spectrum getting involved in the push for civic education.”
“It is always a good thing to have national dialogue on civics education,” the National Council for the Social Studies said in a statement.
The council, part of CivxNow, added that they “strive for balanced conversations that will continue to elevate high quality social studies standards.”
Teachers unions criticize coalition
The two major teachers unions, which are politically aligned with Democrats, blasted the coalition as unserious, and noted the lack of traditional civics groups.
“We have decades of research on what works in civic education,” Mary Kusler, senior director at the National Education Association’s Center for Advocacy, said in a statement to States Newsroom. “The proposal they are peddling lacks the rigor and respect our students deserve — which is evident by the lack of any respected civics or civil rights organizations as signers.”
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement the 250th anniversary of the nation should have been “an opportunity for parents, teachers, historians and students to learn, celebrate, critique and think critically about our democracy.”
“Instead, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition rushed to create programming based on a single Trump-approved, ideological narrative, excluding the very people who know our history best: civics teachers and historians,” she said.
Alarm raised as Trump undertakes a controversial MAGA-centric makeover of US civics education
The America First Policy Institute, a think tank with close ties to the president, is organizing and coordinating the America 250 Civics Education Coalition made up of more than 40 national and state-based groups, including prominent conservative advocacy organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA.
The vast majority of the groups in the coalition promote a vision of U.S. identity that downplays historical wrongs associated with race and gender and projects the country as an exceptional force for good. Many are well-known conservative groups that have promoted President Donald Trump’s political agenda.
The coalition lacks many of the more traditional civics education groups who say their nonpartisanship is a fundamental element of civics education, leading to concerns from those groups.
“Our organization serves students in every state and over 80% of counties,” said Shawn Healy, the chief policy and advocacy officer at iCivics, a group that promotes public support for civics education. “You can’t do that if your curriculum is shaded red or blue — it has to be fiercely nonpartisan.”
The coalition will have nothing to do with school curricula, a department official said last month, acknowledging that the agency legally cannot dictate what schools teach. And it will not receive any federal funding from the department, the official added.
But the agency has taken other steps that appear designed to steer curricula in a more partisan direction.
The same day the coalition launched, the department announced it would be prioritizing “patriotic education” when it comes to discretionary grants. The agency said patriotic education “presents American history in a way that is accurate, honest, and inspiring.”
Earlier in September, the department said it would invest more than $160 million in American history and civics grants — a $137 million increase in the funds Congress previously approved.
Civics as cultural battleground
Civics — a branch of social studies that focuses on rights and obligations of citizenship and the basic mechanics of government — has been a bipartisan priority, though it’s become a hot-button issue within education culture wars regarding how and what is taught as America grapples with its complicated history.
Many on the political right, including Trump, have long bristled at how that history is taught. Going back to his first presidency, Trump has sought to exert control over the subject.
After retaking office in January, he reestablished the 1776 Commission — an advisory committee meant “to promote patriotic education.”
“Despite the virtues and accomplishments of this Nation, many students are now taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but rather villains,” notes the executive order first establishing the commission during his first term.
The commission released a 41-page report in January 2021 that drew criticism from historians and educators, including the American Historical Association.
In a statement signed by 47 other organizations, the association wrote that the report makes “an apparent attempt to reject recent efforts to understand the multiple ways the institution of slavery shaped our nation’s history.”
Trump formed the commission after The New York Times published the 1619 Project, which aimed to “reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA sign up
In its September announcement, the department said the coalition “is dedicated to renewing patriotism, strengthening civic knowledge, and advancing a shared understanding of America’s founding principles in schools across the nation.”
The coalition will include more than 100 events and programs across the country over the next year as part of the administration’s celebration of the country’s 250th anniversary.
The coalition is set to feature a 50-state “Trail to Independence Tour,” a “Fundamental Liberties College Speaker Series” as well as “Patriotic K-12 Teacher Summits and Toolboxes” aimed at supporting “patriotic teaching nationwide.”
The America 250 Civics Education Coalition includes right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation — the architect of the sweeping conservative policy agenda known as Project 2025 — as is America First Legal, a conservative advocacy group founded by Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff.
Turning Point USA, co-founded by conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in September, is also part of the initiative. PragerU, a conservative nonprofit that has drawn questions among researchers and scholars regarding the accuracy of its content, was also listed as a member of the coalition.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon was the chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute between her roles in the first and second Trump administrations. She had to sign an ethics waiver to participate in the coalition, according to the department official, who did not provide further details on what exactly this entailed.
‘News to us’
While conservative political organizations were made part of the coalition, leading civics education groups were not even aware of it before its public launch.
“Certainly, it was news to us about this coalition being formed,” Healy, of iCivics, said.
Healy added that his group encourages the America 250 Civics Education Coalition “to be more pluralistic in orientation” and that the organization is “eager” to have a conversation with the coalition about what they’re doing.
iCivics, a nonpartisan organization founded in 2009 by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, launched CivxNow. The latter group describes itself as the country’s “largest cross-partisan coalition working to prioritize civic education in the United States.”
CivxNow’s nearly 400 members comprise a broad swath of mainstream civics education groups.
“It’s our fundamental belief, both as an organization and as a coalition, that civic education has to be fiercely nonpartisan and nonideological,” Healy said.
But only one group — Constituting America — is a member of both CivxNow and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition.
Momentum for civics
iCivics and others in the civics education field said the added attention the initiative brings to the subject will be positive.
The coalition “provides an opportunity for everyone interested in civic education and patriotic education to do something right now,” said Donna Phillips, the president and CEO of the nonpartisan Center for Civic Education, pointing to “decades where there hasn’t been enough, or any, attention to civic education.”
Phillips, whose organization is a member of CivxNow, said she hopes “the civic education field more widely can benefit from the momentum behind the need for this and that we can all find a place within this momentum and this moment.”
Hans Zeiger, president of the nonpartisan Jack Miller Center, described the administration’s initiative as the “latest development in what we take to be a growing movement for civics in the country.”
Zeiger, whose organization aims to empower college professors to work on civics education and is a member of CivxNow, said his group is “very interested in growing the national civics movement, and glad that there are people all across the political spectrum getting involved in the push for civic education.”
“It is always a good thing to have national dialogue on civics education,” the National Council for the Social Studies said in a statement.
The council, part of CivxNow, added that they “strive for balanced conversations that will continue to elevate high quality social studies standards.”
Teachers unions criticize coalition
The two major teachers unions, which are politically aligned with Democrats, blasted the coalition as unserious, and noted the lack of traditional civics groups.
“We have decades of research on what works in civic education,” Mary Kusler, senior director at the National Education Association’s Center for Advocacy, said in a statement to States Newsroom. “The proposal they are peddling lacks the rigor and respect our students deserve — which is evident by the lack of any respected civics or civil rights organizations as signers.”
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement the 250th anniversary of the nation should have been “an opportunity for parents, teachers, historians and students to learn, celebrate, critique and think critically about our democracy.”
“Instead, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition rushed to create programming based on a single Trump-approved, ideological narrative, excluding the very people who know our history best: civics teachers and historians,” she said.
Alarm raised as Trump undertakes a controversial MAGA-centric makeover of US civics education
Donald Trump's administration is walking back about half of a reported 1,000 health agency cuts.
MSNBC senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny was on air on Saturday when she broke the news, saying she had received a call from an official from HHS "literally five minutes" prior to going on. The cuts were previously reported.
After explaining the wide-ranging cuts, she said, "However literally just five minutes ago, I got a call from an HHS official that said, oops, we didn't actually mean to do that."
"So about 50% of those people are just any moment now about to get notices that say, y'all can come back, actually," the journalist said on Saturday. "They're going to be rehired, literally."
The reversal was confirmed by Washington Post reporter Lena Sun, who said on social media, "BREAKING: Some of the layoffs at CDC are being REVERSED."
Trump health official admits half of sweeping layoffs at CDC were a mistake
MSNBC senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny was on air on Saturday when she broke the news, saying she had received a call from an official from HHS "literally five minutes" prior to going on. The cuts were previously reported.
After explaining the wide-ranging cuts, she said, "However literally just five minutes ago, I got a call from an HHS official that said, oops, we didn't actually mean to do that."
"So about 50% of those people are just any moment now about to get notices that say, y'all can come back, actually," the journalist said on Saturday. "They're going to be rehired, literally."
The reversal was confirmed by Washington Post reporter Lena Sun, who said on social media, "BREAKING: Some of the layoffs at CDC are being REVERSED."
Trump health official admits half of sweeping layoffs at CDC were a mistake
A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he fired nearly 20 inspectors general early in his term. However, Knewz.com has learned that the judge lacks the authority to restore them to their positions.
Federal judge says Trump broke the law
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes found that Trump failed to comply with the Inspectors General Act (IGA), which requires presidents to give Congress 30 days’ notice and a written explanation before firing an inspector general. “President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious,” Reyes wrote in her opinion. “And plaintiffs raise compelling arguments that the violation must be remedied through reinstatement to their positions.” However, Reyes also noted that even if the inspectors general were reinstated, Trump could simply fire them again after providing the proper notice.
No ‘irreparable harm,’ the judge ruled
The court’s ruling hinged on whether the fired inspectors general had suffered “irreparable harm,” a legal standard required for reinstatement. Judge Reyes determined they had not. “Even assuming that the IGA comports with Article II, plaintiffs’ inability to perform their duties for 30 days is not irreparable harm,” she wrote. “Moreover, if the IGs were reinstated, the president could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress.”
The long-running tension over oversight
The lawsuit, filed in March by eight of the dismissed officials, challenged Trump’s early-term purge of watchdogs. Within days of taking office, the president had fired 17 inspectors general, each receiving only a short note citing presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s actions violated the spirit of the IGA and weakened public confidence in independent oversight.
Judge expresses sympathy for the inspectors general
While Reyes denied the request for an injunction, she expressed sympathy for the inspectors general, praising their service and the importance of their roles. “They sacrificed much to take on the role of an IG. … They deserved better from their government. They still do,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, this court cannot provide plaintiffs more.” Reyes did not rule on the plaintiffs’ request for back pay, instead ordering further briefings. She concluded her opinion by concurring with the inspectors general’s broader warning, writing, “Yes, agreed,” that weakening protections for government watchdogs is “decidedly wrong and decidedly contrary to the public interest.”
Judge rules Trump broke the law
Federal judge says Trump broke the law
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes found that Trump failed to comply with the Inspectors General Act (IGA), which requires presidents to give Congress 30 days’ notice and a written explanation before firing an inspector general. “President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious,” Reyes wrote in her opinion. “And plaintiffs raise compelling arguments that the violation must be remedied through reinstatement to their positions.” However, Reyes also noted that even if the inspectors general were reinstated, Trump could simply fire them again after providing the proper notice.
No ‘irreparable harm,’ the judge ruled
The court’s ruling hinged on whether the fired inspectors general had suffered “irreparable harm,” a legal standard required for reinstatement. Judge Reyes determined they had not. “Even assuming that the IGA comports with Article II, plaintiffs’ inability to perform their duties for 30 days is not irreparable harm,” she wrote. “Moreover, if the IGs were reinstated, the president could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress.”
The long-running tension over oversight
The lawsuit, filed in March by eight of the dismissed officials, challenged Trump’s early-term purge of watchdogs. Within days of taking office, the president had fired 17 inspectors general, each receiving only a short note citing presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s actions violated the spirit of the IGA and weakened public confidence in independent oversight.
Judge expresses sympathy for the inspectors general
While Reyes denied the request for an injunction, she expressed sympathy for the inspectors general, praising their service and the importance of their roles. “They sacrificed much to take on the role of an IG. … They deserved better from their government. They still do,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, this court cannot provide plaintiffs more.” Reyes did not rule on the plaintiffs’ request for back pay, instead ordering further briefings. She concluded her opinion by concurring with the inspectors general’s broader warning, writing, “Yes, agreed,” that weakening protections for government watchdogs is “decidedly wrong and decidedly contrary to the public interest.”
Judge rules Trump broke the law
"Where are the doctors?!" yelled an exasperated MSNBC host after Donald Trump made a confusing and false claim on social media.
Conservative George Conway appeared Sunday on MSNBC with host Jonathan Capehart, who read a midnight post in which the president bizarrely claimed it was Biden's FBI who had agents at the Capitol on Jan. 6, despite the fact that Trump himself was the president at that time. California Governor Gavin Newsom flagged the post on social media, writing that Trump's "mental issues are very bad."
Conway responded to the midnight quote with a joke.
"Now sleepy Joe wasn't so sleepy. He was able to do things before he even became president," Conway said. Another MSNBC host then added, "He's a busy man."
That led Capehart to ask, "Why are we not talking about this man's mental acuity? I remember during the all of President Biden's term, all people talked about was his mental acuity. Is he all there? Is he capable of being president."
Capehart added, "This is this. This is nuts," and Conway responded, "He is nuts. We know this." Conway also said, "His brain is mush."
Capehart then noted, "As you said, Biden wasn't even president," before asking, "Where are the doctors?"
Trump post raises fresh concerns about his mental acuity on MSNBC
Conservative George Conway appeared Sunday on MSNBC with host Jonathan Capehart, who read a midnight post in which the president bizarrely claimed it was Biden's FBI who had agents at the Capitol on Jan. 6, despite the fact that Trump himself was the president at that time. California Governor Gavin Newsom flagged the post on social media, writing that Trump's "mental issues are very bad."
Conway responded to the midnight quote with a joke.
"Now sleepy Joe wasn't so sleepy. He was able to do things before he even became president," Conway said. Another MSNBC host then added, "He's a busy man."
That led Capehart to ask, "Why are we not talking about this man's mental acuity? I remember during the all of President Biden's term, all people talked about was his mental acuity. Is he all there? Is he capable of being president."
Capehart added, "This is this. This is nuts," and Conway responded, "He is nuts. We know this." Conway also said, "His brain is mush."
Capehart then noted, "As you said, Biden wasn't even president," before asking, "Where are the doctors?"
Trump post raises fresh concerns about his mental acuity on MSNBC
A federal judge on Friday night released her full opinion justifying an earlier decision to block President Donald Trump from deploying Texas National Guard troops in Chicago, and she even went so far as to question his administration’s grasp on reality.
In her ruling, Judge April Perry began by citing a lengthy quote from the Federalist Papers in which Alexander Hamilton addressed concerns that a tyrannical US president would use a militia from one state to invade and occupy another state.
After giving the matter brief consideration, Hamilton dismissed fears about a would-be tyrant carrying out such a scheme on the grounds that “it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.”
And yet, Perry noted, this exact scenario is one that the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago claim is happening right now, as they argue that “National Guard troops from both Illinois and Texas have been deployed to Illinois because the president of the United States wants to punish state elected officials whose policies are different from his own.”
Perry went on to consider circumstances in which the president may federalize the National Guard, and concluded that the administration’s case for sending the National Guard to Chicago did not meet any of them.
Perry noted that the president may federalize the National Guard if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority” of the US government, but she argued there has historically been a “very high threshold for deployment” that is not justified by current circumstances.
“In the late 1800s and early 1900s, ‘rebellion’ was understood to mean a deliberate, organized resistance, openly and avowedly opposing the laws and authority of the government as a whole by means of armed opposition and violence,” she explained. “As an example, during the late 1800s, after the close of the Civil War, the Supreme Court and several statutes referred to the Civil War as constituting a ’rebellion.‘”
She then found that the administration itself has not claimed any Civil War-like rebellion is occurring in the US right now.
“In all of the memoranda actually deploying the National Guard to Illinois, the court does not see any factual determination by President Trump regarding a rebellion brewing here,” she wrote. “This is sensible, because the court cannot find reasonable support for a conclusion that there exists in Illinois a danger of rebellion.”
Elsewhere in the ruling, Perry examined the government’s claims that local law enforcement officials have been unable to contain demonstrations at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Broadview, Illinois, which has become a focal point for protests in recent weeks.
Although there have been incidents in which local law enforcement has had to intervene to keep protesters from getting too close to the facility, Perry said, there has never been a level of disorder that would justify the deployment of the National Guard.
“The ICE Processing Center has continuously remained open and operational throughout the protest activity,” she wrote. “Broadview Police are not aware of any occasion where an ICE vehicle was prevented from entering or exiting due to activity by protestors.”
This led her to remark upon a “troubling trend” of the Trump administration “equating protests with riots” and “a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence.”
“This indicates to the court both bias and lack of objectivity,” she wrote. “Ultimately, this court must conclude that defendants’... perceptions are not reliable.”
'Troubling trend': Judge questions Trump administration's grasp on reality
In her ruling, Judge April Perry began by citing a lengthy quote from the Federalist Papers in which Alexander Hamilton addressed concerns that a tyrannical US president would use a militia from one state to invade and occupy another state.
After giving the matter brief consideration, Hamilton dismissed fears about a would-be tyrant carrying out such a scheme on the grounds that “it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.”
And yet, Perry noted, this exact scenario is one that the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago claim is happening right now, as they argue that “National Guard troops from both Illinois and Texas have been deployed to Illinois because the president of the United States wants to punish state elected officials whose policies are different from his own.”
Perry went on to consider circumstances in which the president may federalize the National Guard, and concluded that the administration’s case for sending the National Guard to Chicago did not meet any of them.
Perry noted that the president may federalize the National Guard if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority” of the US government, but she argued there has historically been a “very high threshold for deployment” that is not justified by current circumstances.
“In the late 1800s and early 1900s, ‘rebellion’ was understood to mean a deliberate, organized resistance, openly and avowedly opposing the laws and authority of the government as a whole by means of armed opposition and violence,” she explained. “As an example, during the late 1800s, after the close of the Civil War, the Supreme Court and several statutes referred to the Civil War as constituting a ’rebellion.‘”
She then found that the administration itself has not claimed any Civil War-like rebellion is occurring in the US right now.
“In all of the memoranda actually deploying the National Guard to Illinois, the court does not see any factual determination by President Trump regarding a rebellion brewing here,” she wrote. “This is sensible, because the court cannot find reasonable support for a conclusion that there exists in Illinois a danger of rebellion.”
Elsewhere in the ruling, Perry examined the government’s claims that local law enforcement officials have been unable to contain demonstrations at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Broadview, Illinois, which has become a focal point for protests in recent weeks.
Although there have been incidents in which local law enforcement has had to intervene to keep protesters from getting too close to the facility, Perry said, there has never been a level of disorder that would justify the deployment of the National Guard.
“The ICE Processing Center has continuously remained open and operational throughout the protest activity,” she wrote. “Broadview Police are not aware of any occasion where an ICE vehicle was prevented from entering or exiting due to activity by protestors.”
This led her to remark upon a “troubling trend” of the Trump administration “equating protests with riots” and “a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence.”
“This indicates to the court both bias and lack of objectivity,” she wrote. “Ultimately, this court must conclude that defendants’... perceptions are not reliable.”
'Troubling trend': Judge questions Trump administration's grasp on reality
Donald Trump on Sunday suggested Adam Schiff broke laws in connection with the first Trump impeachment, calling on "authorities" to "look into this!"
Just after the indictments of Letitia James and James Comey, the president took to Truth Social to signal a potential next target. Specifically, Trump named California Senator Schiff.
"The Ukraine Impeachment (of me!) Scam was a far bigger Illegal Hoax than Watergate," Trump wrote. "I sincerely hope the necessary authorities, including CONGRESS, are looking into this! Adam 'Schiffty' Schiff was sooo dishonest and corrupt."
He added, "So many laws, and protocols, were violated, and just plain broken!!! President DJT."
See the full post right here.
'Illegal hoax': Trump signals next DOJ target with comment about his impeachment
Just after the indictments of Letitia James and James Comey, the president took to Truth Social to signal a potential next target. Specifically, Trump named California Senator Schiff.
"The Ukraine Impeachment (of me!) Scam was a far bigger Illegal Hoax than Watergate," Trump wrote. "I sincerely hope the necessary authorities, including CONGRESS, are looking into this! Adam 'Schiffty' Schiff was sooo dishonest and corrupt."
He added, "So many laws, and protocols, were violated, and just plain broken!!! President DJT."
See the full post right here.
'Illegal hoax': Trump signals next DOJ target with comment about his impeachment
